ShareThis Page

Gitmo's 'Jihad theater'

| Sunday, July 14, 2013, 9:00 p.m.

Guantanamo Bay detainees don't want to eat. Muslim rapper Yasiin “Mos Def” Bey is so worked up about their appetite plight that he videotaped himself being force-fed to build support for closing Gitmo. Cry me a river.

This latest round of hunger strikes isn't an international human rights tragedy. It's another manipulative act of Jihad Theater.

Calculated Gitmo fabulism goes back to 2005, when Newsweek fell for false rumors that U.S. soldiers “flushed” the Quran down a toilet at the military detention facility in Cuba. Gullible media reports of “desecration” provided a handy pretext for anti-American riots across the Muslim world that resulted in nearly a dozen deaths. Detainees later 'fessed up that the conflagration stemmed from one of their own dropping the Quran in prison and blaming a guard.

Meanwhile, it was Gitmo residents themselves who were purposefully tearing up Qurans. One guard reported in May 2003: “Detainee residing in cell (redacted) block tore his Quran into small pieces.” Another prisoner “did intentionally destroy his Quran and throw (it) out of his cell,” according to a separate government report.

A central jihad tenet encourages Islamists to use deceit and victim politics to wage war. The Gitmo stuntmen coordinated suicide threats to drum up global outrage over America's decision to hold and try them in our military system instead of in our civilian court system. Detainees considered suicides at the facility acts of martyrdom and “a continuance of their jihad against the U.S.,” according to leaked documents. Military commanders discovered that detainees were abusing confidential attorney-client privileges by hiding notes and plots in special envelopes protected from the guards' reach.

Sound familiar? The same kind of subversive techniques were used by convicted jihad legal helper Lynne Stewart, who smuggled coded messages of Islamic violence on behalf of her client — jailed terrorist Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

Also forgotten in all the knee-jerk hoopla over the Gitmo food fight: just how much American officials have bent over backward to accommodate militant detainees' demands. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy explains: “The hunger strike is on because the jihadists figure Obama is ripe for the taking.” Faraway drones are A-OK, “but he is petrified by the prospect of performance-art jihad: the languishing martyrdom of self-starving death cultists ... .”

Don't be distracted by Cirque du Jihad. Remember: The Close Gitmo mob, led by the left-wing Center for Constitutional Rights, lobbied for the release of Libyan Gitmo detainee Abu Sufian bin Qumu — now a fugitive terrorist suspected of plotting the bloody Benghazi attack.

And remember: Obama's terror-coddling lawyers have dragged their feet on prosecuting suspected USS Cole bombing suspect and former Persian Gulf operations chief for al-Qaida Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Gitmo detainee since 2006.

As Fort Hood jihadist Nidal Hasan warned his military superiors: The soldiers of Allah “love death more (than) you love life.”

Enemy combatants at Gitmo are playing bleeding-heart Westerners for fools. Their eternal goal is the destruction and subjugation of infidels. Why do we continue to enable them? Let them starve.

Michelle Malkin is the author of “Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies” (Regnery 2009).

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.