Jill Carroll: a modern-day Patty Hearst?

Seeing Jill Carroll's latest video the other day, I had a gnawing, forbidden suspicion. Has she gone Patty Hearst on us? Yes, she appeared distressed, but not in the way we're accustomed to seeing weary and wary hostages at this point in their captivity. She looked healthier than when she was abducted, and something about her hysterical plea seemed contrived. I'm sorry, but I could picture her captors, off-stage, directing her: "emote! No, No! Cut! Jill, Jill, Jill, reach deep down, find the emotion! Let's do it again! Quiet on the set! Take 27, and... action!"

Now, hear me out here.

If you think about it, what we know of Jill Carroll is that she is sympathetic to the plight of ordinary Iraqis, that she has tried to be balanced in her reporting for the CSM, meaning she has not exactly been a cheerleader for the US in Iraq.

We know that the US has been practicing what the administration is calling "leveraging," which is basically state-santioned hostage-taking, in Iraq. The US military has on more than one occasion taken the wives of alleged insurgents hostage in order to get the insurgents to surrender (see more about it here, here, and here).

So what do you think an upstanding, conscientious woman like Jill Carroll would think about this? Who do you think she would be likely to side with? It's not even a question, is it? But when does a conscientious objection to what is clearly an illegal practice undertaken by your government become straight-up sedition?

Of course, this is just a hunch. But I don't think it's such a stretch.