I'm really sorry about the British "hostages"

[Horse with no Name]

Very sorry in fact. They are simply more pawns in a war that nobody should have ever been in.
However, why are they called hostages?
Why not Prisoners of War?
This goddamned war has consequences and if the Brits are "hostages", then why are WE allowed to call the folks we have imprisoned enemy combatants?
I'm tired of all of the nuances on words.
Wars have consequences. Wars have casualties. Wars have prisoners.
But wars do NOT fucking have hostages.
The media goes right along with the game. This is wrong, wrong, wrong.
The US Government is responsible for the Brit POW's.
Make no mistake.
George Bush and his cabal need to take responsibility for the casualties of war.

[Kutjara]

1. I agree. In fact, calling them "hostages..."

...potentially strips them of important protections under the Geneva Conventions. It's like they're being hung out to dry intentionally.

[Squatch]

2. "Why not Prisoners of War?"

Iran, to date, has not been an outward participant in the war in Iraq. Though evidence suggests that Iran is supplying personnel and materiel to the insurgency, the State, as an entity, has not yet pitched in. Therefore no war with Iran, hence no "Prisoners of War".

[Rex]

3. They realllllllllllllllllllllllllly want to have another world war!

And the words 'hostages' and 'Iran' will help the American populace identify with the 'evils of Islam'. :sarcasm:

More gristle for the masses IMO.

[gratuitous]

4. I suppose it has to do with not being at war with Iran

Which is why they're not described as prisoners of war.

However, most of your other points are well-taken; and yes, if we have one standard for ourselves and another one entirely for other countries, it's difficult to understand how we can claim the high ground, morally, politically or otherwise.

[mmonk]

11. Bingo. Technically, they are seized persons.

I don't know if they did penetrate Iranian waters or not but they aren't prisoners of war.

[Horse with no Name]

14. So then the Global War on Terror ONLY applies

when we need it to apply?
Iran is the next stop on the GWOT...everyone knows it and acting as if it isn't already a done deal is naive.

[mmonk]

18. Maybe. But the determination of where they were

still applies in determining their status as well as whether war is declared or engaged.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. Bugger that. It's not a done deal at all.

'GWOT' (aka 'The War Against Terror', or 'TWAT') is a marketing gimmick from the White House. There's no reason for us to repeat their catchphrases, especially in situations where there's no fighting. You don't call someone arrested for drug dealing a 'prisoner of war' either. But there's a PR phrase "the War against Drugs".

[BlueJac]

5. British.....

These people are not above the law. You get caught in Iranian territorial waters you get in trouble. The US and the British have self appointed themselves as rulers of the Middle East and that is not right.


Can you imagine Iranians stopping boats off the coast of Great Britian or the United States?

We have become bullies.

[cali]

9. First of all, it has yet to be determined where the brits were

but more importantly what Iran is doing is freakin' stupid. Let's stipulate for argument that they were in Iranian waters, couldn't the Iranians have just picked them up held them for a few hours to make a point, and then released them? But no, they're turning it into a circus, threatening trying them for espionage which is absurd, and ratcheting up the situation

Everyone needs to act as if they had half a brain. The brits need to steer clear of Iranian waters, and the Iranians need to release the brits now.

[BlueJac]

19. Thanks.....half a brain

go find one

[BlueJac]

20. Kind of like Iraq...............

[MnFats]

6. because 'hostages' evokes images of the embassy takeover and those hostages?

of course, everybody just hated the shit out of the Iranians back then, remember?
the american public was willing to go along with just about any ass-kicking measures the u.s. could take against iran.
with a bloody exception -- the failed rescue attempt-- president carter avoided bloodshed.

remember, as an aside, that the Reagan Team told Iran they'd get bettr treatment if they waited until their guy was in office.

just like Kissinger told the north Vietnamese that they'd get a better deal at the peace table if they waited until nixon was in office...

hmmmm ... republicans undercutting dems in office and risking unnecessary bloodshed.....who'd a thunk it?

[Horse with no Name]

7. That is my thought

"Iranian hostages" brings back the hatred for the Iranians from the 70's with one felt swoop.

[bigtree]

8. It was the US who set up the false UN confrontations with the sanctions

and are provoking Iran with carriers

The 'war' is in Bush's playbook, not in any Iranian posture, action, or intention.

They are prisoners of Iran for allegedly committing crimes of tresspassing in supposed Iranian waters.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. First question: who's calling them "hostages"?

On the web, not the BBC, not CNN, not ABC, not MSNBC. In a CBS report on the web, I can find "Comparing the situation to that of British Embassy staff taken hostage in Ethiopia recently", but that's not directly calling them hostages. Neither, for that matter, do any of them call them "prisoners of war". Since it isn't war, that wouldn't be appropriate anyway.

[uppityperson]

12. Are Iran and the Brits at war? Then they are not POWs.

[VTMechEngr]

13. It might have something to do with them BEING held hostage

The Iranians captured them in Iraqi waters. The UK is not at war with Iran.

They are hostages.

[Horse with no Name]

15. They were in Iranian waters

I guess my point is, are we in a Global War on Terror or is that something we use only when it is convenient?

[Postman]

16. Technically you may be correct, however...

were the Iranians that were taken by US forces in a raid of a diplomatic compound in the Kurdish region of Iraq recently portrayed as "hostages" in the media? Or was it implied by the US media that they were part of an Iranian supply-link to insurgents?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6861066

[Donald Ian Rankin]

17. Britain isn't at war with Iran.

As such, neither side can term captives POWs. Iran could make a claim that it had arrested them legitimately on it's own territory for breach of the law, in which case they would be prisoners, but not of war; if not (as appears to be the case, although I'm not certain) then hostages is as correct as any other term.

[JCMach1]

22. They are neither POW's or Hostages at this point...

Obviously Iran will have to weigh there options.


However, if they were legitimately caught on a spy mission? That's another kettle of fish and quite likely close to the truth.