Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: American Hostages
Message-ID: <7800408@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 31-Aug-85 15:09:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.7800408
Posted: Sat Aug 31 15:09:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Sep-85 05:27:12 EDT
References: <11045@rochester.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:rochester:-1104500:inmet:7800408:000:965
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Aug 31 15:09:00 1985


> > Another small point: from all accounts, these people's safety or
> > their release were never made conditional on any demands.  So,
> > who was it, on or off the net, who first labelled them "hostages" ?
> >         -Jan Wasilewsky

[Todd Jones]
> Were they not forcibly detained by a group of contra soldiers?

"Hostage: a person held by  one party in a conflict as a pledge that promises
will be kept or terms met by the other party" [Webster Collegiate Dictionary]
 Forcible detainment in itself is not enough: e.g., someone arrested for
drunk driving is not a hostage.

> The contras obviously could have done much worse, but if they don't have 
> the sense to leave  American citizens alone, even when those citizens set 
> themselves up as martyrs, they deserve all the bad press that results.

They could have done worse, *and still be within the rules of war*.
They behaved responsibly, using minimum force, and deserve credit for it.

		Jan Wasilewsky