Five Hostages Left Behind, and One G-Man Unaccounted For

By Scott Horton

Well, a full week has come and gone, and were does the hostage scorecard stand? The fifteen British sailors and marines—returned to their families in Britain. The Iranian diplomat held by mysterious persons who spoke fluent American English—returned to Tehran. The five Iranians in the delegation sent to Iraqi Kurdistan as the advance team to open a consulate in Arbil? Well, it seems that at length, the Decider has decided. They will stay as hostages, at least until July. And former FBI agent Bobby Levinson, who disappeared at Kish Island during the crisis? Still unaccounted for.

Robin Wright reports the details in the Saturday Washington Post:

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

At a meeting of the president's foreign policy team Tuesday, the administration decided the five Iranians will remain in custody and go through a periodic six-month review used for the 250 other foreign detainees held in Iraq, U.S. officials said. The next review is not expected until July, officials say.

The five, seized in a Jan. 11 raid by U.S. forces in the Kurdish city of Arbil, are at the center of increasing tensions between Washington and Tehran. The decision is certain to further irritate Tehran, which has ratcheted up pressure on the United States and on its allies and even its friends in the Iraqi government to win freedom for the Arbil five.

By my sources, Wright's account is correct. But there's more. In addition to being an further irritant in relations between the United States and Iran, this is also an increasing source of friction between the United States and Iraq. Indeed, the raid was undertaken as a slap in the face to Iraqi President Talabani and to the Barzani Kurdish leadership, who had invited and were entertaining the Iranian delegation, consisting largely of Iranian Kurds. It was intended to say: no dealing with the Iranians behind our backs—we won't permit it.

Let's take a look at the rationalization used by the United States for this detention.

The United States is invoking Iraqi law as well as U.N. Security Council resolutions 1546, 1637 and 1723 authorizing the U.S.-led coalition operating in Iraq as grounds to detain the Iranians. The U.N. resolutions allow the multinational force to take steps to protect itself.

The resolutions quoted give the U.S. Forces in Iraq the authority to make security detentions subject to the constitution and laws of Iraq. That point is echoed in a letter from Secretary of State Colin Powell. It means that U.S. Forces coming under attack or perceiving an imminent threat from hostile persons is entitled to take them into custody. Are they entitled to hold them indefinitely or subject to some internal review? Absolutely not. Under Iraqi law, which is unequivocal on this point, they have to be produced before an Iraqi magistrate and have their detention justified periodically. This is not being done. Moreover, Iraq does not believe these persons should be held, and considers their detention unlawful. So what is the legal status of the prisoners? They are hostages.

If it turns out that former FBI agent Robert Levinson is in Iranian custody as a back-up bargaining chip, that might even be a bit reassuring at this point. Nothing has been heard about him so far, which is worrying for his loved ones and friends.

This makes plain why the Department of State sided with the Government of Iraq in demanding that they be set free. But the decider has decided. And who, by the way, is the decider? Vice President Dick Cheney.

Question: what do you call a government that lacks the power freely to enter into foreign relations with its neighbors, but instead is beholden to a foreign power, which maintains a military presence on its territory? There are several names for such a relationship, but the most polite is probably protectorate. Is this the nature of “freedom” and “sovereignty” that George Bush envisions for Iraq? Sure looks that way.

Wright's report also puts in perspective all the claims out of the U.S. Baghdad command about the Combined Review and Release Board. Whenever questions are asked about a prisoner who's been in unexplained custody the U.S. Forces for a long period of time, Brian Whitman comes out and says that “detainee x has come before the Combined Review and Release Board, which includes representatives of the Iraqi Government, y times. And the board, after hearing the evidence, has decided to continue to hold him.” And every such statement of Mr. Whitman is faithfully reported. It's highly misleading. This board is an Orwellian construct designed to mislead people into thinking that there is some sort of legal process in place. As one officer who participated on the board told me, “Our function was very simple. We are to ascertain whether the command wants to continue to hold the detainee. If it does, end of story. There is no pretense of fact finding, weighing evidence, or any other activity one would associate with court process.” And here, as Wright reports, the decision is a blatantly political one which is made in the White House. More evidence of the justice process as understood in the age of Bush and Cheney: it's all about one thing—politics.