Justifications to follow
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.
n one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect's house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.
"During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target's surrender," wrote the 14-year veteran officer.
He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.
"The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing," the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.
Now that the conservative / right / republicans have defended torture, extraordinary rendition, warrantless wiretapping, and a few more things in the name of protecting our "freedoms" (not to mention the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis), I can't wait to see the justifications for this to start. If it even rises to any level of attention in the media.
Here's a thought experiment: If the painful, prolonged torture (I mean real torture, pick anything that *you* would consider torture) of ten innocent children would ensure no further 9/11's, would it be the right thing to do?