Detainees Move for Complete Copy of Revised Force-Feeding Protocols

The appellants in Aamer v. Obama have spent the last month battling the government for a complete copy of recently revised Guantanamo force-feeding protocols, according to a motion filed by the detainees on Monday. The motion notes that the government at one point sent detainees’ counsel a copy that was missing the section on the use of restraints during force-feeding, and has refused repeated requests for disclosure of the protocols in their entirety. On Dec. 15, the government informed appellants that the protocols were scheduled to be revised yet again next week and would no longer include a description of the "medical restraint system." The detainees reject the government’s Dec. 11 claim that the D.C. Circuit can address the merits on the appeal without supplemental briefing on the revised protocols: “This litigation challenges the legality of force-feeding at Guantánamo Bay, which is done according to the force-feeding protocols, so that the challenge necessarily encompasses those protocols.” As the appellants note in their motion, their opening brief and reply brief pointed to the relevance of the protocols' particulars, with headings like: “The standard for determining the validity of the protocols on force-feeding of Guantánamo Bay detainees is whether those protocols are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests" and "The Guantanamo force-feeding protocols are unreasonable because ready alternatives can accommodate the government's concerns." The motion closes:

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully request the Court either to (1) order appellees to disclose to us all protocols that currently govern the use of restraints in the force-feeding process and to file with this Court complete copies of the currently effective protocols governing force-feeding and the associated use of restraints at Guantánamo Bay, either publicly or under seal in conjunction with a motion for treatment of those protocols as “protected information,” or (2) upon a determination that this proceeding is within the scope of this Court’s and the district court’s jurisdiction, order such disclosure and filing on remand to the district court for adjudication of the merits of appellants’ challenge to force-feeding under the revised protocols. The latter alternative relief is, we suggest, the more appropriate course, given the trial court’s traditional role and expertise.