11/10/05 "Global Research" -- --
There is a small band of men who
are such firm believers in the protections of the Bill of Rights
that they are willing to lay down their lives to defend these
principles. They aren't soldiers or civil libertarians — they are a
group of "enemy combatants" confined in the gulag of Guantanamo.
All freedom-loving Americans should pause to consider the sacrifices
of Fawzi al-Odah, Yousef Al Shehri, Abduhl-Rahman Shalabi, Mahid Al
Joudi and 21 other detainees who are engaged in a withering hunger
strike inside the prison cells of Guantanamo.
When Fawzi al-Odah was arrested in Pakistan in 2002, he was 25-years-
old and he weighed a scant 139 pounds. Today al-Odah weighs 112
pounds. He has been on a fast since August 8 and now he is demanding
that the feeding tube forced down his nose be removed so he can die
and put an end to his suffering.
It is estimated that 540 men are imprisoned in Guantanamo without
charges, without trial, without any hope of redress. Hunger strikes
have been waged in Guantanamo since early 2002. The latest fast
involved 76 prisoners. By late October, 26 detainees were still
refusing food and 23 were being force-fed through tubes that,
according to attorney Julia Tarver, have left some of her
clients "vomiting up substantial amounts of blood."
Bill Goodman, Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights
(CCR) in New York, says "the Guantanamo hunger strikers are willing
to die unless they get humane treatment, including some small
measure of justice…. Bloody force-feeding with dirty tubes is
barbaric."
Against all odd, these almost completely powerless prisoners have
successfully employed the tactics of nonviolent resistance to win
recognition for those basic human rights and civil liberties that
all Americans claim as their patrimony.
On October 25, CCR lawyers won access to the detainees' medical
records but Tarver remains concerned about her clients, "some of
whom are young boys who have spent nearly four years without charge,
isolated miles away from their families, and are rapidly losing hope
that justice will ever prevail for them." Tarver reports that her
clients continue to be subjected to verbal and physical abuse,
medical maltreatment and unsanitary conditions.
The Legal Limbo of an Unnecessary War
The US declared war on Afghanistan ostensibly because the Taliban
government refused to turn over Osama bin Laden to the US.
Washington unleashed a rain of bombs with the declared goal of
toppling the Taliban. In the process, the US arrested hundreds of
Afghan and Islamic fighters who took up arms to resist the attacks.
We now know that some of these men were just luckless individuals
who were pulled from taxi cabs or marched from their homes to be
handed over to US soldiers as "Taliban fighters" — in exchange for
tempting bounties of Pentagon cash.
Three British men released in February 2004, complained of being
stripped, chained to the floor for 18 hours a day, placed in
isolation and threatened with dogs. During their detention, they all
confessed to crimes. They were only released after the British
government proved that all three had actually been in Britain at the
time of their alleged "crimes."
CCR President Michael Ratner cites the case as proof that coercive
interrogation doesn't work: "You get people willing to say anything
because they want the torture or the inhumane treatment to end."
"We're Going to Go to the Dark Side Now"
In the Post-9/11 world, Vice President Dick Cheney memorably told
Meet the Press: "We're going to have to go to the dark side now."
As a resutlt, Ratner notes, the US is "no longer a country of
law…. 'Taking off the gloves' means literally erasing the
Constitution and the protections against torture."
The outlines of this inhumane treatment are now a matter of public
record. Hooded interrogations. Stripping prisoners naked.
Removing "comfort items" (like prayer rugs and the Koran).
Exploiting phobias (like a fear of dogs). Employing painful "stress
positions."
More than a year ago, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Rasul v. Bush that the detainees are entitled to legal
representation before federal courts. But the White House, the
Attorney General's office, and the Pentagon have chosen to ignore
the ruling.
That is why the Patriots of Guantanamo have been forced to go on
strike with their very lives. They are demanding that their
suffering be investigated and the "facts be submitted to a candid
world."
"Give Us Liberty or Give Us Death"
In 1776, America's Founding Fathers signed a document pledging
their "lives and sacred honor" to the cause of securing "certain
unalienable Rights." The Patriots of Guantanamo have neither pens
nor parchment: They have been compelled to their pledge not with
words but deeds.
When Patrick Henry thundered, "Give me liberty or give me death,"
his stirring words were rhetorical. Al-Odah's cry is dead serious.
He has informed his US lawyers that he wants a judge to order the
removal of the feeding tube that is keeping him alive.
Al-Odah's lawyer, Tom Wilner, insists that his client has the right
to demand to die to protest his continued imprisonment without
charges or any hope of a trial and release. Al-Odah is willing to
die "if it will bring justice."
The Patriots of Guantanamo are insisting on nothing less than the
same basic protections granted to US citizens under the Bill of
Rights — specifically, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and
Ninth Amendments. Clearly something is seriously amiss when it is
the "enemies of democracy" that are willing to die to defend the
Bill of Rights while the men entrusted to defend the Constitution
ignore and abuse these very laws.
Today, America's moral standard is being weighed in the dungeons of
Guantanamo. The hunger strikers are not simply fasting for their
rights — they are fasting for all of us. Their demands should be our
demands. And, if they aren't, what guarantee do any of us have that
their fate might not one day be our own?
http://www.informationclearing
No comments:
Post a Comment