Ah the joys of bureaucracy and semantics.

I just wanted to say that the situation is both disgutingly bogged by idiocy, and also a legitimate issue.

To deny the people POW status on our books is just insulting the poor guys. Those men went over there to serve our country. Now, I don’t want to get into the legitimacy of the conflict as a whole, but for the men and women who choose to serve in the armed forces i have little but respect.

As for the brass who wont call them POW based on their refusal to admit to the situation, ick.

As for the folks who stop and think about the poor guys, its important to note that they are not actually POWs, because if nobody says that these guys are not being treated humanely, then nobody will take any action to have these guys treated like people again.

The brass need to say, “yes they are POW” and the human rights folks need to raise a ruckus about the lack of POW treatment.

Wow, that was rather opinionated and un-supported.

Oh well, I am right, so i dont have to back it up. At least I’ll believe that for now (the being right part).

It’s more playing games with the word “War” I’ve noticed that we’re switching back and forth on whether or not this is a war, based on which is more convenient.

this is just wrong, if its a “War on Terror” then were at war, acknowledge them as POW’s you jerks!

Its probably just so the press can say “Nope, no POW’s, were doing fine”

They won’t do it, as they are technically in the right. Bush declared the War over. They got captured by paramilitary forces NOT during the time of the war, they aren’t considered POWs.

Sad, but that’s how it is.