Though CPT liberally uses the words "illegal" and
"Christian" to justify its actions one wonders whether
they have the slightest conception of the words. Or the
slightest regard for Tom Fox.
Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor Empire
posted by wretchard
The Belmont Club
The Christian Peacemaker Teams are refusing to cooperate with authorities seeking information about their kidnappers. According to the Daily Telegraph:
<<< The three peace activists freed by an SAS-led coalition force after being held hostage in Iraq for four months refused to co-operate fully with an intelligence unit sent to debrief them, a security source claimed yesterday. The claim has infuriated those searching for other hostages. >>>
However, one of the former CPT hostages, Briton Norman Kemper "is understood to have given some helpful information. He provided details of the semi-rural area north-west of Baghdad where he was held and confirmed that his captors were criminals, rather than insurgents. Their motive was believed to be money."
The refusal was anticipated in a Belmont Club post called The Widows Mite. "They have forbidden any attempts to visit retribution and justice upon their captors. And if they know anything more about this criminal gang they are unlikely to share it with the Coalition" though Mr. Kemper has apparently cooperated to some extent. One of the hostages refusing to cooperate, Mr. James Loney, had characterized his captors as "criminals" according to the BBC. Those criminals had previously tortured and murdered their co-hostage Tom Fox.
Update - ABC News -- Details Released on Iraq Hostages' Ordeal
<<< Peggy Gish, a member of the Chicago-based group for which the former hostages worked in Baghdad, said the men were bound and their captors left the building "right before the intervention." >>>
However, prior to the "the intervention" things were not quite so bad.
<<< Gish said the captives were not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly. The kidnappers provided medication for Kember, who had an undisclosed health problem. She said the three appeared physically fit despite their long captivity. "We do not know of any specific maladies, any particular illnesses, as a result," she said. "Even Norman (Kember) seemed fairly strong for what he had gone through."
Gish said the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were. "Our team has never received any direct communication with them," she said of the captors, adding that no ransom was demanded or paid.
Gish also said she did not know why Fox was killed. "He was the only American," Gish said. "I don't know if that's the reason." >>>
[Why did James Loney characterize his captors as "criminals" or Norman Kemper call them "criminals rather than insurgents" whose "motive was believed to be money" if "the captives never learned why they were kidnapped or who their captors were"? Although the captives were "not always bound during their captivity and were allowed to exercise regularly" they never learned a thing about why Tom Fox was killed. Did they bother to ask? Why would Fox be singled out as "the only American" if the captors were criminals interested only in money? Or are they now not sure?]
Commentary
This is an interesting illustration of how far uncritical antiwar sentiment will bend even the most basic ethical standards. The Christian Peacemaker Teams said in a statement issued after the hostages' rescue that:
<<< We believe that the illegal occupation of Iraq by Multinational Forces is the root cause of the insecurity which led to this kidnapping and so much pain and suffering in Iraq. The occupation must end. >>>
Illegal. Does this include the "illegal" occupation of Iraq by the Iraqi Transitional Government? Has the CPT unilaterally repealed unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1546 providing for an temporary Iraqi government until a full one should be formed, but which in the meantime is regarded as having sovereign attributes? Will the CPT cooperate with police authorities from the full Iraqi government after it is constituted in the coming weeks? Or is their concept of legality superior to all of these? And in any case, if the kidnappers were according to the CPT itself composed of "criminals, rather than insurgents", whose "motive was believed to be money", and who for that money tortured and killed Tom Fox, how does the CPT's 'principled' refusal to cooperate differ in any way from a conscious decision to shield an ordinary murderer from the police? How is that different from being an accomplice after the fact? How is that different from covering up for the Mafia or the Crips?
Though CPT liberally uses the words "illegal" and "Christian" to justify its actions one wonders whether they have the slightest conception of the words. Or the slightest regard for Tom Fox.
fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com
telegraph.co.uk
fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com
abcnews.go.com
cpt.org
en.wikipedia.org
cfr.org |
