Guantanamo Bay rations detainees’ ice cream portions (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1315347/Guantanamo-Bay-rations-detainees-ice-cream-portions.html#ixzz10kevAJhK)


By Daily Mail Reporter

Detainees’ diets at Guantanamo Bay have been a controversial issue for some time and now the U.S. prison is said to be rationing ice cream.

The frozen dessert is allegedly being tightly measured, with only one ice cream allowed for each of its 147 detainees.

Journalist for The Miami Herald, Carol Rosenberg, photographed a refrigerator at Guantanamo, with two signs reading ‘DETAINEE FOOD ONLY’ and ‘Only 1 Ice Cream For each detainee!’
Ice cream is allegedly being tightly measured at Guantanamo Bay, with only one ice cream allowed for each of its 147 detainees

Ice cream is allegedly being tightly measured at Guantanamo Bay, with only one ice cream allowed for each of its 147 detainees

Rosenberg revealed: ‘Found this fridge for Guantanamo detainee food in the rotunda of Camp 6, the most populous of the U.S Navy base prison camps on Sept. 23, 2010 with nearly 90 captives.’

The report comes after much debate on the feeding of U.S. detainees suspected of terrorism, where under feeding in the past has angered human rights advocates.

‘Until recently the prison camps boasted on their website that they provide the 174 war on terror detainees with 5,500 – 6,000 calories a day’, Rosenberg wrote.

But early detainees were said to have been barely given enough food to survive, while others later tried to starve themselves by attempting hunger strikes.

The ice cream rationing has now led the journalist to question Guantanamo Bay’s motives, suspecting that it might be an attempt to reduce spending.

That's an outrage, only one ice cream per detainee. Why is no one protesting this clearly abusive detainee treatment?

LOL! That article is actually funny. Oh DailyFail, you never cease to amuse.

I'd give them the Sheriff Joe Diet . Why should they get better food than other prisoners in custody ?

Did anyone take the time to find out of these detainee's were lactose intolerant :p

Did anyone take the time to find out of these detainee's were lactose intolerant :p

Is the ice cream Halal?

LOL! That article is actually funny. Oh DailyFail, you never cease to amuse.

Though there's plenty of humor to be found here, I guess you missed that the source was not the Daily Mail, but Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald.

Just offer them pork chops and applesauce on Wed and Sun. Or as written I history. Let them eat cake!!

Sad that these terrorists have a better diet than billions of others in the world, ice cream, why don't they give them some other american fare, hot dogs, that would boost their calorie intake, or perhaps some hot cakes and syrup.

sad that these terrorists have a better diet than billions of others in the world, ice cream, why don't they give them some other american fare, hot dogs, that would boost their calorie intake, or perhaps some hot cakes and syrup.

Here is what they are eating. For breakfast too.

Defense.gov News Article: Detainees Eat Well, Gain Weight on Camp Delta's Muslim Menu (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43686)

I'd give them the Sheriff Joe Diet . Why should they get better food than other prisoners in custody ?Hello tom:

Uhhhh, because they haven't been convicted of anything??

I know. I know - that pesky Constitution... A conviction, or not, is a small matter to you Constitution loving Tea Partiers. You only MOUTH the words about the Constitution, and hollow WORDS is all they are. You certainly disdain the Constitution when it's convenient.

excon

Hello tom:

Uhhhh, because they haven't been convicted of anything???


excon

Ex, no one is worried about convicting them because when you do what are you going to do with them? These people were obviously in the wrong place at the wrong time, and, look, they are guilty of something, somewhere, we just haven't worked out what it is yet. I say we convict them of jaywalking and make them pay their own fares home. I'm not concerned that that might represent a death sentence because they were fighters in a war and had they been left alone they would probably be dead by now. Hand them over to their respective countries and let them deal with them.

Hello tom:

Uhhhh, because they haven't been convicted of anything???

I know. I know - that pesky Constitution... A conviction, or not, is a small matter to you Constitution loving Tea Partiers. You only MOUTH the words about the Constitution, and hollow WORDS is all they are. You certainly disdain the Constitution when it's convenient.

excon

Never heard of the need to convict prisoners of war before. Where is that in the Constitution ?

Never heard of the need to convict prisoners of war before. Where is that in the Constitution ?

Which war was that Tom? Last I heard these are illegal combatants, not soldiers, so that makes them criminals and terrorists under somebody's law. What is probably illegal is that America has renditioned them from their country of arrest and is holding them without trial.

I agree they are illegal combatants... Everyone agrees to that .However they are 'soldiers' in anyone's 21st century definition of warfare .(in other words the Geneva Definion is outmoded )

The reason that they have not been tried hear is because the libs have blocked the court ,legislative ,and previous executive's approved trial methods(aka military tribunals) .
The problem here is that the libs want to treat them like someone who held up a 7-11 or Mickey D's .

The reason that they have not been tried hear is because the libs have blocked the court ,legislative ,and previous executive's approved trial methods(aka military tribunals) .Hello again, tom:

Really?? Where was I when that was going on??

What IN FACT happened is that time after time, the VERY CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court ruled AGAINST the Bush administrations' attempt to railroad these people. Yup that old pesky Constitution got in the way.

excon

Is the Military Commissions Act not the law of the land ?

Is the Military Commissions Act not the law of the land ?Hello again, tom:

So, the ONLY thing blocking a trial is the wussyness of Obama??

Seems to me that the Military Commissions Act, SIGNED by President George W. Bush on October 17, 2006 would have done the trick.

Let me see... That was FOUR years ago. Obama was still in Kenya.

excon

Nope ,it was revised over court concerns in 2009 . Bush would've conducted them but ,as you said,the courts intervened.
Fine . I see no court challenges to the 2009 version of the act. Where are the tribunals ? Why does the President persist in this crazy notion of trials as if these detainees are civilian ? What happened to his pledge to close Gitmo in his 1st year ?
Tribunals are the only answer ,and the sooner they commence ,the sooner some of the creatins there can be executed ,instead of being fed ice cream.