Until Yesterday, My Father Was the Longest-Held Hostage in U.S. History | Hacker News Reader

Until Yesterday, My Father Was the Longest-Held Hostage in U.S. History

nymag.com

41 pointsaren5555515 comments

Haven't many detainees in Guantanamo bay been held hostage BY the US, for longer than this?

Are they American by citizenship ? If not, your statement is useless as it is outside the scope of the article which is clearly about an American hostage.

It's just not an accurate title, as "US history" also includes non-citizens.

What does the sign mean? "4th year... You can't or you don't want...?"

* What is the "4th year"? it's not how long Levinson has been hostage (unless the date in the photo caption is wrong)

* Is the message an anti-US taunt by his captors?

* I thought Levinson was missing, not actively held hostage by a captor who advertised his presence or demanded ransom.

Can someone clarify?

I'm not seeing the HN angle here.

From the HN guidelines on comments:

"Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.

I'm not complaining, but I was hoping that someone would articulate it for my benefit. Having been here a while I am familiar with the guidelines.

While i feel for her, having had a father myself who had trouble expressing emotions, though for other reasons; i balk at the title "Longest-Held Hostage in U.S. History".

What about other countries? Are there people from other countries who've been held hostage for longer? Do they matter less? Or are these two men the longest-held hostages in world history? If so, why not say so? Does the world matter less than the USA?

Is this satire?

No, it's probably bitterness. Most americans wouldn't understand.

The text of the article is more specific: "Longest-held American hostage in history".

Is it now just completely unacceptable to make statements in the context of an exclusive group? I wonder if this same concern would come out at all if he weren't American.

What about this person? Does he matter less than people from other countries? Why put anything in context at all if you're only interested in the most extreme possible case?

You are reading way too much into this.

I'm having trouble seeing what you're balking at. The title is accurate. Do you think that it's somehow immoral or unethical for her to focus on Levinson's plight?

"immoral or unethical"? No. Narrow-minded, yes.

But really, the more interesting part for me is that it is currently nigh-impossible to actually answer the questions i posed. I have the hunch that these guys are truly the longest-held, but no google query i could come up with could deny or confirm that. Please give it a try yourself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com