This tactic has apparently been used more than once:
Is this tactic justified under the circumstances? Can the threat of the violence and instability posed by the insurgency justify any and all tactics, no matter how heinous, that would quell the unrest and allow democracy to continue marching?
** FUCK NO**
thanks for asking…
Jill Connell is hanging by a thread on account of our gallant and shrewd use of kidnapping as a military tactic.
But we, who snatch and bag a nursing mother, we are special ops guys, we are not, let it be clear, terrorists…
No, this tactic is simply too heinous.
Rather, they should work harder at killing the insurgents instead of exploring these appauling methods to motivate a surrender.
Seriously. War sucks.
Do we have any kind of moral high ground to cling to in this insanetarbabyclusterfuck scenario anymore?
I must confess my initial reaction upon the mouse-over was very similar to alaricthegoth’s, but with more profanity.
No. Women are not pawns. It is absolutely indefensible, under any circumstances, to use an innocent person in this way.
The fact is that women are often used in this way during war. In my opinion this is the single most heinous thing about war, and the best reason to do everything possible to avoid war in the first place.
Innocent women and children are the greatest victims of war, any time, any place.
Those who deliberately visit the sins of the father upon the wife or child are the worst of all possible war criminals.
Sweet Christ, will the stream of horrible shit our gov’t and/or armed forces is doing never end? It makes me almost wish for censorship.
Now the terrorists who kidnapped Jill Carroll, who are demanding that female prisoners be released, will look like heroes to many because they might have a valid beef.
well, on the one hand, it does make you proud of the farsighted guys in the administration who advised:
"No way, under no circumstances, should we ratify ANY kind of international criminal court;
That would be like Al Capone campaigning for Eliot Ness to become the attorney-general.
The farsighted criminal does not empower the cop on the beat, and we should have the same perspicacity."
No, we should not be doing this. There is a threat implied here that the American military will actually do harm to these family members unless the insurgents surrender, otherwise it would be pretty damned useless as a tactic, wouldn’t it? I mean if I arrested your significant other and sent you a note saying ‘We have detained your S.O. until you surrender, but he/she will be treated humanely,’ would you turn yourself in? Probably not. I am not an expert on military strategy by any means, but it seems to me that trying to catch ONE insurgent, no matter how important, is not worth using a means that could be tailor-made to piss off every single person who hears about it, doubtlessly pushing some number of them over the line from merely sullen-about-being-occupied to strap-on-a-rocket-launcher-pissed is a very bad plan.
I can not imagine the backlash if an innnocent wife/mother were picked up to encourage her husband to turn himself in but were instead abused and/or humiliated. Given the abuses which have happened to those in US custody in the past I would see this as virtually inevitable if the practice of arresting family members continued.
This tactic should not be used.
Enjoy,
Steven
Sure! WE have nukes and haven’t started tossing them. Can you honestly tell me that terr’sts wouldn’t use nukes if they had them?
See, we’re totally superior.
-Joe
Not to mention the risk that the women would be murdered by their own families upon their return to “preserve the honor” of the family. Women who have been imprisoned are considered possible rape victims, which makes them ripe for honor killing.
Should the US sell it’s moral soul even though we aren’t really in all that much danger to begin with?
No, they shouldn’t. It makes victims and martyrs where none existed. If they find the woman as a party to the insurgency, then they should do what they do with any collaborator. Otherwise, it’s just terrorism.
As we’re a capitalist nation it stands to reason that everything has a price.
Bet you didn’t think ours would be so low, though.
-Joe
alas, too late.
Recall the “peculiar” incident when insurgents mortared abu grhaib, killing, in fact, several ppisoners.
The “attack” is said to have been a response to pleas from the female prisoners (at that time around 32) to be killed so as to be freed from the sexual abuse they reported.
Not good…
there is some kind of weird blindness (except of Rumsfeld of all people) to the fact that our behavior evokes responses from our victims which are more or less congruent to the kind of responses WE would have under the same circumstances…
Yeah, I always grew up thinking the exchange rate was higher.
What’s the debate? What kind of response did you expect from this board? Seriously? If that isn’t one of the most loaded GD questions I’ve seen in a month.
When this war ends what’s 90% of this board population going to do with their time when they can’t f***ing Monday morning QB the troops and politicians that are orchestrating it? It seems like this board LIVES to keep anti-US and anti-USMilitary sentiment. Without the US to huddle around and shit on it would be a ghost town around here.
It’s SO damn easy to criticise the actions of these people from the comfort of your bedroom while watching Seinfeld reruns.
I swear the number of new threads will drop to almost nothing and will consist of 80% threads about cats and 20% complaining about the mods.
War is Hell people. Name ONE that wasn’t that involved the US or any other nation.
Hear, hear!
Loaded this is. Someone should pit the policy if they want to complain about it, and unleash their full wrath on it in the right forum. Until someone comes along to side with the aforementioned military policy, there is no debate here. And when someone does, he will be facing a pack of ravenous wolves…and will probably be pitted anyway.
Bolding mine. While I am familiar with the practice of honor killing I’ve heard nothing that alleges a connection between being detained by US forces and being a victim of honor killing. I’d like a cite.
That said, detaining innocent family members to coerce suspects is an appalling process and should cease immediately. Now, I suspect this began as more or less on the “up and up” with the arrest of a wife [who was wanted] and using her to capture the husband [also wanted]. This is acceptable.
Unfortunately, I suspect at some point someone thought to themselves, “Hey, that worked pretty good. Why shouldn’t we do it even when the wife isn’t wanted. It’s not like we’re going to hurt her or anything. He comes in, we get him and let her go. No harm done.” On the surface, not badly intention but still wrong.
This is a perfect example of why we need effective oversight.