My Freedom Does Not Require This Protection
Jason Kuznicki on Jan 30th 2006
Wow. I quit blogging for a few days, and this is what happens. The United States has been kidnapping civilians to use as hostages.
U.S. forces in Iraq, in two instances described in military documents, took custody of the wives of men believed to be insurgents in an apparent attempt to pressure the suspects into giving themselves up.
Both incidents occurred in 2004. In one, members of a shadowy military task force seized a mother who had three young children, still nursing the youngest, “in order to leverage” her husband’s surrender, according to an account by a civilian Defense Intelligence Agency intelligence officer.
Let’s be clear about this. These are not unsubstantiated claims, not rumors, and not — so far as we know — falsifications. They are actual U.S. military documents. They detail a practice that is forbidden by the Geneva conventions, to which we are signatories. This practice happened (and for all we know, is still happening) in a conflict zone, Iraq, where the conventions are unquestionably in effect.
Where is the outrage at this? When FARC does this in Colombia, we are outraged. But when our own armed forces kidnaps women and children, we should rally round the flag, because it’s so good that we are willing to take extraordinary steps to protect our freedom.
I hope I don’t speak only for myself when I say that my own freedom does not require this protection.
Filed in The Barracks
[...] Kuznicki is right, of course, that for us to seize innocent women and children and hold them as hostages for terrorists to come out of hiding is simply not an acceptable military tactic. However, 1) this story is from Reuters, which long ago sacrificed its claims of reliability as far as I’m concerned, 2) it’s based on excerpts from sources we are not being allowed to see for greater context, 3) it would be highly naive for us to assume that the wives of terrorists are necessarily innocent civilian bystanders who have nothing to do with their husbands’ business, and 4) one notes there is no accusation that these women were abused. What we ought to do with stories like this is wait for more information before assuming that our military is guilty of wrongdoing. They might be, and they might not be. Trackback URL: http://positiveliberty.com/2006/01/why-we-should-withhold-judgment-until-we-know-the-facts.html/trackback/ [...]
Jason, I fully agree with you. I am highly skeptical that such a tactic would ever have even the slightest positive effect. What we are doing by allowing this process is creating more martyrs; innocent victims who- while they may be associated with those we label criminals- are still innocent.
It has been said to us over and over that we are engaged in a mission to win over the hearts and minds of the Iraqi citizens.
It should go without saying that this is the wrong way to go about it.
But Sandefur’s point is important, too. While I tend to believe these charges, we should never jump to conclusions. We should wait for more evidence to come out, and I’m sure it will come out. We should also make sure to emphasize that outrage over this issue, like outrage over the Abu Gahrib (how do you spell that again?) issue, does not necessarily go against the entire military. Our fighting men and women are following orders. Here’s hoping that this time the Higher Ups don’t get away scott free while allowing the lower ranking soldiers to take the fall.
[...] Jason Kuznicki, at Positive Liberty, comments on our great nation’s use of kidnapping on the battlefield. “What?” you say. “Not us!” We’re the good guys. Oh? [...]
We are outraged when FARC does this because they are a murderous rebel organization and they might just decide to shoot anyone they take out of hand. One also doubts the comfort of the accomodations and quality of health care they make available.
It’s not unreasonable to be upset by this tactic. It is to compare it to “kidnappings.” Hardly anyone would choose to be grabbed for ransom or political purposes by some other group in rather than the U.S. military.
“I hope I don’t speak only for myself when I say that my own freedom does not require this protection.”
I hope you don’t speak for the thousands of Iraqi civilians being blown up by these people on the streets, at work, and in their homes. Their freedom is a bit more fragile than yours. Would you prefer the U.S. milltary hold these people or the Iraqi police and military forces?
Why?
Capturing and holding an innocent person in order to influence someone else’s actions (e.g., pressure them into surrendering) is certainly kidnapping, even when the U.S. does it. It might be worse to be kidnapped by FARC than by the U.S. (though not in all cases), but kidnapping is still kidnapping.
Sandefur also has a point when he says that the wives of terrorists are unlikely to be innocents themselves. So why not arrest them for whatever they themselves might be guilty of?
There is sometimes an element of hypocrisy when conservatives say we should wait for more information to come out. Such information often comes from leakers, who have lately been accused of treason by some conservatives. Besides, isn’t drawing attention to what’s already come out the best way to ensure that more information does come out?
Nice post, I agree fully, keeping in mind Dylan’s comment “the thousands of Iraqi civilians being blown up by these people on the streets, at work, and in their homes. Their freedom is a bit more fragile than yours.” Its not win at any cost, but we do have to win.
Scratch my back and I won’t flail yours with razor wire
Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty is up in arms about a report that the United States has detained (or “kidnapped” as he would have it) the wives of suspected insurgents to