If you're wondering why innocent Western women are seized in Iraq

[Pure]

Updated: 06:51 AM EST

Documents Show Army Seized Iraqi Wives as Tactic


By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP



(Jan. 27) -- 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.

[...]
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.


What They Said


''The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing.''


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.

----
ADDED 1-29

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/27/AR2006012700921.html

 

[amicus]

Ah yes, (amicus slaps his forehead and says, "oh, duh!)) I knew it was our fault for all the kidnappings, suicide bombings, roadside bombs, beheadings, mass graves.

Thanks for enlightening me.

amicus...

 

[Pure]

all the kidnappings, suicide bombings, roadside bombs, beheadings, mass graves.

not the topic of the thread or article, but nice try. you forgot to mention the crimes of Stalin.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

You're fighting A CI war. Insurgents don't wear patches or uniforms and despite the Islamic Fundy feel, some of the insurgents are women.

I don't see any problem with detaining the wife, sister, mother of an insurgent. If, after investigation, she canno be linked to the insurgency and is released, what's the big deal?

If she is held long term, with the only posible motive being putting pressureon her husband, brother, son that would be different, though not at all uncommon in CI warfare.

The article simply takes it for granted that she isn't involved in the fighting because she has a uterus. I find that assumption a lot more objectionable than her temporary detainment.

 

[matriarch]

You're fighting A CI war. Insurgents don't wear patches or uniforms and despite the Islamic Fundy feel, some of the insurgents are women.

I don't see any problem with detaining the wife, sister, mother of an insurgent. If, after investigation, she canno be linked to the insurgency and is released, what's the big deal?

If she is held long term, with the only posible motive being putting pressureon her husband, brother, son that would be different, though not at all uncommon in CI warfare.

The article simply takes it for granted that she isn't involved in the fighting because she has a uterus. I find that assumption a lot more objectionable than her temporary detainment.

Sorry Colly, you're missing the point of the article. I respectfully suggest you re-read it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sorry Colly, you're missing the point of the article. I respectfully suggest you re-read it.

I read the article. An intelligence officer, apparently didn't want to detain a woman. The NCO on hand did.

If, I am in danger and if a military response is needed to save me, I'll take an NCO over a spook anyday.

And I still resent the implication that she shouldn't be deatined beacuse she's a woman. If they broke into Abdul Al-hihad's house and found his brother home, no one would give a rat's ass if they detained him for a couple of days. Cause he's a man and he might be part of his brother's inssurection. But hius wife? No way, she's like..a chick. Chicks don't fight wars.

Just for edification, the first Shia Muslim sucide bombing in the Mid east took place in Lebanon. The bomber drove a car, laden with explosives into an IDF check point. The bomber was also a sixteen year old girl.

 

[minsue]

I read the article. An intelligence officer, apparently didn't want to detain a woman. The NCO on hand did.

If, I am in danger and if a military response is needed to save me, I'll take an NCO over a spook anyday.

And I still resent the implication that she shouldn't be deatined beacuse she's a woman. If they broke into Abdul Al-hihad's house and found his brother home, no one would give a rat's ass if they detained him for a couple of days. Cause he's a man and he might be part of his brother's inssurection. But hius wife? No way, she's like..a chick. Chicks don't fight wars.

Just for edification, the first Shia Muslim sucide bombing in the Mid east took place in Lebanon. The bomber drove a car, laden with explosives into an IDF check point. The bomber was also a sixteen year old girl.

I absolutely agree, Colly. An insurgent's sex should never be in issue. That is beside the point. The issue at hand is detaining an innocent person, regardless of sex, in order to force the hand of the spouse.


"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.

That is what many of us are taking issue with.

Left out of the original post is more from the AP article -

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."

Personally, I find taking hostages to draw out potential criminals to be criminal in itself. As Ibrahim Ali stated, "We are not Saddam." It becomes difficult to hold our country up as on the side of right when we act like him, don't you think?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I absolutely agree, Colly. An insurgent's sex should never be in issue. That is beside the point. The issue at hand is detaining an innocent person, regardless of sex, in order to force the hand of the spouse.


"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.

That is what many of us are taking issue with.

Left out of the original post is more from the AP article -



Personally, I find taking hostages to draw out potential criminals to be criminal in itself. As Ibrahim Ali stated, "We are not Saddam." It becomes difficult to hold our country up as on the side of right when we act like him, don't you think?

Goose!

*HUGS*

How are you determining who is innocnet Goose? This is an insurgent war, the two sides don't wear uniforms.

Let us assume, for a moment, the facts are totally correct and verifiable, in that two women were detained for short periods by local forces.

Not one bit of verifiable evidence that this constitued a policy of hostage taking was cited. the only evidence of that is heresay evidence given by an unidentified civilian intellifgence operative and two annonyamous Colonels.

The only reason this has made a blip on the radar screen is because those detained were women. And the allegations imply they are credible simply because the detainees were women.

For all we know, the 28 year old woman detained had an RPG under the matress and an AK hidden in the linenen cabnet. The NCO may, in my estimation most probably did, have reason to suspect she was an active participant in the insurgency.

When a murdr is commited in the US, family and close associates of the suspect are often etained and questioned. We accept that. No one calls it taking hostages.

The article does not charge these women were held for more an a short period by local forces. They don't present any evidence the supposed policy brief outlined by an annonyamous intelligence officer is in effect or even has been.

Even a gullible person would probably require more evidence than one civilain's report and comments attributed to a pair of announyamus colonels to get upset. So the Author singles out two examples of women being detained. And Viola, instant press to his unsupported allegations of motive.

 

[minsue]

Goose!

*HUGS*

How are you determining who is innocnet Goose? This is an insurgent war, the two sides don't wear uniforms.

Let us assume, for a moment, the facts are totally correct and verifiable, in that two women were detained for short periods by local forces.

Not one bit of verifiable evidence that this constitued a policy of hostage taking was cited. the only evidence of that is heresay evidence given by an unidentified civilian intellifgence operative and two annonyamous Colonels.

The only reason this has made a blip on the radar screen is because those detained were women. And the allegations imply they are credible simply because the detainees were women.

For all we know, the 28 year old woman detained had an RPG under the matress and an AK hidden in the linenen cabnet. The NCO may, in my estimation most probably did, have reason to suspect she was an active participant in the insurgency.

When a murdr is commited in the US, family and close associates of the suspect are often etained and questioned. We accept that. No one calls it taking hostages.

The article does not charge these women were held for more an a short period by local forces. They don't present any evidence the supposed policy brief outlined by an annonyamous intelligence officer is in effect or even has been.

Even a gullible person would probably require more evidence than one civilain's report and comments attributed to a pair of announyamus colonels to get upset. So the Author singles out two examples of women being detained. And Viola, instant press to his unsupported allegations of motive.

The information from the article is taken from documents, including e-mails between colonels, released by the Pentagon that discuss taking wives in order to leverage their husbands, the actual targets, into coming in. The anonymity is because the Pentagon blacked out the names. I'm outside at the moment, I'll have to go back inside for citations.

 

[minsue]

"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."

I realized after I came in and typed that that it's already included in the portion of the original article posted. Citation unnecessary after all.

On that note, I'm off to spend the money given to me by wonderfully generous co-workers who pooled their money so they could be sure I had enough luggage and warm clothes to leave them behind and head off to merry old England.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I am totally in agreement with Colly here. A man or some men are suspected of committing heinous crimes, such as blowing up worshippers in a mosque or blowing up pipe lines or other similar acts. A raid is launched on the suspects home and he is not there but other close adult members of his family are. Therefore, take them for questioning, after insuring the safety of any children present. Then search the house for bombs, weapons, documents, whatever.

The article said women were detained breifly and then released. That does not make them hostages. I see nothing wrong in thinking a suspect's wife might know of his whereabouts or his companions or what he might have said to her. There is even a good chance that she is a full partner in his crimes.

I think it is extreme sexism to assume she knows nothing and is innocent.

 

[Norajane]

When a murdr is commited in the US, family and close associates of the suspect are often etained and questioned. We accept that. No one calls it taking hostages.

I'm not clear on what you're talking about here. You can't be detained, meaning held involuntarily and unable to leave, unless you are arrested.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm not clear on what you're talking about here. You can't be detained, meaning held involuntarily and unable to leave, unless you are arrested.

The laws in Iraq are not the same as the laws in the US but even in the US, a person can be held as a material witness, with no actual arrest taking place.

 

[Norajane]

The laws in Iraq are not the same as the laws in the US but even in the US, a person can be held as a material witness, with no actual arrest taking place.

I'm horrified to hear that. Is there at least some requirement that sufficient evidence exists to prove that a person is really a material witness before they can be held? Marriage isn't sufficient evidence, is it?

 

[zeb1094]

I'm horrified to hear that. Is there at least some requirement that sufficient evidence exists to prove that a person is really a material witness before they can be held? Marriage isn't sufficient evidence, is it?

No, but being able to place the person at the scene of the crime is enough probable cause to hold someone for up to 72 hours with out filing charges.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm horrified to hear that. Is there at least some requirement that sufficient evidence exists to prove that a person is really a material witness before they can be held? Marriage isn't sufficient evidence, is it?

Here is something dfining "material witness". Yes, if a person is believed to have important information on a crime, and is believed to be a flight risk, that person can be detained.

http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legaldefinitions.php/material_witness.htm

I think it is safe to say that if a man and woman have been married several years (three children) that she would have a good idea of his companions and where he might be.

 

[Norajane]

I think it is safe to say that if a man and woman have been married several years (three children) that she would have a good idea of his companions and where he might be.

Oh, I so very much disagree with that!

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm not clear on what you're talking about here. You can't be detained, meaning held involuntarily and unable to leave, unless you are arrested.

Look up the definition of accessory.

1. One who incites, aids, or abets a lawbreaker in the commission of a crime but is not present at the time of the crime. Also called accessory before the fact.

2. One who aids a criminal after the commission of a crime, but was not present at the time of the crime. Also called accessory after the fact.

Both are crimes in their own right and law enforcement oficers need very little probable cause to detain you. KNowing the suspect and having had close contact with him prior to or immediatly after the crime is usually enough.

I have a few friends who have been carted off to jail for questioning in connection with a crime. They are detained, for a shot period, questioned and then released. No one has ever said the Local PD. was using them as hostages to make the suspect come in. A significant part of criminal investigation is tied up in eliminating suspects via questioning.

Your assertion then, is incorrect. You can be detained, and questioned, and not allowed to leave, without being formally charged, in practice. You could just get up and leave, but I'd be willing to bet you would be in jail inside of 24 hours, for speeding, resisiting arrest, driving with a tail light out etc. Or you could simply be held as a suspect for accessory to the crime.

The same goes in an area undergoing an insurgency. You can, and most often will, be detained, if you are a close asscociate of a known or suspected member of the insurrection.

 

[zeb1094]

Oh, I so very much disagree with that!

Well, this thread is actually about what takes place in Iraq, not the USA. The rules of engagement are what determine what the military can and cannot do. The US constitution does not apply in this instance, nor do any of the laws of the land apply.

The rules of engagement are determined by the President along with the Joint Chiefs and are based on military law and the Geneva Convention with various other treaties, etc.

And Marshall law is quite different than Constitutional law.

 

[Norajane]

Well, this thread is actually about what takes place in Iraq, not the USA. The rules of engagement are what determine what the military can and cannot do. The US constitution does not apply in this instance, nor do any of the laws of the land apply.

The rules of engagement are determined by the President along with the Joint Chiefs and are based on military law and the Geneva Convention with various other treaties, etc.

And Marshall law is quite different than Constitutional law.

I understand, I just don't like it. It puts women in such a vulnerable position.

I'm actually not even thinking about the US or Iraq - I come from a place where US troops are still hanging out in bases. And I have family there, people who were there during the violence. In that situation, there were some young men who left wives and small children, or elderly parents, at home to do whatever it was they felt the need to do. Their wives were rarely in the know. Their parents were rarely in the know. It would have been a shame for those blameless people to suffer for the sins of their husbands or children.

It's an emotional response on my part, of course. I know very little of wars and rules of engagement and Geneva Convention. Maybe it would make a difference in my perspective if I did. Maybe I'd have a different perspective if it wasn't so easy for me to personalize it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I understand, I just don't like it. It puts women in such a vulnerable position.

I'm actually not even thinking about the US or Iraq - I come from a place where US troops are still hanging out in bases. And I have family there, people who were there during the violence. In that situation, there were some young men who left wives and small children, or elderly parents, at home to do whatever it was they felt the need to do. Their wives were rarely in the know. Their parents were rarely in the know. It would have been a shame for those blameless people to suffer for the sins of their husbands or children.

It's an emotional response on my part, of course. I know very little of wars and rules of engagement and Geneva Convention. Maybe it would make a difference in my perspective if I did. Maybe I'd have a different perspective if it wasn't so easy for me to personalize it.

The key part to remember is that those found not to be in the know are released. In a lot of places guilt by association is enough to earn you a one wy trip to th Gulag, innocnec irrespective.

 

[Purple Sage]

Colleen, you seem to be rather disengenuous here. The point of detaining these women, according to the article, is not gather intelligence from them, but use them as hostages to 'leverage' their husbands' surrender. Whatever your feelings about assuming the 'innocence' of these women, the people on the ground there actually did assume it. The only reason cited for holding the women was pressure their husbands into surrender.
This has nothing to do with being a material witness. It has to do 'collective responsibility'. What's the next step? Bulldoze the block where a suspect lives? Round up his family and freinds and neighbors, herd them into a church and burn it down around them? Oh wait, that's been done... someplace in Czechoslovakia, if I remember right...

If you can't muster any moral outrage about these kinds of tactics, you might at least consider that historically they seem to have been counter-productive.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Colleen, you seem to be rather disengenuous here. The point of detaining these women, according to the article, is not gather intelligence from them, but use them as hostages to 'leverage' their husbands' surrender. Whatever your feelings about assuming the 'innocence' of these women, the people on the ground there actually did assume it. The only reason cited for holding the women was pressure their husbands into surrender.
This has nothing to do with being a material witness. It has to do 'collective responsibility'. What's the next step? Bulldoze the block where a suspect lives? Round up his family and freinds and neighbors, herd them into a church and burn it down around them? Oh wait, that's been done... someplace in Czechoslovakia, if I remember right...

If you can't muster any moral outrage about these kinds of tactics, you might at least consider that historically they seem to have been counter-productive.

First, I want to point out that this is an expression of opinion being expressed by somebody I would have a hard time trusting or believing. Even if everything is the truth, what it says is that a suspected terrorist was detained and released after two days. The only reason it is even being mentioned is the sexist one that the detainee was a woman.

As for dealing with terrorists, I don't see how the Geneva Convention can possibly be relevant. I call these people "terrorists" rather than "insurgents" because their tactics are those of terror, blowing up mosques and railroad stations and stores, etc. rather than engaging enemy troops. As I understand, some of the terrorists may be Iraqis but most are not.

Burning the church was from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot".

 

[zeb1094]

Burning the church was from the Mel Gibson movie "The Patriot".

And it was the British that did it, well a rouge British Col., in the movie.

 

[Liar]

Ok... i have read the article three times to see what it is that I must have missed.

But I still can't relate it to what Colly and Box are taling about. You say that the wife of a terrorist might be a terrorist. That is true.

But it's right there, in black on white:

"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.

In order to leverage the primary target's surrender. Not "because she is likely a suspect too".

THIS is what Hind al-Saleh is protesting about. The (alledged) purpose of the detention.

No?