The two "kidnapped" soldiers...

[jenmito]

Why aren't they considered "captured" and POWs? Randi Rhodes just said this and it's true. If we're truly at war in Iraq, TROOPS being CAPTURED wouldn't be considered "kidnapped."

[TomInTib]

1. Buzzword.

"Kidnapped" just scares more people on so many more fronts than does the word "captured".

[jenmito]

4. Edited to have to disagree...

I believe, as others have pointed out, a soldier being captured is worse and is accurate. Kidnapping DOES make it sound more like just a crime on an innocent civilian.

[Bandit]

50. But we are not there for police work we are "at war"

Crimes don't matter, only war war war war war war war war war

[MGD]

7. I think "POW 'has a much nastier ring to it personaly

"Kidnapping" sounds like serious sugarcoating to me.

[endarkenment]

8. It portrays the attackers as criminals and the soldiers

as innocent civilian victims. Call it a war or an occupation but treating military operations by any faction as if they were civilian crimes is bullshit.

[jenmito]

10. Now that you mention it...

Tony Snow called it a "crime." He didn't want to comment on what happened at "the scene of the crime." You're right.

[tavalon]

40. Flip-flopper?

Naw, I would prefer to call this a sign that you have an open and inquiring mind.

[jenmito]

9. Darn it...

Now that you mention it, I agree with YOU! The admin. is trying to make it seem like this is just another kidnapping. It's not. These are our TROOPS captured! Call me a flip-flopper, but I think you're right.

[cantstandbush]

36. Maybe they are just "enemy combatants" and no rule apply like GITOMO?

[Squeech]

2. Turnabout's fair play

Coalition forces pick up civilians and detain them (and torture them) in places like Baghram and Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. If we were truly at war, and abiding by international standards of war, none of that would be happening either.

Blogger Avedon Carol of the Sideshow repeatedly insists that it isn't a war, it's an occupation. That formulation is preferable, not only as a frame (if this really was a war, where can we buy war bonds, where's the gas rationing, etc.) but even more so for the other meaning of "occupation"-- BushCo treats it like their job, or their most important product.

[jenmito]

5. i don't think we're at war, either...

We invaded a country that wasn't a threat to us and we are now occupying their country. But since the admin. insists we're at war, they should call the captured troops POWs. Of course the captors will most likely treat them the way we treated INNOCENT people that we took and locked up and tortured at times. That's a shame...and it's Bush's fault.

[bdamomma]

49. I hate to say this

they are doing the same to our soldiers as we are doing inhuman things to their people, Gitmo is included, and how many more torture cells do we have for innocent people who were picked up for nothing. It is time to leave, too much blood is shedding, and those who sit in those AC offices in WH are not sacrificing anything.

[tn-guy]

53. All right, I've had enough

Why use the term "kidnapped" instead of "POW"?

It's pretty simple. All it takes is a few minutes of rational thought.

A POW is a combatant who is captured by an opposing combatant force. The capturing force must report that the POW has been captured. The capturing force must exercise proper care and protection of the POW. The capturing force must allow periodic inspection of POWs by international bodies such as the Red Cross. Is there anyone on this site who is so divorced from rational thought that they think al Queda will observe any of these criteria? Since the soldiers in question fail to meet the definition of POW, then some other word should be used to describe them. "Kidnapped" seems to fit pretty well.

Regarding "turnabout's fair play": Does anyone here seriously consider al Queda to be a legitimate combatant force, following the Geneva Convention? For the perpetually muddle-headed that would include a distinctive, identifiable uniform, protection of innocent civilians, protection of POWs, etc.

Frankly I'm a little fed up with those who see a moral equivalence between US and UK forces and al Queda Islamo-fascists. Have there been violations of prisoner rights by US troops? I'm sure of it. Have there been similar violations or worse by al Queda? Certainly. The difference is that with the U.S. troops such violations are contrary to policy and will be investigated and prosecuted. With al Queda, beheading seems to BE the policy.

Regardless of how despicable one may think the Bush administration is, it is a disgusting, deranged libel to claim that the privates, corporals, captains, majors, etc. in Iraq are engaging in wholesale torture and wanton killing. Those who spew that sort of slander against our troops have lost all capacity for reasonable thought. I know quite a few military personnel, many of which have seen service in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are without exception quiet, thoughtful, professional people who would be appalled at the thought of torturing or killing innocents. I'm getting sick and tired of having ignorant people characterize US troops as bloodthirsty savages just to advance their political position.

[Squeech]

57. Sorry

but it doesn't matter what you think, or what I think, or which of our soldiers are innocent and which are guilty. As soon as the Abu Ghraib photos got out, the Iraqi people knew that there were some Americans who were prepared to torture them, or (possibly even worse) humiliate them in ways that were *designed* to violate the standards of their culture. And they're outraged enough that, if they get the drop on some of our troops, they're not about to stop and ask whether this particular soldier is a torturer, they're gonna assume the worst and savage him with power drills. That's what the evidence leads us to conclude in this case.

And also, it's not libelous to claim that our side is doing a lot of torturing. There was a general in command at Abu Ghraib for a while, whose previous assignment had been Gitmo, and I think he was also implicated in Bagram (sp?). All of these prisons had documented instances of torture, and the tortures involved were remarkably similar. I think it's reasonable to conclude that this general was tasked with showing the guards what to do, and I think he should have been required to testify under oath at the trials of Lynndie England and her boyfriend.

Please understand that it is not my intention to impugn the military in general, and certainly not anyone you know. If you're on DU, odds are you're a better judge of character than Don Rumsfeld is. He's who I blame ultimately, and his boss, and the sock puppet they call President.

[tn-guy]

58. I'm sorry, too

I really don't care too much what the Iraqi people think. If they want to assume that the actions of a few are indicative of all US troops, so be it. However; I've seen way too many people here trying to tar all troops with the same brush. People living in the US ought to know better.

I can assure you that if the official US policy was anything like "kill them all and let God sort them out" as many have alleged there would be plenty of soldiers and Marines speaking out about it.

Perhaps I overreacted to your post. If so, I apologize. I'm starting to see a little of Vietnam syndrome starting to creep into some people's rhetoric, where one blames the troops for the war they are fighting, rather than the politicians who authorized it. I felt that was wrong then and is wrong now.

[arcane1]

61. and yet the U.S. does NONE of that regarding POW's

then again, I suppose if a foreign army invaded your home-town, you would throw flowers at them :eyes:

[BOSSHOG]

3. I apologize

I used the word kidnapped when referring to the Soldier's capture. I could argue semantics, but won't. I would flagellate myself but I like it too much.

One thing there is no doubt about, those two (and all of them) are either in harm's way or in a hospital or have been buried because george bush is a liar. And there is no doubt in my military mind that "conservatives" do not care at all about those two except how they might be able to be used by the likes of limbaugh and faux to spread their message of compassionate conservatism.

[endarkenment]

6. The framing edict has been sent out to the submissive media.

The soldiers have been 'kidnapped'.

Obviously soldiers who are attacked and captured are 'captured' not kidnapped. As Randi points out, and as i and others here have been pointing out when DU'ers use the kidnap framing, this is propaganda by the right. They cannot have Iraq be the central front in the war on terra and have captured soldiers in that war be 'kidnap victims'. Well actually it seems that they can, but we should try our best to make sure that they don't have an easy time of getting this bullshit to stick.

[Check12]

23. Even RawStory.com falls for the deception

Raw video: Clip shows second kidnapped soldier...

[Check12]

26. Arggg!!!

I just heard Howard Dean say "kidnapped" on late edition.
Man, what we are up against is mind boggling!

[jenmito]

29. So did I...

They really need to THINK. Or at least listen to Randi Rhodes. :-)

[stopbush]

11. Enemy combatants, perhaps? eom

[blindpig]

12. What contempt they have for us.

Is it a war or ain't it? Depends upon what suits them. When the US wants to bomb civilans it's war, when our soldiers are captured they are being victimized by criminals. And no one in the MSM will call them on it. What bullshit, but who will complain?

[snowbear]

13. The AP now has stories with wording "Captured"

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=nation_world&id=4284031

Do a Google search for the latest news and you'll see a lot of new articles using the term "captured".

[jenmito]

15. Good. Thanks for the link! :)

[Check12]

19. I just clicked on the link and it says "kidnapped" did they change

it?

[Check12]

24. Larissa, Look in your web file cache to see if they changed the

headline from 'captured' to 'kidnapped'

[Karmakaze]

14. I havent seen much on this story...

but it always raises the question for me of how exactly could a ragtag bunch of "terrorists" capture two US soldiers? What happened to the rest of the soldiers with them? Were they all alone in "enemy territory"? What happened to their backup?

If you think about it, you will see why this is a very important question. Just like Vietnam, the US military is trying to suggest that they are winning militarily but thanks to the left wing and the media they are losing politically.

But to me these incidents (including earlier incidents where US bodies were stripped of their equipment etc) indicate that the US is NOT winning the war militarily. They often end up in firefights where all they can do is retreat, or, as in this case, surrender. Other reports suggest that there are no-go areas for coalition soldiers, areas that even with all the air and ground support they have, it is just suicidal to send available units in there.

There is something seriously wrong in Iraq.

THAT is why they are using the word "kidnapped". Kidnapped does not convey the idea of a military defeat. Instead it makes it sound lika a car pulled, up some guys grabbed these soldiers, and then ran away. Captured on the other hand accurately describes what actually happened, a unit of Iraqis attacked a US unit, killing some and capturing others. That sounds like a deafeat to me.

[endarkenment]

16. The three of them were stationed at a checkpoint in sunniland

All by themselves - this appears to be typical of the modern war rummy sent our children out to die in. They are sitting ducks. Snipers have all day to set up a shot. IED attacks can be plotted and planned. And this was a planned attack and capture.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

35. There are no enemy soldiers, no rebellion, only "terrorists" apparently.

[fooj]

17. The treasonous, rat bastard keeps touting the "War President" BS...

We are talking SOLDIERS in a WAR ZONE...they are POW'S- NOT "kidnapped"...

You can be CERTAIN that these are the talking points delivered to the scumbag we refer to as media. If I hear the word "kidnapped" one more time I think I'm gonna lose it.

[Check12]

22. The neocon assholes can't have it both ways.

It is war when they want it to be a war, and a police action crime when they want it to be a crime.
The media needs to have it's feet held to the fire on this!

[grateful581]

18. Randi is right

This shit is pissing me off!
Why are they not being called POW?
Is that too ugly of a phrase for the the lier in chief?

[jenmito]

28. Even Olbermann said they were kidnapped! n/t

[grateful581]

30. I know

I have been thinking about this for a little while now. The reason that they are not considered POW's is because congress did not declare war. Therefore technically this is not a war.

It's something else thats allot like a war.

So it's a war when bush needs his propaganda

Not a war when our troops are kidnapped or killed.

[lyonn]

46. Best I recall bush said he was invading Iraq to remove Saddam

Saddam was captured 3 years ago so what we are doing there now is fighting the war on terrorism!! You know the routine, if we don't fight them over there we will be fighting here at home. You gotta know Iraqis are happy to know they are keeping us safe here at home.

Too bad bush did away with the Geneva Convention, now what will be his excuse if our captured soldiers are tortured and killed?

Who the hell is our enemy anyway in Iraq?

[Igel]

55. Even were they still alive,

POW is a term that has two meanings. One is appropriate, if we're at war; the other is impossible.

The first: they're prisoners, captured in war. Sort of a generic term, equal to 'war prisoners'. Not what's meant when we talk about POWs in Guantanamo.

The second: a status as defined by the Geneva Conventions. It's precisely why we talk about Gitmo and POWs, and precisely why * does not refer to the detainees as POWs. But, alas, the Iraqis can have no POWs in this sense, because the Geneva Conventions have no relevance for them. They are voluntary, and require a signature before they are relevant.

[Check12]

20. Kick, this is important!

[Nimrod2005]

21. Randi is right on with this....More propaganda from the pretend

war president...

[ShortnFiery]

25. And the one each, horse's patootie, Tony Snow says, don't focus

on these mis-fortunate "kidnapped" troops. LOOK INSTEAD, at *all the good* that's going on in Iraq! :wtf: Where?

And BTW, I wonder WHAT the FAMILY MEMBERS of those CAPTURED - now POWs (We're at War, ya know?) think about *'s lauded morAn of a WH Press Secretary now?

What an insensitive ass! --> One Each, Tony Snow. :puke:

[Check12]

27. BBC News gets it right of course!

An insurgent group linked to al-Qaeda in Iraq says it is holding two missing United States soldiers.

'holding' sounds like POW to me.

[grateful581]

31. Do Solders that get "kidnapped" get POW benefits?

Just wondering.

http://www.vba.va.gov/bln/21/Benefits/POW/POWbenefits.htm

[Check12]

33. Very good question!

This thread needs one more recommend to get to the greatest page.
SOMEBODY HIT THE BUTTON

[jenmito]

34. We know TWO of our troops who were "kidnapped" did...

Ronald Young, Jr.and Shoshanna Johnson were just on LKL and named "Former P.O.W.s during Operation Iraqi Freedom." I'm not sure they were calling it being "kidnapped" back then, though. (They're probably doing this to avoid giving them POW benefits).

[Ouabache]

45. Are they kidnapped and HURT or captured and WOUNDED?

Same shit they have been doing with hurt/wounded. What is the psyops purpose of this on the American Public.

[jenmito]

52. Good point, but now we know they were...

captured, tortured, and killed.

[jenmito]

32. On LKL, they have a show about the soldiers...

And the heading reads, "U.S. soldiers kidnapped by terrorists?" But they're saying they were "captured," interviewing other troops that had been captured. I just turned it on, so I don't know what else they said. But I don't like their stated question.

Oh, now it reads underneath, "Ronald Young, Jr.: Former P.O.W. during Operation Iraqi Freedom." :shrug:

[Tarc]

37. POW is a political-oriented status

It comes about via agreement to rules of war between warring states, something which al Qaeda or insurgents or whoever this was that did it is hardly a party to.

Much ado about nothing, really.

[Solon]

38. Depends on who actually took them...

Remember, back when Bush first invaded, many of our troops were captured in military operations, an ALL were released, having been given POW status by the then Iraqi army. Hell, one recieved medical attention DURING detainment, Jessica Lynch, granted the administration lied about the circumstances of her "rescue", which even she was disgusted by, but they Iraqi at the time DID follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter.

Before you mention the beheadings, remember this, those were mercs, not regular army, and therefore are NOT covered by the Geneva Conventions. The most we can hope for, at this point, is that these soldiers were taken by former regular army of Iraq, they are the most likely ones to follow the Geneva Conventions, even though we, in the United States, don't.

[Check12]

39. Then they must be unlawful combatants.

With no rights under the Geneva Conventions, how unfortunate for them.

[Recursion]

41. Some blogger was calling them "detained"

Which seems like a really in-your-face way to put it, but maybe (s)he had a point.

[Disturbed]

42. How well are these detainees going to be treated

when another three US Military have been charged with murdering Iraqi detainees?

[leftofthedial]

43. we are not at war

have not been

sometimes they forget to lie

[Ouabache]

44. yes they are POWs if 911 was an act of war and not a crime

remember how the neocons have contunually banged on Clinton for calling the first attack on the WTC a crime and saying how 911 was not a crime, but an act of war?

If 911 was an act of war then these soldiers are captured POWs are they not? If a large portion of Iraqis consider the occupation of their country by the US to be illegal, it also makes our soldiers unlawful combatants IN THEIR EYES.

Be careful what you wish for....

[LeftListener]

47. Nope, no "war" here

Nope, by the Constitution we haven't been at war since September of 1945.


107th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. J. RES. 114
October 10, 2002

JOINT RESOLUTION
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Nice clever way to get both sides of the isle to agree to attack and destroy the Government and military of a sovereign nation.
Anything goes wrong?
The power has been transfered to the President and we (congress) can blame him.

[tn-guy]

54. actually that was a declaration of war

The Constitution says the Congress has the power to wage and declare war. Nowhere does it say that the specific wording has to be "We're declaring war, now. Everyone, listen up, this is a declaration of war. We really mean it. This is it. This is a war declaration."

HJ Res 114 was a declaration of war within the clear meaning of the Constitution. It was evident to all who wished to read it that it was a declaration of war. Any member of congress who did not think it was a declaration of war is incompetent.

[endarkenment]

48. No connection between 911 and Iraq.

They were captured (and it turns out subsequently executed, which is a war crime) in hostilities in occupied Iraq. The events of 911 are irrelevant. What did not happen was a kidnapping. At this point the issue is moot.

[ECH1969]

51. The events of 911 are irrelevant.

Even if they were killed by the same group that planned and carried out 911.

[endarkenment]

60. 'al qaeda in iraq' most likely not the same group.

After our initial response to 9-11 al qaeda as a cohesive centrally directed organization mostly ceased to exist. My understanding is that what has replaced the bin laden operational organization is a loosely aligned only indirectly coordinated group of independent organizations all claiming to be al qaeda of which al qaeda in iraq is one example.

[bluedog]

56. where were the IRAQI TROOPS??

where were the IRAQI TROOPS??


thought they were suppose to be guarding their own checkpoints?............did they shit and run???????or were they in on the PLOT???????

[rasputin1952]

59. They have become DIA now...

Just to set the record straight, they were found to have been tortured then "heinously" murdered/killed.

In any case, these two young men should never have been there in the first place...:(