chomerics Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 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." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_leveraging_wives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 It's a tough call without specifics. Are they supporting the people killing our soldiers,or simply along for the ride? How far is too far to stop the killing of our people and innocent Iraqi's? Would you support the holding and questioning of the wife a bomber here? I would. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/world/3618772.html American officials declined to discuss specific cases, including whether the women were held solely because U.S. forces suspected that male relatives were terrorists. But Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Baghdad, said Friday that the military held only people who were considered threats. "We recognize insurgents don't work alone. They work in groups. Questioning certainly focuses on who they are associated with," Johnson said. "If we believe they have information or an association with terrorist activity, we would make a determination about exactly what that role may be." The woman said that she was visiting a relative in southwest Baghdad four months ago when multinational forces raided the home. Her relative's husband was killed, she said, and she and her husband were detained. She said she was held with eight other women in a small room at Baghdad International Airport. "We were talking about the charges against each of us," she said. "It turned out to be all the same. We were taken because they suspected our husbands or fathers of being terrorists." She said she was cut off from her family during her capture and that she didn't see or hear from her husband until he, too, was released Thursday. She said that during the first 12 days of her imprisonment, interrogators questioned her extensively but also offered her tea and juice. "I was treated in a good way, no torture," she said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 It's a tough call without specifics.Are they supporting the people killing our soldiers,or simply along for the ride? How far is too far to stop the killing of our people and innocent Iraqi's? how can you say you are promoting democracy when you don't hold yourself to your own ideals? Do you think Iraqi's cant see right through this glaring hypocrisy? Would you support the holding and questioning of the wife a bomber here? I would. questioning yes, holding, absolutely not. This is America, and we can not hold someone simply because we want to. Freedom isn't cheap, and it is hard to do, but it is what makes us so great. When we illegally detain, we are no longer any better then to other dictators in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 I heard about stuff like this and I assumed it was propaganda from anti-war groups. Maybe it isn't. Holding and questioning isn't the same as holding hostage. From the looks of this the military might have kidnapped and held civillians hostage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 boo frickety hoo. Stop being such pansies. This is a war, not tiddlywinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Terrorists and thier families deserve whatever happens to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Terrorists and thier families deserve whatever happens to them. Terrorists do, but *suspected* insurgents are not necessarily terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 how can you say you are promoting democracy when you don't hold yourself to your own ideals? Do you think Iraqi's cant see right through this glaring hypocrisy? questioning yes, holding, absolutely not. This is America, and we can not hold someone simply because we want to. Freedom isn't cheap, and it is hard to do, but it is what makes us so great. When we illegally detain, we are no longer any better then to other dictators in the world. Like I said, without the specifics of how long they were held and any evidence they were also part of the insurgency I go with my boys We can hold anyone here for 48 hrs,simply strecthing the time a little does not distress me greatly in a situation like iraq . Last I checked OUR laws and situation do not compare to Iraq :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 True, but if they were innocent, they wouldnt have a problem coming in to answer a few questions. We wouldnt need to "leverage" them. Suspected just means we havent found them guilty in a court of law. But this isnt a court of law issue, this is a war issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Terrorists do, but *suspected* insurgents are not necessarily terrorists. "Insurgents"? Didn't you really mean to say "Freedom Fighters". Weren't some of the 9/11 bombers "suspects" before 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 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." Holy Feces. Every time I think the "conservatives" have "gone about as far as they can go" (musical reference, there) in their willingness to pretend to be in favor of any attrocity, rather than admit that a Republican might be wrong, just once, out comes a new attrocity, and a new round of "well, there's a chance it might be justified", "Gee, this item can't be judged without specifics. (Quick! Find out who's leaking the specifics!)", and "I'm absolutely certain, with no evidence whatsoever, that these action were absolutely necessary for the defense of liberty (not that anybody actually has any liberty, unless I say they do)." 1) I'm a bit surprised that folks are surprised about this. I've been seeing hints of it for months. Articles that mention that "the accused insurgent turned himself in after his wife/child was arrested". 2) And I'm frankly just flat-out stunned at some of the reasons being given to defend this practice. True, but if they were innocent, they wouldnt have a problem coming in to answer a few questions. We wouldnt need to "leverage" them. Suspected just means we havent found them guilty in a court of law. Terrorists and thier families [my emphasis] deserve whatever happens to them. boo frickety hoo. Stop being such pansies. (I was going to include "Holding and questioning isn't the same as holding hostage.", but on second reading, that wasn't justification, that was condemnation.) I think my country (or at least, the country I thought I lived in) is doomed. My Party Uber Alles has grown to the point where people aren't even ashamed of their contempt for the things that I was taught were the very things that made us The Good Guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 boo frickety hoo. Stop being such pansies. This is a war, not tiddlywinks. It wasn't war until people just as shortsighted, while not as callous and hateful as you are, decided to make it war. And honestly, the Iraqis consider it war, too. The Iraqi insurgents routinely take hostages. If we do too, then what makes us better than them? I'm not saying that we're no better than they are, because that's obviously not true, but you and anyone that agrees with this vile tactic certainly aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nelms Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 It wasn't war until people just as shortsighted, while not as callous and hateful as you are, decided to make it war.And honestly, the Iraqis consider it war, too. The Iraqi insurgents routinely take hostages. If we do too, then what makes us better than them? I'm not saying that we're no better than they are, because that's obviously not true, but you and anyone that agrees with this vile tactic certainly aren't. Callous and hateful? You left off evil. No matter how we got into this war, it is a war and should be conducted in a way that punishes the people that attack us. We're not the ones sawing off heads, junior. Shouldn't you be studying for exams or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Callous and hateful? You left off evil. It's kind-of like the Presidential Authority to Ignore the Constitution. It's an implied power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 "I think my country (or at least, the country I thought I lived in) is doomed. My Party Uber Alles has grown to the point where people aren't even ashamed of their contempt for the things that I was taught were the very things that made us The Good Guys." Larry ,perhaps good and evil are relative to the circumstances? Would you care to contrast Sadam's methods to ours? Ours: "I was treated in a good way, no torture," Sadams: Rape,killing your whole family(or villages),torture(not the nice kind) So,while we may not be pure good guys we ARE the best option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Callous and hateful? You left off evil. No matter how we got into this war, it is a war and should be conducted in a way that punishes the people that attack us. We're not the ones sawing off heads, junior. Shouldn't you be studying for exams or something. I wouldn't go so far as to call you evil. I'm pretty sure there's a shred of humanity in there somewhere. You know, I just love when you try to demean my posts because of my age, or because of the fact that I'm a college student. You might think it makes you seem strong, and knowledgeble, but it just exposes you for the bumbling, weak, petty fool that you are. You should believe in American moral highground, but not unconditionally. That's an affront to all of those that fought for it in the past. I'm all for punishment; just not at the expense of dignity and morality. When we forgo those virtues, we cut our legs out from under us. We become no better than they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 So,while we may not be pure good guys we ARE the best option. I don't think anyone's debating that. I just think that it's a line we don't want to be straddling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 "So,while we may not be pure good guys we ARE the best option. OK, so we're not Palpatine, we're just Vader? Look! We're better! We farm out our torture. And the woman we kidnapped because we wanted her husband to trade himself for her? We didn't torture her! ----- Yes, I understand your point. But I used to live in a country where stuff like that wasn't tolerated. Now I live in one where "we didn't use a wood chipper" is supposed to be praise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 But I used to live in a country where stuff like that wasn't tolerated. When did you move here?....j/k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 OK, so we're not Palpatine, we're just Vader? Look! We're better! We farm out our torture. And the woman we kidnapped because we wanted her husband to trade himself for her? We didn't torture her! ----- Yes, I understand your point. But I used to live in a country where stuff like that wasn't tolerated. Now I live in one where "we didn't use a wood chipper" is supposed to be praise. You also lived in a country that had it's head stuck in the sand with regard to national security. That attitude lead us to where we are today Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Terrorists and thier families deserve whatever happens to them. I stand by my statement. This is a war whether you want to admit it or not, and needs to be conducted as such. Our troops over there are in mortal danger. Our forces need to do what it takes to win and sometimes that means getting your hands dirty. Im ok with that am I'm glad we have people playing to win instead of a bunch of whiny crybabies who cringe at the thought of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Im ok with that am I'm glad we have people playing to win instead of a bunch of whiny crybabies who cringe at the thought of violence. So are the terrorists that "deserve whatever happens to them." Do we deserve whatever happens to us, then? Essentially, what I'm saying is, what makes us the good guys in this scenario if it's not our use of the moral highground? Is it blind patriotism? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 So are the terrorists that "deserve whatever happens to them." Do we deserve whatever happens to us, then? The bad guys think so. I'd rather be whacking them first before they get chance to come back here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 "Insurgents"? Didn't you really mean to say "Freedom Fighters".Weren't some of the 9/11 bombers "suspects" before 9/11? I said what I meant Terrorists do, but *suspected* insurgents are not necessarily terrorists. The key word is suspected, so feel free to replace insurgents with "freedom fighters" as you wish it doesn't change the fact that they are suspects. As far as the 9/11 murderers being suspects, I don't know because I wasn't tasked with looking after national security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chopper Dave Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 The bad guys think so. I'd rather be whacking them first before they get chance to come back here Yeah, but if you go about it in the same way they do, the only difference between us is in nationality. How are they the bad guys in that scenario? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.