|
[Previous entry: "Crossing the line"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Diversions"] 31 July 2003: "Crossing the line II"
In response to my previous post, I got an e-mail from Bill Herbert. Bill makes a number of valid points, and I conclude that I did not express myself adequately before. So let's see if I can clarify matters.
I think you may be jumping to conclusions on the WaPo story on 4ID's detaining the Iraqi general's wife and daughter, and their threatening letter.First, let me address the claim on 4th Inf Div's part that they had legitimate reasons for detaining the wife and daughter. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I'll (provisionally) accept that claim; this being the case, charges of "unlawful confinement of a protected person" are unwarranted. However, this does seem inconsistent with Colonel Hogg's subsequent claim that the wife and daughter "would have been released in due course." For there to have been legitimate reasons to detain them in the first place, someone in J-2, G-2 and/or S-2 (the intelligence & security sections at, respectively, CentCom, division and brigade level) must have suspected them of some illicit activity; had these suspicions proved to be correct, neither would presumably have been released, so it seems disingenuous on Hogg's part to claim that they would have. Unless, of course, there was no reason to detain them in the first place, in which case we return to square one. It's also open to question what Colonel Hogg meant in concrete terms by "in due course." One possible interpretation might be "after whatever amount of time required to capture the Iraqi lieutenant general," a possibility which is not very encouraging. But let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that 4th Inf Div had legitimate reasons for hauling the wife and daughter in, that these suspicions had turned out to be unfounded, and that when Hogg made his statement, the decision to release them had already been taken. In which case, there are no problems concerning the detention per se. But as Bill himself points out, In my mind, the focus on the legality of this practice should be not on the treatment of the wife and daughter, but their use of intimidation against the general himself.Assuming Bill means "their being used as a means of intimidating the general," he's hit the nail on the head. How one treats hostages while holding them captive is not relevant to the matter of using threats regarding the hostages to coerce someone—in this case the Iraqi lieutenant general—into doing what one wants; it is also irrelevant whether one actually intends to carry out those threats, because what matters is whether the party that one intends to coerce believes one might. If one is charged with kidnapping, claiming that one intended to release the kidnappee whether or not the ransom was paid is no defence; the crime is that one tried to extort the ransom in the first place. The detention of the general's wife and daughter, as such, may have been entirely legitimate; what was not was leaving that note behind. With that note, a legitimate arrest simultaneously became a hostage-taking, and that's where 4th Inf Div crossed the line. Moreover, aside from the legal implications, it strikes me that this action was remarkably short-sighted and dangerous. If Colonel Hogg is telling the truth when he claims (implicitly) that the wife and daughter would have been released regardless of whether or not the lieutenant general turned himself in, it means Hogg made a threat he was not willing to make good on. This might work once, or even a couple of times, but what do you do when (not if) someone calls your bluff? Keeping his family detained is clearly out, but releasing them means that particular dodge is not going to work again. It's also going to cause a lot of resentment; 35 years of Ba'ath party rule notwithstanding, this is an Arab country, and the surefire way to depreciate a man's sense of masculinity is to mess with his womenfolk. This is not a way to win Iraqi hearts and minds. Okay, I do have to acknowledge that the aforegoing is entirely dependent on the WaPo writer getting his facts straight; I'm not going "oh, those horrible Americans," I'm going "er, somebody really needs to look into this pronto." (Note: thanks go to Clay, who wrote in to comment on the "hearts and minds" thing.) |
Navigation: home archives backgrounder Blogs:
au currant Miscellanea:
Care to contribute |
