By

Phil Hirschkorn /

CBS News/ March 22, 2013, 8:28 PM

Attorney: Guantanamo detainee "skin and bones"

Towers overlooking a U.S. detention facility are silhouetted against a morning sunrise at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba Oct. 18, 2012, in this picture reviewed by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Towers overlooking a U.S. detention facility are silhouetted against a morning sunrise at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba Oct. 18, 2012, in this picture reviewed by the U.S. Department of Defense. / AP Photo/Toronto Star

NEW YORK The U.S. military now counts 26 men detained in the prison at a Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as active hunger strikers, while one defense attorney described one of those meal-refusing detainees as "skin and bones."

Eight of the acknowledged hunger strikers have refused meals for so long and lost so much weight that the military is force-feeding them liquid nutrients through a tube down their nose. Two of those men receiving tube feedings are also hospitalized for rehydration and observation, said Capt. Robert Durand, a Navy spokesman at the base.

Carlos Warner, a federal public defender from Ohio who visited Guantanamo this week, said a detainee he represents, Fayiz Muhammad Ahmad Al-Kandari, from Kuwait, appeared to have lost 20 percent of his body weight due to a hunger strike that began six weeks ago.

"Fayiz could not stand yesterday. Today, he was a bit stronger and stood to greet me," Warner said. "He had sallow cheeks. His waist was shockingly thin. His waist looked like the waist of my six-year-old child. He was skin and bones. He was disoriented and exhausted both days."

Warner continued, "He refused honey I brought him. He drank only water during the meetings."

Al-Kandari, 36, has never been charged with a crime by the U.S.. He was sent to Guantanamo in May 2002, six months after his capture in Afghanistan. A secret 2008 military assessment, posted by WikiLeaks, described him as an al Qaeda member and propagandist who fought against U.S. forces at Tora Bora.

Since early February, according to their attorneys, a growing number of Guantanamo detainees have been refusing meals to protest their indefinite detention without charges and searches of their cells that they say resulted in confiscation of personal items and guards leafing through their Korans.

The military describes cell searches for contraband as routine and denies that guards touch Korans.

Although 71 detainees were transferred from Guantanamo to their home or third countries during President Obama's first two years in office, none have left in three years, even though a 2010 interagency task force, including representatives of the military and intelligence agencies, unanimously recommended 56 additional detainees for transfer.

Though the Obama administration issued an executive order two years ago to establish periodic review boards of detainees, to be overseen by the Defense, State, and Justice Departments, the boards have yet to be organized.

In a letter recently received by his attorneys, a hunger striking detainee known as Obaydullah, from Afghanistan, wrote, "I am in jail for almost 11 years, and still I do not know about my fate."

His appointed military defense counsel, Army Capt. Jason Wright, said he was "shocked" by Obaydullah's appearance two weeks ago and again when he returned to see him this week. The detainee, who is around 30 years old, told Wright his weight had dropped from 167 to 131 pounds after refusing meals for 45 days.

"He had clearly lost weight and was visibly distressed," Wright said. "I think this is a manifestation of sheer desperation and hopelessness."

Wright said Obaydullah was drinking water and tea but he was unsure if he was eating snacks. Wright said defense lawyers were hearing consistent stories about the cell shakedown, the flashpoint over Korans, and that many of the 130 detainees in Camp Six, where the most compliant men are housed in a communal living environment, are refusing to eat.

Other detainee attorneys expressed concern that permission for regularly-scheduled private charter flights to Guantanamo had been revoked by the base commanding officer, Captain J.R. Nettleton. Only one company, Florida-based IBC Airways, had been offering the flights two to three times a week.

Kelly Wirfel, a spokeswoman for Nettleton, said the flights were too frequent and cited a federal regulation that gives Nettleton discretion in approving or disapproving the landings.

"The base commanding officer was in no way trying to prevent or prohibit anyone from traveling to the base," Wirfel said, adding that groups wishing to charter a flight could seek permission on an occasional basis.

Attorneys, legal observers, journalists, and others are still able to visit Guantanamo, when cleared by the military, aboard weekly military charters from Andrews Air Force Base in Washington. The planes fly down on Monday and return on Friday. Capt. Durand said Monday's military flight was scheduled as usual.

Pardiss Karabei, an attorney for the Center of Constitutional Rights, which has represented detainees since soon after Guantanamo opened, said the limited flight schedule meant an attorney had to be able to take off a whole week in order to meet with a client. Approval to be on the trips must be requested 20 days in advance, she said, while phone calls with detainees typically must be arranged 15 days in advance.

"These are impediments that have definitely made it harder to provide effective representation and build trust," Karabei said. "The flight situation as it stands introduces a new level of difficulty."

There are still 166 men from foreign countries detained at Guantanamo.

This week, the military submitted a request to the House Armed Services Committee for up to $170 million to build new facilities at Guantanamo, including $56 million for hurricane-proof troop barracks and $52 million in new housing for "high value detainees."

© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
29 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
stopkillingourwilderness says:
wow, there are a lot of fascists on this thread. since when does the US imprison people in terrible conditions without any proof of any crime for years and years and years? this is what hitler did, in case you are forgetting. he demonized entire races/religions of people then imprisoned them without any evidence of any crime.

imprisonment without a fair and open trial is totally wrong, even when you are on the "powerful" side of the dynamic. the rule of law must be consistently applied or tyranny will reign - even if you can only think in your own self interest, remember that once you let things like this happen, one day you may end up on the other side of the transaction.

leave your biases at the door and look at this objectively. either try them and prove their guilt or let them go. this is really, really wrong and it's being done in our name to our eternal shame.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
BludApfel says:
Why should we care, and, why bother feeding them through a tube? Self execution would be perfect.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
realsickofit says:
I don't understand, B0 said he was closing the base 4 or 5 years ago. His views must have changed on that, like a lot of other things, and probaly more to come.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Martha12345 says:
We should care because ?
reply
andthetruthis replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
What you sow, so shall you reap.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Xthes says:
Pffft - 10 years ago any one of these f*****s would just as soon shoot an American as to look at them, now we're supposed to be all tender and compassionate because someone touched their good book and they've lost hope? Sucks being them - let them starve.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
judymar14 says:
If the situation were reversed prisoners whouldn't have a bible to be leafed through. No charges would be necessary as the prisoners would have been brutally killed within the first week.
reply
andthetruthis replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You can dodge the point 'til Doomsday.

Why we refuse to bring them to trial.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
andthetruthis says:
Somebody explain to me why they are terrorist.

Because they were 'accused'? (By the Bush/Cheney WMD Bunch)

I can accuse any one of you of being a terrorist,and I have no doubt you will raise pure hell resisting.

Nope,away you go to Guantanamo. No lawyer,no contact with family,no phone call. No hope.

AFTER 10-12 YEARS,you start to wonder,when will they take me to trial.But,you see,I know I lied on you,and I can't have my lie discovered.
So,my friends won't ever let you go before people and say anything.

I got everybody to hate you,so,people say, "Nah,let him rot and die".
Innocent or guilty.Who cares.Justice is for us alone anyway.
reply
Chipgrte64 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You need to understand that Bush and Cheney aren't the one's who captured these Islamists. Our troops on the ground in a war zone captured them. Our troops didn't go around arresting every Muslim in sight, they knew who they were dealing with.

Do you honestly believe for one second that these prisoners didn't support Islamic jihad against the infidels? Do you really believe they didn't take part in Islamic Jihad?
andthetruthis replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
This is The United States of America.
We don't do,"What's your guess"?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Actsra says:
Many people forget, these are enemy combatants captured on the battlefield.

They could have been shot where they were found. It's starting to look like that would have been preferable.
reply
stopkillingourwilderness replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
most of these people were turned over for money by rivals from their own country. if there is evidence against them, why is the US so afraid to put on a legitimate trial?
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Tank_Commander says:
I don't see this being very hard to resolve. Either they are war criminals and should be tried as such in the Hague, or the are criminals under the Geneva convention (Non-combatants, no insignia, not carrying arms openly, no responsible commander) and should be tried under those conditions. For me it's either/or and our cowardly politicians who are so deathly afraid they will look soft or cruel won't do either. As to the torture, all evidence shows we either did it ourselves (CIA) or sponsored it by outsourcing to other countries. For this someone should be tried and sentenced. I's not like we don't know about it.
reply
charleycarp replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Tank-Commander, that would depend on whether or not the prisoners actually committed a crime. What you call a crime under the Geneva Conventions applies to some 300 million Americans right now: I'm not wearing a uniform, carrying arms openly, having a commander -- I'm sitting at home typing in my pajamas. To have a crime, you'd need to show that the prisoner killed a soldier without privilege. So what crime (for example) did the guy who was an assistant cook for a Taliban regiment commit? Unprivileged smashing of chickpeas? What crime did the Uyghur prisoners -- already ruled by a court to have been detained without any legal justification -- commit?


There's a reason that 90% of the men haven't been charged with any kind of crime over the last 10 years, and won't ever be. And it's not cowardice on the part of politicians. There's also a reason that more than half the men have been cleared for release (or, in the case of some men from Yemen, conditionally cleared pending changes in the situation in Yemen), and it isn't because the men are criminals.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ammo17 says:
give them another month they will come around.they would have had a trial already if their stupid lawyers would stop thinking that these terrorist are americn citizens.look at eric holder and see how he plays the system.
reply
See all 29 Comments