October 27, 2005
Judge Orders Release of Gitmo Records
Lawyers representing hunger-striking Guantanamo Bay detainees have convinced U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler to order the government to inform detainees' defense lawyers at least 24 hours before any force-feeding and to provide the lawyers with medical records weekly.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
Julia Tarver, a lawyer for three of the detainees, asserted in court papers that when she visited her clients she found them weak and sometimes able to speak only with difficulty because of throat lesions they said were caused by having the feeding tubes forced in. Ms. Tarver said one detainee, Yousef Al-Shehri, told her that a feeding tube had been roughly inserted through his nose into his throat, causing him to spit up blood.Notably, without the forced-feeding, the detainees likely would have died and, according to the government, none have.
Judge Kessler acted on an emergency petition because it was "deeply troubling" that detainees had feeding tubes inserted without sedatives or anesthesia.
"If the allegations are true - and they are all explicitly, specifically and vigorously denied by the government - they describe the conduct of which the United States can hardly be proud," the judge wrote.Although Kessler directed the government to provide notifications and records, she denied the request for the lawyers to have immediate telephone access to the detainees.
It seems that Judge Kessler's decision is based exclusively on the adequacy of the medication administered to the detainees prior to inserting the feeding tubes. Her ruling indicates that the detainees are not sufficiently drugged before having a tube shoved up their noses and down their esophaguses. I must assume that there have been past cases where judges have determined the amount medication to be administered. I'm personally uncomfortable with the idea. In my estimation, no amount of legal training and experience prepares a judge to practice medicine.
Nevertheless, ordering the release of medical documents will surely prompt the detainees' lawyers to start searching for other issues to litigate. The latest wrangling over the medication issue is part of an ongoing campaign by human rights advocates to force the government into giving the detainees more legal rights.
It's unknown whether the government will appeal.
Companion at Interested-Participant.
Posted by: Mike Pechar at
06:26 AM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
Post contains 368 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Anyone amazed that a Judge is able to determine Medicine?
it works for the Insurance Companies who's $12.00/hr lackeys decide what medication you can, and can't have if they pay for it, or when you're well enough to leave Hospital etc.
The whole system needs fixing.
Posted by: dave at October 27, 2005 07:56 AM (CcXvt)
2
I have NEVER sedated or anesthetized a patient to insert a nasogastric tube. What a load!
Posted by: Bill at October 27, 2005 08:30 AM (HnpxX)
3
I've never really understood why we can't just leave them to starve. everyone else has the right to commit suicide in any way they like. I know there's the argument about providing martyrs for the cause, but I'm not convinced that decades of what amounts to torture deflates any of that!
Same with the dirty protests in Ireland in the 70's. If they want to paint their cell walls in excrement & sit in it, let them.
Of course this only applies if you belive they are capable of making rational decisions. But if you don't, then they should not be in prison in the first place, as they can not have commited a deliberate crime.
Posted by: Mrs Aginoth at October 27, 2005 08:54 AM (cZrVc)
4
I agreee. Let them starve. No skin off my nose, since I would have had them shot when their interrogation was finished.
Posted by: Scott in CA at October 27, 2005 10:31 AM (rF49i)
5
If things keep going the way they are, it won't be long before the military will have to ask a court for permission to drop a bomb. One wonders how a war can be fought with constant court interventions, and one wonders where all the money is coming from for these people. If I had to guess, I would bet the money is coming from the US government, as stupid as that sounds. The money has to be coming from someplace, perhaps even foreigners. This needs to be looked into. Sure wish we had a media.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 27, 2005 10:32 AM (rUyw4)
6
Joe,
I believe you're correct, they do get taxpayers money from a clause in the Civil Rights Act, one of the following proposed amendments is a direct attack against the ACLU being funded under the Civil Rights Act:
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/06/01/public-expression-of-religion-act-of-2005-introduced-in-house/
This article also references it:
http://www.legion.org/?section=pub_relations&subsection=pr_listreleases&content=pr_press_release&id=289
The 1976 Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Awards Act was much needed legislation, but in recent years, certain groups have abused the congressional intent of this public law in 'Establishment Clause' lawsuits against the Boy Scouts of America, the Ten Commandments, and now veterans' memorials, " said Thomas P. Cadmus, National Commander of The American Legion. "And it is time to fix it!"
"Exorbitant attorney fees awarded by Courts to be paid by American taxpayers has become the newest 'Sword of Damocles' strategically employed by organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to coerce settlements by cities, counties, states, and large organizations like the Boy Scouts of America and the Department of Defense by suits and threats of lawsuits against any public expression of America's religious history, heritage, and values," Cadmus said. "When out-of-court settlements are more cost effective than the judicial process, then the system is clearly broken."
While the articles mainly reference religious practice, it's not a far stretch of the imagination to conclude that their current lawsuits also are filed under "Civil Rights" and you're picking up the tab.
Posted by: dave at October 27, 2005 11:05 AM (CcXvt)
7
Jesusland Joe,
Do you know anything at all about the media? I'm a reporter, and I can tell you that YOU have every bit as much ability and right to look into these things as I have. And you have just as much ability as I have to publish your findings on the Internet.
As for your concern that a war can't be fought with judicial involvement, have you ever heard of the concept of inalienable rights? It's this novel idea our FOUNDING FATHERS talked a bit about in our Constitution. And while they were using it in reference to the people of the United States, they were saying that it was applicable to all people. In fact, that's the whole reason we're fighting this war in Iraq, isn't it? Our action is based on the notion that Iraqis have the same inalienable rights, and their government should reflect this fact.
If we are not consistent with those beliefs in the way we treat prisoners of war, we will lose the central battle here -- the moral battle, the battle of ideas.
Posted by: whit at October 27, 2005 11:15 AM (VY4j/)
8
whit:
what's the "grim milestone" for this "moral battle, the battle of ideas." of yours, and do you have any flashy graphics / taglines to show me how we're losing it?
Just asking?
Posted by: dave at October 27, 2005 11:23 AM (CcXvt)
9
They're not "prisoners of war" whit, they're captured terrorists. To be a legal POW, they must be uniformed members of a military force engaged in declared conflict, among other criteria. Since they fit none of these criteria, they are criminals and terrorists, and should be beaten daily with a rubber hose while hanging from their genitalia, and made to sleep in their own filth until they talk, then taken out and shot and buried wrapped in pigskin.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 27, 2005 02:41 PM (0yYS2)
10
Whit,
I was a newspaper editor for a small daily while in college, and had wanted to make it my career. I know a little about the media, especially the AP, through my experiences with them and other actors in the newspaper business.
I do not claim to have any special knowledge about the Constitution, other than what any citizen might gain from a reading of it. I do not believe I read anything in the Constitution that gave particular rights to the enemies of the United States, and most particular to persons who attack the US without the benefit of fighting for a recognized party under certain treaties signed and duly ratified by the US Senate. But I freely admit I could be wrong.
And yes, I admit I want the Iraqi people to have the same basic rights I have, but the insurgents are the ones trying to prevent that, i.e. we are in a conflict with them. They are not recognized as combatants by treaty or international law, so I must assume they should not receive the same treatment as a POW under international agreements. If I am wrong, please correct me, because I admit to not having specialized knowledge in this field.
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 27, 2005 03:23 PM (rUyw4)
11
"they are criminals and terrorists, and should be beaten daily with a rubber hose while hanging from their genitalia, and made to sleep in their own filth until they talk, then taken out and shot and buried wrapped in pigskin."
Is that how you usually treat criminals in the USA?
i agree they are criminals, and therefore have the same rights as any other criminals - specifically not to be tortured or murdered.
Posted by: Mrs Aginoth at October 27, 2005 03:42 PM (cZrVc)
12
Mrs. A, Should they also be force fed if they choose not to eat or, left to die as they wish? I recently read the menus for the detainees at Gitmo. It turns out that we are providing over $12 of food a day to the detainees and less than $9 a day to the military working there.
It is my belief that if a person chooses not to eat and, they are fully capable of feeding themselves and offered decent food, than you should let them starve to death. Choice, isn't that what America is all about?
Posted by: babs at October 27, 2005 03:57 PM (fAmiP)
13
Mrs A., it's how I'd treat someone who just blew up a bomb in the middle of a bunch of children or my friends. What would you do, offer him some granola and a hug?
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 27, 2005 06:20 PM (0yYS2)
14
Ah, but IM you're misunderstanding the issues:
Only terrorists have the inalienable rights to not be tortured, nor murdered -- doesn't apply to their victims evidently !
No sir -- Terrorists they have the right to three squares a day, special religious treatment, air conditioners, craft materials and an arrow pointing to Mecca.
Welcome to a softer kind of War™
Posted by: dave at October 27, 2005 09:31 PM (CcXvt)
15
Dave, how did you do that?
Posted by: jesusland joe at October 27, 2005 10:14 PM (rUyw4)
16
Improbuli - the scrubbies are helping you recover from the pitching machine and pumping party accidents. Stop wacking your head with bricks and listen hard - DSSM is always watching weasels jumping around in your head.
You cant get awaay!!! WOO HOOO!
Posted by: Downing Street Memo at October 27, 2005 10:47 PM (msD7v)
17
What did he do jj? You mean this: ™? If so, it's ALT 0153.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at October 27, 2005 11:29 PM (0yYS2)
18
Babs, please see my first comment. I believe they have every right to commit suicide in any way they think will be fun. Starvation doesn't rank particulalrly high in my book, but each to their own.
However, if you agree they are criminals, convicted of murder/treason whatever, they should be treated as criminals, which in America I believe means they should not be tortured, injured, forcibly starved etc. If you believe they are POW's, they should be treated under the codes of the Geneva Convention. If you think you need to invent a new category of detainee for terrorists, you need to draft/pass a law explaining their status.
Posted by: Mrs Aginoth at October 28, 2005 01:43 AM (cZrVc)
19
We elect presidents but were run by judges what a mess these fools are creating with the stupididly
Posted by: sandpiper at October 29, 2005 05:48 PM (EPfmS)
28kb generated in CPU 0.0202, elapsed 0.111 seconds.
118 queries taking 0.1006 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
118 queries taking 0.1006 seconds, 248 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
