US swaps 5 Gitmo prisoners for US soldiers release, but many questions remain

[Armoured]

If you had watched On The Record, you would know just how messed up the roads in the area were...

So personal accountability, except where roads are messed up. Sure, why not?

 

[MachZer0]

Cherry pick all you like, but neither of those cases are of someone taken prisoner while serving in a warzone. They were both on their own time doing their own thing.

edit: enjoying watching the usual suspects with their mantra of "personal accountability" falling over themselves to excuse the guy in Mexico.

Do you consider prison the proper accountability for making an honest mistake where no one was harmed?

 

[GarfieldJL]

So personal accountability, except where roads are messed up. Sure, why not?

What is it with liberals and trying to misrepresent the positions that Conservatives have, by taking said positions to ridiculous extremes (which is precisely what you are currently doing)...

You have a guy sitting in a Mexican Prison whose only crime was they took a wrong turn because the signs were not easily visible at night (despite the fact it was a highway), the State Department had no intention of doing anything about, until Fox News caused it to gain national attention.

You have a woman married to a US citizen whom is slated to be executed because she is a Christian, and her two young children are also in the prison (both children are US citizens), and this administration hasn't done jack about it.

He doesn't do anything about them, yet he hands the Taliban back 5 high level terrorists to retrieve a deserter whom may have collaborated with the enemy, and you seriously expect anyone to believe this had to do with anything other than politics? Seriously?

 

[Armoured]

*eyeroll*

 

[Sistrin]

Because an off duty guy committing a crime in a foreign country is totally comparable to a PW captured while serving in a war zone.

Bergdahl wasn't captured while conducting combat operations. He willfully abandoned his post and went looking to turn himself over to the Taliban. He deserted.

Mincing words and playing semantics will not convince anybody that these people captured were not soldiers. They are soldiers for their cause, and they don't need a slick uniform to tell them they are soldiers.

Do Christian soldiers for the Lord get this same respect from you? I doubt it. However Taliban operatives are not Afghan Army soldiers. As such they are not the recognized soldiers representing the Afghan government or nation. You want to sympathize with terrorist, fine. Just be honest about it.

There is a war because Bush told us there was...

Talk about a need to study history.

Authorization for Use of Military Force (Enrolled Bill)

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and one

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled...

Source: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/sjres23.enr.html

This was started by Bush, and there is a good chance he will burn in hell for releasing such destruction onto the world.

As opposed to the Muslims who flew the planes into the Twin Towers? Or those who recently exploded a truck bomb in Balad Ruz, Iraq? Or kidnapped over 250 young girls and bragged about their plans to sell them into sexual slavery to which the harshest response from the current administration was a hashtag?

Regardless:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Source as cited above.

You really did not read much about what was going on in the 70's, did you? Iran took a bunch of Americans hostage, hence becoming an enemy of America.

That occurred under Jimmy Carter, another limp-wristed caricature of a leader.

Reagan did approve, and he is safe because his minions took the brunt of the blame.

It's hilarious to see how rapidly Republicans are flipping on this and changing their tunes.

Your PJ Tattler article inaccurately states Bergdahl was taken prisoner of war. As has been detailed numerous times, he voluntarily deserted his post and turned himself over to the Taliban. The petition it cites was started by Bergdahl's father, not by Republicans.

In short the screengrabs posted are hardly an indictment of the Republican party.

As for McCain, he was a prisoner in the Hanoi Hilton, and was interred there with men actually taken prisoner while conducting combat operations against the enemy. Men who never debased themselves to betray their country and provide aide and comfort to that enemy.

Bin Laden to some, was a hero. Do you deny this truth?

To murderous Islamic fundamentalist and more than a few American liberals, he was.

You are moving the goalposts. You talked about negotiating with terrorists, now you have added quite a list of specific criteria.

No, I rephrased my question because you refused to answer the first one. And now you are refusing to answer these. So I will default back to my original question, which was are you capable of ever answering a question put to you?

I wasn't aware that Reagan was president for the entirety of the 80's and 90's.

What does this have to do with anything?

When I was reading on this topic I found an article that talked about this. Intent is critical to desertion.

His intent has been established.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Obama did say he was going to close the prison in GTMO. So I don't know why this is a surprise to anyone that he would just release these terrible people. He promised he would, and he did.

I wish we would just try these men in a court and give them justice. We did it at the end of all the World Wars. Why can't the President use his powers and get this going already?

 

[theophilus777]

However Taliban operatives are not Afghan Army soldiers. As such they are not the recognized soldiers representing the Afghan government or nation. You want to sympathize with terrorist, fine. Just be honest about it.

Not to detract from Boondock's post, which I think deserves response, but this idea here really needs to be cleared up for the purposes of this thread. IF the Taliban was the legal, recognized Gov't of AF at the time of US attack, that would change quite a few things, including the status of the Gitmo detainees just released. Armoured has made the claim that since Taliban claimed control of AF, that they were the de facto Gov't. I suspect you know a whole lot more about this than I do, and I have been unable to set him straight on this. I thought it would be easy, but it has proven not to be.

 

[SaphireOwl]

Not to detract from Boondock's post, which I think deserves response, but this idea here really needs to be cleared up for the purposes of this thread. IF the Taliban was the legal, recognized Gov't of AF at the time of US attack, that would change quite a few things, including the status of the Gitmo detainees just released. Armoured has made the claim that since Taliban claimed control of AF, that they were the de facto Gov't. I suspect you know a whole lot more about this than I do, and I have been unable to set him straight on this. I thought it would be easy, but it has proven not to be.

The argument that the Taliban terrorist organization was the defacto government of Afghanistan holds no merit whatever.
The Taliban are an extremist far-right militant organization. They established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996.Their rule of a limited area of Afghanistan ended in 2001.

The Taliban did not control all of Afghanistan. Not by a long shot. Therefore, to call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan the government of Afghanistan under the Taliban is in error of the actual facts of history. People can argue against that but history proves they will always be wrong.


Stanford: Mapping Militant Organizations

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan even has a website dedicated to Jihad. And if you seek out TIEoA in an images search you'll find very graphic images that represent their doctrine. But remember now, that isn't proof they're terrorists. (cough)

 

[theophilus777]

Seek out TIEoA and up comes this:

"Last Friday on 29/12/1392 Islamic Emirate’s valiant Mujahideen attacked Serena Hotel ..."

And they go on to talk about who all they killed. Valiantly, of course.

Look at that date. That would be March 23rd of this year, for the rest of us. Maybe that's the problem, they really think this is 1392?

 

[GondwanaLand]

Seriously, if the Obama administration honestly thought that, then the Marine that is in a Mexican Prison right now for making a wrong turn on a highway would be back in the United States.

Let's be honest about this, Obama wanted to release these 5 high-ranked terrorists, and he thought this would give him political cover.

1. Mexico is not a terrorist org, and he's in prison, not in captivity
2. The State Dept has been talking with Mexico on this already
3. Thank Texas for that as this is likely payback for our breaking of international laws via Texas when we tried and executed a mexican national and refused to obey a binding World Court ruling.

 

[SaphireOwl]

Seek out TIEoA and up comes this:

"Last Friday on 29/12/1392 Islamic Emirate’s valiant Mujahideen attacked Serena Hotel ..."

And they go on to talk about who all they killed. Valiantly, of course.

Look at that date. That would be March 23rd of this year, for the rest of us. Maybe that's the problem, they really think this is 1392?

Difference Between Taliban and Mujahideen

 

[Armoured]

The argument that the Taliban terrorist organization was the defacto government of Afghanistan holds no merit whatever.
The Taliban are an extremist far-right militant organization. They established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in 1996.Their rule of a limited area of Afghanistan ended in 2001.

The Taliban did not control all of Afghanistan. Not by a long shot. Therefore, to call the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan the government of Afghanistan under the Taliban is in error of the actual facts of history. People can argue against that but history proves they will always be wrong.


Stanford: Mapping Militant Organizations

The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan even has a website dedicated to Jihad. And if you seek out TIEoA in an images search you'll find very graphic images that represent their doctrine. But remember now, that isn't proof they're terrorists. (cough)

They held the capital and 90% of the countryside. That constitutes "control" in any reasonable discussion. They are absolutely an extremist far right organisation, and savage and bloodthirsty into the bargain. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they were the government of Afghanistan at the time, and even had international recognition as such.

Once again, I ask, if the Taliban weren't the government of Afghanistan between '96 and '01, who was?

 

[Armoured]

Seek out TIEoA and up comes this:

"Last Friday on 29/12/1392 Islamic Emirate’s valiant Mujahideen attacked Serena Hotel ..."

And they go on to talk about who all they killed. Valiantly, of course.

Look at that date. That would be March 23rd of this year, for the rest of us. Maybe that's the problem, they really think this is 1392?

Would it surprise you to learn that Muslims don't base their dating system on the birth of Christ? Shocking, I know.

 

[conamer]

You know they are in talks about that, but when the guy was off duty, him being a marine doesn't mean much. It is the same as if you or me went down there.

But being a deserter apparently means more.

 

[theophilus777]

They held the capital and 90% of the countryside. That constitutes "control" in any reasonable discussion. They are absolutely an extremist far right organisation, and savage and bloodthirsty into the bargain. But that doesn't detract from the fact that they were the government of Afghanistan at the time, and even had international recognition as such.

Once again, I ask, if the Taliban weren't the government of Afghanistan between '96 and '01, who was?

A few Arab nations recognized them. So? You're trying to re-write history. Read this:

"In power for five years, the Taliban regime was an "oxymoron of an Islamist state," wrote Gilles Kepel, a scholar of political Islam. The Taliban's exclusive interests, he wrote, were imposing Deobandi norms in Afghanistan while waging jihad on the country's periphery, and so it neglected basic state functions."

As in, not a legitimate Gov't. How is it you do not know this?

 

[Armoured]

A few Arab nations recognized them. So? You're trying to re-write history. Read this:

"In power for five years, the Taliban regime was an "oxymoron of an Islamist state," wrote Gilles Kepel, a scholar of political Islam. The Taliban's exclusive interests, he wrote, were imposing Deobandi norms in Afghanistan while waging jihad on the country's periphery, and so it neglected basic state functions."

As in, not a legitimate Gov't. How is it you do not know this?

Yes. A few Arab nations recognised them. That's international recognition. You still haven't answered my question, by the way. If the Taliban weren't the government of Afghanistan at the time, who was?

I'm not saying they were nice, I'm not saying the were good at performing the basic functions of governance. I'm just telling you that they were the only contender worth considering as being the Afghani government at the time.

 

[theophilus777]

Yes. A few Arab nations recognised them. That's international recognition.

No, that's not Int'l recognition. That's a few Arab Countries. Their opinion doesn't matter and neither does your incessant question suggesting that the Taliban was legal Gov't by default. We need Daffy Duck to tell you you're despicable?

I'm not saying they were nice, I'm not saying the were good at performing the basic functions of governance. I'm just telling you that they were the only contender worth considering as being the Afghani government at the time.

Wrong. They weren't worth considering. And these 5 recently released weren't soldiers. That's Int'l law. The Taliban are still a blight on their own people.

 

[conamer]

Yes. A few Arab nations recognised them. That's international recognition. You still haven't answered my question, by the way. If the Taliban weren't the government of Afghanistan at the time, who was?

I'm not saying they were nice, I'm not saying the were good at performing the basic functions of governance. I'm just telling you that they were the only contender worth considering as being the Afghani government at the time.

So what,who cares?

 

[Armoured]

No, that's not Int'l recognition. That's a few Arab Countries.

What do you think "international" means?

Their opinion doesn't matter and neither does your incessant question suggesting that the Taliban was legal Gov't by default.

Hey, don't get mad at me because you can't answer the question.

Wrong. They weren't worth considering. And these 5 recently released weren't soldiers. That's Int'l law. The Taliban are still a blight on their own people.

I agree the Taliban were and are a blight on their own people. Doesn't make them any less the government of Afghanistan '96-'01 though.

 

[Armoured]

So what,who cares?

You can backtrack the discussion if you like. The initial point was a comparison of the American Revolution to the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.