The current debate on whether Douglas Wood should contribute to the costs of his "rescue" is insulting and ridiculous!
Firstly, by the mixed and loosely factual accounts presented in the media, his release could, at best, be described as accidental good fortune. There appears to be little, if any, corroboration of specific intelligence that led to his "rescue". Any such intelligence was more related to the location of insurgents, who just happened to be holding Mr Wood. Their mission was to engage some suspects. Finding Mr Wood was a bonus.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, he was released by Iraqi forces, with the aid of coalition (presumably all US) military. Not a single Australian seems to have been involved in that manouvre. There seems to be no suggestion that Australians were even responsible for the intelligence that sparked the routine mission.
The third point is that, despite Mr Wood being a resident of the USA, it is the duty and reponsibility of the Commonwealth of Australia to protect and serve its citizens, no matter where they are or what their circumstances. Be it Schappelle Corby in an Indonesian prison, Douglas Wood in Iraq, or John Howard visiting the Whitehouse! There should be absolutely no expectation for any citizen to be faced with a bill for what is their inarguable right.
Before I conclude, I will point out, if you can't already see, the hypocrisy of demanding that Mr Wood not be able to profit from his traumatic experience while not a single complaint was heard about similar profiteering by victims like Stuart Diver. What is next? Will the emergency services be sending a bill to people rescued from armed hold-ups or if they fall over a cliff in a national park? Crazy stuff!
We have laws in Australia to prevent criminals from profiteering from their crimes, but Mr Wood is not a criminal, so why should we treat him like one? It is deplorable that we do!
I can only conclude that this is some form of bizarre tall-poppy syndrome. Douglas Wood is safe and seems to be physically none-the-worse for wear. Had he been brutalised, had a limb or two chopped off or suffering severe mental trauma, our sympathy would have overridden any whisper of reimbursing tax-payers. Perhaps it is because he and his family appear to have more than enough for themselves that we want a little for us.
Is it jealousy or greed that is fuelling this obscene call to diminsh this man's harrowing experience? Either way, it has to stop!
[+/-] show/hide this post
