Thekla,
It should be noted that we are NOT obliged to follow the Geneva convention with these combatants. To quote from the convention:
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. (Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War part 1 article 2)
The enemy does not follow most of the provisions of the convention (in fact they proudly violate the treatment of prisoner provisions and other provisions). And, of course, they don’t wear uniforms, etc.
The “watchdog” agency at Geronimo is the International Committee of the Red Cross who gives reports to the Pentagon. That is also part of the Convention (see article 3 section 2). The UN’s interference is not part of the convention.
FORCED FEEDING REFERENCE
Grand Jury Subpoena John Doe v. United States, 150
F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 1998)
John Doe was a civil contemnor committed for refusing to testify before a grand jury despite being granted immunity. He began a hunger strike for political and religious reasons on the first day of his confinement. Within eight days his health deteriorated to the point that his life was in danger. As a result, the federal district court ordered his force feeding and Doe appealed. Relying on a number of federal and state court decisions upholding force feeding of prisoners in similar circumstances, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order. “{W}e, like the majority of courts that have considered the question, hold that such an order does not violate a hunger-striking prisoner’s constitutional rights. See, e.g., Martinez v. Turner, 977 F.2d 421, 423 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1009, 113 S.Ct. 1658, 123 L.Ed. 277 (1993); In re Caulk, 125 N.H. 226, 480 A.2d 93 (1984); Von Holden v. Chapman, 87 A.D.2d 66, 450 N.Y.S.2d 623 (4th Dept. 1982); State v. Vogel, 537 N.W.2d 358 (N.D. 1995); Commonwealth v. Kallinger, 134 Pa.Cmwlth. 415, 580 A.2d 887 (1990); Laurie v. Senecal, 666 A.2d 806 (R.I. 1995); *cf. *Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 399 N.E.2d 452 (1979). Although Doe, as a civil contemnor, has been convicted of no crime, the institution where he is housed is still responsible for his care while incarcerated. Other compelling governmental interests, such as preservation of life, prevention of suicide, and enforcement of prison security, order, and discipline, outweigh the constitutional rights asserted by Doe in the circumstances of this case.”
