Why is the circumstance of his capture is considered insignificant? Is it because we can't trust the account? Before the torture, the arbitrary imprisonment, and what I'd argue is a forced plea in a proceeding that can only loosely be considered judicial (certainly not legal, by our standards), was the incident that led to the whole sordid affair. A boy, studying abroad (admittedly, seeking religious education of a sort that Western religion finds abhorrent), finds himself in the middle of an arbitrary invasion by a foreign government, and chooses to defend himself and his friends. As all were dying about him, and he himself grievously wounded, would any of us question the 'decision' to launch a weapon in defence? For the offending invaders to then turn and declare that he had no right to defend himself is astonishing; then to subject him to repeated indignities, with Our complicity is nothing short of shameful. A statement of this calibre is required. Never Again.