Documents Show Army Seized Wives as Tactic

[PatrickHenry]

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1551346
Jan 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."

[Jack]

My first reaction is fairly conservative. Despite the politics of why we're there or should we get out, these men and women are there, under fire every day in many cases. Their motivation for putting an end to it is strong.

In America, we make fugitives think they've won a widescreen TV then arrest them when they arrive to claim it. We use their greed against them.

In a war zone, the rules are a little different, but the same outcome is desired. Perhaps if we knew more about their husbands we'd understand the military's actions better.

You can't deal with thugs as if they were gentlemen. They'll use your respect as a weapon against you.

[PatrickHenry]

It's hostage-taking by uniformed armed forces, Isherwood.

Effective but illegal. Geneva Fourth Convention Part I, Article 3, Section 1, b http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; (b) taking of hostages; (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Surprised you condone it...

But maybe you are weary of the conflict and reason that all of the Convention's provisions have been violated already by the US forces in Iraq. Since they are already war criminals why not compound the crime in the search for an effective means of defeating the resistance to the occupation, huh?

[Jack]

I'm not sure I condone it as much as understand that actions like this are illegal and yet those laws are not being observed by our enemy, either. We can debate the concept of taking hostage (not torturing, not abusing but holding in custody) terrorist's family members until we turn blue, but the soldier on the ground is really concerned with keeping his/her ass in one piece for another day. As long as those hostages are treated well and released as soon as the wanted party surrenders or it becomes obvious he never will, I can't morally object to this. However, it is a very risky act, and they'd better be damn sure they are after the right people. The military's actions will be under tight scrutiny, now that it's on the Internet.
Just don't let it become another Guantanamo Bay. We don't need another black eye.

[underbear1]

Is there nothing Rumsfeld's idiots won't try?
JESUS, no wonder we are scorned by so many ex allies!

[SteveA]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm not sure I condone it as much as understand that actions like this are illegal and yet those laws are not being observed by our enemy, either.

Let's say we were tracking down a mass murderer in the U.S. and the guy didn't play fair either, would that then entitle us to run roughshod over other people?

Quote by: Isherwood However, it is a very risky act, and they'd better be damn sure they are after the right people.

I guess if we're certain the person truly is an enemy combatant that's aggressed against us, and not a situation of us having initiated in and he's not "playing fair", then there's some justification for it but consider that this was also the type of stuff we accused Saddam of.

[RickSp]

Hostage taking is hostage taking. Claiming that taking Western hostages is barbaric but taking Iraqi hostages may be justified is hypocrisy.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp Hostage taking is hostage taking. Claiming that taking Western hostages is barbaric but taking Iraqi hostages may be justified is hypocrisy.

Assuming this report has any validity, can you see no difference between holding the wife on a enemy to gain access to his informmation, and taking a reporter, displaying her on worldwide news, threatening to kill her unless your demands are met?

Do you believe that if the military does not get the info they want, they will behead these women?

We know what the terrorists have done. They make it a point of broadcasting worldwide.

[Samildanach]

Do you believe that if the military does not get the info they want, they will behead these women?

Which is probably why it has only happened twice. It was a bluff, it probably failed both times. No point in trying it again.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Do you believe that if the military does not get the info they want, they will behead these women? We know what the terrorists have done. They make it a point of broadcasting worldwide.

That is true. The US tends to cover up or minimize civilian casualities. Air attacks that kill women and children or just shooting civilians at checkpoints, tends to go unreported. The deaths of those beaten to death in US custody are often covered up.

'You've Just Killed a Family Because You Didn't Fire a Warning Shot Soon Enough'

[grandpa]

Quote by: RickSp That is true. The US tends to cover up or minimize civilian casualities.

Yep, and that's necessary in order to bring freedom to the Middle East, apparently.
Our own killings of civilians must be minimized because "every war has its innocent victims."

It's always amused me how people say that as if it's a pro-war argument.

Grandpa h.

[Logjam]

Again, brain dead liberals posting who know nothing of what they are talking about.

The question is not whether or not the military guys arrested terrorists' wives/families. Rather the question is did the plan work?

We didn't behead these families you know. We probably saved their lives by getting them outside of harms way. They are safe in capitivity; unless hit by a terrorists rocket.

[Logjam]

Quote by: grandpa Yep, and that's necessary in order to bring freedom to the Middle East, apparently. Our own killings of civilians must be minimized because "every war has its innocent victims." It's always amused me how people say that as if it's a pro-war argument. Grandpa h.

The military reports findings as they are. The left likes spewing BS about masses of innocents civilian deaths. We lose troops trying to avoid such things.

Certainly innocents are killed. That's the nature of war. We do a good job, however of minimizing civilians deaths.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Logjam Again, brain dead liberals posting who know nothing of what they are talking about. The question is not whether or not the military guys arrested terrorists' wives/families. Rather the question is did the plan work? We didn't behead these families you know. We probably saved their lives by getting them outside of harms way. They are safe in capitivity; unless hit by a terrorists rocket.

The ends justify the means, huh? So what do you support? Kinapping? Torture? Wars of aggression based on phony and exggerated information waged by hypocrites?

Grandpa h.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp That is true. The US tends to cover up or minimize civilian casualities. Air attacks that kill women and children or just shooting civilians at checkpoints, tends to go unreported. The deaths of those beaten to death in US custody are often covered up. 'You've Just Killed a Family Because You Didn't Fire a Warning Shot Soon Enough'

If you had ever been in the modern military you would know that what you say is just plain wrong. No CO is ordering his men to cover up civilian losses. We don't work that way.

What our men are ordered to do is to accomplish the mission (destroying the enemy) and avoiding innocent civilian casualities were ever possible.

[Logjam]

Quote by: RickSp Hostage taking is hostage taking. Claiming that taking Western hostages is barbaric but taking Iraqi hostages may be justified is hypocrisy.

If we start beheading hostages on TV then I'll take notice. All of the people that we have in custody can plan on a long and prosperous life. First, I suppose they'll have to lose some weight that they packed on while being held.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Logjam That's the nature of war. We do a good job, however of minimizing civilians deaths.

Somehow we minimized deaths by entering Iraq and attacking major cities and exposing Iraqis to an insurgency. Just like we railed against Saddam Hussein by selling him weapons and supporting the devastating Iran/Iraq War.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Logjam If we start beheading hostages on TV then I'll take notice. All of the people that we have in custody can plan on a long and prosperous life.

Kidnapping people in the middle of a guerrila war ensures no such thing.

Grandpa h.