martyrs and suicides
I am going to quote (piecewise) a complete post from a very fine blog called Mind Hacks. I disagree with the article, and so do not want to abridge it.
Suicide itself now an act of war:
A motivation not yet mentioned in the extensive scientific literature on suicide was offered by the US Government for why three inmates killed themselves in Guantanamo Bay - apparently, it was a well-planned “act of asymmetric warfare“.
I look forward to the paper in the Archives of Suicide Research which describes this remarkable new theory.
The idea that an act of suicide can be an act of war may be remarkable, but it is not new. Some will recall that certain [ insurgents | terrorists | martyrs ] have been using suicide by bomb as an act of war. Suicide as a weapon, qua idea, is not new. It is not even original; consider for instance the Kamikaze. If the entire scientific literature on suicide has overlooked this use of suicide, perhaps the authors of said literature have chosen not to see.
In the meantime, I might email the organisors of the US Department of Defense 2006 Military Suicide Prevention Conference and let them know that their opening talk on the Theoretical Considerations of Suicide by Dr. David Jobes (powerpoint slides here) obviously missed out this important explanation in an otherwise comprehensive coverage of the medical literature.
To look for a medical explanation here is to miss the point. There can be political motivations for suicide. Consider for instance, the self-immolation of the monk Thich Quang Duc, caught in the photo above. There can be religious explanations for suicide, for instance those offered by the various proponents of jihad, who claim their suicides are acts of war against the enemies of God.
I suspect that the inmates who committed suicide at Guantanamo would have been offended by the idea that their actions can be explained away medically. They weren’t ill, they were martyrs, striking at Satan with their final weapon.
What was their motive? Illness? I hardly think so. Perhaps Melville knew.
Towards thee I roll, thou all-destroying but unconquering whale; to the last I grapple with thee; from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee. Sink all coffins and all hearses to one common pool! and since neither can be mine, let me then tow to pieces, while still chasing thee, though tied to thee, thou damned whale!
Moby Dick
Posted on June 11th, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: politics, religion, war
Entries RSS
This might interest you. I’ve posted excerpts from a Guantanamo detainee’s suicide letter on my blog here. He’s not one of the three (as far as I know), but it could still give insight into the motives behind the suicides.
elendil,
Just so it is on the up and up, I want to state that I changed the link you posted. The original did not resolve; I believe the one I put in is the one you intended.
I think the letter you cite makes my case that medical explanations are of no use here. The author of that letter is using his death to make a political point. In effect, he tries to smear his captors with his blood. He fought to the end, using his death to strike at his enemy.
Ah, sorry, I changed the title of the post after posting. Yes, that’s the right one.
Motivations are complex things. For myself, If I was ever detained without charge, kept away from my child, tortured, humiliated, and stripped of any recourse, I would hope that some piece of my spirit would remain. I would I was strong enough so that my final act would strike at those who did this to me, and seek justice for those I left behind. I think that was what he was doing, and he did it very poetically.
Reading the letter, it is my opinion that he was gentle with us. He could have been much more pointed about our responsibility as citizens of democratic nations. He could have been much more harsh about our moral and civic responsibility to keep our govts in check. I don’t think I would have been as compassionate as he was.
I don’t think he was being gentle with us; he moderated his words to make them more effective for the press.
If I read you correctly, you accept his words at face value. I suspect his story was crafted in advance to elicit sympathy for his cause. The jihadi have no chance of victory by arms, so they fight a war of propaganda. One of their tactics is to manipulate a very willing press. I think this is some of their better work. At least no school buses or hotels were destroyed.
It warrants mention that the Bhuddist monk pictured is waging an act of peace, not war. Unless you are talking about the power of the press, he does not belong in this discussion of suicide as the act of a warrior.
The point of the discussion is that the medical is by no means the only lens through which to see suicide.
Read carefully and you will find that I assert only that the monk’s action was political. I cite the jihadi as examples of religiously motivated suicide. Neither can be subsumed under the medical.
I chose Thich Quang Duc for a reason. His act was clearly an uncoerced choice. I cannot admire it, but I damn well respect it. If a medical explanation is required for a jihadi’s suicide, then the same kind of explanation must be required for the monk’s. The latter is clearly not the case; reductio ad absurdum.
That’s true. It could all be motivated by that. However I’d be wary of making a circumstantial ad hominem as a response to it. Even if someone’s motive for telling a truth is political, it doesn’t stop it from being a truth. The truth I take from this is that the conditions are horrific, and that we need to pay attention to what’s happening in Guantanamo and particularly in the rendition programme. Based not solely on the suicides, but my own research as well. The suicides are another confirmation of that.