Buried deep in this WaPo story today was the news that, oh by the way, “the number of detainees held by the U.S. military in Iraq has increased to almost 22,000, from 15,400 six months ago.”
Think about it. These are nearly all men of bread-winning age, most likely with an average of around five dependents. That makes more than 100,000 people who are directly affected by this mass-detention situation.
In the circumstances faced by the US military (and everyone else) in today’s Iraq, the US military doesn’t even claim to have “probable cause” for the detention of each one of these men; and it certainly doesn’t have the capacity to hold individualized hearings to investigate the nature of any allegations that may have been made against them.
Actually, the vast majority of these detainees are probably not being held because they are judged through any rational process to be personally guilty of having committed a crime. No, they are most likely being held “preventively”, that is, because of a generalized fear that they might commit some action against the US occupation forces in Iraq, someday. (Sort of on a par with the reasoning Bush used to invade their country in the first place– doing this “preventively”, rather than to respond to or even “pre-empt” any evidently threatening Iraqi attack against the US.)
Now, as that WaPo article makes clear, there has arisen another strong incentive to increase the number of detainees, as well: The bulk of the article is about the informal “amnesty” process that many US units are now using toward Iraqi tribal sheikhs, whereby men loyal to these sheikhs who are in detention are released into the sheikhs’ control in return for the sheikhs agreeing to work as allies with the occupation force.
So under this model, if a local US officer wants to win the support of a local sheikh, he has every incentive to capture a few of the sheikhs’ supporters as hostages– an action, I should note that,
- (1) has been pioneered by the Israelis many years ago, and before them by every single other colonial/occupying force in history, and
(2) is in absolutely clear contravention of international law.
Oh, and here we are, in news from Ramallah, that,
- Family and friends joyously hugged 255 Palestinians freed by Israel on Friday, hoisting them on shoulders for a boisterous heroes’ welcome meant to give President Mahmoud Abbas [= local tribal leader with whom a deal has been done] a political boost in his power struggle with Hamas.
Of course I share the joy of those families. But that’s not the point. The point is that these two occupying powers– the US and Israel– have no darn business at all engaging in the antecedent broad campaigns of hostage-taking, undertaken for purely manipulative political ends rather than through any form of due-process, regulated, criminal justice procedure.
That AP report from Ramallah spells out that “thousands more Palestinians remained in Israeli jails”. 22,000 Iraqis meanwhile languish in US prisons in Iraq– and many further thousands of (mostly Sunni) political hostages languish in terrible conditions in prisons run by the Iraqi ‘government’, as well.
The NYT today carried a stomach-turning series of photos taken inside one of these Iraqi government jails. You have to know that, since the people in charge of this jail let the photographer in, it was evidently among the “most humane” of the prisons they run. (We can probably hardly even imagine the life-threatening squalor and the torture chambers inside some of their other prisons…) But even the scenes in these photos reminded me of the intense overcrowding I glimpsed during the short visit I made to the Central Prison in Kigali, Rwanda, in June 2002.
Yes, post-genocide Rwanda is just another of the many US-supported regimes around the world that have used massive campaigns of “preventive” detentions– i.e., political hostage-taking– as a way of intimidating and coercing whole populations judged too critical of the central government.
If you want to get a bit of historical context on this whole phenomenon of how colonial regimes use mass detentions in an attempt to subjugate whole populations, you should read this article that I published not too long ago, on the ghastly mass incarceration campaigns that Britain used against the Kikuyu of northern Kenya in the 1950s…. Or better still, study the award-winning historical study of the topic by Caroline Elkins that I was reviewing there.
In my own much smaller researches into the effects of the Rwandan government’s more recent mass-detention campaigns against their country’s majority Hutu population I was able to confirm her findings that such campaigns have devastating and long-lasting effects not only on the detainees themselves but also on their families and on the broader fabric of society that is rent asunder by the detentions…
In today’s Iraq, the US government has a lot to answer for. The effects of the ongoing mass-detention campaign should not be forgotten.
Meanwhile, the tide of history is certainly running against the ability of the Bushites to “win” this contest in Iraq. (Whatever “winning” would mean.) So all these detentions, all these campaigns the US military is engaging in to arm this faction or that faction inside Iraq– they will lead to nothing… Nothing, that is, except to deepen the scars of violence that the US occupation has carved deep into the very being of Iraqi society.
H, what you have done with this piece is make concrete the reality of occupation-
More on this disaster:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,2131699,00.html
As the occupying power, the United States is responsible under international law for the civilian deaths and suffering in Iraq.
It has been shown that there are ways to “win” a war against insurgency. But the way is long,cruel, and violates many principles of international law. It dehumanizes both the victim and the occupier. I believe that we have seen just the tip of the iceberg of mistreatment of Iraquis by US troops carried away to excess by impossible demands from above. Rabin in Israel finally realized that the occupation of the Palestinians needed to end, not for the sake of the Palestinians, but to try to save the soul of Israel. Gen. Petraus’ plan might work if it were carried on for many more years, but at what cost? And how would that leave Iraq and US? Apparently the latest plan includes arming and training Sunni militias in places like Anbar to fight Al Queda. Don’t any of them remember arming and training the Sunni groups in Afghanistan to fight the Russians?
Besides the ethical/moral implications of this policy, the chances are that among the detainees are a fairly substantial number who have direct links to the insurgency, whose “value” (from the occupier’s point of view) simply hasn’t been recognised because the occupier holds too many people to process effectively.
Add the anger and resentment an individual will rightly feel if he has been detained for no reason, and these detention facilities are perfectly designed to recruit and train insurgents.
The South African apartheid state likewise provided very effective training facilities for the anti-apartheid organizations… it’s almost certainly no accident that many of the most important leaders of the internal wing of the anti-apartheid struggle ‘sojourned’ at one time or another on Robben Island. Former prisoners accounts of their experience there almost all stress the importance of the political education they received while on the island in firming their will to resist.
It has been shown that there are ways to “win” a war against insurgency.
I don’t agree, not these days, not even with all the brutality that Jack mentions. The oft-cited case of Malaya was a special one. The insurgents were ethnic Chinese, a minority population of external origin. The Malays were not involved.
And certainly not in Iraq. The entire population other than the Kurds, and the collaborators in the Green Zone, are now actively or passively opposed to the occupation. There’s no going back. More brutality is possible, but not “winning”.
Please don’t compare the Israelis and the Americans. It doesn’t make sense. The Israelis are protecting their land, land that has been theirs for thousands of years, against people who have repeatedly attacked them (over 10,000 times in the past 150 years), and who openly claim that they desire to completely eliminate both Israel and Jews in general. The Israelis never declared war on anyone; the Arabs declared war on them. Under international law, the Israelis have every right to defend their territory. The US, on the other hand, has not been attacked by any Iraqis, is under no threat, and has no legal basis for being in the country or for attacking its people. You’re a very, very bright woman, but you don’t seem able to get basic, very well documented facts about history and international law correct.
eliminate both Israel and Jews in general.
This misleading statement mikep..
There are still Jews living between Arab in ME, there are still Jews in another Islamic countries if come here to put your propaganda pleas give us break.
Jews suffer more severe eliminations in western word West and East Europe.
Unless your history books tells different history about the suffering of Jews.
The Israelis are protecting their land, land that has been theirs for thousands of years
It is the Palestinians’ land too, for thousands of years. They too are only protecting their land.
My ancestors first spawned — or so I understand — in the world’s oceans billions of years ago. In terms of current Zionist “right of return” sophistry, that ancient ancestral breeding and transient residence makes the world’s oceans my exclusive property, which I have every right to “defend” by displacing, incarcerating, or just-plain-eliminating any other carbon-based life forms I choose to consider interlopers on my self-proclaimed “territory.” Once displaced by me and/or Jews emigrating from Europe, North Africa, and Russia (where their ancestors lived for thousands of years) those now-“stateless” carbon-based life forms have no right to avail themselves of the same “right of return” arguments that I have just advanced in “support” of my own fantastical claims.
Racist, apartheid Zionism means never having to advance an argument that doesn’t produce a conclusion identical to its own self-serving suppositions — in other words: simple solipsistic assertion.
The Israelis are not “hostage taking.” The Palestinian prisoners have either been convicted of crimes (some in civilian trials, some in military courts), or are detained for preventative security measures.
I have plenty of qualms with preventative detention, and one can also question the procedures in military courts (though by most objective accounts, Israel provides due process). But it clearly is not hostage taking. As much as Helena and Shirin may want to fudge the facts, the prisoners are in Israeli jails are not their for political reasons but because of the harm they caused or could cause.
It’s amazing, Israel makes an incredibly courageous step in releasing prisoners early, and giving amnesty to several other Palestinian militants for little more than an empty promise. Yet Helena still continues on her nonstop campaign of hatred. It’s so sad, particularly from someone who likes to call herself a peace activist.
What an amazing argument, Joshua. What on earth is “prevent[at]ive detention” if not the stripping of a person of his/her freedom in the absence of any charge against them?
And Israel has done it to thousands of Palestinians.
Tell me the moral difference between that and hostage-taking.
I’m glad you have “qualms” about it. Perhaps something a little stronger and more realistic and useful than those light sentiments could be in order
As for your assertion that “by most objective accounts, Israel provides due process” in the military courts it runs in the West Bank, ha-ha-ha-ha. Have you ever actually read any of the accounts in Human Rights Watch, Amnesty, etc of how those courts operate?
“Tell me the moral difference between that and hostage-taking.”
Sure. Hostage taking is where an individual is detained not because they pose an actual security threat, but simply as a bargaining chip or to cause political upheaval. In other words, it’s a classic technique of terror.
Preventative detention, on the other hand, is done because it is believed that the individual poses a bona fide threat. It can be used while the authority in question prepares evidence to build a case against the individual. Or, in a more objectionable form, it can be more indefinite and based on the probability or likelihood that the individual poses a future danger.
Although there are due process concerns with preventative detention, it is not in the same category as simply capturing or kidnapping an individual for political gain (hostage taking). That distinction is clear enough.
I’m disappointed, though I can’t say I’m surprised, at your ignorance on this topic. The problem is that whenever you approach this issue, you do so with the preconception that you have to be as nasty, vindictive, and hateful towards Israelis and their supporters as you can. It’s a pity that your analysis is consistently blinded by your prejudices in this way.
Shocking statements from Nasrallah today. He says that he will refuse to even confirm whether the captured soldiers are alive! Let alone actually allow communication with the outside world!
You would think that Helena would be outraged at this blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions!
Actually, I’m kidding. It’s not shocking when it comes our the mouth of Nasrallah, it’s just par for the course. And no one would really think Helena would be outraged at this, because she serves as a cheerleader for any action taken against Israel, no matter how odious.
P.S. Nasrallah also is boasting that he has missles that can strike any part of Israel (literal translation: “occupied Palestine.”). What’s a peace activist to do? Perhaps write an article or book fawning over how disciplined, daring and inventive his organization is?
I think even the most ardent supporter of Israel would agree that preventative detention on a massive scale is not a sustainable policy towards peace, especially for a democracy. As it was pointed out in this discussion with the South Africa model, and common sense dictates, jailing mass numbers of people without cause just feeds an insurgency.
Mikep made the point that comparing the American occupation of Iraq to Israel’s… dalliances in the West Bank and the Golan is not fair. Like British imperialists in India and elsewhere, the Israelis are not going anywhere. Ever. Like it or not, Israel is part of the equation and can therefore use entirely different tactics and strategies in combating those who would like to see it destroyed. The Americans, by contrast, are tripping over themselves in order to extract… themselves (dammit) from the quagmire that is Iraq.
Finally, there should be a greater distinction between a “War on Terror” and the counter-insurgency/civil war that is going on in Iraq. I’ve written a little something about that recently on my blog.
History of Iraq by “iraqi stamps”
“The Americans, by contrast, are tripping over themselves in order to extract… themselves (dammit) from the quagmire that is Iraq.”
On the contrary, Patrick, they have no intention of ever leaving Iraq. If they were then they would not be spending billions building four enormous permanent military bases in strategic locations throughout the country. And they would not be spending close to a billion dollars to build and equip a mega-“embassy” that is literally a city within a city within a city that is completely independent of the rest of the country with its own electrical, water, communication, transportation, medical and school systems. That “embassy is not about normal diplomatic relations, it is a place from which to run the country – and more, it is to serve as a regional command and control center.
Even the Democrats are not really looking for a way out of Iraq. Read the Levin-Reid “withdrawal” amendment that had the Senate up all night last week. We kept hearing that it called for a complete withdrawal by April, 2008 – today I heard even Congresswoman Barbara Led make that assertion. I have read it, and it calls for nothing of the sort. In fact it EXPLICITLY calls for troops to remain after April, 2008, and describes their “limited” missions, which by the way include combat, thought they do not use that word. The Democrats are just looking for a way to fulfill the agenda of a permanent controlling presence in Iraq while appearing to be looking for a way out.
PS I forgot to mention that the “embassy” in Baghdad also will have its own missile “defence” system.
Since when is a missile defence system a legitimate form of diplomacy? In the history of embassies, how many have EVER had their own missile defence systems?
After four years and Iraqi still bombed by Cluster bombs and other deadly stuff that against UN resolutions,
Any one from you who speak here take action and show real support and opposition against your army actions on civilian Iraqis, Please take action now with your congressman and senators??
This bit of news reported by Iraqi news (Arabic) Text) these in South these are Shiites Iraqi as you like to speak about Iraqi nation
http://www.non14.comnews.php?action=view&id=7724
http://www.non14.com/news.php?action=view&id=7724
الاحتلال الامريكي يستخدم قنابل محضورة دوليا على العوائل في محافظة كربلاء
السبت 28-07-2007 09:09 مساء