Kidnapping as Military Strategy?

In times of war, nations often engage in practices that they would normally never adhere to during times of peace. As the war in Iraq trudges on slowly and violently, the United States is no exception. The US military and government have both received some negative attention lately, on both the warfront and the home front, pertaining to actions taken while fighting worldwide terror.

Documents released during the end of January report a new military tactic in the War on Terror that might shock many Americans and anger those in the Middle East. The documents, released to the Associated Press via a Freedom of Information Act request, detail accounts of the American Army using the wives of suspected enemies as leverage for their capture. On at least two occasions, women were seized and taken to US detention centers, while a note was tacked on the door telling the Iraqi to, “Come get his wife.” One such document, filed by a United States intelligence officer, describes the raid and capture of a 28 year old woman nursing her 6 month old child. In both reported incidents, the United States military claimed that the women taken into custody were viewed as threats. Both women were released within a matter of days with no charges filed against either.

The practice has been adamantly denounced by human rights agencies as an unacceptable breach of ethics and the Geneva Convention. Said Jumana Mausa of Amnesty International, “You cannot detain people for no purpose other than to try to get to somebody else. It just simply doesn’t square with the law.” Despite the negative press, military analysts, such as ABC’s Tony Cordesman, state that kidnapping insurgents’ wives does not violate the rules of war, and is necessary when combating a non conventional enemy. The contention, however, lies in the necessity for the capture of the right women. If the military begins taking women from families that are not involved, then the tactic will surely hurt the intentions of the military and will hinder the democratic process in Iraq.

On the home front, the United States government has also, arguably, been overstepping its boundaries. Laura Berg, a Veterans Affairs nurse with 15 years experience working in Albuquerque, New Mexico was recently accused of sedition for writing a letter critical of President Bush. Berg was investigated by the FBI and her office computer at the V.A. was seized. Berg’s letter, written to local newspaper, The Alibi, stated, “as a V.A. nurse working with returning…vets, I know the public has no sense of the additional devastating human and financial costs of post-traumatic stress disorder.” She also added the hope that people would, “act forcefully to remove a government administration playing games of smoke and mirrors and vicious deceit.” In a recent interview on Democracy Now!, Berg says that the letter was passed up through the ranks of the V.A., and she described her encounter with FBI officials, recalling, “Oh, I was shocked… I was unbelieving. I was frightened, very, very frightened. And I felt this was, you know, intimidation.” She also said on record that her co-workers were intimidated by government officials. Although the V.A. has offered no apology, pressure is growing in New Mexico and across the nation. Senator Jeff Bingaman has called upon Veterans Affairs Secretary James Nicholson to thoroughly investigate the course of action taken by the VA in reporting Berg to the FBI.

During times of conflict, countries do what is in the best interest of the war effort. The situation in Iraq seems to be a breach of American principles, which is harmful when we are trying to develop a free society in Iraq, but when dealing with ruthless terrorists, the rules may need to be altered slightly. Despite bad press in regards to Abu Ghraib, Guantanomo Bay and secret CIA prisons, most rational Americans will still defend the actions of the majority of our servicemen and women. For this reason, I am begrudgingly willing to accept the rationale behind holding women in an attempt to capture their husbands. I trust that our military holds these women in humane conditions and does not violate the rules of war in dealing with them. It is a controversial subject, but it does not seem out of line when dealing with such a brutally ruthless enemy. If our military handles the situation appropriately, valuable information can be gathered, dangerous enemies can be captured and no human rights need be violated.

On the other hand, investigated a woman, who has devoted her life to helping American veterans, for sedition when she speaks out harshly against the government is completely unacceptable. Yes, she called for the public to act forcefully to remove an administration that she and many others do not support. Such a statement is open to interpretation, but it is possible to “act forcefully” utilizing democratic means and not violence. Surely Mrs. Berg did not mean to bring violence or harm in any way to our nation’s leaders, so an investigation of the nature she underwent is uncalled for. Many people in America have called for the resignation of Bush Administration officials, from Secretary Rumsfeld to Karl Rove to the President himself. In a democratic society, public distrust and dissent is a driving force and must be tolerated. As the Bush Administration expands its assault on the American public’s civil liberties, people like Laura Berg will continue to have the strength to stand up for what they believe in. Regardless of where individual opinion may fall in this debate, I hope we here at Clemson will continue to do the same.