Posted on 01/27/2006 10:58:26 AM PST by NormsRevenge
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
Outrageous! US Military {insert tactic that works here} !
Yeah, I wonder if anyone took a close look at that nursing baby to see if its head was made of C4 or it had a fuse sticking out of its nose.
Somehow I imagine that the wife of a terrorist isn't exactly an employee of the international red cross. Also, she probably got better treatment from whomever held her, if even true, than she did from her husband. And who knows, maybe she was in on it.
It seems perfectly legitimate to hold people conspiring with the actors of terrorism, wives or not.
Translation: Make sure you get at least three independent corroborations of the story before you sell the farm on it.
I don't suppose you could do a good women in prison movie if they were all wearing Burkhas.
But But But,, they have emails and Colonels this time, ... lolol
Wifes, children, moms and dads, even the terrorists dogs should be fair game.
They after all are targeting ours.
Another reason not to believe this is that those types of muslim men probably couldn't give a crap about what happens to their wives. Hell, most of 'em would send their wives into some deli laden with explosives, "nursing baby" in hand. Especially if it's a baby girl. All in the name of Allah, a fabricated god at best, Satan at worst.
LOL...
Doncha know.
Sounds like something Jack Bauer would do.
I wonder if they purchased the e-mails at the same place where Dan Blather got his infamous "letter."
History 'R Us
The problem is that as described, the tactic is itself terrorism -- which we're supposedly at war with. Of course, the report may be false, exaggerated, or out of date, but Freepers who assume it's true and then shrug or sneer at anyone who objects aren't in an awfully good position to criticise al-Qaeda sympathizers.
The US does a small crime; the terroists do a big one. Small equals big in their calculation.
Oh those poor goats!!!
Quick! Give them their wives back!!
I've never quite figured out why these people are even procreating in the first place. They're going to allow their adolescent sons to be blown to smithereens...along with as many non-muslims as possible. And their daughters will either be genitally mutilated in order to please their pre-planned husbands, or have their heads chopped off because they were raped. The old "honor killing" thing.
I will never figure out these people nor their religion.
If this crap were true or not:
"If it saves one life, its worth it!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.