It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


WAR: 23 at Guantanamo Attempted Suicide in 2003

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:36 PM
There have been at least 23 suicide attempts among the Guantanamo Bay detainees in 2003. The majority of the attempts occurred in a coordinated fashion between August 18 and August 26. The U.S. Souther Command described it as an attempt to disrupt camp operations and to challenge a new group of security guards. om
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - Twenty-three terror suspects tried to hang or strangle themselves at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay during a mass protest in 2003, the military confirmed Monday.

The incidents came during the same year the camp suffered a rash of suicide attempts after Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller took command of the prison with a mandate to get more information from prisoners accused of links to al-Qaida or the ousted Afghan Taliban regime that sheltered it.

Between Aug. 18 and Aug. 26, the 23 detainees tried to hang or strangle themselves with pieces of clothing and other items in their cells, demonstrating "self-injurious behavior," the U.S. Southern Command in Miami said in a statement. Ten detainees made a mass attempt on Aug. 22 alone.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

To be honest the number seems a bit low and they may be deliberately under reporting the numbers. The coordinated suicide try also shows that there is some measure of solidarity among at least the more radical prisoners. The incident seemed to occur after a new commander had taken over. The article said he had a mandate to get more information out of them.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 01:42 PM
Wouldnt the reason behind a large scale suicide attempt be to supress evidence/information?

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:05 PM

Wouldnt the reason behind a large scale suicide attempt be to supress evidence/information?

Why would that be the reason?

What does "a mandate to get more information from prisoners" mean?

There's no longer any question about the kind of treatment the US accords those from whom it wants to extract information, notwithstanding the courtmartial of scapegoat Graner.

The cat-'o-9-tails is out of the bag, so to speak.

Perhaps they considered death preferable to the new methods of "information gathering", i.e. abuse, humiliation, and torture.

[edit on 1/24/2005 by dubiousone]

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Simulacra
Wouldnt the reason behind a large scale suicide attempt be to supress evidence/information?

Exactly right. Or exactly wrong. My instincs tell me exactly wrong. They probably arent even terrorists, innocent muslims who have been wrongfully detained as 'terorrist suspects' for 'reasons of national securtiy'. If any of these people chose to join the jihad if they ever get released, I wouldent blame them. How many years of their lives have they lost now? 3? 4? How about a fair trial Mr Bush? You facist!

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:28 PM
It your right to take your own life, for what ever the reason. One less parasite the world is rid of.

posted on Jan, 24 2005 @ 03:43 PM
My take is that the mass suicide attempt was perhaps a radical group PsyOp tactic to get more negative headlines in the press like "The treatment in Gitmo is so bad, the prisoners rather killed themselves".

but then again, since we only get limited information about their treatment there is always the remote change it might be true....Still feel uncomfortable about how your national security laws are evovlving in a way wich potentially allows so many things to be stuffed under the carpet....Same for the new security branch of Donald Rumsfeld, will they serve national security, protect the lives of everyday americans, or primarely corporate interests, perhaps even put the lives of everyday Americans at risk for it???

you don't know, you just have to take a politicians word for it, even when sworn on a bible I still would like be able to see if politicians can keep their word, no matter what party they represent.

For example, in the UK, Mark Thatcher got away with a lot of dirty stuff, just because Margaret Thatcher in her heydays ordered MI6 to cover anything related with the flag of national security, pointing at the soviet boogeyman, maybe even assasinations were part of covering up his dubious weapon deals. Was the Falkland war an act of liberation, serving the national interest, or a golden oppertunity to amass a fortune, serving a personal interest ?

[edit on 24-1-2005 by Countermeasures]

new topics

top topics

log in