Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Should released hostages disavow statements made under duress?

Should released hostages disavow statements made under duress?
Thread Tools
f1000
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:41 PM
 
Carroll Rejects Statements Made in Iraq

By MATT MOORE, Associated Press Writer 12 minutes ago

RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany - Protected by the U.S. military and far from the country where she had been held hostage, Jill Carroll strongly disavowed statements she had made during captivity in Iraq and shortly after her release, saying Saturday she had been repeatedly threatened.

In a video, recorded before she was freed and posted by her captors on an Islamist Web site, Carroll spoke out against the U.S. military presence. But in a statement Saturday, she said the recording was made under threat. Her editor has said three men were pointing guns at her at the time.

"During my last night in captivity, my captors forced me to participate in a propaganda video. They told me I would be released if I cooperated. I was living in a threatening environment, under their control, and wanted to go home alive. So I agreed," she said in a statement read by her editor in Boston.

"Things that I was forced to say while captive are now being taken by some as an accurate reflection of my personal views. They are not."

Carroll arrived in Germany on Saturday on a U.S. military transport plane on her way back to the United States and was expected in Boston on Sunday. The Islamic headscarf she wore as a hostage was gone, and she instead wore jeans and a gray sweater.

The 28-year-old journalist — a freelancer for the Boston-based Christian Science Monitor — was seized Jan. 7 in western Baghdad by gunmen who killed her Iraqi translator. She was dropped off Thursday at an office of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni Arab organization, and later escorted by the U.S. military to the Green Zone, the fortified compound in Baghdad protecting the U.S. embassy and other facilities.

In the statement, Carroll also disavowed an interview she gave to the party shortly after her release. She said the party had promised her the interview would not be aired "and broke their word."

"At any rate, fearing retribution from my captors, I did not speak freely. Out of fear, I said I wasn't threatened. In fact, I was threatened many times," she said. "Also, at least two false statements about me have been widely aired: One — that I refused to travel and cooperate with the U.S. military, and two — that I refused to discuss my captivity with U.S. officials. Again, neither statement is true."

Carroll has said her kidnappers confined her to a small, soundproof room with frosted, opaque windows.

After a day in seclusion, she left Balad Air Base near Baghdad on Saturday on a plane also carrying several wounded soldiers. Carroll smiled and peered with bemusement through the cockpit window at the dozens of television cameras on the tarmac at Ramstein Air Force Base.

"I'm happy to be here," she said to Col. Kurt Lohide, the U.S. officer who greeted her.

Carroll, who had studied Arabic and was widely respected for her balance and fairness as a reporter, attracted a huge amount of sympathy during her ordeal, and a wide variety of groups in the Middle East, including the Islamic militant group Hamas, appealed for her release.

Aside from the short interview aired on Iraqi television upon her release, Carroll had otherwise not shown herself in public prior to her brief appearance Saturday.

The kidnappers, calling themselves the Revenge Brigades, had demanded the release of all female detainees in Iraq by Feb. 26 or Carroll would be killed. U.S. officials did release some female detainees at the time, but said it had nothing to do with the kidnappers' demands.

In the video posted on an Islamist Web site Friday, her abductors said they freed Carroll because "the American government met some of our demands by releasing some of our women from prison."

In the video on the Islamist Web site, she called on President Bush to bring American troops home.

"Tens of thousands ... have lost their lives here because of the occupation," she said in the video. "I think Americans need to think about that and realize day-to-day how difficult life is here."

She said the insurgents were "only trying to defend their country ... to stop an illegal and dangerous and deadly occupation."

In her statement Saturday, however, she condemned her captors, although she did not address the war in Iraq.

"I want to be judged as a journalist, not as a hostage. I remain as committed as ever to fairness and accuracy — to discovering the truth — and so I will not engage in polemics. But let me be clear: I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes," she said.

The Monitor's editor, Richard Bergenheim, said Friday that Carroll's parents told him the video was "conducted under duress."

"When you're making a video and having to recite certain things with three men with machine guns standing over you, you're probably going to say exactly what you're told to say," Bergenheim told ABC television.

Bergenheim said Saturday there were no negotiations that he knew of for Carroll's release and no ransom was paid. The paper hired her a week after she kidnapped.

He said she was on her way home and "her family is just absolutely rejoicing."

It was unclear precisely when Carroll would arrive. According to Richard Walsh, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Port Authority, Carroll was to land at Logan International Airport in Boston late Sunday morning.

In her statement, Carroll thanked those who had helped secure her release and said she wanted time to recover.

"I ask for the time to heal. This has been a taxing 12 weeks for me and for my family," she said. "Please allow us some quiet time alone, together."

___

Associated Press writers Jay Lindsay and Brandie Jefferson in Boston contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060401/ap_on_re_eu/carroll
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:50 PM
 
I knew that Carroll would eventually retract some or all of the statements she made while in captivity. I doubt that most Americans believed Carroll was making those statements under her own volition, so I fail to see a pressing need for a public disavowal.

Future hostage takers may not believe that their captives are sincere in their coerced statements and instead kill them. For the sake of these future hostages, I think that released hostages should not publicly retract forced "confessions" or other propaganda.

When women/children are kidnapped, family members and officials do not villify the kidnapper(s) but try to appeal to his humanity (even if he is nothing but a savage, serial killer/rapist). We should take the same tack with hostage takers and let them believe that they have a rapport with their victims.
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by f1000
I knew that sooner or later Carroll would publicly retract some or all of the statements she had made while in captivity. I doubt that most Americans believed that Carroll was making those statements under her own volition, so I fail to see the point to such a public disavowal.

Future hostage takers may not believe that their captives are sincere in their coerced statements and instead kill them. For the sake of future hostages, I think that released hostages should not publicly retract forced "confessions" or other propaganda.

When women/children are kidnapped, families and officials do not villify the kidnapper but try to appeal to his humanity (even if he is nothing but a savage, serial killer rapist). We should take the same tack with hostage takers and treat them as dangerous deviants.
Regardless, they got her confessing on tape, so they can still use it as propaganda. Also, not all hostage takers are political, some just want randsom money, so it wouldn't make a difference what the hostage might say.

I think it just comes down to the individual hostage takers. If they are psycho, they are going to kill you no matter what you say. There have been several major hostage takings where they kill the hostage on video. So, I don't think one can hope to NOT somehow offend future hostage takers. I think once you are a hostage, all bets are off.

--- edit --- if anyone wants to see a good hostage/kidnapping movie I suggest Man on Fire,
just saw it and it was awsome!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00...v=glance&n=130
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:07 PM
 
Was she pressured more with the kidnappers than by her employers?

Had to ask.

"Should released hostages disavow statements made under duress?"

Why "should", and not, instead, "be given the opportunity"? What if they really thought those words then, but being back home, they have no choice but to repudiate those statements because the pressure at home makes it unacceptable?

Bear in mind I have no idea what were the statements under duress, but how can anyone be sure? I don't know. Do you? How can you tell?

There is a whole science about witnesses and issues related to the reliability of memory, and peer pressure. There is also a whole field of psychology dealing with state of minds related to being kidnapped.

Who knows the forces at play in her mind and outside of her, since the time before the kidnapping, up to now?
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
Demonhood
Administrator
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Land of the Easily Amused
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by f1000
Future hostage takers may not believe that their captives are sincere in their coerced statements and instead kill them.
um, is there even such a thing as a sincere coerced statement? you don't stick a gun to someone's head and a script in their hand and expect sincerity. really.
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
Bear in mind I have no idea what were the statements under duress, but how can anyone be sure? I don't know. Do you? How can you tell?
Why don't you read the article before responding.
     
moeknows
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Beanery.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:25 PM
 
Why are all hostages begging and crying to be saved?

They took a chance and got caught. Why don't they ever show bravery?
JAFO
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood
um, is there even such a thing as a sincere coerced statement? you don't stick a gun to someone's head and a script in their hand and expect sincerity. really.
That's the way you and I think, but nutcases have often been shown to think differently. Think of the Patty Hearst case.
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by f1000
Why don't you read the article before responding.
What would be the difference? The article says the truth? I don't know about that. Do you?

I am not accusing her of lying. I merely am pointing out that there is pressure for her coming from many sides to say things.

I have no doubt that she may very well have been coerced to say things she did not believe in. She may not have liked the idea of being bullied in saying what she believes in either. She may feel she has to say things differently now as well for the simple reasons that it makes sense now that she is home. Who knows?

The question is more about your usage of "should". What were you thinking when you typed "should", if not that you assume that any hostages had to necessary lie under duress?

And as Demonhood pointed out, is it not obvious people are under duress anyway, as hostages?

So what is your point?
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 07:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Demonhood
um, is there even such a thing as a sincere coerced statement? you don't stick a gun to someone's head and a script in their hand and expect sincerity. really.
Wow demon posted a post in the PL that didn't include.

1. Rule posting
2. Saying "Cut it out"
3. Locking a thread.



*marks on calendar *
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT
What would be the difference? The article says the truth? I don't know about that. Do you?

<snip>
I have no idea where you're going with your line of questioning, but the issue at hand isn't about Carroll, but about how to best protect future kidnap victims. Whether or not Carroll publicly retracts her statements will mean little to the vast majority of us, but her retractions could mean life and death to future hostages.

A general statement from the gov't saying that most hostages make statements under duress and that specifics about particular cases can't be discussed for the sake of future hostages would satisfy the curiosity of most Americans AND leave enough doubt in kidnappers' minds as to whether or not a particular victim is worthy of being spared.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 08:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by Rolling Beans
Why are all hostages begging and crying to be saved?

They took a chance and got caught. Why don't they ever show bravery?
If they show bravery they are surely killed and we never see those acts of bravery. If they go along with their captor's wishes and say anything and everything asked of them on video that's sent all of the world in every language to every new organization they MIGHT be freed.

From that, what should we conclude?

Hostages that go along with their captor's demands are attention whores.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 1, 2006, 09:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by f1000
I have no idea where you're going with your line of questioning, but the issue at hand isn't about Carroll, but about how to best protect future kidnap victims. Whether or not Carroll publicly retracts her statements will mean little to the vast majority of us, but her retractions could mean life and death to future hostages.

A general statement from the gov't saying that most hostages make statements under duress and that specifics about particular cases can't be discussed for the sake of future hostages would satisfy the curiosity of most Americans AND leave enough doubt in kidnappers' minds as to whether or not a particular victim is worthy of being spared.
OK. Reading the article does not shed more light on your question. Your second post, which I did not read, does.

On one hand, you have terrorists-kidnappers using some form of reverse psychology, where they apparently force hostages to make declarations in their favor. Who would believe that?

The people of the country from which the hostage originates? Or the Iraqi? Or are the hostages simply used to give motivation to other terrorist-kidnappers into submitting more hostages to that treatment? Yourself believed from the start she would disavow her own words. I am curious about how many people you know believed her at the time of her declarations?

Are the terrorists so simple-minded to believe that such a trick really works?

So if we admit they are simple-minded, I suppose it would make sense that considering they believe their trick really works either on Iraqis, or on Americans, yes, there should be a concern in allowing freed hostages to disavow what they said. On the other hand, the US are not going be bullied by terrorists, so would that not make sense as well to simply disavow what was said under duress and show that their trick only works while a gun is pointed at the hostages?

But if they are not simple-minded, and that this coercion is nothing else but a limited way of torturing people by threathening them with guns to say things they do not believe, I would suppose it would make no difference to disavow anything.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 05:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by f1000

A general statement from the gov't saying that most hostages make statements under duress and that specifics about particular cases can't be discussed for the sake of future hostages would satisfy the curiosity of most Americans AND leave enough doubt in kidnappers' minds as to whether or not a particular victim is worthy of being spared.

I really don't see how that would change anything. Even if the kidnapped person were to remain silent, the kidnappers can still film the killing and get propaganda value that way.
I think when someone gets kidnapped, it is the kidnappers who have all the power, unless they make some stupid mistake and someone finds out where they are hiding (which is what happened to the canadian hostages who were released a week ago).
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 05:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by abe

From that, what should we conclude?

Hostages that go along with their captor's demands are attention whores.
Sure, people like you say stuff like that now. But if you were ever kidnapped and had a gun pointed at your head, you would be begging and pleading on your knees and say anything to be released in the first 5mins.
     
abe
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 05:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko
Sure, people like you say stuff like that now. But if you were ever kidnapped and had a gun pointed at your head, you would be begging and pleading on your knees and say anything to be released in the first 5mins.
It's obvious you either CAN'T read, or DON'T read or CAN'T and/or DON'T understand what you respond to. So I might as well just give you your own nonsense to respond to, just so you'll have a prompt to regurgitate your nonsense.

Sure, people like you say stuff like that now. But if you were ever kidnapped and had a gun pointed at your head, you would be begging and pleading on your knees and say anything to be released in the first 5mins.
America should know the political orientation of government officials who might be in a position to adversely influence the future of this country. http://tinyurl.com/4vucu5
     
FeLiZeCaT
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 08:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by abe
It's obvious you either CAN'T read, or DON'T read or CAN'T and/or DON'T understand what you respond to. So I might as well just give you your own nonsense to respond to, just so you'll have a prompt to regurgitate your nonsense.

Sure, people like you say stuff like that now. But if you were ever kidnapped and had a gun pointed at your head, you would be begging and pleading on your knees and say anything to be released in the first 5mins.
Anyone would. Those who don't are in movies.
You live more in 5 minutes on a bike like this, going flat-out, than some people in their lifetime

- Burt
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 11:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko
I really don't see how that would change anything. Even if the kidnapped person were to remain silent, the kidnappers can still film the killing and get propaganda value that way.
I'm not saying that hostages should keep their mouths shut, I'm saying that RELEASED hostages should keep their mouths shut.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 11:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by f1000
That's the way you and I think, but nutcases have often been shown to think differently. Think of the Patty Hearst case.
I know that case very well. What do you think that case illustrates? I see absolutely no difference between that one and this one. They were both coerced. Hearst was just coerced into doing more than a statement.

BTW, I believe your premise is inhumane. There were right--wing bozos here in the US saying that she was a terrorist supporter and all kinds of other stuff. She should disavow that.
     
f1000  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by BRussell
BTW, I believe your premise is inhumane. There were right--wing bozos here in the US saying that she was a terrorist supporter and all kinds of other stuff. She should disavow that.
I don't see how trying to prevent the future murders and tortures of hostages is inhumane. Sure, Carroll and others may have to deal with the stupidity of some crazies (from both sides of the political spectrum), but that's a small price to pay to help prevent the murders of future hostages.

Originally Posted by BRussell
I know that case very well. What do you think that case illustrates? I see absolutely no difference between that one and this one. They were both coerced. Hearst was just coerced into doing more than a statement.
That's why I cited it. The case suggests that some kidnappers may in fact believe that their victims sympathize with their cause, and even induct their victims into their organization.
( Last edited by f1000; Apr 2, 2006 at 11:48 AM. )
     
mania
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Durango CO
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 2, 2006, 07:30 PM
 
she is lucky to be a civilian. as a reservist i am supposed to follow the 'code of conduct' and that includes never saying things against your country and always trying to escape. glad i am not in iraq.
The Bitcastle
graphic design, web development, hosting
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Apr 3, 2006, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by mania
she is lucky to be a civilian. as a reservist i am supposed to follow the 'code of conduct' and that includes never saying things against your country and always trying to escape. glad i am not in iraq.
You don't get busted for failing to do so while being tortured, right?

Having the tape released of the helicopter pilot who was captured in Somalia (Blackhawk Down)seemed to cause us only to redouble our efforts to rescue him, despite the anti-American sentiment he expressed.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:40 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,