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
Yea, I was thinking that too, but you know I was at work ;)
That is the most ridiculous bunch of BS I've seen posted on FR in some time! -
Taking the wives of known terrorists into custody is a method that should be used....(and used more frequently). The fact is if you knew how these families operate the women within these families are "part" of the process. They know quite a lot (often) and help facilitate their husbands agendas. They play a role within the terrorists network.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with this. And to try and compare us to the terrorists is to have your moral compass so far shoved up your you know what....it blows my mind.
To try and come off as the "smartest one in the room" and to try and intellectualize why we are wrong is simply ridiculous (and we have too many JAGs within the military doing exactly this.....not to mention the State Dept.).
It's obvious you have never been in combat fighting for your life, or had any close relatives there.
Traditional Moslems don't put a high value on women; how about taking their infant sons instead?
It's obvious you have never been in combat...
It is, huh?
BS on several points - First off many of those we are fighting today are not "traditional Muslims" they are fanatics and evil SOB's who most certainly have involved their wives into their agendas.
Additionally the notion that Muslim may not put high value on their "women" is very true.....by that is immaterial into the fact that these same women know plenty about what is going on. They do.
Lastly for all the Muslim bravado about not valuing women....this is / can be true when speaking on Muslim women on the whole.....but when you are talking specifically about this thug or that thugs personal wife!...the game can change....and taking their wife into custody puts a tremendous amount of pressure not only on them....but those above them.
As I said before your idea to try and intellectualize this into making "us" compared to "them" is so faulty to the point of absurdity.
Apparently not, since we've quit doing it. So, about those infant sons....
Though I will agree with you here - This also would put a tremendous amount of pressure on them -
But being an infant....and with that assuredly being completely unaware and not of any direct/willing assistance to these evil SOB's plans.....this is obviously not something we would do.
Their wives however should be a whole other ball game. But we have way too many "intellectual" JAGs and staff at the State Dept -
Wrong (on both points).
This should have went to you the first time - My mistake -
Though I will agree with you here - This also would put a tremendous amount of pressure on them -
But being an infant....and with that assuredly being completely unaware and not of any direct/willing assistance to these evil SOB's plans.....this is obviously not something we would do.
Their wives however should be a whole other ball game. But we have way too many "intellectual" JAGs and staff at the State Dept -
Sorry, but I don't agree with taking hostages and hiding behind women. Yeah, the enemy does worse. That makes it ok?
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.