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

[TLK Valentine]

ETA: Tahmooressi had 3 guns and ammo in his truck. Not really an 'arsenal' in the real world application of the word.

3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances -- barring, perhaps, the unthinkable.

 

[theophilus777]

If we were going to kill them, it should've been on the battlefield.

Perhaps, but maybe not. How much can we really on any info we've gathered from these folks since? I would think that what they tell us about themselves would be the least reliable type of intel they offer, esp if its that they were set up. Even so, no doubt there's enough gained since their initial capture to confuse the issue of if they should have been killed or taken alive. The big difference is still that death = martyrdom to these folks and their movement, so its actually more cost effective for us to just detain them. Esp when there's no hope for any trial or release. Gitmo is wholly irrelevant to all that.

 

[High Fidelity]

3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances -- barring, perhaps, the unthinkable.

He was probably going shopping.

 

[High Fidelity]

Yes we can. Maybe we shouldn't, but your statement is factually in error.



By all means, if we've been holding people that were just set up by their enemies but never harmful, set them free. We owe none of them a trial.

Do you not think it's a dangerous precedent to set? Holding people indefinitely without trial?

Imagine if that happened to Joe America... I imagine there would be quite the fuss.

 

[theophilus777]

3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances -- barring, perhaps, the unthinkable.

This is a rare time when I am inclined to agree with your stance on guns. Stashed at home? We probably disagree. Loaded up in your good ol' pickup truck, out and about, accidentally finding yourself in Mexico? Not really the time or place.

 

[GondwanaLand]

He's a vet of the front in Afghanistan and seeking treatment for PTSD from that. We owe this man what help we can, even though its not really equivalent to a POW situation. I realize you think we should have left AF alone. You should realize I'd like to see us do a Rambo / Iron Eagle move here. Fortunately for everyone reality is somewhere between those extremes

but US is not above using diplomatic pressure. And as far as morality goes, you don't refuse a turnaround at the border crossing, geez

Yes, sure I have no problem with the US using diplomatic pressure, etc..

But when looking at this case one must realize that any diplomatic pressure will likely be tossed back in our faces, considering how Texas ignored and defied World court rulings and executed a Mexican national not too long ago (and didn't bother to inform him of his rights to contact his consulate to get representation when they booked him, among other things). I have little doubt that this is their little bit of payback here.

 

[theophilus777]

Do you not think it's a dangerous precedent to set? Holding people indefinitely without trial?

Imagine if that happened to Joe America... I imagine there would be quite the fuss.

This sets no precedent. It has been done to countless US soldiers. Literally, no one kept count. And there was no fuss, which is disgraceful on the part of those in power. (US, I mean)

Joe America has never been in any similar situation - unless you're talking about a lone criminal. Which is really what these individuals are; criminals, by any legal standard. Our best tactic is to refuse to give them any dignity or honor whatsoever, which is what we've been doing. No chance for anyone to glorify them as martyrs, no glimmer of hope, no aid or comfort given the enemy. This is one of the better things US has done in the whole prosecution of the war on terror.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Perhaps, but maybe not. How much can we really on any info we've gathered from these folks since? I would think that what they tell us about themselves would be the least reliable type of intel they offer, esp if its that they were set up.

And since these men have been out of the loop for quite some time, so even their accurate intel is years out of date.

In short, we've gotten as much as we can get out of them -- what else are they good for besides bargaining chips?

Even so, no doubt there's enough gained since their initial capture to confuse the issue of if they should have been killed or taken alive.

Well, that's not even a question any sane strategist would ask-- one live prisoner is worth 10 dead enemies, hands down. A prisoner might give misleading or inaccurate intel; a corpse gives nothing. And it's intelligence that wins wars.

The big difference is still that death = martyrdom to these folks and their movement, so its actually more cost effective for us to just detain them. Esp when there's no hope for any trial or release. Gitmo is wholly irrelevant to all that.

You're assuming that no usable intel was ever gained from these men -- We don't know if that's the case.

What we do know, or at least can safely assume, is that they have nothing more to give -- since the US does NOT kill prisoners, we either hold them or use them. We found a way to use them to get back one of our own.

On a side note, was Bergdahl a model soldier for this trade? Probably not, but 1) that doesn't mean he deserved to be in captivity, and 2) being our onlyPOW, well, beggars can't be choosers.

If Audie Murphy had been captured, I'm sure Obama would've swapped for him instead -- and the chickenhawks would STILL whine about it.

 

[theophilus777]

Yes, sure I have no problem with the US using diplomatic pressure, etc..

But when looking at this case one must realize that any diplomatic pressure will likely be tossed back in our faces, considering how Texas ignored and defied World court rulings and executed a Mexican national not too long ago (and didn't bother to inform him of his rights to contact his consulate to get representation when they booked him, among other things). I have little doubt that this is their little bit of payback here.

cue the Iron Eagle quote: we don't take this sort of nonsense from little two bit Countries

Yeah, it won't happen. And the 25 year old kid who tried to commit suicide but pulled it back together will likely regret not going through with it before its over. If he returns Stateside, will it be before he turns 50?

 

[theophilus777]

And since these men have been out of the loop for quite some time, so even their accurate intel is years out of date.

In short, we've gotten as much as we can get out of them -- what else are they good for besides bargaining chips?

How long will it take for them to be every bit as good to AQ as they ever were? How much blood and treasure have we already spent on the capture of each of these 5 men? You seem to have this idea that they have an endless supply of manpower. Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective. Sure intel is part of that, but AQ has been suffering for a lack of effective leadership. These pieces all fit neatly together ... (even though no one at Gitmo has given us good info for years now)

What we do know, or at least can safely assume, is that they have nothing more to give -- since the US does NOT kill prisoners, we either hold them or use them. We found a way to use them to get back one of our own.

We are the ones that have been used. How many other detainees at Gitmo? Why these 5? Clearly these were AQ's top choice. No doubt they have good reason for that.

There is one other possibility, that some seriously high level James Bond type stuff no one will know about for 20 years is going on here, and I would love for that to be the case. You know as well as I do that Obama really isn't that creative, or dedicated to the task. Instead, he's still kissing Arab Kings.

On a side note, was Bergdahl a model soldier for this trade? Probably not, but 1) that doesn't mean he deserved to be in captivity, and 2) being our onlyPOW, well, beggars can't be choosers.

This is not a side note but the whole crux of the issue! These 5 are not bargaining chips; we've got plenty of those. These 5 are the last to be let go - meaning never let go.

If Audie Murphy had been captured, I'm sure Obama would've swapped for him instead -- and the chickenhawks would STILL whine about it.

Hey, leave Foghorn Leghorn out of it; no need to get sacrilegious

 

[TLK Valentine]

This is a rare time when I am inclined to agree with your stance on guns. Stashed at home? We probably disagree. Loaded up in your good ol' pickup truck, out and about, accidentally finding yourself in Mexico? Not really the time or place.

And the funny part is, most people don't even understand my stance on guns, no matter how many times I explain it.

I'm all for responsible people owning firearms for hunting and/or self-defense. I only think the rights of the Second Amendment should be balanced by the responsibilities of common sense.

Now, the current claim is that Tahmooressi was transporting those weapons to his home -- but loaded?

His escape attempt and subsequent apparent suicide attempt don't merit any votes of confidence either.

Had those not happened, he might've been home by now.

As it stands, his actions don't fit well with a "lack of intent" defense -- and makes his act of crossing the border a potential recipe for all sorts of high-caliber unpleasantness.

 

[TLK Valentine]

How long will it take for them to be every bit as good to AQ as they ever were?

Possibly never -- AQ has moved on in their absence, and how eager is the current leadership going to be about stepping down to let these men (who presumably spilled all their secrets under tort-- ahem, enhanced interrogation) take the reigns from them?

AQ doesn't seem like the sort of organization where paradigm shifts are handled smoothly... but more on that later.

How much blood and treasure have we already spent on the capture of each of these 5 men?

How much less would it have cost to kill them once we found them? And what would we have lost by doing so?

You seem to have this idea that they have an endless supply of manpower.

Do we?

Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective.

Is that what happened in Vietnam?

We've been over this before -- If war worked like a videogame, where whoever scores the most kills wins, then yes, you would be correct. However, this isn't Call of Duty; it's the real world, where war is a political action with political goals. Make those goals impossible to achieve -- by any means -- and the war is over.

You want to fight asymmetrical warfare by attrition -- WWI style. It doesn't work.

Sure intel is part of that, but AQ has been suffering for a lack of effective leadership. These pieces all fit neatly together ... (even though no one at Gitmo has given us good info for years now)

As they're no good to us, they're only going to be slightly less useful to them.

Besides, terrorists operate via autonomous cells -- as much as killing Osama bin Laden was necessary to bring closure, killing him did no more than assassinating Obama would cause the US to collapse.

We are the ones that have been used. How many other detainees at Gitmo? Why these 5? Clearly these were AQ's top choice. No doubt they have good reason for that.

Why not? If you're going to make deals, you want the best you can get. Would YOU trade your only prisoner for a few pieces of front-line cannon fodder?

besides, it was the nation of Qatar that brokered the deal -- who knows how many AQ originally asked for?

There is one other possibility, that some seriously high level James Bond type stuff no one will know about for 20 years is going on here, and I would love for that to be the case. You know as well as I do that Obama really isn't that creative, or dedicated to the task.

Neither is AQ. Save the spy fiction for the Ian Fleming novels.

Instead, he's still kissing Arab Kings.

Better to let our soldiers rot, then?

We already don't respect our soldiers when we send them off to fight unnecessary wars;

we already don't respect our soldiers when they come home wounded and need help, which they don't get...

if we don't at least respect them when they get captured, how in the name of the devil's mother are we going to keep a standing army?

This is not a side note but the whole crux of the issue! These 5 are not bargaining chips; we've got plenty of those. These 5 are the last to be let go - meaning never let go.

These five are apparently the ones AQ wanted. As I said, if you were making a prisoner exchange, you'd demand the most you could get.

And again, how useful are these 5 going to be to AQ? Those who get captured and spill their guts once are likely to do it again... at least, you gotta think that's what AQ's current leadership is pondering.

If I were in AQ, I'd make a big spectacle of welcoming them back... but I wouldn't let them sit at the grown-up table or do any serious planning until they're proven that they're not a liability or worse, a double agent... and that might take some time, if ever.

 

[theophilus777]

Possibly never -- AQ has moved on in their absence, and how eager is the current leadership going to be about stepping down to let these men (who presumably spilled all their secrets under tort-- ahem, enhanced interrogation) take the reigns from them?

AQ doesn't seem like the sort of organization where paradigm shifts are handled smoothly... but more on that later.

This lends itself to the same sort of Ian Fleming stuff you said doesn't happen. Pump up these 5 pre-release about how important they are, and try to create inner tension that weakens AQ more than we can otherwise. Grasping at straws to find some good reasons Obama might have for this, but it is possible, however remote.

How much less would it have cost to kill them once we found them? And what would we have lost by doing so?

Hey, that's my argument

Is that what happened in Vietnam?

No. We lost.

We've been over this before -- If war worked like a videogame, where whoever scores the most kills wins, then yes, you would be correct. However, this isn't Call of Duty; it's the real world, where war is a political action with political goals. Make those goals impossible to achieve -- by any means -- and the war is over.

Obviously false. We started with the impossible goal of establishing Democracy where it is neither understood nor wanted. You say that's what ends wars?

You want to fight asymmetrical warfare by attrition -- WWI style. It doesn't work.

Asymmetrical or no, if your opponent is dead, there is no more war. We CAN kill all of them; we simply haven't. Personally, I think if we're not willing to do that, that is a war we have no business fighting.

As they're no good to us, they're only going to be slightly less useful to them.

I certainly hope you're right about this, but I don;t think AQ is the bunch of simpletons this portrays them to be.

if we don't at least respect them when they get captured, how in the name of the devil's mother are we going to keep a standing army?

Standing armies were considered a terrible thing by our founding Fathers. The only thing worse would be a private central bank, issuing our currency.

If I were in AQ, I'd make a big spectacle of welcoming them back... but I wouldn't let them sit at the grown-up table or do any serious planning until they're proven that they're not a liability or worse, a double agent... and that might take some time, if ever.

More Iam Fleming stuff. Which might actually be what Obama is up to ... I hesitate to give him that much credit, but if he can actually transform US into a non-interventionist State?

 

[TLK Valentine]

This lends itself to the same sort of Ian Fleming stuff you said doesn't happen. Pump up these 5 pre-release about how important they are, and try to create inner tension that weakens AQ more than we can otherwise. Grasping at straws to find some good reasons Obama might have for this, but it is possible, however remote.

I'm not saying Obama planned this; I'm saying it's how AQ will react. They've not about to simply hand leadership back to people who got themselves captured and spilled their secrets so easily the first time around.

Hey, that's my argument

So no difference, then.

No. We lost.

Precisely -- so when you said "Wars aren't won by intel, they're won by killing people until they can no longer be replaced with anyone competent enough to be effective," clearly that's not the case.

We had plenty of troops to continue to throw at the VC; we just realized it would be pointless.

Obviously false. We started with the impossible goal of establishing Democracy where it is neither understood nor wanted. You say that's what ends wars?

If you're talking about Vietnam, yes, once we realized it.

If you're talking about Afghanistan, yes, as soon as we realize it.

If you're talking about Iraq, seeing as how they did have democratic elections, it would appear that the goal was not so impossible there as you thought.

Asymmetrical or no, if your opponent is dead, there is no more war. We CAN kill all of them; we simply haven't. Personally, I think if we're not willing to do that, that is a war we have no business fighting.

We lost about 58,000 soldiers in Vietnam -- estimates put the NVA/VC casualties at around 1.1 million. Tell me again how we lost Vietnam?

Don't you see? you're still playing war like a video game. Put down the XBox controller, pick up a copy of Sun Tzu's The Art of War, and understand why it's considered required reading in every branch of the service.

I certainly hope you're right about this, but I don;t think AQ is the bunch of simpletons this portrays them to be.

Those men aren't going to be much use precisely because AQ are not simpletons.

Standing armies were considered a terrible thing by our founding Fathers. The only thing worse would be a private central bank, issuing our currency.

And for good reason -- but that's irrelevant.

We have a standing volunteer army, meaning we have a moral responsibility to treat them right. If we renege on that any more than we already are, it's unlikely that any American will ever willingly put on a uniform again.

More Iam Fleming stuff. Which might actually be what Obama is up to ... I hesitate to give him that much credit, but if he can actually transform US into a non-interventionist State?

Not Ian Fleming stuff; Obama's not that clever -- but he just might be that lucky.

It won't be Obama who turns the US into a non-interventionist state, it'll be the American people -- because they're sick and tired of perpetual war with nothing to show for it.

 

[MachZer0]

3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances...

Not really

 

[High Fidelity]

3 loaded weapons and 400 spare rounds of ammo is a bit excessive for one person under most circumstances-...

Not really

Not really?

How is it not excessive? Where was he driving to? Baghdad?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Not really

well, not if your last name is Harris or Kiebold.

 

[JustOneWay]

Without a trial

If you are looking for a speedy trial, next time tell him to not fire his lawyer


He was driving to a dinner date with his his arsenal by his side....

 

[MachZer0]

well, not if your last name is Harris or Kiebold.

Not even for
most gun enthusiasts

 

[MachZer0]

If you are looking for a speedy trial, next time tell him to not fire his lawyer


He was driving to a dinner date with his his arsenal by his side....

I'm looking for Obama to make a move to get him released. Heck, he could trade any number of illegal aliens for one sergeant.