Hostage/POW

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2004 8:22 pm

I note that TV is referring to the kid from Ohio as being a "hostage." Isn't he a prisoner of war, seeing as that this is a "war on terror?"

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:02 pm

What have I told you about watching television?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:07 pm

Pfc. Keith Maupin, 20, was the first U.S. serviceman and second American confirmed kidnapped in a recent wave of abductions in Iraq. (AP)***Confirmed: Pfc. Mapin was not "kidnapped." And, he is a prisoner of war, not a hostage.***

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2004 10:17 pm

Makes sense. Can we frame a rule? Is it that only civilians can be taken hostage?

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Fri Apr 16, 2004 11:08 pm

Amen to that.Oh, and No. 1, I don't even OWN a television. I heard it over a friend's house. Honest.

CopyMonkey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:30 am

Can you have "prisoners of war" if there is no war? I mean, sure, we're calling it a war, but technically, Congress didn't declare war on Iraq. We haven't had a war that actually was, technically, a war, since... WWII, is it? I think so.

Rio · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:41 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by CopyMonkey:
Can you have "prisoners of war" if there is no war? I mean, sure, we're calling it a war, but technically, Congress didn't declare war on Iraq.<hr></blockquote>What a great question. Why don't you write John McCain, and ask him what he thinks?

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:20 am

Mr. Kirchherr:Would you mind if I nominate your post for the Internet Hall of Fame?

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:42 am

If we were at war with a country, of course he would be a prisoner of war. Since he was captured by an unknown enemy that the U.S. regards as terrorist I don't think it's clear-cut what to call him. Especially since the Iraqis are abducting all kinds of foreigners, not just soldiers.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:06 am

Well, my old friend, I disagree. He is a soldier involved in a conflict/war who has been taken prisoner while so engaged. Whoever seized him is an/the enemy.He's a POW. Period. Calling him anything else (NOTE EDS: POLITICAL CONTENT FOLOS) is just a load of Bush/Cheney spinmastered horseshit to make us believe we've already accomplished the "mission."

Matthew Grieco · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:55 pm

Easy now. That claim may not have been retracted, but it has at least been regretted.Anyhow, I'd agree that under the modern War Powers laws, the difference between declared and undeclared wars is nearly meaningless today. Declaring war on Iraq, for instance, would have been inconsistent with Bush's attempt to portray the war as being for the benefit of the Iraqi people.I think the difference lies elsewhere. But I'm not sure where. If a civilian worker is taken captive while working alongside troops in a combat zone, is he a prisoner of war or a hostage?

Wayne Countryman · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:35 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:
... I'd agree that under the modern War Powers laws, the difference between declared and undeclared wars is nearly meaningless today. <hr></blockquote>Yup. Nations, including the U.S., rarely declare war anymore, even if hundreds of thousands are killed during years of fighting. But if you bomb and invade a country, that's a war, especially if anyone in the country dares fight back. <blockquote>quote:<hr>I think the difference lies elsewhere. But I'm not sure where. If a civilian worker is taken captive while working alongside troops in a combat zone, is he a prisoner of war or a hostage?<hr></blockquote>Another major blurring of the lines. A contractor doing work formerly done by soldiers, to free up soldiers for fighting, is all but a soldier himself. Especially now that they're being trained in military skills, including shooting at the enemy.Journalists acknowledge packing guns, pointing out the enemy to soldiers and even picking up guns themselves -- that's a further blurring. And if the journalists might tell a story the enemy doesn't like, that makes them seem to be in league with the invader, making the enemy angrier. (Remember, in the U.S., not following the White House line is considered by many to be unpatriotic, treasonous and even "liberal.")Employees of businesses looking for a stake in the action (such as oil companies) aren't going to be seen kindly in wartime. If anything, they'll be seen as agents of the invading nation's government. Pretty soon, you're down to international aid workers as the only foreigners with clear civilian status to both sides, yet they're being shot at by both sides in Iraq.And in war, almost any civilian will be assumed by someone with a gun to be a spy.History is written by the victors. Should hostages be defined by those doing the writing, or those doing the taking? As always, it depends on whose side you're on. War is a hell that drags objectivity far from heaven.If you're a soldier who's captured and held by people you're trying to defeat or even kill, then you're a POW. Another distinction to remember: "Hostage" denotes a condition exists for release. Not necessarily so for POWs, international law notwithstanding.[ April 17, 2004: Message edited by: Wayne Countryman ]

Tim Lawson · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 5:11 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Matthew Grieco:

I think the difference lies elsewhere. But I'm not sure where. <hr></blockquote>
I seem to remember that the U.S. justified avoiding calling the Guantanamo boys "prisoners of war" because they (when they were Talban-aligned) weren't uniformed "regular" soldiers of a nation. I don't know if that's the point you were looking for, and I hope this doesn't just confuse things more.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:40 pm

I wonder if that bloated jackass regrets the hundreds of Americans dead since the "mission" "ended," too.He can shove his apology.

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 7:42 pm

Matt:You raise an interesting point. Technically, I would have to say a civilian is a hostage, not a prisoner of war.Of course, perhaps half the "contractors" are CIA agents anyway.

Oeditpus Rex · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:18 pm

Are "hostages" entitled to rights under the Geneva Convention?Just a thought.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:57 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Oeditpus Rex:
Are "hostages" entitled to rights under the Geneva Convention?<hr></blockquote>I don't mean to demean the terrorists who take hostages (lest I be taken), but I don't think they're thumbing through their Pocket Geneva Conventions when they nab foreign civilians in Iraq.

jjmoney62 · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2004 12:27 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
I don't mean to demean the terrorists who take hostages (lest I be taken), but I don't think they're thumbing through their Pocket Geneva Conventions when they nab foreign civilians in Iraq.<hr></blockquote>
Good point. They probably just call it up on their
laptops.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:54 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Bumfketeer:
Well, my old friend, I disagree. He is a soldier involved in a conflict/war who has been taken prisoner while so engaged. Whoever seized him is an/the enemy.He's a POW. Period. Calling him anything else (NOTE EDS: POLITICAL CONTENT FOLOS) is just a load of Bush/Cheney spinmastered horseshit to make us believe we've already accomplished the "mission."<hr></blockquote>I'm not insisting he's not a prisoner of war. But I also don't think "hostage" is incorrect. They are using him as a bargaining chip. Why must the terms be mutually exclusive? I think our semantic confusion is simply a reflection of the chaos in Iraq. Is this a war, an insurrection, terrorism?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:00 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
I'm not insisting he's not a prisoner of war. But I also don't think "hostage" is incorrect. They are using him as a bargaining chip. Why must the terms be mutually exclusive? I think our semantic confusion is simply a reflection of the chaos in Iraq. Is this a war, an insurrection, terrorism?<hr></blockquote>It's a war. It's certainly not an "insurgency," as discussed here last year.

JonScribe · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2004 8:59 pm

Just to muddle things even further:Those currently being kept against their will at Guantanamo Bay would be...?

paulwiggins · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2004 9:20 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JonScribe:
Just to muddle things even further:Those currently being kept against their will at Guantanamo Bay would be...?<hr></blockquote>Assisting the authorities with their inquiries.
It's a worry.

Jackie · **Posted:** Sun Apr 18, 2004 11:31 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by JonScribe:
Just to muddle things even further: Those currently being kept against their will at Guantanamo Bay would be...?<hr></blockquote>I hate "detainees," although that seems to be the word of choice. If you're held for several months, or years, you're more than "detained." Oops, is my liberal bias showing?

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Mon Apr 19, 2004 10:19 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by blanp:
It's a war. It's certainly not an "insurgency," as discussed here last year.<hr></blockquote>I won't argue the point. I do think there are ambiguities in Iraq that muddy the semantics. I read your objection to calling the Iraqi fighters "insurgents" and am not sure I understand. They are fighting against the established authority in Iraq, namely the occupying coalition. Doesn't that make them insurgents? I would welcome a further explanation of your objection.[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]

larepublica · **Posted:** Mon Apr 19, 2004 11:02 am

The international affairs major in me says that this soldier is NOT at prisoner of war as POWÂ´s can only be taken by an organized military force. Since we are unaware as to the nature of the band that has captured him (are they extortionists, bandits or rebels?), the POW term may be premature. After all, if their aims are not military or political, holding the soldier is not the taking of a POW.
The editor in me says that this is a soldier captured in a combat zone (all of Iraq is a combat zone at this point), making him a prisoner of war.
The "canÂ´t we all just get along" peacemaker in me says avoid both "POW" and "hostage." Call him the "captured US soldier" or "the US soldier being held by apparent Iraqi insurgents" or something like that...

Mort · **Posted:** Mon Apr 19, 2004 1:48 pm

Since PFC Keith Maupin is being used as a bargaining piece in the demand for the release of prisoners, he would be a hostage. If he were merely being held captive, I think POW might be fitting. While labelling him a hostage is a political move, it is accurate as well. If the press referred to him as a POW, the perception of his imprisonment would be incorrect, as his captors would like to exchange him for something. Also, typically a hostage is killed when demands are not met, whereas a POW is held for the duration of a war. It may or may not be important to you that the captors consider him a hostage, not a POW.

JPSheehan · **Posted:** Mon Apr 19, 2004 3:52 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr> Since PFC Keith Maupin is being used as a bargaining piece in the demand for the release of prisoners, he would be a hostage. ... typically a hostage is killed when demands are not met, whereas a POW is held for the duration of a war. <hr></blockquote>On the contrary. The exchange of prisoners of war is an ancient military tradition. Holding a prisoner for the duration of a conflict (as if one could predict the end of hostilities) is both an inefficient use of military resources and an empty political gesture. It makes little sense to hold prisoners of war in anonymity -- except when one of the warring parties denies itself (or has been denied) a negotiating position. Nor is it necessarily typical to kill a hostage when demands are not met (why kill the goose...?) The distinction we're trying to draw here is a necessarily political one. Much as we would try to impose an order on its conduct, war represents an absence of rules, of accepted practices, of clean moral distinctions. Copy editors naturally find such a situation abhorrent -- not merely for the loss of life, but the loss of accuracy, the loss of standards. "POW," "hostage" -- these terms are up in the air right now, being bandied about for political gain. It's frustrating, but to deny our own political interests is equally inaccurate.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:19 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by Mort:
Since PFC Keith Maupin is being used as a bargaining piece in the demand for the release of prisoners, he would be a hostage. If he were merely being held captive, I think POW might be fitting. While labelling him a hostage is a political move, it is accurate as well. If the press referred to him as a POW, the perception of his imprisonment would be incorrect, as his captors would like to exchange him for something. Also, typically a hostage is killed when demands are not met, whereas a POW is held for the duration of a war. <hr></blockquote>To one degree or another, all POWs are "bargaining chips," at least since World War II. POWs were released by North Vietnam while the war continued, in return for considerations.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 9:49 pm

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
I read your objection to calling the Iraqi fighters "insurgents" and am not sure I understand. They are fighting against the established authority in Iraq, namely the occupying coalition. Doesn't that make them insurgents? I would welcome a further explanation of your objection.[ April 19, 2004: Message edited by: ADKbrown ]<hr></blockquote>Blanp, you never answered this question. Since I posted it, I have noticed that "insurgents" is in common use. That's made me even more curious about your objection.

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:09 pm

I realize that "insurgency" is in wide use, and there's nothing I can do about that. But what's going on in Iraq is not an insurgency, as explained earlier. The United States is not the "established authority" in Iraq, it is a force of occupation. Iraqis fighting the occupation, however misguided they might be, constitute a "resistance," not an "insurgency."If people would just think before adopting language served up by government officials, this sort of thing could be avoided. Now, we have lost the special meaning of "insurgency," probably forever.[ April 23, 2004: Message edited by: blanp ]

Bumfketeer · **Posted:** Fri Apr 23, 2004 10:17 pm

Amen to that.

ADKbrown · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:22 am

OK, I understand your point. I'm not entirely convinced. Granted, the U.S. and its appointed council have not been around long enough to be considered "established," but they do constitute the civil authority in Iraq. To call those fighting against it "insurgents" or "rebels" does not strike me as a gross perversion of the language. I suppose "resistance fighters" hasn't caught on because it's too long and because of its positive connotations. Are there other alternatives?Another semantic label: I earlier asked why Moktada al-Sadr (sp?) is routinely labeled a "radical." Is it because he is militant in resisting the occupation? Is it because he preaches a radical theology? Is he radical in the eyes of Iraqis?

Phillip Blanchard · **Posted:** Sat Apr 24, 2004 8:38 am

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ADKbrown:
. Granted, the U.S. and its appointed council have not been around long enough to be considered "established," but they do constitute the civil authority in Iraq. <hr></blockquote>A fair number of Iraqis and many, if not a majority, of the "United" Nations would disagree. I don't know enough about the "radical cleric" to offer an opinion.

pzicari · **Posted:** Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:02 am

I want to make them "prisoners" or "captives," and "hostages" only when they have been threatened or offered in trade. Setting aside the issue of whether the occupation authority in Iraq is legitimate enough to be an "insurgent" against, it seems that at least some of the fighters are remnants of Saddam's regime fighting a scorched-earth guerrilla war. The arms-and-explosives caches that seemed to be ubiquitous around Iraq a year ago suggest such a defense was in the minds of at least some Iraqis. We are not the only ones who read history. That would justify "captured" over "kidnapped" until it becomes obvious that Iraqis have actually accepted a government.

Testy Copy Editors

Hostage/POW

Who is online

What They're Saying

Useful Links