Nasal tubes are jammed up the prisoners’ noses until a liquid supplement reaches their stomachs. The tubes, which are 61cm in length or even longer, stay in the prisoners’ nostrils until a chest X-ray or a test dose of water show that the nutritional supplement has reached the prisoner’s stomach. The shocking procedure doesn’t stop there. Detainees are then sent to a “dry cell” with no running water while they undergo supervision to make sure they don’t vomit. If they regurgitate their supplement, they’re sent right back to the restraint chair.Details of the “chair restraint system clinical protocol” were published in a newly revised Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Guantanamo hunger strikers. The document was obtained by Al Jazeera, from the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), which has oversight over the joint task force that operates the highly controversial prison.The new policy went into effect March 5, just one month after Guantanamo detainees launched the hunger strike in response to alleged mistreatment and mishandling of their Korans.”Just as battlefield tactics must change throughout the course of a conflict, the medical responses to GTMO detainees who hunger strike has evolved with time,” the revised SOP says. Two weeks ago, 40 more nurses were sent to Guantanamo Bay to assist with force-feedings.Force-feeding is an extremely invasive and highly controversial practice which many human rights activists – and the UN – say is torturous. But what’s perhaps even more shocking than the procedure itself is that the final decision regarding who will be force-fed is left up to Guantanamo Commander John Smith – not physicians.“In the event a detainee refrains from eating or drinking to the point where it is determined by the medical assessment that continued fasting will result in a threat to life or seriously jeopardize health, and involuntary feeding is required, no direct action will be taken without the knowledge and written approval of Commander [Navy Rear Adm. John Smith, Jr.],” the document says.While doctors are, in fact, present at the site, they exist solely to carry out the military’s commands.According to Leonard Rubenstein, a lawyer at the Center of Public Health and Human Rights at Johns Hopkins University and the Berman Institute of Bioethics, the document is alarming because it makes clear that doctors and nurses are simply “adjuncts of the security apparatus.””The clinical judgment of a doctor or a nurse is basically trumped by this policy and protocol. Doctors are not acting with the kind of professional medical independence,” he said.Giving Cmdr. Smith such extreme power to decide who gets force-fed “violates core ethical values of the medical profession,” American Medical Association president Dr. Jeremy Lazarus wrote in a letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel last month.“Every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention, including life-sustaining interventions,” he wrote. “The AMA has long endorsed the World Medical Association Declaration of Tokyo, which is unequivocal on the point: ‘Where a prisoner refuses nourishment and is considered by the physician as capable of forming an unimpaired and rational judgment concerning the consequences of such a voluntary refusal of nourishment, he or she shall not be fed artificially.’”But authorities seem to place less value on the rules and ethics of the World Medical Association Declaration than Lazarus does. According to the SOP, medical professionals will make “reasonable efforts” to gain consent from prisoners, but will perform the procedure without being granted such permission.According to one detainee, Kuwaiti-born Fayiz al-Kandari, the nasal tubes used in the procedure are large, painful and come with hazardous side effects. ”It takes several attempts to get the tube into the right place,” his lawyer, Carlos Warner, said. “Once it goes down his throat he has a difficult time breathing. There’s a gag reflex.”But the SOP says otherwise, claiming that the force-feeding can ”be completed comfortably over 20 to 30 minutes.”Guantanamo spokesman Lt. Col. Samuel House said that medical professionals who conduct the force feedings “carefully evaluate each patient to determine the appropriate size of tube to use.” He added that the sizes of the tubes used “should not be a big problem in an adult.”Those on the receiving end of the force-feeding disagree. However, they have no option but to sit shackled to the restraint chair and let the procedure take place against their will – because the anti-spitting and biting masks are in place to prevent them from interrupting the process.If the inmates do succeed in biting the feeding tubes, they face even more force and discomfort.“If the detainee is able to get the [enteral feeding] tube between his teeth, the RN [registered nurse] shall…direct the guard staff to stabilize the detainee’s head in the midline position…hold traction on the tube for as long as necessary for the detainee to relax his jaw; then continue safe removal of the tube. This may take considerable time,” the document says.While the detainees show no signs of ending their hunger strike, US authorities at the prison remain determined to follow the practices outlined in the SOP – despite any criticism from human rights activists or the UN.And it seems US President Barack Obama doesn’t have a problem with the force-feeding techniques.Less than two weeks ago, the President said he believes the “Pentagon is trying to manage the situation as best as they can,” adding that he doesn’t want “these individuals to die.”Obama vowed to close down Guantanamo at the beginning of his first term in office in 2009. However, he was blocked from fulfilling that promise by legislation passed by the US Congress.Less than two weeks ago, Obama vowed to “re-engage with Congress to try to make the case [Guantanamo] is not something that’s in the best interests of the American people.” There are currently 100 inmates participating in the hunger strike at Guantanamo Bay, 29 of whom are receiving enteral feeds. Five of those prisoners are being observed in the detainee hospital, Lt. Col. Samuel House said in a Monday statement. The official numbers differ from those of human rights activists, who have put the number of strikers up to 130. … Read More
‘Dash for gas’: Fracking flares to light up the British countryside
Around 32,000 square miles – or 64 per cent of the British countryside – could potentially be affected by the flaring, British media reported.The news has been met with opposition from environmental activists, who say that the burning of leaked gas – known as flaring – is environmentally hazardous, producing carbon dioxide as well as noise and light pollution.The practice is closely tied to the controversial practice of hydraulic fracturing – also known as fracking. It involves blasting a combination of water, chemicals, and sand into shale rocks. While the aim is to force the rocks to release shale gas, there are some unintended side effects – the practice has already been linked to earthquakes and water pollution.Despite the concerns surrounding flaring, IGas CEO Andrew Austin says that it is necessary – and not nearly as bad for the environment as allowing methane leakages to escape into the air. What is fracking? Fracking is the term used for hydraulic fracturing – the technique of drilling and firing high pressure liquid into the ground. The “fracking liquid” consists of water, sand, and chemicals. The process is used to fracture shale rocks which then release natural, shale gas. It takes between one and eight million gallons of water to complete each job. Up to 600 different chemicals are used in the process. During fracking, methane gas and toxic chemicals can leak from the system and contaminate groundwater. Methane concentrations are 17x higher in drinking-water wells near fracturing sites than in normal wells. The practice has been linked to both earthquakes and water pollution. “Though unsightly, burning off methane is arguably a better operational option than simply venting it into the atmosphere,” he told The Independent. “Flaring is the normal thing in standard oil fields, that’s why when you fly across the North Sea you can see it. Flaring or not flaring is not the point, it is industry practice.”But while Austin maintains that flaring is normal and necessary, founder and director of Bristol Group for Water Research disagrees.“If there was no fracking there would be no need for flaring,” Chad Staddon told RT. He said that fracking is “adding to local water stresses by consuming huge volumes and also in terms of irremediable pollution of much of that water.”Fracking was made illegal in the UK for just over a year, after the first hydraulic fracturing to take place in the country was found to have caused two significant earth tremors. The government recently lifted the ban, deeming the practice to be safe as long as it was under close supervision.Although fracking has become normal practice in the US, shale gas production is only just beginning in the UK. Only one company has carried out any fracking so far, and that has been limited to exploratory drilling.IGas will become the second company to begin drilling for shale gas when it begins exploratory drilling at two sites this summer. If the test drilling is successful, IGas hopes to begin fracking at the sites next year.The controversial shale gas industry has been openly supported by Chancellor George Osborne, who says he hopes it will provide the UK with a cheap and secure energy supply.He recently announced tax breaks in his budget, aimed at encouraging a fracking boom. Osborne also hinted at financial incentives to help local communities overcome their opposition to projects.However, those very incentives have landed Osborne in a heap of trouble with environmental groups like Greenpeace, which has criticized the Chancellor’s so-called “dash for gas.” … Read More
Victims start suing owners of West, Texas fertilizer plant
The first two lawsuits accuse Adair Grain Inc., the company that owned the West, Texas fertilizer plant that exploded April 17, of negligence.One of the lawsuits was filed by Andrea Jones Gutierrez, a single working mother who claims that she and her 14-year-old son “lost all of their worldly possessions”. The two lived in the apartment building next to the West Fertilizer plant, which was completely destroyed during the explosion.Gutierrez had stepped out of the complex when she first heard the explosions, and her son was at church during the deadly blasts. Two other residents who remained in the apartment complex died during the explosion. While the Gutierrez family survived, they lost their homes and belongings and the woman suffered multiple injuries.“Everything she and her child owned was completely destroyed,” Randy Roberts, the woman’s attorney, told NBC News. “She has physical and emotional injuries, but I’m more concerned about her emotional injuries.”She is now seeking $500,000 to $1 million in relief from Adair Grain Inc.A second lawsuit against Adair Grain was filed by a group of insurance companies, which claim that the plant’s parent company“was negligent in the operation of its facility, creating an unreasonably dangerous condition, which led to the fire and explosion.”The suit was filed jointly by Acadia Insurance Company, Union Standard Lloyds, Continental Western Insurance Company, and Union Standard Insurance Company – all of which sued on behalf of the residents, churches and businesses in the town of Waco.“Defendant’s negligent acts and omissions were the proximate cause of the explosion that resulted in damages to the plaintiffs, including the destruction [of] real and personal property and lost profits,” the insurers’ lawsuit states. The suit accuses Adair’s employees of being unqualified, incompetent and improperly licensed for their jobs maintaining or operating the plant.Investigators have not yet determined the cause of the explosion, but have ruled out natural causes. The lawsuit filed by the insurers does not list a specific demand for damages, since many homeowners and businesses do not yet know the value of what they have lost, Dallas lawyer Paul Grinke told Reuters.Some of the victims lost nearly all of their possessions, and have nothing besides the clothes they were wearing on the day of the explosions, Grinke explained.“This is just to get the legal process initiated,” he said in regards to the lawsuit. “Most of my clients and the folks I’m representing have not been able to get back to their property to see what’s left of it. I have gotten pretty close, and it is true devastation.”Daniel Kenney, a spokesman representing Adair Grain, told media sources that the company would not comment on the lawsuits at this time.“Our focus is on the fact-finding and on assisting the investigating agencies in any way we can,” he told Reuters. … Read More
‘Boston bombing organizers clearly very serious professionals who know what they’re doing’
And since this tragedy, the worst terror attack in the US since 9/11, has revealed major domestic security gaffes, and it would become hard for anyone to speak against whatever anti-terror initiative President Obama comes up with, Filatov also indicated.RT: Can you give an overall expert assessment of what has happened, from a security standpoint? Could this terrorist act have been averted?AF: I think what happened in Boston was definitely a terror act. And despite the fact that expert analyses showed the explosives to be of quite low yield, I think the terrorists have achieved their objectives. The American public, and world public as a whole were struck by the news and the pictures of what took place in Boston. So, in terms of the terrorists’ desire to strike panic into everyone’s hearts – they were successful. To discuss the negligence of the American special services in this situation would be unbecoming, unprofessional and, frankly, stupid. We know that the last serious terrorist attack on American soil had happened way back in 2001. Such a long stretch of time since, given the number of enemies and the attitude toward the US in many parts of the world, shows how effective US security services are at what they do. I’d just like to say that giving a 100 percent guarantee of safety in such a situation is virtually impossible. Terrorism changes, it adapts with time to the norms and security protocols of its targets. To secure a 1-2 kilometer track completely in this scenario is next to impossible.RT: Could you comment on the standard operating procedures, or the preventive measures normally in place under the given circumstances?AF: The most effective intelligence and security agencies are those that work to prevent such things from happening. This is normally done by inserting agents into the suspected terrorist group, which in the end normally leads to an operation to arrest multiple members of the group before an attack is carried out – usually on the very day. Such cases are commonplace, but they are not advertised much. Major resources are spent on preparations for such undercover missions. As far as events like the Marathon go, there is normally a human shield of officers, coupled with sniffer dogs. But despite the manpower, these measures may not always be effective: dogs may not pick up the scent from distance as well as they do up close. The technical arsenal here is quite primitive, and to evade these cordons and avoid being picked up by dogs or detectors, is not an impossible feat for a trained terrorist.RT: Could you speak a bit more about the kind of terrorist preparation that goes into something like this?Well, from the simple construction and low yield of the explosives, I can tell you that we should be looking out not for the skill of the person carrying out the attack, but at the intentions of its organizers. We shouldn’t take for granted the fact that no one claimed responsibility. These things were meant to detract attention from its true purpose and its real organizers. A very low quantity of explosive was used – but the political impact of the crime was absolutely huge. The entire world was watching. Thankfully, not many casualties emerged, but that was not the point. The explosion was planned to perfection; it happened at the exact time and place as was intended. The organizers are clearly very serious professionals who know what they’re doing. RT: Could you personally speculate on who might have carried out the attack?AF: Of course, the number one suspect, according to many experts, are radical Islamists, having been actively clamped down on worldwide by American forces. Many correctly point to North Africa and the Middle East. However, the chain of events gives credence to another hypothesis – one I think has its rightful place in the discussion. On the one hand, we hadn’t seen a terrorist attack on US soil for 12 years. This may have led to a relaxing of efforts on the part of the US agencies. On the other hand, however, American society has long been harboring a feeling that, while they live in relative peace, their soldiers are coming home in body bags. The people themselves feel discontented with the fact that they don’t come in contact with the much propagated threat of terrorism while that takes place. The White House has recently been countering this dilemma by announcing their withdrawal from direct military confrontations with terrorism on foreign land, instead opting for a less involved financial and training backing they now offer to foreign governments in their own fight against terrorism. All of a sudden, we get this terrorist attack for which no one claims responsibility… this begs the question, “what will happen next?” I think American society will eagerly change their mind again, choosing to view the last 12 years of peace and quiet as credit to the security services and agencies that protect them. The agencies come out as having shown that active involvement of US forces in the fight against terrorism abroad works, basically. So, I think that President Obama and the White House may need to go back on their promise of a lesser, direct foreign involvement, and instead revert to sending troops abroad once again, spending big sums on operational costs and so on. We know for a fact that Americans show this incredible potential for bonding in the face of adversity. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who will be willing to disagree with anything the US president says or does next regarding terrorism.RT: Do you think that what happened might then be beneficial to Obama, or only create more problems?AF: I think the US government, the Democrats, will be able to pull out of this one successfully and relatively painlessly. Despite the agencies’ failure to prevent the attack, it will only serve to increase American presence and military involvement worldwide.RT: Do you think this will raise or lower the tensions in the international arena? What might this entail?AF: Well, I’ve never been a supporter of the Libyan strategy; we can also take a look at Syria and the arming of the opposition there, which is fueling a civil war…. All of these things have and will continue to be presented in such a way as to step up the so-called war on terror. It will effectively untie the US government’s hands and allow them more freedoms in military operations that only yesterday might have aroused major criticism from the American public. Unfortunately, American politicians will only gain from all this. We may see a new Libya, a new Syria, and so on. The pursuit of US national economic and financial interests on foreign territory will continue unhindered. … Read More
Boston bombing outage rumors shed light on mobile and Internet ‘kill switch’
While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has in the past denied the existence of Standard Operating Procedure 303, as Ars Technica recently pointed out, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) challenged the secrecy of such documents in 2012 by filing a Freedom of Information Act request.What EPIC found via its lawsuit was that a 2007 report stated that the network shutdown policy was adopted in March of 2006. According to that report, the National Coordinating Center, a part of the DHS, was to be the main player in “any actions leading up to and following the termination of private wireless network connections, both within a localized area, such as a tunnel or bridge, and within an entire metropolitan area.”There has been particular focus on government possession of any sort of ‘kill switch’ over cell networks and internet service since the embattled government of Hosni Mubarak shut down both in Egypt at the height of protests in 2011.That same year, when San Francisco’s transit authority made the decision to shut off cell phone networks within its metro service in anticipation of protests, critics were quick to point out the draconian implications.Somewhat ironically, following the BART incident the Federal Communications Commission launched an investigation into the cell network shutdown that resulted in the government’s so-called SOP 303 rule for that sort of activity. In their response to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) query, wireless carriers such as AT&T stated that there was, in fact, no need for an inquiry, as government policy on shutting down private cell networks was already established.”Federal and State authorities, the [FCC], wireless providers and other private stakeholders, have previously considered these issues in a cooperative process that resulted in the National Communications System’s Standard Operating Procedure 303,” AT&T responded. “SOP 303 resolves the questions posed by the Commission in the Notice and eliminates the need for the Commission to reconsider those issues in this docket.”In plain English, what AT&T responded with in the case of the San Francisco cell network shutdown is that a little-known rule, which the DHS initially denied even existed, was already in effect – and that wireless carriers simply obliged with city government in its request.In its initial FOIA filing, EPIC requested further information as well as justification for the secrecy behind SOP 303, which is officially understood as “a shutdown and restoration process for use by commercial and private wireless networks during national crises.”At question is just what might constitute a national crisis, and by which government stakeholders. As Ars Technica, an IT news site reports, the DHS has yet to fully respond to EPIC, though it has already abandoned the idea that no such rule regarding government enactment of a cell network ‘off switch’ exists.This means that the US government has procedures set in place to shut off private cell phone access across an entire metropolitan region, though it is not publicly understood by what criteria, or what precise process such a rule was anointed to homeland security. … Read More
Reagan daughter: My dad would have backed gay marriage
For the party faithful, Ronald Reagan is the gold standard in Republican agenda setting. And with “What Would Reagan Do?” serving as a GOP mantra (however superficially) during primary campaigns and on matters of governance large and small, a posthumous marriage equality endorsement from the Gipper could be big news for a party trying to find its footing on the issue.Well, Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis, has a theory about where her dad would have stood on gay rights and same-sex marriage.In an interview with The New York Times on Thursday, Davis pointed to her father’s belief in limited government, his Hollywood history and a lesbian couple — Davis’ “aunt and aunt” — who were close family friends as reasons Reagan would have backed marriage equality: “I grew up in this era where your parents’ friends were all called aunt and uncle. And then I had an aunt and an aunt. We saw them on holidays and other times. We never talked about it, but I just understood that they were a couple.”Continue Reading… … Read More
Bill Kristol: GOP shouldn’t “cater” to young people on gay marriage
Conservative pundit Bill Kristol is not convinced that Republicans should listen to young people when it comes to embracing gay marriage, because they “[don't] know anything honestly.”Speaking in an interview for the Weekly Standard’s podcast, Kristol said that he finds “something pathetic” about politicians now coming out in support of gay marriage, and “jumping on the train because it looks fashionable.”"I’ve found it really distasteful,” he said. “I mean I myself am socially conservative on the marriage issue but even if you’re not, just say what you believe and let the country decide.”He continued: “This kind of pathetic attempt: ‘Oh my god, young people especially are liberal so let’s just rush to cater to them.’ As if they’re going to respect you if you just embrace the views of some 26-year-old who doesn’t know anything honestly. Can’t adults say young people are sometimes wrong?”h/t ThinkProgress.Continue Reading… … Read More
