Appointment in Samarra
Appointment in Samarra – Little new information on the arrest of the wife and daughter of Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri yesterday. The most substantial reporting comes from AP’s Jim Gomez, who writes
MacDonald gave no details on why the wife and daughter were seized, but American forces have frequently arrested relatives of fugitives to interrogate them on their family member’s whereabouts and as a way of putting pressure on the men to surrender. [My emphasis]
The media director of the Amnesty International USA, Alistair Hodgett, questioned the tactic, saying if the women were arrested to pressure al-Douri to turn himself in, they were being used as “bargaining chips.”
“At a minimum, the U.S. should clarify on what legal basis (they) … have been detained. If the purpose of their arrest is to exert pressure on Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri and force his surrender, then it is cause for grave concern,” Hodgett said in a statement.
The New York Post rewrites the lede of the Gomez story (”GIS SEIZE FAMILY AS BAIT FOR TOP GOON”) in gung-ho fashion – “American troops hunting for a top Saddam Hussein deputy who’s masterminding anti-U.S. attacks arrested his wife and daughter in an apparent attempt to pressure his surrender.” – but it’s pretty clear their certainty on the mix of “pressure” and information-gathering in American motives is unearned.
Sean Collins says my problem is that I don’t give our troops enough credit. Andrew Olmsted, a veteran, finds the practice disquieting, and on the edge of altering his judgments on the prudence and virtue of the entire war. If Gomez is correct, rather than sloppy, when he states that American troops “frequently” detain relatives “as a way of putting pressure on the men to surrender,” then we have a policy of taking hostages. It’s that simple. I find the moral, legal and practical objections to such a policy compelling.
