Will Jill Carroll be freed?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

Friday, January 27, 2006 2:52 PM EST
The Associated Press
By CHARLES J. HANLEY

The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of "leveraging" their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family's door telling him "to come get his wife."

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.
 
An Engineer I used to work with said in war it's all fair game. I dont know if I agree with his statement though.
 
That's utterly disgusting, sickening, and completely wrong that some in the US Army are doing that, isn't that against official policy or at the very least some code of honor and morality? I wonder what Bush thinks of that.

I don't compare it to Jill Carroll, they are both disgusting in my eyes.

It's not "all fair game", we are supposed to have morals.
 
New video shows hostage journalist Jill Carroll

U.S. reporter seen crying, pleading for release of women Iraqi prisoners

Updated: 5:34 p.m. ET Jan. 30, 2006

CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Jazeera aired a new videotape Monday of kidnapped U.S. journalist Jill Carroll, showing her wearing a headscarf and weeping as she purportedly appealed for the release of female Iraqi prisoners.

The video is dated Saturday, two days after the U.S. military released five Iraqi women detainees. U.S. officials said the release had nothing to do with the kidnappers’ demands.

Carroll’s face is visible in the footage, encircled by a conservative Islamic veil that covers her hair, neck and shoulders. She is sobbing as she speaks to the camera, sitting in front of a yellow and black tapestry.
n_abrams_carroll_060130.300w.jpg
 
The media shouldn't air footage like this. It just encourages the insurgents/terrorists/Iraqi resistance to keep on doing it.
 
^ Agreed. Not to mention there is something highly questionable about publicly airing the sadistic humiliation of someone so awfully helpless.
 
financeguy said:
The media shouldn't air footage like this. It just encourages the insurgents/terrorists/Iraqi resistance to keep on doing it.


and before you know it

the U. S. might just pull out
and leave this mess to the Iraqis
 
yolland said:
^ Agreed. Not to mention there is something highly questionable about publicly airing the sadistic humiliation of someone so awfully helpless.

while i believe 100% that people have a right to know what is going on here, it seems that publically airing the footage is more about ratings than news.
 
Se7en said:


while i believe 100% that people have a right to know what is going on here, it seems that publically airing the footage is more about ratings than news.

Agreed. And it is misleading. The AK47 pointing at her temple is out of view.
 
the iron horse said:
She's a real person, in grave danger.
think beyond that screen we are all looking at

really?
is it not just about supporting the President
things like this will hurt his popularity


we only want good propaganda
please, don't even mention that The U. S. is taking female hostages
 
Se7en said:
while i believe 100% that people have a right to know what is going on here, it seems that publically airing the footage is more about ratings than news.
Yes, and it's a sad commentary on what we feel drawn to watch that this sort of footage drives up ratings. It's almost pornographic really. There is a kind of fundamental affront to human dignity in these scenarios that I feel should not be further enabled by airing it. I am well aware of the cynical argument that Hey, the whole damn conflict is one ongoing affront to human dignity so what makes this any different, but then most of the worst affronts are not being shown. And probably some of them should be, Abu Ghraib footage for example--but note the hostages' identities were for the most part protected there, as they should have been. I am not opposed to unflinchingly depicting the consequences of violence and disregard for human dignity per se, but I do think some lines must be drawn to avoid further humiliation of individuals by making a perversely titillating public spectacle of their private suffering.

I went to Islamabad on a research trip a couple years back and before I left, my brothers sat me down and only half-rhetorically said Please, please, please be careful where you go and whom you go places with, because if you should EVER become some kind of Danny Pearl horror story splashed across the news, it would turn us into sick pathological trigger Islamophobes for the rest of our lives, plus Mom would go to her grave with her last memory of you being a pathetically helpless doomed pawn on a television screen. I guess that is partly where I am reasoning from. The right to know carries its moral risks, too.
 
I know it's all a reflection of what the public wants and what sells, and that the media is a business like any other, blah blah...but it would be nice if just for once, on this one issue, they could have a little respect for human dignity and maybe a little reservation about how much power they give the captors by running these tapes over and over.
 
Back
Top Bottom