Canadian Supermax Inmate Also on Hunger Strike

Related to my long post on Shoe Bomber Richard Reid's hunger strike at Supermax in Florence, Colorado, I see that the Canadian press is reporting that convicted terrorist Mohammed Mansour Jabarah, serving life at Supermax, is also on a hunger strike:

Mohammed Mansour Jabarah has refused to eat since mid-April and prison officials are allegedly pumping food into his stomach using a tube inserted in his nose. The convicted al-Qaeda terrorist is protesting restrictions on his mail, his lawyer said, but his father said Jabarah and other Muslim inmates also want to pray together.

The ACLU condemns force-feeding here.

< "Shoe Bomber" Richard Reid On Hunger Strike, Gov't. to End SAMS | Gunman Shoots Two at Holocaust Museum >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    So what? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:13:51 PM EST
    The ACLU is protesting their force feeding but they'd also protest letting him starve to death. The only way you will make the ACLU happy is to put them all the terror suspects up in a penthouse somewhere with every convenience they could ever want, an American flag doormat, and an occassional infidel to slaughter. They have less than zero credibility of this issue as far as I'm concerned. They offer tons of complaints and no solutions.

    Personally I think if these murderers and would be murderers wish to starve to death than let them strave. Save the tax payers some money.

    It's not the ACLU's job (none / 0) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:18:38 PM EST
    to offer solutions, only to attempt to preserve civil liberty, and thank the sun god for that. I don't think the ACLU would protest allowing hunger strikes, my friend.

    I do agree that every human being should have the right to refuse to eat.


    Perhaps (none / 0) (#3)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:22:35 PM EST

    I don't think the ACLU would protest allowing hunger strikes, my friend.

    But then they would protest the cruel and heartless conditions that drove the poor unfortunate mistreated prisoner to engage in the hunger strike.


    Ya got me there... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:30:09 PM EST
    and thank the sun god for that too:)

    Um if this was a Gitmo thing (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:29:00 PM EST
    or even a prisoner convicted by military commission I'd be outraged, but seriously, what should the Prison system do- the guys on a hunger strike, force-feeding seems wrong, but then again so does starvation, mail-restriction seems wrong but as far as I can tell is a reasonable restriction on freedom, and group prayer would seem to pose possible security risks.  

    I feel for the guy. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    He tried to commit suicide once before (and take an entire plane along with him) and now he's trying again.

    This is where I get confused by what one does with a mentally ill person who refuses treatment.  Either he's sane and completely in control of his fate, or he's suicidally depressed and should be treated for severe depression.  Not sure if it's legal to forcibly treat someone for a mental illness, even if it would be in his best interests.

    As for his demands, I wonder how many other prisoners have those privileges now.  And how many of them attempted mass murder in a fit of religious fervor.

    Is suicide a civil right?  Is it possible that sane people commit suicide?


    I've actually caught some of those (none / 0) (#27)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 06:50:23 PM EST
    late night prison shows on MSNBC. They do hold prayer groups in differnet forms depending on the situation. Saw one where they had the inmates in an area, all in sep cells at the end of a hall with the minister (or whatever he was called) leading the group from the hallway. It was a ritual there with that group. I've seen others where they had them in an actual church and another where NA's had an outside space to carry out their rituals. You would think in a SM prison they could figure out a way for them to worship sep but still in a group. maybe not several times a day, but something could be worked out?

    Well, (none / 0) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    I'm wondering why I should care?

    I know I'm supposed to be 'empathetic' to their plight, but I have a hard time giving one iota of care towards these individuals. There are plenty of INNOCENT, LAW ABIDING, HARDWORKING, people who need daily assistance. I understand the theoretical issues at hand, but they pale in comparison to the efforts which need to be extended to those who DESERVE assistance.

    then perhaps (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:42:10 PM EST
    you need to be reminded to find a blog more compatible with your views. This one is dedicated to preserving and fostering the rights of the criminally accused.

    Point of order (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:28:12 PM EST
    This guy is not "criminally accused" of anything.  He is a convicted felon serving a life sentence.

    And I don't think they should force feed him if he doesn't want to eat, but I think a good point was made above that the same folks who are complaining about him being force-fed would be complaining if the prison let him starve. The prison is in a no-win position here, PR wise, and to those who always feel the government is wrong.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:54:15 PM EST
    There's no real good choice, I can't really see how letting a man starve to death would be more humane than force-feeding, and this isn't an accused individual- this is a convicted terrorist- convicted in a civilian court.

    I actually support Supermax (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    because I'm empathetic to the plight of prisoners.  Per Wikipedia, 22% of Supermax residents have KILLED fellow prisoners, 35% have attempted to do so.  Most of the rest are terrorists.

    I think, while in prison, it's within a prisoner's rights to be protected from those other prisoners who might kill or attempt to kill them and Supermax served that purpose.  Imagine going into prison on a drug conviction because you were an addict and then being killed by a fellow prisoner....

    I also don't believe in force feeding.  What is the point of force feeding people who will live the rest of their lives in such horrible conditions??  I don't blame people in Supermax for wanting to die.  Let them go, if they want to go.  I'd certainly want to go.  Of course, I'd never do anything that would put me there....but I'm not mentally ill, nor fanatic, don't have xyy chromosomes, etc.  Who knows what set of genes these folks have...


    Deserve (none / 0) (#9)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:41:41 PM EST
    Thus spaketh the voice from the burning bush.

    The reason the welfare of inmates is so often a topic of discussion here is in part due to the apathy and passive-sadism of those who "dont care"
    (but who always seem to have time to remind us that they care.)


    Just, WOW (none / 0) (#13)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    What purpose is served, and what outcome do you expect from treating people with disdain and deprivation of their rights?

    Punishment... (none / 0) (#16)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:41:50 PM EST
    It's not "disdain and deprivation" it's punishment. It's what used to happen to people who did something horrible to serve as a deterrent to others from doing horrible things. He tried to murder 200+ innocent people on an airplane. His rights are forfeit.  

    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:01:51 PM EST
    This being America, some of his rights are forfeit, but not others, unless you've been granted the power to unilaterally rewrite the Constitution lately.

    It's a concept that has proven time and again (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:51:15 PM EST
    does nothing positive for the well-being of society.

    So, we lock these people up and treat them as badly as possible and expect them to re-enter society as suitable citizens because they have been appropriately punished. Isn't being isolated away from society and privileges enough punishment? Might they actually come to realize the benefits of respect if they were treated with some?


    Well (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    While you're argument, in total, is correct about those who are serving shorter sentences, in this specific case, he will never get out of prison, and thankfully so.  I doubt he's going to learn anything about respect, whether we give him free cable and excellent medical care, or not.

    Then, the guards can practice (none / 0) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 08:40:44 PM EST
    on him. Certainly you don't believe that all his remaining days should be a continuation of the torture that led him to this. Or, that the horrible treatment being given by other human beings is going to be good for their souls.

    See Huff Post for article on 3 of detainees (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    @ Gitmo who are seriously underweight.  

    "# of detainees" (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:37:25 PM EST
    Abdul is correct... (none / 0) (#7)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    You can't win with the ACLU. They have become activist who are convinced of only one thing and that is that the US is wrong in any and all actions.

    WeaponX (none / 0) (#11)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:42:53 PM EST
    is limited to four comments a day, see comment rules, all in excess will be deleted.

    That's one way of dealing with opposing views... (none / 0) (#17)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    If all you care about is the echo chamber of agreement. Fact is I'd really, really like to understand the differing of opinions you may not share that view. I have never been disrespectful to anyone on the boards and would not be but if that is what the powers that be here choose to do so be it. It's their boards, it's their rights.

    Thanks for the clarification (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 01:46:31 PM EST

    A further clarification would be that its actually not that "they believe the U.S is always wrong", but that they dont place a premium on being obedient stooges and speak out when they believe the actions of entities and indivuals in the U.S ARE wrong.


    I disagree... (none / 0) (#23)
    by WeaponX on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 04:08:03 PM EST
    Believing the US is right does not make you a stooge. Are we always right? Of course not. But we aren't always wrong either, fact is we're the closest thing to a hero this world has. There is a reason our troops are buried in countries all around the world.

    We're the heroes (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:55:37 PM EST
    is a tribalistic conceit you'll find in any country that has a history.

    Which nation was the hero in WWII, the one that engaged 20% of the German army on the Western Front  or the one that engaged and turned back the other 80%?



    No. Abdul is not correct. (none / 0) (#29)
    by oldpro on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:55:29 PM EST
    Don't believe everything you read or hear.  Do a little research on the ACLU.  What do those initials stand for?  What is their mission?  Whose rights do they wish to protect and what weapons do they use to do so?

    The ACLU does NOT think that "the US is wrong in any and all actions."  What an absurd thing to say.  Glittering generalities lose the argument every time.


    ACLU and solutions (none / 0) (#25)
    by diogenes on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 05:02:01 PM EST
    This man is on a hunger strike.  Is the ACLU saying that we should force-feed or not?  If not, is the ACLU saying that they will drop any objections if he were to starve to death?  Or is this just ACLU grandstanding done in the full knowledge that prison officials will never stop forcefeeding so that the ACLU can oppose it without having to deal with the consequences?

    Starving (none / 0) (#28)
    by jhiestand on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    Personally I believe every person has the right to end their own life if they so choose.  Therefore, if a convicted prisoner wants to starve to death, so be it.  It is their decision whatever their justification.