Al Qaeda's objective in Gitmo suicides

Cliff May:

It's difficult to say what motivates someone to take his own life, but when three Militant Islamists coordinate their suicides, as happened recently at the U.S. detention center in Guantanamo Bay, there is at least a basis for speculation.

Give these self-described holy warriors their due: As devout Muslims they would have viewed suicide as a grave sin. What would not have been taboo: “martyrdom,” self-sacrifice to further the jihad against the infidels.

If that was their goal, they succeeded. They gave momentum to an international campaign to shut Gitmo down which would mean the release of their comrades. To a committed jihadi, such an achievement would be preferable to spending years praying, watching television and playing volleyball.

The editors of the editorial page of The New York Times interpret this incident differently. They blame President Bush for the suicides. They claim that at Gitmo he built “a netherworld of despair beyond the laws of civilized nations, where men were to be held without any hope of decent treatment, impartial justice or, in so many cases, even eventual release.” A serious accusation – one that is not supported by the evidence.

American officials acknowledge that Gitmo, when it was first opened to al-Qaeda detainees, was a rough place, though the most shocking allegations– from Koran-flushing to torture – did not stand up to scrutiny. Since then, the U.S. military has learned a lot about holding and interrogating dangerous prisoners.

Who says so? Jakob Kellenberger, president of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), no friend of the Bush administration. He recently acknowledged that conditions at Gitmo have “improved considerably.” ICRC representatives now have unfettered access to detainees. Those detainees also are permitted to retain lawyers – something not allowed in previous wars -- and to communicate with their families back home.

The ICRC does have a disagreement with Washington. The ICRC wants detainees at Gitmo regarded as “prisoners of war.” Washington prefers to call them “enemy combatants.”

The ICRC's view is that no matter how egregiously individuals violate the laws of war – for example by intentionally targeting civilians and using civilians as shields – they are nevertheless entitled to the same privileges due honorable soldiers who risk their lives to protect non-combatants. Under the Geneva Convention, POWs cannot be interrogated (other than name, rank, date of birth and serial number) and must be granted a range of benefits, including cooking utensils, musical instruments and a cash stipend (at U.S. taxpayer expense).

The administration's view is that those who slit the throats of aid workers and dispatch suicide bombers to slaughter women and children have no claim to such privileges.

...

If you follow the NY Times and IRC position you forego any information on planned terrorist attacks on non combatants in the US that these people had. That has been the nut of the issues surrounding Gitmo from the get go. Do terrorist have the right to remain silent? Is it irresponsible to forego attempts to stop mass murder of non combatants? If the enemy combatants had a right to remain silent then any evidence that we go through interrogation would be in admissible in any case brought against them. Is that the choice the NY Times wants to make? Let the terrorist go free. I, frankly, would rather have them committing suicide.