Jill Carroll has been released

[Lyle]

CNN is reporting that kidnapped journalist Jill Carroll has been released:
American hostage Jill Carroll, a freelance journalist released Thursday in Iraq after nearly three months in captivity, said she was "treated very well" while she was held.No word yet on what caused her captors to change their minds, but it's some good news for a change.
Link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/30/carroll/index.html)

[jelloshotsrule]

very good news.

[Airforce]

Kidnapped American Reporter Jill Carroll Freed

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5311197

After 3 months, she is one lucky woman :eek:

[BakedBeans]

Thanks goodness! great news

[Thomas Veil]

http://www.ethanwiner.com/Smileys/Beer%20Chug.gif

[Lyle]

I suppose someone should say something controversial about this topic, so that we can justify the mods' decision to move it to the Politics forum. :rolleyes:

[OnceUGoMac]

I suppose someone should say something controversial about this topic, so that we can justify the mods' decision to move it to the Politics forum. :rolleyes:

Okay. Her "kidnapping" was a hoax created by our government to...:p

[zimv20]

I suppose someone should say something controversial about this topic, so that we can justify the mods' decision to move it to the Politics forum.
i am curious as to why she was released. according to the cnn article linked above (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/30/carroll/index.html):

A U.S. government official said that a hostage negotiation group in Baghdad -- with officials from the State and Defense departments, FBI and CIA -- worked extensively on Carroll's case, as it does with other kidnappings.

The official said agencies involved in the effort to free hostages always are looking "to creatively communicate a humanitarian message to captors" and that a common tactic is to use family members to make such appeals.
was she released out of good will, or was there some kind of deal made?

[Lyle]

was she released out of good will, or was there some kind of deal made?Surely it's the latter. If I recall correctly, the folks that kidnapped Carroll also shot her interpreter in the head.

[zimv20]

Surely it's the latter.
do you think, as demanded by the revenge brigade, that a few of those women prisoners were freed?

[Lyle]

do you think, as demanded by the revenge brigade, that a few of those women prisoners were freed?Well, some female prisoners were released a month or so ago -- with the disclaimer from the U.S. military that we'd been planning to release those prisoners anyways. According to today's story:
Carroll's kidnappers had demanded the release of all female prisoners in Iraq in U.S. custody. Five women have been freed, with the U.S. military saying those releases already were planned.

"We still have a few female detainees," [U.S. ambassador to Iraq] Khalilzad said.So I suppose the question is, is Khalilzad pulling our leg and we have in fact released the remaining female prisoners?

[solvs]

Apparently, unlike us, not everyone is happy about it. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/podhoretz-attacks-carroll/ Sickening.

[Lyle]

Apparently, unlike us, not everyone is happy about it. http://thinkprogress.org/2006/03/30/podhoretz-attacks-carroll/ Sickening.What did Mr. Podhoretz say to make you believe that he's unhappy that Ms. Carroll has been released?

[IJ Reilly]

Surely it's the latter. If I recall correctly, the folks that kidnapped Carroll also shot her interpreter in the head.

I agree. Almost certainly, dollars changed hands.

[Lyle]

There's some additional reporting (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Carroll.html) this morning that:
Jill Carroll's kidnappers reportedly warned her before her release that she might be killed if she cooperated with the Americans or went to the Green Zone, saying it was infiltrated by insurgents... They told her it was "infiltrated by the mujahedeen"...
This is a very curious piece of information to me. I guess I don't understand, from the way it's worded, if her captors were threatening her or just giving her some travel tips.
Almost certainly, dollars changed hands.Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of this. The official line (from both ambassador Khalilzad and Jill Carroll's editor at the CSM) is that there was no deal.

[IJ Reilly]

There's some additional reporting (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Iraq_Carroll.html) this morning that:

This is a very curious piece of information to me. I guess I don't understand, from the way it's worded, if her captors were threatening her or just giving her some travel tips.

In Iraq, these are one in the same thing.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of this. The official line (from both ambassador Khalilzad and Jill Carroll's editor at the CSM) is that there was no deal.

Official lines are generally pretty suspect. People who kidnap and murder rarely have sudden changes of heart.

[Lyle]

Official lines are generally pretty suspect. People who kidnap and murder rarely have sudden changes of heart.Agreed.

[zimv20]

Almost certainly, dollars changed hands.
does this mean that "dealing with terrorists" is a new, backdoor policy? or has it always been that way and i'm being naïve?

[IJ Reilly]

does this mean that "dealing with terrorists" is a new, backdoor policy? or has it always been that way and i'm being naïve?

I won't say you're naive, but I think it's been for some time.

[zimv20]

I won't say you're naive, but I think it's been for some time.
how long, roughly? prior to bush?

[IJ Reilly]

how long, roughly? prior to bush?

Who knows? But recall, back in the '80s Ronald Reagan pledged never to deal with terrorists, then made the arms for hostages deal with Iran. Political expediency seems to be the universal tonic for any overdose of high-minded principles.

Remember also, a few months back, we were hearing about efforts to create "back channels" to the Iraqi insurgents. These channels, once established, can be used for multiple purposes. As for money -- who is the source of most of the free-flowing cash in Iraq these days?

Thinking this through makes me kind of ill. I'd almost rather not.

[skunk]

Political expediency seems to be the universal tonic for any overdose of high-minded principles.Machiavelli said that.

[IJ Reilly]

Machiavelli said that.

Not in so many words I presume, unless my memory is better than I thought.

[skunk]

Not in so many words I presume, unless my memory is better than I thought.Well, obviously it was in Italian, for a start...

[IJ Reilly]

Well, obviously it was in Italian, for a start...

Molto allineare.

[solvs]

What did Mr. Podhoretz say to make you believe that he's unhappy that Ms. Carroll has been released?
Sorry, I was referring to the other comments under that part that they linked to. And although JPod didn't actually "attack" Ms. Carroll and may actually be correct, his wording was a bit odd. My point was about some in the conservative press taking issue with her comments. Read the rest of the quotes on the page. Tell me that doesn't sicken you.

Edit: Charles Johnson (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/31.html#a7738)'s take isn't so ambiguous.

[Lyle]

Sorry, I was referring to the other comments under that part that they linked to. And although JPod didn't actually "attack" Ms. Carroll and may actually be correct, his wording was a bit odd. My point was about some in the conservative press taking issue with her comments. Read the rest of the quotes on the page. Tell me that doesn't sicken you.I wanted to wait just a few days to let the dust settle before responding to this.

It seems like (some) analysts on both the left and the right made the same fundamental mistake, and that was to take at face value Ms. Carroll's statements that she made while in captivity. Podhoretz suggested that Ms. Carroll was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. "Think Progress" author Judd's analysis was:
This is a day that we should celebrate Jill Carroll’s courage. She put herself in danger to try to give the world a more accurate picture of Iraq. It is totally inappropriate to assume that her description of how she was treated is motivated by anything other than a desire to tell the truth.
Based on Ms. Carroll's statements over the last few days since her release, it's pretty clear that both sides got it wrong -- her description of how she was treated was motivated by her desire not to get shot in the head.

[Mike Teezie]

does this mean that "dealing with terrorists" is a new, backdoor policy? or has it always been that way and i'm being naïve?

From what I understand, it's always been that way. Money still talks the loudest.

[solvs]

Based on Ms. Carroll's statements over the last few days since her release, it's pretty clear that both sides got it wrong -- her description of how she was treated was motivated by her desire not to get shot in the head.
You are probably correct, I will admit. But that doesn't make what those others linked to any better. Worse actually for not being able to empathize. I still think Judd was just pissed at those and possibly using JPod's former statements against him. I won't defend the liberal press either, because they were totally using her to make their points against their conservative counterparts.

Mr. Johnson was the one who really set me off.

[Lyle]

Mr. Johnson was the one who really set me off.Well, sure, he's your garden variety misogynist. No relation, by the way. ;)