WASHINGTON, July 30: A US colonel in Iraq kidnapped a wanted Iraqi general’s wife and daughter, leaving a note saying “if you want them back then turn yourself in,” a report said Tuesday.
US Colonel David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather intelligence, according to the Washington Post.
Last week, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note reading: “If you want your family released, turn yourself in.”
The tactic worked. Hogg said the Iraqi general appeared at the front gate of the US base and surrendered two days later.
Such tactics are justified, Hogg said, because, “It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.”
Hostage-taking of civilians during war is a crime under the Geneva Conventions.-dpa
I wonder if this news is made public in US? Is this a “generally acceptable” practice for US public?
Do yourself a favor and read the original article in the Washington Post, not some Anti American clip taken out of the whole article. You will note that 1) the US Col. explains that the wife was taken in for questioning, which is allowed for information gathering purposes, and that she would have to be released anyway, whether or not the Husband showed up! (amazing how this was selectively deleted in the Dawn article) 2) The husband did show up, and was captured.
This is the kind of selective journalism, and selective thinking that rots the minds at gupshup, (and in the larger world). Take something out of context and spew it around.
"Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: “If you want your family released, turn yourself in.” Such tactics are justified, he said, because, “It’s an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info.” They would have been released in due course, he added later.
The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered."
Even if a neutral court did exist to try this colonel, he would probably escape.
He would be able to argue that the general's wife and daughter were located and taken in for questioning to find out if they knew where the general was.
He could then argue that whilst taking the women away for questioning, to apply pschological pressure on the general they left the note.
In short, it would be tricky to make allegations of hostage taking stick.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
Can you post the article? I am unable to access the website for some reason.
[/QUOTE]
Here's the relvant part
Col. David Hogg, commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 4th Infantry Division, said tougher methods are being used to gather the intelligence. On Wednesday night, he said, his troops picked up the wife and daughter of an Iraqi lieutenant general. They left a note: "If you want your family released, turn yourself in." Such tactics are justified, he said, because, "It's an intelligence operation with detainees, and these people have info." They would have been released in due course, he added later.
The tactic worked. On Friday, Hogg said, the lieutenant general appeared at the front gate of the U.S. base and surrendered.
The COlonel argues that the wife and daughter may have had information that would enable the general to be located, so their arrest and questioning was legal.
If the US had left a note saying, "We have taken you family in for questioning, don't worry we will release them in a few days." Then the Iraqi General could sit around laughing. In his world, Saddam would have DEFINITELY taken the family and there would have been a big doubt as to whether they would have ever been seen again.
How many times had this Iraqi general been party to this same type of activity? It worked because he believed it, because this was the norm in Iraq until a few months ago. Shoot, the US government can detain material witnesses for obstruction of justice if they have reason to believe that they have information that would advance an investigation.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
...
How many times had this Iraqi general been party to this same type of activity? It worked because he believed it, because this was the norm in Iraq until a few months ago. ...
[/QUOTE]
This is not "on the grayline", it is well over it into the land of criminal acts. Regardless of the merits of picking up the women on grounds of questioning, that alone would have been fine, leaving the note indicates their detention was intended for ulterior purposes.
It is well understood that we are dealing with criminals and that it is not always easy to catch them playing by the good-guy rules. This, however, does not justify any breach of those rules. We can't act like a criminal to catch the criminals.. we have to act like a smarter good-guy.
If the note was not pre-planned, ie, the detention of the women was routine and some cunning soldier saw a way to maximize gains on the way out of the door, it remains a criminal act because at that point you then turned those legitimate detainees into hostages. If you are riding in an elevator with ten people, you are fine. If you hit the stop button, pull out a gun (make a credible threat) and tie that action to a demand, you then have a hostage situation. It doesn't matter if you were just planning to dine at the rotating restaurant when you set foot in the elevator, you've since then criminalized your association with those in the compartment.
"Deception" is a simple concept, and is reasonably universal. For a deception to work it must, on it's face, be believable. Saddams' past behavior made this deception believable.
Sometime ago in the US a police force wanted to capture a number of people with outstanding warrants for their arrest. They sent out notices to their homes that they had won a free color television. 20 or 30 of these people showed up at the appointed time and place to claim their freeTV's. Inside waiting for them was the police force, and they rounded up a great number of wanted people with a "deception". Did the police lie? Yes. Welcome to the Sting.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
Here is the point.
If the US had left a note saying, "We have taken you family in for questioning, don't worry we will release them in a few days." Then the Iraqi General could sit around laughing. In his world, Saddam would have DEFINITELY taken the family and there would have been a big doubt as to whether they would have ever been seen again. ...
[/QUOTE]
Why was leaving a note required? If only "questioning" was desired, they could have been taken without leaving a note.
"Deception" is a simple concept, and is reasonably universal. For a deception to work it must, on it's face, be believable. Saddams' past behavior made this deception believable.
[/QUOTE]
Who knows who is deceived here. may be general was deceived, may be you are deceived by just like every other lie that has come out of US admin/military.
"Why was leaving a note required? If only "questioning" was desired, they could have been taken without leaving a note."
Uh, duh.
They would have been questioning them for the purpose of capturing daddy, (who knows how many Iraqis have been killed at his hands over the years). The note was consistant with the questioning. Not a shot was fired, no "collateral damage", just a lie.
Spoon:
From a strictly legal point of view, I think you are wrong. Leaving the note does not somehow turn the legal detention of the woman and child for questioning into hostage taking. If, in fact, the woman and child would be held forever as hostages until and unless the general turned himself in, that would be another story. A completely different circumstance exists if, regardless of the contents of the note, the woman and child would have been released with or without the general turning himself in.
Thus, whether this is akin to kidnapping and hostage taking is entirely dependent upon the truthfulness and accuracy of the contents of the note.
If the woman and child would have been released after questioning, it was a very clever and very legal con-job/sting perpetrated upon a wanted man. The wisdom of utilizing such tactics is open to debate but not the legality.
Changez: You are failing to recognize that two different objectives existed. First, was questioning the woman and child. Leaving the note had nothing to do with accomplishing the first objective. The woman and child probably knew nothing about it. Some enterprising person probably said, "Hey, why don't we try using the circumstance of detaining the woman and child for questioning to also try to get the general to turn himself in by running a little scam on him."
Everyone was so concerned about Americans being insensitive to the Iraqi culture. This action by the US military seems to fit right into the prevailing culture of Iraq, so maybe the US is actually becoming more sensitve.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
Everyone was so concerned about Americans being insensitive to the Iraqi culture. This action by the US military seems to fit right into the prevailing culture of Iraq, so maybe the US is actually becoming more sensitve.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, very much, by showing criminal sides of itself.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
....
If the woman and child would have been released after questioning, it was a very clever and very legal con-job/sting perpetrated upon a wanted man. The wisdom of utilizing such tactics is open to debate but not the legality.
...
[/QUOTE]
Yes, keep the family detained for 2 days. Troops were lucky enough that general showed up in 2 days otherwise this detention would have been "illegal" for sure.
I don't know how long families can be "detained for questions". anyone?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
Yes, keep the family detained for 2 days. Troops were lucky enough that general showed up in 2 days otherwise this detention would have been "illegal" for sure.
I don't know how long families can be "detained for questions". anyone?
[/QUOTE]
There is no internationally imposed law respecting the period of time people can be detained for questioning without bringing charges. Every country has its own laws respecting this and the length of time permitted sometimes relates to the type of crime or investigation involved. I think 48 to 72 hours is fairly typical for most westernized criminal justice systems although someone who rises to the level of material witness can be detained almost indefinitely and until trial I believe.