Pfc. Matt Maupin is not a POW, he's a hostage??

[VolcanoJen]

Pfc. Keith "Matt" Maupin is the Cincinnati-area soldier who was kidnapped along with Sgt Elmer Krause (confirmed dead yesterday) and Halliburton contractor Thomas Hammill (still missing).


Keith "Matt" Maupin - Missing since April 9, 2004

Can anyone explain to me why he is not being considered a Prisoner of War? Because the author of the article seems to think that it's because the war is over. And I'm sorry, but that's crazy gibberish, right?

Maupin is hostage, not prisoner of war - Cincinnati Enquirer

Excerpt:

Maupin, a 20-year-old Clermont County Army reservist, was taken captive after gunmen attacked the fuel convoy he was in. He is not a traditional prisoner of war. The war ended more than a year ago. It was "won'' when Saddam Hussein's brutal regime was broken.

[Lars39]

1. Because Bushco is not following the Geneva Convention protocol?

That's all I could think of. :shrug:

[bucknaked]

2. This debacle has me slapping my own head!

This isn't a P.O.W., this isn't an "enemy combatant!"

It's one of OUR Soldiers, being held captive by a group of f'n "rogue" Iraqi civilians. "Hearts and Minds" my ASS!

How the HELL does the most powerful nation on the globe get into a pathetic situation like this?

[VolcanoJen]

5. Jessica Lynch was a POW, right?

But that was back before we won the war, is that what I'm supposed to be believing here?

We won the war...???

[DrWeird]

3. The first casualty of war is the truth. Except for this war.

But only because Bush bound and gagged the truth, forced it to its knees, and shot it execution style well before the war got started.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. He is whatever the whitehouse says he is, just ask the media!

[patriotvoice]

6. The Iraq War is over...

... according to our Glorious Leader (TM).

The current situation is a "Police Action" ((R) and (C), whitehouse.gov)

Hence, not a POW ((C) U. Nations, Inc.)

NOTE: this is all conjecture.

[TN al]

7. If he is a hostage...

...isn't that contrary to the given reason for the detainees at Guantanamo Bay? And also if he is a hostage and not a POW doesn't that change his status concerning DoD benefits both now and when he is a veteran? Would the * administration call him a hostage to save a few bucks? I guess then * would have more money to give to his rich friends. Just thinking out loud here.

[VolcanoJen]

8. He is a U.S. Soldier, who was in uniform and on active duty...

... when his convoy was attacked. It would seem that hostile action preceded his kidnapping. How in the hell can they just call him a "hostage?"

He is a Prisoner Of War, I don't care about these chickenhawk word games they're playing. Isn't it infuriating? I wouldn't be surprised if this does screw up his VA benefits later... if he is indeed still alive.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. If his captors are using him...

...for personal or political gain then he is a hostage. Otherwise he is a POW. THen again if he is a POW he has the right of access to the Red Cross.

[bigbillhaywood]

10. Does anybody know whether his captors are treating him as a POW, according

to Geneva Conevntion rules?

[Kukesa]

13. Probably not.

His captors probably never heard of the Geneva Conventions.

Kukesa

[dpibel]

15. World o' brown savages

Check out the literacy rates in Iraq before BooshDaddy laid the country to waste in Profiteering Round I.

Now if you want to find people who've heard of the Geneva Convention, but have neither idea what it means nor interest in observing it, I suggest you walk out on any American street and count the number of people who walk past.

[Kukesa]

11. We Need Wes Clark

to straighten this out for us. I just asked my husband, who attended a military academy, and his reaction was P.O.W.

So, the war's over, huh?

Kukesa

[rogerashton]

12. Put it this way:

The incompetent arrogance of Bush* & Co. has created a situation in which our soldiers will not get the slight protections of prisoner-of-war status, because the United States cannot claim them without conceding either 1) that the war that began with our invasion in 03 has not ended, despite the capture of Saddam, or 2) that a new war has begun, the Iraqi War of Independence, and that the captors are legitimate belligerents in that war.

[HawkerHurricane]

14. I concur.

We cannot call him a POW without giving legitimacy to the other side. So he was not "Taken Prisoner" by a hostile foriegn power, he was "Kidnapped" and "Held Hostage" by criminals.

If we treated him as a PoW, then the world would expect us to treat those we captured as PoW's, with all the rights that implies...

Quite the can of worms when Bushco created the 'Enemy Combatants' being held in our base in Cuba...