Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Hands Off Jill Carroll

By Rory O'Connor, AlterNet. Posted April 3, 2006.


Why would pro-war right-wingers attack journalist Jill Carroll after 82 days as a hostage in Iraq?
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

You're abducted at gunpoint from a Baghdad street your friend and translator is killed before your eyes you're held hostage in isolation for 82 days in rooms where you can't even see outside and threatened with death. Finally, you're forced to make a propaganda video, saying things you don't believe in a desperate attempt to save your life.

And then, miraculously, it works you're finally released, reunited with your loved ones, and finally feel like you're "alive again "

"To be able to step outside anytime, to feel the sun directly on your face, to see the whole sky." As Carroll told reporters waiting for her plane to touch down at Boston's Logan Airport, "These are luxuries that we just don't appreciate every day."

A happy ending, no? A ray of hope in an otherwise bleak landscape of war, terror and torture, right? Cause to celebrate and rejoice, one would think? Instead, inexplicably, despicably, Jill Carroll came under vicious attack all over again -- this time by her own countrymen and peers, fellow members of the media.

The mugging of Jill Carroll by the pathetic likes of John Podhoretz, Don Imus and the rest of their wingnut cohort from the right side of the blogosphere makes me sick. How dare these misguided, ill-informed armchair analysts unleash their barrage of criticism accusing Carroll of showing "too much sympathy for her kidnappers?"

Have they no shame now? They certainly should, after accusing the 28-year-old Christian Science Monitor correspondent of, at best, a "Stockholm Syndrome" identification with her tormentors, and, at worst, treason?

After all, following an emotional reunion with her family in Boston, Carroll spoke of her loathing for the gunmen who threatened her with death "many times" during her ordeal, described her captors as "criminals at best," disavowed a videotaped statement made during her captivity and another made shortly before American troops arrived to take custody of her, and denied allegations that she had refused to answer questions from the American military.

"Things 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 said in a statement released Saturday by the Monitor newspaper.

I wonder if Imus' racist, homophobic and idiotic producer Bernard McGuirk would like to repeat his disgusting suggestion that Carroll may 'even be carrying Habib's baby' now?"

It's a disturbing sign of our partisan-crazed media ecology that Carroll came under sustained assault from pro-war right-wing bloggers and talk radio hosts who attacked her for stating -- while under obvious duress -- that she had not been threatened during her confinement, as well as for wearing Muslim dress and sympathizing with her captors.

Anyone with a brain -- or even a heart -- would know, as Carroll pointed out once she was free, that "fearing retribution from my captors," she could not speak freely, that "out of fear, I said I had not been threatened," when in fact, she "was threatened many times."

What was Carroll's crime? Merely this: She is a suspected member of "the liberal media" that hard-up, hard-core supporters of this illegal, unconstitutional and unwinnable war -- from the White House down -- claim is allying itself with the insurgents resisting America's occupation of Iraq.

Of course, Carroll never expressed any understanding or sympathy for the insurgency. Rather she distanced herself from the sentiment, stating explicitly, "I abhor all who kidnap and murder civilians, and my captors are clearly guilty of both crimes."

"You'll pretty much say anything to stay alive," noted Micah Garen, a documentary filmmaker who wrote a book about his 10 days as a hostage in Iraq in 2004. Like Carroll, Garen was forced to make a video before his release. Political controversy and "media craziness" are two of the issues Carroll will confront in the coming weeks, Garen added.

His words were echoed by another former hostage, U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. McCain said on Meet the Press that Carroll's comments in the video should not be taken seriously. "This was a young woman who found herself in a terrible, terrible position. And we're glad she's home," McCain told NBC's Tim Russert. "We understand when you're held a captive in that kind of situation, that you do things under duress."

So why can't the right-wing chickenhawks understand that?

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

This and other articles by Rory O'Connor are available on his blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Jill Carroll
Posted by: pararep on Apr 3, 2006 5:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From UPI:
Outside View: Jill Carroll in context (Abridged)
By THOMAS HOULAHAN
UPI Outside View Commentator

WASHINGTON, April 3 (UPI) -- Jill Carroll has been free for only a few days and already the recriminations are beginning. Since her abduction, there has been a small but steady chorus of critics claiming that she "brought this on herself." Now, they are being joined by people who have been critical of statements she made while in captivity.

It strikes me that examining her behavior in the context of what was happening around and to her might be useful.

First, let's address the claim that she "brought this on herself."

When the occupation started going south, a lot of journalists fled Iraq. Carroll stayed at her post. When many of those who remained confined themselves to reporting from secure perimeters, she continued to go where the information was.

Before her release, I spoke to a number of people who knew Carroll in Iraq, including Marines she patrolled with in November. Concerns were voiced that she sometimes ventured into areas where her safety could not be guaranteed.

No one, however, ever indicated that they believed she took risks in a search for personal glory. It was a matter of her believing that you couldn't tell the story of Iraq without interviewing common people and being willing to face the unfortunate fact that some of those people reside outside our secured perimeters.

Unfortunately, Carroll was unaware that a few grotesquely irresponsible Army officers had decided that if you couldn't catch the insurgent for whom you were looking, you could flush him out by arresting and detaining his wife (documents back this up).

Carroll also didn't know that once this practice was discovered, senior Army officers failed to rectify the situation by releasing women against whom there was insufficient evidence in a timely manner.

Carroll therefore didn't know that certain Sunni insurgent groups were looking to kidnap an American female reporter for use as trade bait.

Because of the journalistic beliefs she held, she was possibly the most exposed female American journalist in Iraq, and she got kidnapped.

Her fault? I don't think so.

As to the criticism about the statements she made while in captivity, there are times, when, as a writer, words fail me. This is one of them.

I simply lack the craft to describe the feeling I get when I listen to people who have never once risked their lives for anything, and probably never would, basically saying that rather than make those statements, Jill Carroll should have spat in her captors' faces and been beheaded.

She did what she needed to do to save her life. I have no problem with it.

In good time, Jill Carroll will tell us exactly what happened during those 82 days of captivity. Or, maybe she won't. Either way, I'm just glad this situation ended happily and she can get back to her reporting, which I've found to be fair and insightful.


--


(Thomas Houlahan is an associate of the William R. Nelson Institute for Public Affairs, a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division and a frequent contributor to United Press International.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Loathsome
Posted by: Father Paul on Apr 3, 2006 7:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is something to be said for the character of Jill Carroll - consider the fact that she was abducted after witnessing the cold-blooded murder of the man she hired to be her interpreter. What frame of mind do you think YOU would be in after seeing that happen, assuming that the same (or worse) will soon happen to you?

You are then held for more than 80 days. Finally, they dangle the hope of leaving their captivity with your life (and more) intact. Their only condition is that you must agree to read their prepared, false statements before a video camera.

She did what was asked, and then held her tongue until she was safely away from Iraq. Then, she immediately recanted her recorded statements.

That's called saving your ass.

Now, consider these doughy, pampered, privileged right-wing commentators... These guys have never had a moment's duress in their entire lives. They get paid to sit in front of video cameras, telling lies each and every day. And yet, these guys have the lack of balls to call this poor woman every despicable name in the book.

Do you think they would ever recant anything they have said if the paychecks stopped coming?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Setup?
Posted by: lamar on Apr 4, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe it's just an elaborate setup so that John McCain can be compassionate, almost like a human being.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wasn't McCain a prisoner? Posted by: Allison
» RE: Wasn't McCain a prisoner? Posted by: brasilaron
Isn't Imus a Democrat and Anti-War?
Posted by: davedc725 on Apr 5, 2006 12:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This may all be valid and certainly I find no fault with Jill Carroll for doing what she had to to preserve her life. But isn't Imus a Democrat who is a critic of the war, as opposed to a right-winger who is hawkishly pro-war? I don't listen to or watch his show all the time, but I have definitely heard him harshly criticize the president and the neocons on multiple occasions. Seeing Imus politically misclassified in this column (if I am not incorrect) makes me wonder whether his treatment of Jill Carroll has been correctly portrayed here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

jennherne
Posted by: jennherne on Apr 5, 2006 1:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Blame her for all that happened to her, huh? Of course. These are right wingnuts. They are the ones who blame rape victims of bringing it on themselves.
Seems like a lot of women hating going on here!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Jill Carroll thing
Posted by: willymack on Apr 5, 2006 2:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who actually grabbed Jill? For what purpose? Think about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Jill Carroll thing Posted by: sixtiesqueen
Despicable Chickenhawks
Posted by: playitsam on Apr 5, 2006 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess she should have refused to make the statement and fall on her "sword " for the good of....? Pilots shot down in Vietnam were forced to make anti-American statements and nobody thought less of them. It's typical of these righ wing morons who have never been in a combat zone to badmouth a young woman who was held for nearly three months.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If you watched or listened to Imus
Posted by: mishanti2 on Apr 5, 2006 6:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you would know that the his show and his "people" frequently say things that are over the top and or dispicable. And Imus himself could care less what anyone thinks about him or his show. He frequently says things that most on the air shouldn't and wouldn't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Squawk, Squawk Go the Relentless Chickenhawks
Posted by: davidt on Apr 5, 2006 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you ever seen that bloated slob Podhoretz? Or Imus, he looks like he tried to copulate with a light fixture. The Tush Limbaugh got out of Nam because he whined about a pinital cyst, between his baby's bottoms.

These spineless chickenhawks know what their audience buys and they do their best to slather it on thick.

The real unfortunate thing is that these twisted "millions" are so desperate for objects to hate, that I doubt if they listen to any context when they get their daily fix. They just hoot like a bunch of beasts in heat searching for a never-realized satisfaction.

Picture that rare image of Imus, O'Reilly, Hannity, Tush, Krauthammer, Novak, Rove, Disouza, Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin, Boortz and their ilk on a plane headed for Iraq ready to disembark by parachute.

Now, after you savor that thought for a while, remember that they will experience that sheer terror when they leave this earth and are called upon to justify their avoidance of a permanent stay in hell!

Smell the sizzle, man. Smell the sizzle.

David T. Gray
Claremont, NH

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jill will tell us exactly what happened during those 82 days of captivity. Or, maybe she won't
Posted by: WhatNow? on Apr 9, 2006 8:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope she doesn't. I don't care what she did or what she said while in Iraq. I am glad she made it out alive.

I heard a quote of something she supposedly said after being released and it worried me. It made me think if her captors heard it they might be much more reluctant to release another captive. I hope she will be quiet because if she starts talking too much, the next hostage may not get a chance to live.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's Wrong With Muslim Dress?
Posted by: abqbabe on Apr 12, 2006 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what's wrong with Muslim dress?

Of course, American men are repulsed: it violates their society given right to voyeurism, to enjoy vicariously a woman's unbound hair and as much of her body as she can legally bare. And American women accept that men should have a right to consume them visually, as sexual objects.

Muslim dress, however, is modest. It doesn't incite the lascivious passions of strangers, it's comfortable, and it removes emphasis from a woman's body shape as a gauge of her acceptability as a human being.

Certainly, in these respects it is better than the current American custom of going around half dressed, in (often uncomfortable) skin tight clothing, as if every woman is supposed to look like a hooker on the make and arouse the leers and lewd attention of men. Worse, Western "dress" encourages women to cultivate a negative self image (only 2% of the population has an "ideal" body), and blames the woman for not adhering to the unspoken Western social contract, that they have to be attractive to men in public.
And one notices, of course, that women do not dress so when they go to church - as if we only appeared before God on one day a week!

Now, you're going to tell me that this American style is a good thing? American women did used to be modest, and knew how to dress without showing 90% of their skin and leaving none of their body to imagination. Now, if you wear long sleeves, a high neckline and a long skirt or pants people ask you if you are sick or something.

No wonder there is date rape and teen pregnancy and girls don't get any respect from the boys in school. If you dress like a sex object you will get treated like a sex object.

By the way, I am American born and raised (family's been here since 1712), also a clothing historian. I am simply perplexed and more than a little appalled by the way that American women are expected to dress, and think our society would be much better off if we adapted some of the grace and modesty of "Muslim" dress - which also has rules for men!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer: Everything About Her
Posted by: Steven Wanzell on Apr 17, 2006 7:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's a list of why the Righties would attack her:

1) She's not a "Desperate Housewife".
2) She has bigger balls than most men.
3) She has attempted to cover the war.
4) She's a woman.

Steven Wanzell,
artist/activist/ex-American
www.wanzellarts.com.ar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Answer: Everything About Her Posted by: ALANHESTER
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement