Hunger Striking Detainees at Canada's Guantanamo

[MC Habber]

Weekend Scare Underscores Very Real Danger of Sudden Death for Hunger Striking Detainees at Canada's Guantanamo North
Still No Medical Monitoring After Two Months Without Food
by TASC; February 03, 2007

JANUARY 30, 2007 -- "We are slowly dying in here," Mohammad Mahjoub says over the phone on day 67 of his hunger strike, day 56 for Mahmoud Jaballah and Hassan Almrei. "Our situation is very bad."

The three men, held indefinitely under the much-criticized security certificate regime of secret evidence and deportation to torture, are kept at the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre (KIHC), dubbed Guantanamo North. Despite last Thursday's visit by Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, who did not meet with the detainees, there has been no negotiation with the men, and no effort to end a critical situation that could turn deadly at any time.

NO MEDICAL MONITORING

Indeed, the detainees' lives are on the line as staff at the facility play a dangerous game of roulette: despite considerable medical literature spelling out the need for daily medical checks of hunger strikers who have passed day 10 without food, medical staff have NOT conducted a single physical check on any of the detainees, who are subsisting on water and juice. The need to check weight, pulse, blood pressure, respiration, electrolytes, and sodium and potassium levels, among other standards, is essential in preventing the kind of traumatic incident that occurred this past weekend.

On Saturday, January 27, Mr. Jaballah reports that he felt dizziness at about 3:15 pm, pressed the emergency button, and someone finally saw him at approximately 4 pm. He was very weak and unable to walk, and requested that if he needed to be taken to another area for medical help, that this be done with a wheelchair or cart. He was informed that a cart would arrive at 6 pm. He again felt quite ill, pressed the emergency button, fell down, and was rendered unconscious, only waking up in another section of the KIHC. He reports experiencing great pain that left him screaming, and a complete lack of control over his body, with uncontrollable shivering and shaking.

"Because there has been no daily monitoring of blood, pulse, weight, or other vital signs, it is hard to pinpoint the exact cause of this incident, but our consultation with a Toronto-area physician who has attended to one of the men during a prior hunger strike says that low potassium or sodium could be one cause, coupled with dehydration and possible heart arrhythmia," says Matthew Behrens of the Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada. "Needless to say, all of these can lead to a sudden life-threatening drop in blood pressure that could place any of the men in a coma."

DETAINEES VERY WEAK

Daily calls from the detainees indicate they are so weak that they spend most of the day lying down. One has blood in his urine. Another is suffering the severe effects of high blood pressure. Another has broken out in severe skin rashes causing incessant itching, while a severely swollen tongue has not been dealt with either. All are weak and dizzy from two months without food. And there is no end in sight.

The detainees, their families, and friends and supporters are concerned that Stockwell Day used his trip to KIHC to justify his preconceived notion of the situation, rather than use the occasion as an opportunity to actually learn the real reasons behind the hunger strike.

STOCKWELL DAY NOT GETTING FULL PICTURE

Stockwell Day did not get a full picture when he visited Guantanamo North. He was unable to taste the daily humiliation the men face at the hands of guards, nor to hear what it is like to be denied medical treatment for things like Hepatitis C, blood in the urine, or a double hernia. Day needed to hear what it is like to be held indefinitely, without charge, on secret evidence, for upwards of seven years, as these men are living through, to understand that having a microwave and a TV in your facility does nothing to ease the pain of lengthy separation from families, the mental torture of being held on secret 'evidence' neither you nor your lawyer will ever get to challenge, and the daily fear of deportation to torture in Syria or Egypt.

PROBLEM ALREADY FLAGGED BY CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR

Day also did not get a taste of what it's like when there is no oversight agency or ombudsperson to deal fairly with complaints, a key reason for the hunger strike that was in fact flagged by the federal government's 2005/2006 Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator, which concluded "The transfer of detainees from Ontario facilities to the Kingston holding centre means that the detainees will lose the benefit of a rigorous ombudsman's legislative framework to file complaints about their care and humane treatment while in custody. The Office of the Correctional Investigator is concerned that the detainees will no longer have the benefits and legal protections afforded by ombudsman legislation. Pursuant to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture, a non-profit organization with no legislative framework, such as the Red Cross, is unlikely to meet the protocol's requirement for domestic oversight." (See below for full text of relevant section of the report)

INITIAL HOPES DASHED

Mahmoud Jaballah explains that despite initial hope that things might be better at KIHC than they were at Metro West Detention in Toronto, the punitive, mean-spirited atmosphere that has taken hold of the facility, especially after they initially raised minor complaints about guards' behaviour, has become intolerable. Guards are regularly slamming cell doors, making rude comments, and making daily life difficult for the men, who are not allowed to speak to pre-approved media without those same guards present.

The threat they feel to their personal safety, and the even greater fear of false allegations being made against them, means they are now trapped in an Orwellian nightmare that could cause them their lives.

The men are told that health care, which used to be available to them in their living unit, can now only be delivered in the next building. The men say they do not feel safe going to the next building without a supervisor present so there is a witness to possible false allegations that could harm their chances for bail. [The facility is top-heavy with staff, including two directors, two secretaries, seven supervisors, 12 guards -- all for the three men] So unless they comply with petty and unreasonable prison rules, they are denied a basic human right.

MEDICAL STAFF AND DUTY TO CARE

Last week, a group of some 70 health workers across Canada challenged the lack of ethical standards at KIHC, and campaign representatives point out that the World Medical Association Declaration on Hunger Strikers (adopted by the 43rd World Medical Assembly Malta, November 1991 and editorially revised by the WMA General Assembly, Pilanesberg, South Africa, October 2006) states at point #5 that "Physicians attending hunger strikers can experience a conflict between their loyalty to the employing authority (such as prison management) and their loyalty to patients. Physicians with dual loyalties are bound by the same ethical principles as other physicians, that is to say that their primary obligation is to the individual patient."

As each minute ticks by, the spectre of the Criminal Code of Canada looms larger, which defines as criminally negligent anyone who "in doing anything or, in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

TAKE ACTION 1. WRITE /CALL/FAX Day, Finley and Harper.

It is crucial that public pressure continue to be felt in Ottawa. It is such pressure that forced Day to go to KIHC; such pressure will be required to get negotiations going.

Specific points to raise: a. The men be should provided with immediate and daily medical care in their living unit. b. If the Kingston Immigration Holding Centre will not send in health care staff (something they did before September), the government must allow an independent outside doctor in to check on the men. c. The federal government must immediately appoint a neutral mediator to deal with the problems, and set up a system to deal with ongoing issues that is balanced and fair (as per the concerns raised by the federal government's own Office of the Correctional Investigator) d. The men should not have to die for a little bit of dignity.

*Stockwell Day, MP House of Commons, Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6 Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail]

NOTE: Stockwell Day is the Minister responsible for the Canadian Border Services Agency (which runs the KIHC). Demand that he meet immediately with the detainees or appoint a neutral party to immediately resolve the crisis at KIHC.

*Diane Finley, MP Phone [phone] (Simcoe constituency office). [e-mail]

NOTE: Finley is the new immigration minister. Ask that, as one of the two ministers responsible for signing security certificates, she meet with the families of the detainees (who have requested a meeting) and that she also take action to meet the reasonable demands of the detainees.

* Stephen Harper, Prime Minister of Canada Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone] [e-mail]

2. SOLIDARITY LETTERS. Write a support card to the detainees (let us know at [e-mail] if you have so we can monitor if mail is getting through). Mohammad Mahjoub, Mahmoud Jaballah, and Hassan Almrei can be reached:

Kingston Immigration Holding Centre c/o CSC RHQ Ontario Region 440 King Street West PO Box 1174 Kingston, Ontario K7L 4Y8

Further info: Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada, [phone], [e-mail], www.homesnotbombs.ca

[Skilly]

I would say that anyone on a hunger strike gives up that right. It is criminally negligent for anyone who "in doing anything or, in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

So the patients themselves are being criminally negligent. What is the prison to do? Force them to eat? That would be a crime also. They will still die with medical attention (albeit a bit longer) if they don't eat.

I am not familiar enough with the story to know why they are there in the first place. (Something to do with evidence about being a risk to national security I believe). I don't agree with either sides (prison facility and the detainees) methods.

[duster]

I remember the IRA doing exactly the same thing during the early 70s with the same ethical issues being brought up. As the Provos found out, hunger strikes invariably fail when you tick off the guards.

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

I would say that anyone on a hunger strike gives up that right. It is criminally negligent for anyone who "in doing anything or, in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

So the patients themselves are being criminally negligent.

What? How are they showing disregard for the safety of others?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

skilly said:

I would say that anyone on a hunger strike gives up that right. It is criminally negligent for anyone who "in doing anything or, in omitting to do anything that it is his duty to do, shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons."

So the patients themselves are being criminally negligent.

What? How are they showing disregard for the safety of others?

They are showing disregard for themselves ... Suicide is a criminal offense in the Criminal Code of Canada ...and a good lawyer could make a case for attempted murder right now.

[Cranky]

Don't care. I really don't care. If they die, it's nothing less then slow deliberate suicide. As for the article, the language is way past "cry me a river" slanted...and I'm not crying.

[franko]

Slant? News articles are written with a particiular slant?

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

Give them baby-back ribs in a diggie dish.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

Don't care. I really don't care. If they die, it's nothing less then slow deliberate suicide. As for the article, the language is way past "cry me a river" slanted...and I'm not crying.

You do realise that this is the only form of protest available to these people, who have had their most basic rights taken away. What, exactly, would you do in their situation? So much for democratic society. So much for all that nonsense about unalienable rights, self-evident truths, all men are created equal, etc.

[Skilly]

machabby said:

habsaddict said:

Don't care. I really don't care. If they die, it's nothing less then slow deliberate suicide. As for the article, the language is way past "cry me a river" slanted...and I'm not crying.

You do realise that this is the only form of protest available to these people, who have had their most basic rights taken away. What, exactly, would you do in their situation? So much for democratic society. So much for all that nonsense about unalienable rights, self-evident truths, all men are created equal, etc.

If I was in their position, I would wait it out and then be sitting happy when they inevitably sue the Canadian government for millions. And yet, the government of other countries (their home of Syria, or should I say country of birth, for example) can detain us for years without even batting an eye and we have no legal recourse.

And in countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE, if there is an accident and it involves a foreigner, the foreigner is automatically at fault (even if he was rear ended) because under their law the accident would not have occured if he wasn't in the country.

This happens rarely in Canada (and a stink gets kicked up rightly or wrongly) but it happens every day all over the world and we don't hear a peep. We are living in uncertain times. Let's say we free them and a week later they blow up the CN Tower ... what then? Ooopps? But hey, we protected their democratic rights?

[MC Habber]

skilly said:

machabby said:

You do realise that this is the only form of protest available to these people, who have had their most basic rights taken away. What, exactly, would you do in their situation? So much for democratic society. So much for all that nonsense about unalienable rights, self-evident truths, all men are created equal, etc.

If I was in their position, I would wait it out and then be sitting happy when they inevitably sue the Canadian government for millions. And yet, the government of other countries (their home of Syria, or should I say country of birth, for example) can detain us for years without even batting an eye and we have no legal recourse.

That's (maybe) if they ever are released, and if they don't die in a Syrian prison.

And in countries like Saudi Arabia and UAE, if there is an accident and it involves a foreigner, the foreigner is automatically at fault (even if he was rear ended) because under their law the accident would not have occured if he wasn't in the country.

So your argument is that we are still (for the moment) freer than Saudi Arabia? And that is something to be proud of? That our own government is abandoning democratic principles and we dont' even care is a stark comment on our society. We are headed towards a very bleak future.

It's easy to ignore it when you aren't the one having your rights taken away, but if nobody cares about those people, who is going to care when it happens to you?

This happens rarely in Canada (and a stink gets kicked up rightly or wrongly) but it happens every day all over the world and we don't hear a peep. We are living in uncertain times. Let's say we free them and a week later they blow up the CN Tower ... what then? Ooopps? But hey, we protected their democratic rights?

Might as well arrest everyone, with that attitude.

[Skilly]

I am not the one with my rights taken away???

Because of 9-11 everyone on this side of the world have had some rights taken away so we can feel safer. The thing is now we can't be wrong ... cause if we are people die. It is a heavy burden to bare when some form of intelligence (whether it is good intel or not really doesn't matter) tells you that someone is a terorist. What do you do? Just let them walk around because of democratic rights .... or be proactive?

[MC Habber]

What, long lines at airport security? No fluids on planes? Gimme a break. It wasn't always so acceptable to lock people up indefinitely without trial. No reason that should have changed. It's not like there weren't violent criminals and even terrorists before 9/11. The principles on which we like to imagine our society was founded don't cease to apply just because we're afraid. Either we believe in them or we don't.

As for people dying, the more tyrannical our society becomes, the more violence it will inspire.

[Cranky]

machabby said:

The principles on which we like to imagine our society was founded don't cease to apply just because we're afraid. Either we believe in them or we don't.

.

Principles apply to people who abide by them.

[Habs_fan_in_LA]

habsaddict said:

machabby said:

The principles on which we like to imagine our society was founded don't cease to apply just because we're afraid. Either we believe in them or we don't.

.

Principles apply to people who abide by them.

If they die because of a hunger strike, do they get 84 skinny runway model virgins?

Where does Allah find them all?

[Skilly]

machabby said:

What, long lines at airport security? No fluids on planes? Gimme a break. It wasn't always so acceptable to lock people up indefinitely without trial. No reason that should have changed. It's not like there weren't violent criminals and even terrorists before 9/11. The principles on which we like to imagine our society was founded don't cease to apply just because we're afraid. Either we believe in them or we don't.

As for people dying, the more tyrannical our society becomes, the more violence it will inspire.

Ex squeeze me ..... racial profiling. It's as unconstitutional as you can get .... but every Canadian lives with it. "Random" searches of my personal belongings because they don't like the look of me (a security guard does this in a mall without just cause and it is illegal search, and illegal confinement, both crimes in Canada)... and I am sure people can think of others.

We do not know if these guys are innocent and the charges are trumped up , or if they are guilty as sin and a risk to flee ....

and there is two ways of looking at this hunger strike:

a) they want to shed light on the democratic principles of the Canadian government

b) they want to show the world (their brotherhood) that they are good little martyrs and get as much publicity to their cause

[BadCompany]

Our legal system is founded upon the belief that all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not the case in perhaps most of the rest of the world, but it is a fundamental principle that we hold near and dear, and one of the principle tenets of our society, our culture. It is something that we believe makes us "better."

If we take this principle away, then what do we have? How are we better, more enlightened? Because we have Canadian Idol, emphasis on the false idol? What did our grandfathers fight for? What are we fighting for today, in places like Afghanistan?

Freedom isn't free, and it most certainly isn't cheap. There are perils, and risks, and dangers to living in a free society, don't let anybody tell you otherwise. But then, it's because we face those perils, those risks and those dangers that we are as great as we are. If we don't like it, if we don't want to deal with the responsibility and burden of treating all men equal even though it could hurt us, well, there are lots of countries we can go to that don't hold to that same principle.

[Skilly]

badcompany said:

Our legal system is founded upon the belief that all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not the case in perhaps most of the rest of the world, but it is a fundamental principle that we hold near and dear, and one of the principle tenets of our society, our culture. It is something that we believe makes us "better."

Actually, the supreme court has been looking into the presumption of innocence and there have been "exceptions" being placed on it. (oh its true)

One such case happened in NL. A doctor, was accused of killing her bf/husband (the father of her child) in the States and she fled back to Newfoundland. She faced the death penalty in the US, and was fighting extradition proceedings. Well she argued and won, that she should be presumed innocent and was set free pending hearings. While out she comitted suicide and killed her son.

The law has since been changed that if you are accused of a violent crime the courts can hold you and take away your children, even against the presumption of innocence because common sense has to take over and the risk too great in some instances.

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

Our legal system is founded upon the belief that all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not the case in perhaps most of the rest of the world, but it is a fundamental principle that we hold near and dear, and one of the principle tenets of our society, our culture. It is something that we believe makes us "better."

If we take this principle away, then what do we have? How are we better, more enlightened? Because we have Canadian Idol, emphasis on the false idol? What did our grandfathers fight for? What are we fighting for today, in places like Afghanistan?

Freedom isn't free, and it most certainly isn't cheap. There are perils, and risks, and dangers to living in a free society, don't let anybody tell you otherwise. But then, it's because we face those perils, those risks and those dangers that we are as great as we are. If we don't like it, if we don't want to deal with the responsibility and burden of treating all men equal even though it could hurt us, well, there are lots of countries we can go to that don't hold to that same principle.

So why don't we have free speech on this board? Could it be because we have certain expectations of reasonable conduct? Is reasonable conduct placing a nuke in down town Montreal?

There is no constition in any country that incledes mass murder as human freedom or right. .

[BadCompany]

habsaddict said:

badcompany said:

Our legal system is founded upon the belief that all men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is not the case in perhaps most of the rest of the world, but it is a fundamental principle that we hold near and dear, and one of the principle tenets of our society, our culture. It is something that we believe makes us "better."

If we take this principle away, then what do we have? How are we better, more enlightened? Because we have Canadian Idol, emphasis on the false idol? What did our grandfathers fight for? What are we fighting for today, in places like Afghanistan?

Freedom isn't free, and it most certainly isn't cheap. There are perils, and risks, and dangers to living in a free society, don't let anybody tell you otherwise. But then, it's because we face those perils, those risks and those dangers that we are as great as we are. If we don't like it, if we don't want to deal with the responsibility and burden of treating all men equal even though it could hurt us, well, there are lots of countries we can go to that don't hold to that same principle.

So why don't we have free speech on this board? Could it be because we have certain expectations of reasonable conduct? Is reasonable conduct placing a nuke in down town Montreal?

There is no constition in any country that incledes mass murder as human freedom or right. .

You are right, there is no constitution in the world that allows mass murder as a human freedom or right.

But now you are presuming that those detained were in fact going to committ mass murder. A presumption of guilt before innocence, no?

You lived in a dictatorship where people were locked up without due process because they were deemed to be a threat, did you not? How is this different? If the government is convinced that they WERE going to committ mass murder, then get them lawyers, put them on trial, convict them and put them away forever. Have faith in your judicial system, it's a good one. But don't subvert the process just because you are afraid. That's a slippery slope that leads to very, very bad places.

[BadCompany]

Looks like the hunger strike worked.

Court orders release of suspected terrorist on hunger strike

Suspected terrorist Mohammad Mahjoub, who has been in custody for nearly seven years, has been ordered released from prison pending a review of his case.

The Federal Court decision was released Thursday, Day 84 of Mahjoub's hunger strike to protest his treatment.

"I am satisfied that Mr. Mahjoub … will not pose a danger to national security or to the safety of any person if released under the terms and conditions that I consider appropriate," Federal Court Justice Richard Mosley writes in the decision.

"I wish to stress that this will amount to a form of house arrest and that Mr. Mahjoub will be returned to custodial detention if he violates the terms and conditions."....

More[/color]

[franko]

I have no problem with long-term "detention" as the Crown makes its case, but seven years is too long. If they can't find proof within [say] five years then they aren't going to find it.

[Cranky]

They may have released him to house arrest but I bet they are hoping and dreaming that his buddies come knocking....

[Cranky]

badcompany said:

habsaddict said:

So why don't we have free speech on this board? Could it be because we have certain expectations of reasonable conduct? Is reasonable conduct placing a nuke in down town Montreal?

There is no constition in any country that incledes mass murder as human freedom or right. .

You are right, there is no constitution in the world that allows mass murder as a human freedom or right.

But now you are presuming that those detained were in fact going to committ mass murder. A presumption of guilt before innocence, no?

You lived in a dictatorship where people were locked up without due process because they were deemed to be a threat, did you not? How is this different? If the government is convinced that they WERE going to committ mass murder, then get them lawyers, put them on trial, convict them and put them away forever. Have faith in your judicial system, it's a good one. But don't subvert the process just because you are afraid. That's a slippery slope that leads to very, very bad places.

There is a MASSIVE difference. I rioted against a dictatorship for political reasons. At no point was I bent on mass murder, nor were the other rioters. Nor were any of us bred to hate and destroy our society.

Secondly.....

Our legal system is not designed to handle people whose intent is to create rivers of blood. Western societies presume innocence until proven guilty. That is a system that serves us well within our society but is totally ineffective against massivly bred and ingrained hatred.

[MC Habber]

habsaddict said:

badcompany said:

You are right, there is no constitution in the world that allows mass murder as a human freedom or right.

But now you are presuming that those detained were in fact going to committ mass murder. A presumption of guilt before innocence, no?

You lived in a dictatorship where people were locked up without due process because they were deemed to be a threat, did you not? How is this different? If the government is convinced that they WERE going to committ mass murder, then get them lawyers, put them on trial, convict them and put them away forever. Have faith in your judicial system, it's a good one. But don't subvert the process just because you are afraid. That's a slippery slope that leads to very, very bad places.

There is a MASSIVE difference. I rioted against a dictatorship for political reasons. At no point was I bent on mass murder, nor were the other rioters. Nor were any of us bred to hate and destroy our society.

Would it have been ok for the government to lock you up if they told everyone you were bent on mass murder?