On the Way to the Forum. . .

As usual, this news article (''Halt Search for GI's, Group Warns'') features a mishmash of non-interchangeable terms.

This administration does not like to be pinned down; to define terms is to disallow the Iraqi affair from continuing in motion indefinitely. If, on the other hand, things remain is a welter of confusion, no one will achieve enough clarity to demand the circus close down.

As example of this confusion, the lead paragraph indicates the soldiers were captured. This is correct, indicating they are POW's. The paragraph ends, however, ''The Pentagon acknowledged for the first time it believes the servicemen are in terrorist hands.''

Why are they called terrorists if they are engaged in organized military assaults/ambushes that kill four U.S. GI's and one Iraqi, and capture three? This does not fit any definitions of terrorism. Terrorists do not stand up and fight toe-to-toe with seasoned combat forces.

The U.S. administration for some reason will not acknowledge the true nature of the beast facing U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are in fact engaging military-type organizations with high levels of morale, training and equipment.

Indeed, why are U.S. efforts to build an Afghan/Iraq Army so important if the threat is only terrorism?

''Residents complained of random detentions and homes being ransacked as the hunt drew in more troops. . .'' From the Iraqi viewpoint, this behavior could be construed as terrorism.

''It also suggested that the weekend ambush was in revenge for the rape-murder of 14-year-old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi by American soldiers in the area last year.''

“At this time, we believe they were abducted by terrorists belonging to al-Qaeda or an affiliated group, and this assessment is based on highly credible intelligence information,” (U.S. military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell) said.''

Kind of like the yellowcake intelligence, maybe. The article also indicates the U.S. forces killed two and injured four:

''During the search Monday, U.S. and Iraqi forces exchanged fire with gunmen near the town of Youssifiyah, killing two and injuring four, an Iraqi army officer said.''

The correct term would be ''wounded,'' since this was obviously achieved in armed combat. Perhaps the administration is loathe to use the term wounded as this would confer dignity and legitimacy to these resistance fighters, an action U.S. sources dare not take.

The same officer, speaking on conditions of anonymity ''because he was not supposed to release information, said about 100 suspects had been detained. The U.S. military would not comment.''

Of course the U.S. military could not comment, because they don't have to. They can detain 100 suspects, whisk them away to security prisons, and even torture them, all done with U.S. tax dollars and the tacit approval of our government. But the secrecy so bought is a misappropriation of our funds, as this is not what democracy is all about.

What gives the U.S. military the right to detain suspects? Iraq is not their country, so whose laws are they enforcing?

In the meantime, a U.S. overreaction only insures poor treatment of our own captured soldiers. Let's hope that these soldiers are afforded the honors of war. Possibly they would be more likely to receive them if U.S. forces afforded resistance fighters the same dignity.