There is a serious human rights crisis brewing at the prison at Guantánamo Bay. A hunger strike that began in early February has spread to include the vast majority of the prison population, according to attorneys representing some of the strikers. One prisoner told his lawyer that some 130 of the 166 prisoners are refusing food.
Military prison officials have thus far acknowledged only that 42 detainees are on strike. At least 11 are being force-fed, in a practice universally considered cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and one that violates international medical ethics standards.
Whatever the numbers, by all accounts, the situation at Guantánamo is dire. The mass hunger strike was launched after prison guards reportedly mistreated Qur'ans belonging to the prisoners (an allegation prison officials deny), but the desperation underlying the prisoners' protest is much more deeply rooted. It is rooted in an unjust system that has imprisoned almost all of the 166 detainees for more than a decade without charge or trial, and with no end in sight. That includes 86 men who remain in prison despite having been unanimously cleared for release by military and intelligence agencies in 2009.
Guantánamo was not a problem that President Obama chose, but it's a problem he now owns and must solve. When the President took office, he promised to close Guantánamo within a year. As he moves further away from that promise, the futures of the detainees appear more hopeless to them. General John F. Kelly, head of the U.S. Southern Command, told the House Armed Services Committee last month about the Guantanamo prisoners, "They had great optimism that Guantánamo would be closed. They were devastated, apparently, when the president backed off."
An official from the International Committee of the Red Cross, whose delegates recently visited the prison and spoke to some of the hunger strikers, told the Russia Today news site:
What I can tell you is that from our observations those tensions and this anguish that the detainees are experiencing are clearly related to the lack of a clear legal framework in Guantanamo. This has now been having a real impact for detainees for some time – on their mental health, on their emotional health.
And who can blame them? Sixty-five prisoners were released in the first two years of President Obama's first term, but that number plunged to just five during 2011 and 2012 combined, largely because of irresponsible restrictions imposed by Congress in an attempt to prevent Guantanamo from closing. But the Obama administration is also at fault. It has shown no signs of progress towards transferring the 86 detainees cleared for release, which it can still do despite Congressional restrictions. Instead, it recently closed the State Department office designated to work on prisoner transfers. Six prisoners face military commission trials; the Obama administration has slated over 40 of the rest for indefinite detention. It is no wonder that for at least some of the men at Guantanamo, death may appear the only way out. It need not be that way.
Today, the ACLU and a coalition of organizations are calling on President Obama to take two immediate steps to avert the human rights crisis:
- First, the president should authorize the secretary of defense to use existing certification procedures to repatriate and resettle abroad all prisoners who have been cleared for release.
- Second, the president must appoint a point person in the administration who is responsible for leading the effort to close Guantánamo.
Other steps will be necessary, but these can be taken now, and will signal to the prisoners and the world that the president is committed to keeping his word. Meanwhile, the world is watching. In a strongly-worded statement, Navi Pillay, the United Nation's top human rights official, stated last week that "this systemic abuse of individuals' human rights continues year after year. We must be clear about this: the United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold."
Time is of the essence. After almost two months on hunger strike, some of the Guantanamo prisoners may be facing irreversible physical damage or even imminent death. A few weeks ago, Adel Al Hakimi, a Tunisian man who has been cleared for release but remains a prisoner, reportedly tried to take his own life. Last September, Adnan Latif, an inmate from Yemen, died in circumstances that suggested suicide, but which remain murky. We do know that before his death, Latif had staged repeated hunger strikes and had tried to take his own life on several occasions due to the hopelessness of his situation. These acts, as well as other reported suicides, serve as a cautionary tale. The White House must take action before the Guantanamo prisoners' mass desperation results in any more senseless tragedies.
Learn more about closing Guantánamo Bay and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
National Security
Where Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil LibertiesWhere Defense Secretary Nominee Pete Hegseth Stands on Civil Liberties
The ACLU has more than 100 years’ experience holding power accountable. As President-elect Donald Trump rolls out his cabinet picks, we analyze how his nominee for secretary of defense will impact civil liberties. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions.