There have recently been a bunch of news reports about alleged Sunni extremists in Iraq having taken hostage “up to 100” (though no-one really seems to know the real number) Shiite Muslim residents of the town of Madain, south of Baghdad.
This hostage-taking is really a scary, scary phenomenon.
I remember how similar cross-sectarian hostage-taking was a big feature of the early years of the civil war in Lebanon. The agony both of those who are taken hostage and of family members left behind, who have no idea at all about the whereabouts, life/death status, or health situation of their loved ones (and always tend to fear the worst), is hard to convey to people who have never encountered such a happening.
Such actions should all be ended! Immediately!!
But what, at the end of the day, is the moral difference between such hostage-taking and the practice of the US and Allawist forces up to now, of taking massive numbers of Iraqi “insurgents” as detainees and holding them– often in undisclosed locations– for weeks and months without trial?
As I noted in this JWN post April 11, as of then some 14,400 Iraqis were being held without trial, by the US forces or the Allawist-Iraqi forces. Of those, roughly 6,500 were being held by the “Iraqi” forces, just a handful by the Brits, and nearly 8,000 by the US forces.
Shame!
Imagine the anguish of an Iraqi mother whose son or spouse has been picked up in such a raid and taken away– with no real thought of a trial in mind for him– to some distant US-run detention center. The location, life/death status, and health situation may well also be kept secret from the detainees’ family members for many long weeks or months. And we know that terrible mistreatment goes on in these places of detention and indeed– in the case of US detention centers– that non-trivial numbers of inmates have died as a result of their treatment there.
Someone explain to me how this is any different from hostage-taking?
In such situations of mass detentions without trial (Iraq, Palestine, Guantanamo, elsewhere), it is a completely natural demand from members of the targeted community that the people detained without trial should be freed. Simply freed. Unless credible charges of criminal wrongdoing are brought against them, in which case that should happen with due speed, in a duly constituted court of law.
But the powers that hold these “hostage” detainees are often, actually, seeking to use them as a bargaining chip, and to “win” something politically for their release. Or, they are seeking to use them to try to brainwash them, with the hope that by breaking the will of these numerous individuals they can break the will of the opposition movement with which they are assumed to be aligned.
Both such uses of hostages– indeed, the very act of hostage-taking itself– are quite forbidden under international law.
Does this prevent the US and Israel from continuing the practice? No, it does not.
The demand voiced by various opposition forces in Iraq for the release of all those detainnes against whom credible criminal charges cannot be brought is a basic one. New Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has said he’s interested in providing an amnesty for all insurgents who don’t have the blood of Iraq civilians (or, perhaps, Iraqi security forces) on their hands.
What’s to stop him just following through, immediately, on that offer? I think that as President he probably has the authority to free all the Iraqis held by his forces who have not been convicted of or charged with any crime. He also, certainly, has the moral authority to demand, flat out, that the “guest forces” now present in his country release all the Iraqi detainees that they’re holding as well.
So what about it, Uncle Jalal? What’s to stop you doing this? Turn yourself into a truly Iraqi national figure by demanding the freeing of your compatriots from the foreigners’ hands.
If at the same time you’ve been successful in winning the freedom of the hostages from Madain (however many they are), then you would end up with a lot more political legitimacy nationwide than you now have.
And solid democratic principles like “no imprisonment without trial” would meanwhile be strongly reinforced…
11 thoughts on “Detentions / Hostage-taking”
Comments are closed.
Well, Al-Jazira is now saying that the supposed hostage-taking in Mada’in is over-exaggerated, and nobody in the town knows anything about hostages taken. My immediate reaction is to ask: who right now is in charge of the Iraqi security forces, is it not still Allawi and his people? It would, I think, be very much in the interest of the outgoing regime to promote Shi’a-Sunni conflict, and a new Falluja. I think this whole event is false, and intended to promote certain interests.
By the way, the world-famous Arch of Chosroes (Taq-i Kisra), built in the 6th century by Khusrau Anushirvan is situated at al-Mada’in. There have been several reports recently that the arch is in parlous condition. No doubt, the combined explosive shocks of US and Iraqi forces weaponry will finally bring it down.
Second comment on Mada’in: the Taq-i Kisra is in much greater danger than the spiral minaret in Samarra was from the small bomb placed there two weeks ago. If you have not appreciated the point, the Taq-i Kisra is an *Iranian* monument of the Sasanian dynasty. So we can expect a seriously negative reaction from Iran, if they succeed in knocking it down. Worse, I would have thought, than the minor benefits to be gained from erasing yet another Iraqi town.
Alastair
Taliban destroyed the statuses in Afghanistan all the world stand up and all the radio shows TV shows and news papers in western world show the world how these guy’s indigenous and uncivilized should be taken off from the power (don
One thing that remains unclear to me is how much the US forces and the various Iraqi governments believed the false reports of mass hostage taking? If they did believe the reports, that has to mean that there is nobody that actually knows what is happening in Iraq outside the green zone.
“who right now is in charge of the Iraqi security forces, is it not still Allawi and his people?”
The “Iraqi security forces” are, as they have always been, simply proxy forces for the U.S. occupation. As has always been the case, they are completely under the charge of the U.S. occupying power. `Allawi and his people were, like the “governing council” before them, never anything more than an Iraqi-looking facade for the U.S. occupation. Their job was to say and do whatever they were told to say and do. They didn’t even have authority over garbage collection, let alone the “Iraqi security forces”.
Well, I don’t really agree with Shirin there. She is attributing unlimited power to the US. With due respect to her knowledge of the country, I have to say that there is a difference, between an Allawi regime, and a Jafari regime. Allawi has no problem with demolishing another Iraqi town. Jafari and the UIA regime will not be free actors, but they are not willing puppets of the US. I reckon they should be able to skirt the worst excesses of the occupation, with a little Arab diplomatic subtlety, not taking the US directly head on. Rumsfeld may think has has the UIA under the thumb, but I doubt very much whether it is really the case. One can’t be openly against the US, but subtly one can turn the American charge in other directions. So this was the point of my remark: Allawi is ready to say yes to any brutality. I don’t think we would have seen the attack on Mada’in if Jafari were already at the helm.
The American troops seem to have no problem taking women as hostage/prisoners and abusing those women as if they were the reward for invading and occupying the country illegally.
Alastair,
I spoke of the present-day situation, and of the situation that preceded it. I said nothing of the putative Ja`fari regime, which you appear to recognize, as I do also, does not yet exist.
Time will tell, of course, but I have seen all too often and too up close and personal what even the greatest idealist is willing to do to keep a position of power once he has obtained it.
Mike,
I was going to point out the very common U.S. practice of taking family members of “wanted” individuals and holding them hostage to try to induce the “wanted” person to surrender. In some cases they have raided a house, found the object of the raid was not at home, and taken wives, sisters, daughters, and even elderly mothers as hostages. As far as I know they are still holding female relatives of `Izzat Ad Douri after more than a year. The catch here is that `Izzat Ad Douri has been suffering from leukemia for some time, and could very well be dead.
First of all, excellent post Helena. Second, good points in above comments.
But the challenge to release all prisoners without an actual trial, well done.
Here is to hope that they may listen to such a sound idea, what a way to establish credibility with one’s own people.
Actually, Reuters reported straight out recently on the US Army taking women hostage in Iraq to try to force their male relatives to turn themselves in. I wrote it up here. The amazing thing is not that the US is doing this, but that somebody reported on it.