U.S. Risks Reporter's Life to Strike Tough Pose

[WhiteTara]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0214-06.htm

These slime just have no bounds and no decency

U.S. Risks Reporter's Life to Strike Tough Pose
by Gareth Porter


WASHINGTON - The George W. Bush administration went well beyond refusing to negotiate with terrorists in its handling of the threat by freelance journalist Jill Carroll's abductors to kill her if all female detainees were not released from U.S.-run prisons in Iraq.



Members of the international press freedom group Reporters Sans Frontiers hold a banner in front of the Eiffel tower during a demonstration calling for the release of kidnapped U.S. journalist Jill Carroll, in Paris February 7, 2006. (Regis Duvignau/Reuters)

According to Iraqi officials, U.S. officials delayed the scheduled release of six female prisoners whom they knew had already been found innocent because of the kidnappers' demand for their release. Then they refused to speed up the review of the files of the five remaining female prisoners, in violation of a policy of giving priority to females in the review of detainee files for release.

Had the normal policy been followed, it is very likely that all the women held by the United States would have been released by now. By delaying the releases of female detainees to strike a tough anti-terrorism pose, the administration has increased the risk to Jill Carroll's life.

Carroll's abductors, who threatened on Jan. 17 to kill Carroll if all female detainees were not released by Jan. 20, did not carry out the threat. But they announced a new deadline of Feb. 26 for the release of all the female detainees in a video aired by a Kuwaiti TV station over the weekend

more

[president4aday]

1. Why is Jill Carroll "kidnapped", but Iraqi women are "detained"?

[WhiteTara]

5. the victor writes history?

:shrug:

[OnyxCollie]

11. Because the terrorists

have no authority. They are not part of a government.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

13. Spoken like a true fundamentalist zealot.

Did you not read any of my posts? Or do you reject anything that does not conform to your preconceived ideas? The terrorists (and I use that term because they are not an army. They do not represent a state. Yes, they ARE civilians. You get a cookie.) are holding Jill Carroll hostage because they have no leverage against the U.S. The current Iraqi government is not representing them. They otherwise have no voice. They are the weak. Terrorism is a low cost/high leverage act. It allows them a platform from which they can make demands of a state. I did not make judgments of their actions. Moral clarity is subjective. Holding hostages, threatening to kill them, and making demands of an occupying army is a rational act to a terrorist. What my original post to this thread was about was to voice my frustration with those who expect the U.S. to actually do something about this. If a bunch of guys with Kalashnikov's can grab a reporter, threaten to kill her, and have an audience with a super power who will meet their demands, what kind of precedent does that set? While I grieve for Jill Carroll, I am not under the delusion that the U.S. will do anything to save her.

If you wish to learn more about terrorism, I suggest you read these articles:

Criminals, Combatants, or What? An Examination of the Role of Law in Responding to the Threat of Terror by Thomas M. Franck from the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, No. 4

Statements About Terrorism by Brian M. Jenkins from the Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 463, International Terrorism

Terror, the Strategic Tool: Response and Control by Robert H. Kupperman; Debra van Opstal; David Williamson, Jr. from the Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 463, International Terrorism

A Sociopsychiatric Interpretation of Terrorism by Franco Ferracuti from the Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 463, International Terrorism

Addressing Terrorism in the United States by Charles P. Monroe from the Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 463, International Terrorism

The International Law of Terrorist Financing by Ilias Bantekas from the American Journal of International Law, Vol. 97, No. 2

The Contagiousness of Aircraft Hijacking by Robert T. Holden from the American Journal of Sociology, Vol 91, No. 4

The Polls: Terrorism and Hijacking by Connie de Boer from The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol 43, No. 3

Misunderstanding Terrorism by Jeffery D. Simon from Foreign Policy, No. 67

Terrorism by John Deutch from Foreign Policy, No. 108

The Great Superterrorism Scare by Ehud Sprinzak from Foreign Policy, No. 112

Rational Fanatics by Ehud Sprinzak from Foreign Policy, No. 120

Terrorism, Law Enforcement and the Mass Media: Perspectives, Problems, Proposals by M. Cherif Bassiouni from the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), Vol. 72, No. 1

Why Violence Spreads: The Contagion of International Terrorism by Manus I. Midlarsky; Martha Crenshaw; Fumihiko Yoshida from International Studies Quarterly, Vol 24, No. 2

You can find these journal articles at a good library. (Like the Library of Alexandria used to be, before the Christians destroyed it.) You do read, don't you? Or is your education "faith-based"?

Enjoy your stay here at DU.

Edit for typo.

[president4aday]

14. Get over your "don't-make-deals -with-'terrorists' dogma"

Now come on ... is this how you form your thoughts about (and I do quote you) "The terrorists..." ?

Hint (There's no organization called The Terrorists)

...pre-packaged pontifications from western (including right wing ex. "Foreign Policy" )ivory towers?

Get a mind of your own !


Yeah, I expect our government (well, rulers, is the more apt term) "to actually do something about this."

It's supposedly exists for our (that includes Jill Carroll's) benefit. Right?

Namely, coughing up the Iraqi women it's kidnapped from their homes, streets and families.

In war, you exchange prisoners. Ever hear of that concept ?

Oh ...and that tired old saw about this will set a "precedent", adding additional incentive for more abductions.

There's already plenty of incentive for an occupied people to do harm to individuals of an occupying power.

Only when a similar opportunity arises, sensing no exchange is likely, the resistance will choose to simply kill the person instead of taking them prisoner.

Is that what you really prefer? Dead is better than alive to you?

[Eric J in MN]

23. Someone locked up is a PRISONER,

not a "detainee."

Being stuck in traffic is being detained. Being locked in a cell is being IMPRISONED.

[OnyxCollie]

24. From Dictionary.com

kid•nap To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.
de•tain To keep in custody or temporary confinement.
im•pris•on To confine in prison esp. as punishment for a crime.

Semantics will get you every time.

[Eric J in MN]

25. Everyone in a prison cell is there temporarily;

they will be let out before or after they die.

People in prison cells run by the US in Iraq are accused of the crime of aiding terrorists.

Calling them "detainees" makes it sound like they will only be locked up for a short time, but I doubt it feels like a short time to them.

[OnyxCollie]

27. By that reasoning

we are all dying, correct? It is inevitable. Life is temporary. Or is this an example of the glass being half full/empty?

[Eric J in MN]

29. If you're held in a prison for months, you're a prisoner, not a "detainee"

nt

[OnyxCollie]

26. Look, I'm not defending the Bush regime.

I shudder at the thought. In fact, I consider them to be state-sponsored terrorists. From an essay I had written:

<snip>

Attacks carried out by non-state actors, rather than state-sponsored terrorism, receive the media spotlight. “World attention often seems to focus only on individual perpetrated and ideologically motivated acts of terror-violence while other terror-inspiring common crimes and brutal acts of state-sponsored terror-violence go unnoticed” (Bassiouni, 1981, p. 2).

There is great concern now of the United States’ involvement of CIA secret prisons, “black sites”, in foreign countries. Defense of U.S. rendition policies by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney’s push for an exemption for the CIA regarding torture are causing concern among EU officials. “…It may be more advantageous at times for the purposes of terrorism from above to reduce media exposure of repressive violence. In the case of the serous state-sponsored violations of human rights, such as torture, arbitrary arrests, and detentions, the state may well use all of its powers to prevent the dissemination of such news” (Bassiouni, 1981, p. 15).

Recently, Britain invoked the Official Secrets Act against the Daily Mirror, prohibiting them from releasing any information pertaining to President George W. Bush’s meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair, where Bush allegedly discussed bombing Arab broadcaster Al-Jazeera (Reuters, 2005)

<snip>

Now, is the DoD proceeding slowly with the release of female detainees found to be innocent? Probably. There was a thread here a while back about insurgents' wives being held in retaliation for attacks. I also question who these Iraqi officials are. Are they Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd? The article does not mention. Do we know if they have ties to the terrorists? No. I am suspicious of the motivations of everyone involved in this, aside from Jill Carroll herself.

What I first posted was my frustration with those people who think the state actually cares about them. When Bush gives his stump speeches and brings out his Human Interest Story Designed to Manipulate You Emotionally (Thank you, TDS), do you really believe he cares about what Joe Sixpack thinks when he makes decisions for a super power? I get so annoyed by those who say, "Well, he seems like a nice guy you could have a beer with." He's not going to have a beer with you. He's not going to go to your local tavern, order fried mushrooms, and talk about your bathroom remodeling project. He has nothing in common with ordinary citizens. He doesn't care about you, or your problems. HE'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, for chrissake. (God, it hurts to type that.) Did the U.S. do anything to save Daniel Pearl? No. What about the guy who worked on Blackhawk helicopters? His head was liberated from his body, I believe. If there is nothing in it for the state (oil, American embassy), your country will not save you.

Edit for typo.

[OnyxCollie]

2. When will people realize

states do not negotiate on behalf of civilians who are held hostage by terrorists? When states address terrorist threats, they speak to two audiences, the terrorists and the families of the hostages. So, when you hear this reply to terrorists holding hostages in Iraq, “The United States will not deal with hostage takers,” that message is the only time the state will address the family. Ordinary citizens do not matter in the eyes of the state. People need to be aware of this fact: if you are an ordinary citizen held hostage by terrorists, your country will not save you.

[Glowdine]

3. "...your country will not save you"...

...THEREBY SAVING UNTOLD AMERICAN LIVES ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Giving in to the kidnappers, even in the slightest way, would immediately increase the number of Americans kidnapped everywhere. Once the terrorists knew that kidnapping 'worked' to get them what they want, our citizens abroad--ALL of them--would be nothing more than expendable bargaining chips.

WE can be good citizens of America best by understanding the risks of travel in/near a war zone--and not expecting our country to consider us more important than all those Americans who will travel abroad in the future.

[OnyxCollie]

4. Welcome to DU!

Nice to meet you!:hi:

[Glowdine]

6. Thank you!

:hi: :patriot: :woohoo:

[president4aday]

7. That's real christian of you.

The good shepard goes *not* in search for the lost lamb.


"Giving in to the kidnappers, even in the slightest way, would immediately increase the number of Americans kidnapped everywhere."

And you know this because ????? You don't cite any historical evidence supporting such a dire prediction

[OnyxCollie]

8. Please, spare us your dogma.

For your edification, terrorism is a tool used by the weak (non-state actors) as leverage against the strong (the state). The targets of terrorism are chosen for their symbolism and their impact. They are also chosen for the media response they will receive. Terrorists use the media to spread their message. The media, always looking to improve their ratings, will give more attention to a sensational story thereby increasing the power of the terrorists. The state is always at a disadvantage. It can allow the media to promote the terrorists message, damaging the state's stature by making it look weak and ineffective. Or the state can impose restrictions of the media's right to free speech, which can lead to great repercussions.

You want an example of how engaging "kidnappers" (These are not kidnappers. These are terrorists. Jill Carroll is being held hostage to promote an ideological agenda.) can be detrimental to a government?. Try the Iranian hostage crisis. The two failed rescue attempts were not viewed as a justified effort that failed, but as a debacle.

Or try the Moscow theater hostage crisis. From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

While the siege was underway, the Russian government closed one television station, censored the coverage of another television station and a radio station, and publicly rebuked a newspaper for its coverage. On November 1, the lower house of the Duma approved broad new restrictions on press coverage of terrorism related incidents, widely expected to meet with swift approval by the upper house and then Putin. The Duma refused to consider a proposal by the liberal Union of Right Forces party to form an investigative commission charged with probing the government's actions in the theatre siege. These new policies prompted renewed fears in Russia that Putin is systematically taking control of all Russian media.

Rebel military commander Shamil Basayev posted a statement on his website claiming responsibility for the incident, resigning all official positions within the Chechen government, and apologizing to Chechen President Aslan Maskhadov for not informing him of the planned raid. The Russian government claims that wiretapped phone conversations prove that Maskhadov knew of the plans in advance, which he denied.

The attacks prompted Putin to tighten Russia's grip on Chechnya. The Russian government's media agency reported that 30 rebel fighters were killed in a battle outside Grozny on October 28, and Putin announced that unspecified "measures adequate to the threat" would henceforth be taken in response to terrorist activity. The Chechens have responded in kind to the increased frequency of Russian raids following the siege. President Maskhadov's unconditional offer for talks with Russia was dismissed, as the Russians believed he exerted little influence in Chechnya.

I have little use for organized religion, Christianity in particular. George Bush was elected in part because he was viewed as a "good Christian".

[FreedomAngel82]

20. So how do you explain this?

I thought we didn't negotate with "terrorist's"?

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-18T215522Z_01_N18229859_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-NIGERIA-USA.xml

Snip: <WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States called for the unconditional release of three American oil workers abducted in Nigeria on Saturday and said it was working with Nigeria's government to try to secure their freedom.

Militants seeking more local control over the vast oil wealth of the Niger Delta region stormed an offshore barge operated by U.S. oil services company Willbros Group Inc. in predawn attacks and abducted nine workers -- three Americans, one Briton, two Thais, two Egyptians and a Filipino.

"We can now confirm reports that three American oil workers have been taken hostage in Nigeria. We call for their unconditional release and are working with the Nigerian government on this," said State Department official Noel Clay. >

[OnyxCollie]

21. How do I explain this?

Oil. Natural resources equal power. All actions are done to increase the power of the state.

Were you expecting true altruism?

[president4aday]

22. I can see that not giving in to "the terrorists" in Iraq

really dissuaded "the terrorists" in Nigeria . :sarcasm:

Nice find FreedomAngel82 ...

:yourock:

[Glowdine]

10. Instead of making illogical assumptions--ASK. I'm an atheist.

"And you know this because ?????"



Any reinforcement of a behavior will increase the frequency of that behavior. The only thing that extinguishes a behavior is ignoring it. Thus, when an American is kidnapped abroad, it's better to give it scant notice (which is very difficult in this age of instant info and the media) and to never, EVER reinforce/reward that behavior-it's pretty simple basic B.F. Skinner...

:think:

[president4aday]

15. "The only thing that extinguishes a behavior is ignoring it." Yeah right.

Consider the "logic". Any behavior, say for example, a US invasion, if sufficiently ignored, will just "extinguish".

That's not B.F. Skinner. That's head-in-sand.

The only thing your approach will extinguish is Jill Carroll's life.

[Glowdine]

16. FYI

I see you stil haven't read your Skinner (B.F.)... A U.S. invasion is not 'a behavior'--it is a highly complex series of behaviors--many of which depend on the actions and cooperation of others not under his exclusive control.

The scenario that was given here about Bush handing ransom to a kidnapper, or granting them something they want, was extremely simplistic--and that's what I addressed.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Glowdine]

19. Oh brother....

Hey, if you can't understand the question, or the scenario I posted about, then you can't. Somebody WILL, so just skip it...

[Rocknrule]

9. "Bush risks our lives to swing his dick around and act manly"

[Buns_of_Fire]

18. Typical boosh "diplomacy"

It's not as if we're planning to trade "arms for hostages" (as St. Reagan did), or something similar. Chucklenuts is apparently just subverting OUR OWN STATED POLICY on female detainees so he can show the world what a MANLY-MAN he is and how HE'LL decide the proper disposition of things (whether or not it conflicts with current policies).

Little asshole should have kept it at stuffing socks in his flight suit.

[WinkyDink]

28. To the defenders of Bush policy here:

Is it because the current Bush policy is working SO WELL in Iraq??

[OnyxCollie]

30. I will assume

by "defenders of the current Bush policy" you are referring to myself (and possibly, Glowdine) despite what I clearly put in the subject of one of my previous posts. Speaking for myself, I will ask you to point out where I believe the current Bush policy is working so well. Did I say you should run around, clapping your hands with glee at any of Bush's attempts at foreign policy? I was only stating what political scientists have observed and theorized over the decades. Why not ask me if the U.S. should even be in Iraq in the first place? I don't approve of ANY of Bush's policies. I do not follow the neocon's realist approach to foreign policy with it's inherent flaws, nor the cost/benefit analysis of obtaining Iraqi oil fields and establishing a military presence next to Iran.