What kind of tactics are we using??

Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent 58 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."

Here's the link to the rest of the article, if you're so inclined.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060127/ap_ ... ging_wives

[rainbabies]

[PrincessFiona]

....but.....it's ok....because WE are NOT the bad guys. Torture of prisoners that were mostly innocent and these kinds of tactics are perfectly ok for US to engage in....

And if you disagree with me, I have a secret prison in Siberia that I might just send ya :> and that doesn't violate international law...because it's me doing it...not you.

[PrincessFiona]

OK...my sarcasm aside, I'm really curious as to how the 'other side' sees this. I notice this has been ignored by some of the more vocal supporters of our military policies. Can this practice be defended in any way in light of the fact that the wives/nursing babies are also spouses of suspected insurgents....and we know that many of the suspects are innocent?

kris

[Meenah]

I can only say I cannot wait until this administration is over. If GW were to collapse in front of me I would have to think really hard about choosing between CPR and letting nature takes it's course.
Luanne


Luanne

[fluffhead]

If GW were to collapse in front of me I would have to think really hard about choosing between CPR and letting nature takes it's course.

Think long and hard about:
President Dick Cheney
:nono:

[Rapunzel]

Well, I'm confused - were the women detained because they were hiding the where-abouts of known terrorists or criminals (their husbands)? If that was the case then I fully understand the "detentions". Heck, if my husband were suspected of blowing up things in the U.S. or shooting at people/killing people and the authorities thought I knew where he was and was refusing to cooperate then I know I'd be "detained". Most certainly. And, if the authorities thought I was interfering with an investigation and/or aiding a criminal then I'd be jailed regardless of the fact that I'm currently nursing a baby.

I think in this case I need a whole heck of a lot more information on what happened before I make any blanket statements or jump to any conclusions. If an innocent person is arrested then that person needs to be released immediately but if this is a case of covering up a crime, hiding a criminal, or being an accomplice in a crime then I fully understand these situations. Like I said, I need more information. It appears from the article that this has happened only a handful of times. And, I'm curious to know more of the details of those incidents if they are available. Any other links?

[PrincessFiona]

If GW were to collapse in front of me I would have to think really hard about choosing between CPR and letting nature takes it's course.

Think long and hard about:
President Dick Cheney
:nono:

::

[PrincessFiona]

A woman's husband is 'suspected' of having ties to insurgent activities but he is no longer at home. The wife has no idea where he is and is busy trying to tend to a nursing baby.....and is 'captured' by US forces in order to get the man to come in and give himself in. Can you imagine if this kind fo thing took place over here?

Just because a young US officer THINKS you know where your boyfriend or husband is doesn't mean that you DO.

Good grief...when my husband leaves for a conference, half the time, I don't even remember which hotel he is staying at


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00921.html

Documents Show Army Seized Wives as Tactic

By CHARLES J. HANLEY
The Associated Press
Saturday, January 28, 2006; 2:50 AM

-- 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.


article is continued at website....

[Meenah]

Fluffhead you are so right, I might perform the best CPR ever in my critical care career.
Luanne

[Rapunzel]

Yeah, if they know the wife is innocent of any wrongdoing and there is no indication that she knows her husband's whereabouts then she shouldn't be taken into custody. I don't know about the rest of you but I generally DO have a good idea where my husband is. Even if I don't know his exact whereabouts I can give you a good guess at any time during the day/week.

I still don't feel like I know enough about these situations to have a clear opinion. It appears that this has happened a handful of times and I'm really not clear as to the details. Were the women refusing to answer any questions? Was their proof that these women had participated in prior criminal activity? There is the one incident mentioned in little bit more detail about the woman who had a nursing baby (and, the details are basically just that she had three children - one of whom was still nursing) - and in that particular one mention is made near the end of the first article that, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held." I'm not on the ground in Iraq so I don't know what happened in these cases. I do know that Iraq is basically under martial law at the moment (because of people such as these women's husbands) and trying to compare the situation there with our situation here is outlandish.

If these women were suspected of having information as to the whereabouts of a man who was about to kill American troops then I understand the detention of said women. If the military used tactics that District Attorneys use here in the United States such as lying to a suspect and temporarily detaining suspects in order to catch the person they really want then I understand that as well.

I'll be the first to admit there are some fine lines here - and some of those lines may have been crossed in a few of these cases. But, in order to determine that I'd need to have a lot more information than I currently have. One thing is perfectly clear: A person being a woman and/or having children, some of whom may still be nursing, does not render that person incapable of criminal activity and/or impeding an investigation into terrorist activity.

Now, I will concede that perhaps these women are more afraid of their husbands than they are of any military organization. After all, these husbands of theirs will go after their children and their own family if they also believe in "honor killings" as many of those with terrorist ideologies seem to do. If a woman were to face death at the hands of her husband's fellow terrorists if she gave up his location then I understand her reluctance - and especially if children are involved. In that manner I sympathize with their awful situation.

The bottom line is that this appears to be one of those grey situations - and judging it in black-and-white with so very few facts and according to the norm in the relatively peaceful, democratic, free United States would be an error in my opinion.

[PrincessFiona]

Unfortunately, Jenn, I've simply lost faith...and I used to be a huge military supporter. I grew up with a dad who was an officer, lived on military bases, and when I lived in Germany, I worked on the US Military base in Giessen. Whenever Thomas and I went to the movies, I stood up and put my hand over my heart when they played the national anthem.

Now...I won't even do that at boyscout meetings when they play it. I feel that I have been deceived in many ways and I no longer have the abiding faith/trust in the US govt and military that I used to. For all I know, this was innocent. However, it will now be the job of our governement to "win me back"....

[PrincessFiona]

Now, I will concede that perhaps these women are more afraid of their husbands than they are of any military organization. After all, these husbands of theirs will go after their children and their own family if they also believe in "honor killings" as many of those with terrorist ideologies seem to do. If a woman were to face death at the hands of her husband's fellow terrorists if she gave up his location then I understand her reluctance - and especially if children are involved. In that manner I sympathize with the

This is something that I've also thought quite a bit about. I believe that many of these women are already victims of the men....who may, or may not be insurgents, btw.

[Rapunzel]

Kris, I'm a major complainer when it comes to the US military. Seriously. My husband keeps telling me to keep my mouth shut or I'll get him thrown in "the brig" someday. He's only half joking.

But, despite my own issues with authority (and men, for that matter ), I have to step back and try to see things from every angle before I make a conclusion.

I understand being disillusioned of political leaders - heaven knows I share your disillusionment. But, the national anthem is not a celebration of any of our easily corruptable leaders or our military. It is a musical symbol of the ideals we try to uphold. If our leaders aren't currently upholding those ideals it doesn't mean the ideals are inherently wrong. I still respect our flag, for instance, not because it represents any politician or the military - but because it represents the blessings I have in living under our Constitution. And, I recognize that that Constitution is under constant attack from various angles. That's why vigilance is so important. And, that's why the saying "freedom isn't free" is so true - perhaps now more than ever.

[Rapunzel]

This is something that I've also thought quite a bit about. I believe that many of these women are already victims of the men....who may, or may not be insurgents, btw.

I wonder what the women's opinions were. Notice that neither of the articles posted mentioned their point of view in the matter.

What if they felt safer in US custody than they did at home? I wonder if any of these women were actually willingly taken?

I just don't know. There aren't enough details yet.