Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Jill Carrol's abduction
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
Istoodforu
The rationale for not negotiating with terrorists is that it offers an incentive for more terrorism---it opens a "floodgate". The same rationale applies also for avoiding the use of terrorist tactics. Revenge is a powerful incentive.

If American troops are using this tactic, its probably being used in spades by predominately Shiite security forces.

How can we win the war on terror by actually being terrorists?

QUOTE(Snuffysmith @ Jan 27 2006, 02:08 PM)
Back to Story - Help
Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
15 minutes ago

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of "aiding terrorists or planting explosives," but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects' houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer's signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman's detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, "What are you guys doing to try to get the husband — have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?"

Two days later, the brigade's deputy commander advised the higher command, "As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband."

He went on, "These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation."

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, "CG wants the husband."

The released e-mails stop there, and the women's eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."

___

On the Net:

First document: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/t2614_2616.pdf

E-mail exchange: http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD044843.pdf
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
*
grammydidi
Doesn't surprise me a bit. B/C/R, Inc. don't have to heed the Geneva Conventions.

Gonzales and Yoo told him so.
Indianhead
I read that news story this a.m. and shook my head.
It sounds like we've assumed the tactics of the old
Soviet Union, doesn't it? When you don't have enough
troops to finish a job, you turn to such B.S., it's sad.
We're really "winning hearts and minds" again, aren't we?
tomhye
Illegal, immoral, but not terrorism (but still a war crime).

It can't be reprisal because it wouldn't be in response to another unrelated innocent being held hostage and threatened with death. As far as it being radicalism, the Iraqi people say her being held hostage is unacceptable, they consider the perpetrators terrorists.

You have a good point about the tactic being a loser, but the other points are WAY off base.
Istoodforu
On Sept. 25,1996 Joseph Kennedy held a press conference revealing training manuals used in the School of Americas at Fort Benning, Ga. and also distributed in Latin American countries by the US Southern Command. One manual titled, Handling of Sources suggested this tactic be used by intelligence officers to get employees to join rebel organizations: "cause the arrest of the employee's parents, imprison the employee, or give him a beating."

This has been going on for quite some time. This is being done with our tax dollars and in our name. It's got to be part of the reason why Americans have become prime targets of terrorism.
It should come as no surprise that American troops are using these tactics against the insurgents in Iraq. Is it part of the training being given to predominantly Shiite Iraqi security forces?
tomhye
Local security forces don't need that training, it's traditional there.

It's stuff we shouldn't do, but if it was in ANY way the cause well over 80% of the countries in the world would be more important targets and would have been chosen before us. Terrorists use excuses to recruit, but the plain fact is they're sociopaths who'd find an excuse to attack no matter what.
Istoodforu
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jan 28 2006, 02:16 PM)
Illegal, immoral, but not terrorism (but still a war crime).

It can't be reprisal because it wouldn't be in response to another unrelated innocent being held hostage and threatened with death. As far as it being radicalism, the Iraqi people say her being held hostage is unacceptable, they consider the perpetrators terrorists.

You have a good point about the tactic being a loser, but the other points are WAY off base.
*


Tomhye,

I'm not sure I understand your points. Would you not feel terror if occupying troops forced their way into your home, abducted someone in your family, and left a note for you to surrender yourself to obtain her release?

ISFU
tomhye
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jan 28 2006, 02:21 PM)
Tomhye,

I'm not sure I understand your points. Would you not feel terror if occupying troops forced their way into your home, abducted someone in your family, and left a note for you to surrender yourself to obtain her release? 

ISFU
*


Sure, I also feel terror when some idiot wanders past the center line, but it isn't terrorism.
Istoodforu
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jan 28 2006, 03:28 PM)
Sure, I also feel terror when some idiot wanders past the center line, but it isn't terrorism.
*


I would agree, because the idiot might be falling asleep at the wheel or trying to send a text message on the cell phone----rather than deliberately threatening or taking life in order to get you to comply with a political agenda!!

There is such a thing as state sponsored terrorism. A particularly graphic example is the Roman crucifixion. Training foreign troops to torture and disappear non-combatants in their own country is a modern variation of this technique.
Indianhead
Soldiers have a responsibility that transends
governmental command...we carry it on our souls.

Sometimes draftees bring a better cause to service.
At least that's my belief...my experience...my justification.
Salute_Liberty
Hey, we've been exposed as HOSTAGE TAKERS, too? Geez, Scary and horrible! The Bush leadership teaches our young men and women bad habits...

It's bad enough that our Fundamentalist Religious nuts have little respect for females' sex and reproductive organs, and womens' ability to choose, but to train our men to hold Iraqi women as hostages, too? God forbid!
Indianhead
Ya know I can deal with killin' women who take up arms
against me...I respect soldiers...and if they are soldiers
well...I respect that and fight that...but takin' women to
prison who are simply wives of suspected fighters?
That I can't accept. It's not honorable.
DWB04
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Jan 28 2006, 10:26 PM)
Ya know I can deal with killin' women who take up arms
against me...I respect soldiers...and if they are soldiers
well...I respect that and fight that...but takin' women to
prison who are simply wives of suspected fighters?
That I can't accept. It's not honorable.
*

I've started to say something here a couple times
I just don't know what to say...it's distressing.
I know you are right about this sort of thing
happening when there is a lack of adequate
troop strength......and I can imagine a lot of
these kids are frustrated and overextended
It's just very hard to explain this behavior.
Salute_Liberty
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Jan 29 2006, 12:26 AM)
It's not honorable.

Not only not honorable. It's disgustingly and shafully cheap tactics!
Indianhead
At this point...I'm ready to go get Jill.
Whatever it takes...whomever it hurts.
If they need me I'll go. Our righteous
women demand our response...do it.
God damn Army...do it!
Do them...and if ya can't, get back up...call for support...
burn the MF down...the whole f*ckin' country...do it!
Salute_Liberty
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Jan 29 2006, 01:05 AM)
At this point...I'm ready to go get Jill.
Whatever it takes...whomever it hurts.
If they need me I'll go. Our righteous
women demand our response...do it.
God damn Army...do it!
Do them...and if ya can't, get back up...call for support...
burn the MF down...the whole f*ckin' country...do it!


Be careful what you ask for, in the name of vengeance. Let's pray that it will never become a trend to be imitated by the enemies, too. confused.gif
Indianhead
QUOTE(Salute_Liberty @ Jan 29 2006, 12:18 AM)
Be careful what you ask for, in the name of vengeance. Let's pray that it will never become a trend to be imitated by the enemies, too. confused.gif
*


I respect their vengence...they should respect mine.
There should be hell to pay...Free Jill, whatever the cost...
she is one of us. She is mine...I will not let her go.
We can debate the rest...but for now...burn 'em down...
I want them to understand...as they want me to.
I want their women free...and I want mine. Mine.
Their's are alive...Jill had better be too.
Istoodforu
QUOTE(DWB04 @ Jan 28 2006, 11:39 PM)
I've started to say something here a couple times
I just don't know what to say...it's distressing.
I know you are right about this sort of thing
happening when there is a lack of adequate
troop strength......and I can imagine a lot of
these kids are frustrated and overextended
It's just very hard to explain this behavior.
*


Being frustrated and overextended has got to be part of it. Troops are isolated in a place where they don't speak the language. They are separated from their families in a place strewn with garbage and rubble. They may be shot at from any direction but rules of engagement disallow firing unless fired upon. They fight to secure an area only to come back several weeks later and secure it again. They see death and injury on a regular basis.
And nobody seems to know what purpose this serves. The only purpose that makes sense is surviving until the end of the tour.

Many of the supports that sustain honorable behavior have eroded away.
Salute_Liberty
All the more reason we should bring our troops home soon... Let us not allow our soldiers to stretch into more insane behavioral problems that might be later practised at home! The Bushies' Imperialistic management sucks... they have given Iraq back to the fundamentalists. Who knows, Jill may be in the Fundamentalist Islamists' hands. The Sunnis claimed that they were unaware or familiar with the group that's holding her hostage.
DWB04
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jan 28 2006, 11:53 PM)
Being frustrated and overextended has got to be part of it.  Troops are isolated in a place where they don't speak the language.  They are separated from their families in a place strewn with garbage and rubble.  They may be shot at from any direction but rules of engagement disallow firing unless fired upon.  They fight to secure an area only to come back several weeks later and secure it again.  They see death and injury on a regular basis.
And nobody seems to know what purpose this serves.  The only purpose that makes sense is surviving until the end of the tour. 

Many of the supports that sustain honorable behavior have eroded away.
*

All very true...I think it's way past time for them to come home. It can only get worse.
lazyboy
Bush was well warned that going into Iraq would be to open up a can of worms. He knew better than all the generals, all the academics, even (if we are to believe the propaganda) the Pope.

War is HORRID. Who started it? Who wanted the oil? Who benefits? mad.gif

What is America doing in an Arab country?

Oh, I forgot, some ghost hijackers who were not on the passenger lists happened to manage to bring down America with a set of boxcutters - how foolish of me. None of them were Iraqi. doh.gif
tomhye
QUOTE(Indianhead @ Jan 28 2006, 10:26 PM)
Ya know I can deal with killin' women who take up arms
against me...I respect soldiers...and if they are soldiers
well...I respect that and fight that...but takin' women to
prison who are simply wives of suspected fighters?
That I can't accept. It's not honorable.
*



I agree, I was just arguing against it being called terrorism, it's a war crime that's closer to extortion.
tomhye
QUOTE(Salute_Liberty @ Jan 28 2006, 11:18 PM)
Be careful what you ask for, in the name of vengeance. Let's pray that it will never become a trend to be imitated by the enemies, too. confused.gif
*


Most Iraqis are upset enough about it that they'd understand almost anything done in response, a surprising number would even back us this one time. Personally I think the kidnappers may well be trying to figure out how to release her without being seen, the whole country hates them.
Pegatha
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jan 29 2006, 12:11 PM)
I agree, I was just arguing against it being called terrorism, it's a war crime that's closer to extortion.
*


No, it's actually closer to kidnapping. In fact, it is kidnapping.
tomhye
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Jan 29 2006, 11:19 AM)
No, it's actually closer to kidnapping.  In fact, it is kidnapping.
*


Actually it would be false imprisonment but it's extortion because it's using illegal force or the threat of illegal force (one way to qualify as extortion), in a very real sense it must be viewed as extortion mainly because the intended victim of the crime is being extorted by the false imprisonment of their spouse. There's a qualitative difference between false imprisonment and kidnapping.
Pegatha
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jan 29 2006, 12:37 PM)
Actually it would be false imprisonment but it's extortion because it's using illegal force or the threat of illegal force (one way to qualify as extortion), in a very real sense it must be viewed as extortion mainly because the intended victim of the crime is being extorted by the false imprisonment of their spouse. There's a qualitative difference between false imprisonment and kidnapping.
*


Yeah, false imprisonment is worse, because it's a worse mis-use of power.

We disagree on this one.
DWB04
QUOTE(Pegatha @ Jan 29 2006, 11:44 AM)
Yeah, false imprisonment is worse, because it's a worse mis-use of power.

We disagree on this one.
*

if they knowingly take someone for the purpose of extorting someone that is kidnapping and false imprisonment. I think you are both right.
Istoodforu
QUOTE(tomhye @ Jan 29 2006, 12:11 PM)
I agree, I was just arguing against it being called terrorism, it's a war crime that's closer to extortion.
*


I agree that not all extortion is terrorism. I see the distinction as having to do with the goal. Extortion would not be terrorism if the goal were just a cash ransom, a payoff to remain silent, or a payoff for "protection". I see extortion as also terrorism when terror is used to get compliance with a political agenda. Tomhye, maybe you see the distinction differently; if so, explain.

Is abducting Jill Carrol and demanding the release of Iraqi women held in prison extortion, terrorism or both?

Is abducting the wife of a suspected insurgent and demanding the husband's surrender extortion, terrorism, or both?
DWB04
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jan 29 2006, 12:54 PM)
I agree that not all extortion is terrorism.  I see the distinction as having to do with the goal.  Extortion would not be terrorism if the goal were just a cash ransom, a payoff to remain silent, or a payoff for "protection".  I see extortion as also terrorism when terror is used to get compliance with a political agenda.  Tomhye, maybe you see the distinction differently; if so, explain.

Is abducting Jill Carrol and demanding the release of Iraqi women held in prison extortion, terrorism or both?

Is abducting the wife of a suspected insurgent and demanding the husband's surrender extortion, terrorism, or both?
*

Great definition ISFU.......we can easily see that both cases would be evidence of extortion. What is harder for us to readily admit is that both are utilizing a "terroristic" tactic. We believe that our cause is more just than theirs because they are the "enemy," but when looked at with a clinical eye there is a case to be made for both acts being both extortionistic and terroristic. And similar to the home invasions of innocent people in the middle of the night that we heard of..

Additionally, as supplied by some of the articles posted here, we've read that these abductions were not focused on known "insurgents" but ordinary citizens in some sort of roundup.


If we look at the definition of terrorism some of the sensationalism can be stripped away....it is a means of coercion....now one could argue that there are degrees of coercion that are more terrible than others, but terrorism is simply and broadly defined as the inducement of fear.
Istoodforu
QUOTE(DWB04 @ Jan 29 2006, 02:20 PM)
Great definition ISFU.......we can easily see that both cases would be evidence of extortion. What is harder for us to readily admit is that both are utilizing a "terroristic" tactic. We believe that our cause is more just than theirs because they are the "enemy," but when looked at with a clinical eye there is a case to be made for both acts being both extortionistic and terroristic. And similar to the home invasions of innocent people in the middle of the night that we heard of..

Additionally, as supplied by some of the articles posted here, we've read that these abductions were not focused on known "insurgents" but ordinary citizens in some sort of roundup.
If we look at the definition of terrorism some of the sensationalism can be stripped away....it is a means of coercion....now one could argue that there are degrees of coercion that are more terrible than others, but terrorism is simply and broadly defined as the inducement of fear.
*


I'm not sure my definition is all that great. Most of us recognize that there are legitimate uses of lethal force in certain circumstances, although pacifists argue that lethal force is never legitimate.

If terrorism is simply and broadly defined as the inducement of fear, then I'm a terrorist if I threaten a burglar with a firearm or I tell my students that my exam will be difficult to pass if they do not study hard. All extortion would be terrorism by this definition.

I sometimes wonder if "terrorism" is a construct constructed mostly of sensationalism to vilify an adversary in a political struggle. When we try to sort out what is or is not terrorism, the innocence of the victims, the amount of loss and destruction, nor the intensity of the fear seem to make much difference. If we do it it's legitimate, if they do it, it's terrorism.
DWB04
QUOTE(Istoodforu @ Jan 29 2006, 02:58 PM)
I'm not sure my definition is all that great.  Most of us recognize that there are legitimate uses of lethal force in certain circumstances, although pacifists argue that lethal force is never legitimate.

If terrorism is simply and broadly defined as the inducement of fear, then I'm a terrorist if I threaten a burglar with a firearm or I tell my students that my exam will be difficult to pass if they do not study hard.  All extortion would be terrorism by this definition.

I sometimes wonder if "terrorism" is a construct constructed mostly of sensationalism to vilify an adversary in a political struggle.  When we try to sort out what is or is not terrorism, the innocence of the victims, the amount of loss and destruction, nor the intensity of the fear seem to make much difference.  If we do it it's legitimate, if they do it, it's terrorism.
*

Par 1...trust me you made a good point! biggrin.gif

Par 2 while terrorism can be broadly defined as the inducment of fear, it can always be more narrowly defined in terms of intensity.....so, you may be off the hook with your students! laugh.gif

Par 3 Exactly....the other as "enemy" is described as more hostile than we. (that's not to excuse particular acts of terrorism btw)
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2008 Invision Power Services, Inc.