Hmm our troops took a page from Devils Guard!

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by GScholz
Did this family witness a crime? Were they held because something they did or saw? Or were they held as leverage against an enemy?

Ah, no, they were family to a high-ranking Iraqi officer who may have been (I am not there so I don't know) in on the attacks on the US troops trying to keep the peace.  It was an easy and quick way of getting the leader and questioning him on intelligence.  I agree the tactic is not for everyone but the way they did it I am ok with.  Like I said, had the US troops gone in there, held guns to them and said "Let's go, or we will shoot you." then I would have a problem with it.  I am not saying that guns weren't used but they have a way of convincing people that you mean business.  And again, in the long run this tactic saved lives.  If evidence turns up that the US troops used overly aggressive force and mistreated the family then I say stop doing it.  But I think that that didn't happen.  That the family wanted their father/dad/patriarch back so they family can go on with their lives.

[DiabloTX]

Ok, I give up...like debating with a wall...

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Hmmm...true.  But what are they?  Hostages or detainees?

One entry found for detainee.
 

Main Entry: de·tain·ee
Pronunciation: di-"tA-'nE, "dE-
Function: noun
Date: circa 1928
: a person held in custody especially for political reasons


One entry found for hostage.
 

Main Entry: hos·tage
Pronunciation: 'häs-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from hoste
Date: 13th century
1 a : a person held by one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises will be kept or terms met by the other party b : a person taken by force to secure the taker's demands
2 : one that is involuntarily controlled by an outside influence

I agree if they are violating the GC they need to stop.  But if the people are being detained and are well treated I have no problem with this tactic saving Coalition Forces' lives.

OK, OK.  You convinced me.  They were hostages.

[Vulcan]

Originally posted by GScholz
What's the name of that Israeli soldier that has been "detained" by the Hezbollah for more than a decade? He and several other Israelis are being held and will not be released unless the Israelis release jailed terrorists. I guess that's ok then.

Chalk and cheese dude.

The US doesn't have a prevelant history of killing woman and children hostages. Whereas Hezbollah does.

If you think war is a pleasant affair then you are naive, or stupid.

When the US start executing these 'hostages', then start bleeting. Until then the method is proving quite effective in flushing out those who supported a genocidal dictator and continue to try to kill US servicemen. Lets not forget the families of these fighters probably lived off the fat of those opressed and murdered by a regieme they supported. So getting a gun waved in their face is not as bad as being thrown live into a giant chipper like Saddams sons used to execute their opposition. If you have sympathy for these people and their families in preference to the lives of US and other foreign servicemen, good luck to you.

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by GScholz
Ah, if you can't debate it, dismiss it. Good one. I especially like those "rolleyes".

Defending crime is not an easy undertaking, many good lawyers have tried and failed.

Ok, let me try it again GS.  There are threats and there are psychological innuendoes.  Yes, I know you feel that what the US forces did constitutes a "threat" and makes the family a "hostage" in this situation according to how you see it.  What I see is the psychological ploy used to capture a high ranking Iraqi officer.  All that was said in the note was. "If you want your family released, turn yourself in."  It did not say "or we will maim and torture your family" or "they will be killed one by one until you show up" or something that would cause harm to the family members.  The way it is worded is a psychological ploy on part of the US officer to make the Iraqi officer THINK something will happen, alas, the power of suggestion.  All it says is show up and your family gets released, not anything approaching a threat in my book.  Yes, I understand your lawyer reference and what the US officer did is an old lawyer trick.  Remember, the US is the lawsuit capital of the world my friend, and this guy is probably part of that class-action lawsuit to get part of that $500 million dollar settlement that we read about in another thread.  And, yes, I like to use the rolled eyes when it apparent to me that another is not reading what I am typing and trying to understand my point of view when they are blinded by their own.  At first I was on your side in this thread but the more I think about it the more impressed I am with what the US officer did to capture this guy.  You think its a hostage situation, I don't.  Let's just agree to disagree and move on.  Now, about how crappy Fords are...

[DiabloTX]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
OK, OK.  You convinced me.  They were hostages.

You're welcome...but I disagree.

[SOB]

As they were likely to have at least some information regarding the location of the General, then it made sense to take them into custody for questioning.  While in custody their lives were not in danger and they would have been released, General or no.  If you honestly have a problem with this, then you are beyond retarded and there is no point in debating the issue.


SOB

[GRUNHERZ]

Wow Gscholz where was this profound UN Geneva style right/wrong morality when your Dutch UN brothers let thousands get slughtered under their direct watch...  Sorry buddy, I just dont care for Geneva style moral rules...

[GRUNHERZ]

So now your  superior European UN logic is that young children fight to defend themselves against armies of rapists and murderers - I suppose this is the new excuse for srebrenica?

"Hey look we got the guns and the planes but really it's not our job to do anything.. Serb Death Squads? Where? Well, not our problem - look at that old lady and the crippled grandfather with two small children - we will let them them fight off the deathsquads, after we load them on the bus of course,  while we toast with the Serb commander...

Remember it took the evil USA to lead the way, as in kill the ****ing murderers and blowthem up, in both Bosnia and Kosovo. The USA will stand on that while the UN can praise itself on the glories of Srebrenica and faithfully "shielding" serb radar stations and ammo dumps.


You know Gscholz that srebrenica thing really pissed me off as far the UN is concerned - I mean what's the point?

[zonta123]

It is very good news that the US administration is using such methods as kidnapping in Iraq.  It will help all the Iraqi idiots ,who still think that they can trust the US and that they should cooperate, to understand that they must fight to kick these fascist invaders out of their country.  I sincerely hope that more of these tactics follow.

ps. US commanders in Iraq can refer to SS (as in during the invasion of the USSR in WW2) occupation management manuals to find more "effecient" ways to fight local resistance.  That is if they are not already making use of them.

[SOB]

Please accept my apology Gsholz, you are not beyond retarded...perhaps just mildly retarded if you believe that.  It's Zonta123 who is beyond retarded.


SOB

[-dead-]

Originally posted by SOB
As they were likely to have at least some information regarding the location of the General, then it made sense to take them into custody for questioning.  While in custody their lives were not in danger and they would have been released, General or no.  If you honestly have a problem with this, then you are beyond retarded and there is no point in debating the issue.

The act of leaving a ransom note saying "If you want your family released, turn yourself in" pretty much invalidates the claim that they would have been released anyway. And let's face it, they weren't released until he gave himself up, so this claim is rendered to at most nothing more than a cheesey revisionist cop-out (you'll note the report specifies that he added this later). I'd like to think they would have been released, but the ransom note means this intent is highly questionable. It's not much of a defence against a kidnapping rap really is it? "Well, yes we did send a ransom note, and yes we did release them when the ransom was paid, but we would have released them eventually, so we didn't really kidnap them".

The ransom note made them hostages - no note, and they can just be detainees, but sending a ransom note is definitely an indication that the detainees are hostages. And that makes the US Army in violation of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War in relation to these 3 articles:

Article 31
No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.  

Article 33
No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.  
Pillage is prohibited.  
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.  

Article 34
The taking of hostages is prohibited.

[zonta123]

Originally posted by SOB
Please accept my apology Gsholz, you are not beyond retarded...perhaps just mildly retarded if you believe that.  It's Zonta123 who is beyond retarded.


SOB

Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

[SOB]

Well, I guess my question to you then is this.  Do you honestly think we would have held them indefinitely?  Or worse yet, that we would have excecuted them?  I don't.  I think US soldiers are being killed on a regular basis what was done was perfectly acceptible in the face of this, and fortunately it worked and the General turned himself in.  Had he not, I do believe they would have been released, and while in custody would have been treated well.  Or perhaps I'm just naive.


SOB

[SOB]

Originally posted by zonta123
Coming from you, I take that as a compliment.

That's nice for you.  It wasn't meant as such.


SOB