Court turns down Guantánamo force-feeding challenge


More information

From the decision:

“Given the government’s own description of its force-feeding protocol— we have no doubt that force-feeding is a painful and invasive process that raises serious ethical concerns.” p.27

“Given that such continued detention is lawful, force-feeding that furthers this detention serves the same legitimate penological interests as it would if petitioners were serving determinate sentences in state or federal prison. In reaching this conclusion, we emphasize that we are addressing only petitioners’ likelihood of success on the merits, not the actual merits of their claim.” p.30-31

Associated Press

A federal appeals court Tuesday turned away a challenge to force-feeding Guantánamo Bay detainees on a hunger strike, but left the door open to legal efforts aimed at ending the practice.

The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a bid for a preliminary injunction to stop force-feeding at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba. But two of the three judges ruled that the detainees did have the right to challenge the force-feeding — rejecting two district court rulings that the judiciary didn’t have jurisdiction in the case.

The lawyer for the detainees, Jon B. Eisenberg, called that “a big win for us,” because it lets the detainees go back to the district court and press the case.

“This decision establishes that the federal courts have the power to stop the mistreatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay,” Eisenberg wrote in an email. “The court of appeals has given us the green light to continue our challenge to the detainees’ force-feeding as being unconstitutionally abusive. We intend to do that.”

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the department was reviewing the decision.

Writing for the court, Judge David Tatel said that Congress never specifically blocked courts from hearing Guantánamo detainees’ challenges to their conditions. Tatel, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, added that the circuit precedent “establishes that one in custody may challenge the conditions of his confinement in a petition for habeas corpus” — the legal principle, enshrined in the Constitution, which allows courts to determine whether a prisoner is being held illegally.

Judge Thomas Griffith, an appointee of President George W. Bush, joined Tatel, but the third judge on the panel, Stephen F. Williams, said the lower court judges properly ruled they didn’t have jurisdiction.

“Congress has repeatedly and forcefully sought to withdraw the federal courts’ jurisdiction over Guantánamo detainees,” wrote Williams, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan.

In turning down the request for an injunction, the court ruled that the detainees didn’t meet a key condition for receiving one: the likelihood of success on the merits.

“We have no doubt that force-feeding is a painful and invasive process that raises serious ethical concerns,” Tatel wrote. But he said that to grant an injunction, “it is not enough for us to say that force-feeding may cause physical pain, invade bodily integrity, or even implicate petitioners’ fundamental individual rights. This is a court of law, not an arbiter of medical ethics … absent exceptional circumstances prison officials may force-feed a starving inmate actually facing the risk of death.”

The court issued the decision in the third month of a U.S. military blackout on hunger strike figures from the prison where last year more than 100 captives were on hunger strike.

When the military last disclosed figures in December, it said 15 captives were refusing to eat, and all were designated for tube-feedings if they refused to drink a doctor’s prescribed nutritional supplement.

Tatel stressed that in reaching the conclusion for purposes of the injunction, the court was only addressing the likelihood of success, not the actual merits. He said that it was conceivable that the detainees could prove that there were “ready alternatives” to force-feeding to achieve the government’s interests in preserving detainees’ lives and maintaining security and discipline at the facility.

The force-feeding has proven to be a nettlesome problem for the Obama administration. When he was asked about force-feeding at a news conference last year, President Barack Obama said, “I don’t want these individuals to die.”

At Guantánamo Tuesday afternoon, Navy Cmdr. John Filostrat said he hadn’t read the 49-page decision, “so I can't comment on it.” He said the blackout on hunger strike figures was continuing as was military monitoring of the health of protesting prisoners. “Keeping them safe is our main priority,” he said.

The Miami Herald’s Carol Rosenberg contributed to this report from Miami.

Read more Guantánamo stories from the Miami Herald

Miami Herald

Join the

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category