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

[JustOneWay]

No, the mistake was yours.

I made no mistake. I saw no terrorists in that video.

If you want to prove your assertion, provide details of 1 of the men (other than the American) and prove the man is a terrorist.

Please put your money where your mouth is.

 

[JustOneWay]

3.5 tons of 5% uranium can be converted to 20% in a few weeks.

few weeks? What is a few weeks? 2? 12? 20,004?

Do you think they would use nukes if they had them?

 

[Sunshine Locket]

I made no mistake. I saw no terrorists in that video.

If you want to prove your assertion, provide details of 1 of the men (other than the American) and prove the man is a terrorist.

Please put your money where your mouth is.

Christians don't gamble.

God be with you.

 

[JustOneWay]

Christians don't gamble.

God be with you.

Good to see you've abandoned your accusation about seeing terrorists.

Your point was indefensible.

 

[Ronald]

When a deserter swap allows five of the most dangerous terrorists on earth according to Donald Rumsfeld, who called them: "most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth." Yes!

Not to devalue the crime, even one terrorist is not a good exchange. It's just that one nuke will do much more damage than all of them put together. Iran is an axis of evil as is N. Korea. Btw, Putin is chumming up with N. Korea ... where will that lead?

 

[GarfieldJL]

I was right there in DC. Clearly you were in a coma during that time.

If you're referring to Iran-Contra, if Reagan did know about it and we still had active agents in the field; he would have arguably been committing treason if he divulged what he knew about it...

To try to compare Iran-contra (which Reagan may or may not have known about, since this was during the Cold War and there were a lot of intelligence gathering ops that the President may not have been informed of), to what Obama did in handing over 5 core leaders of terrorist groups is extremely disingenious.

 

[JustOneWay]

If you're referring to Iran-Contra, if Reagan did know about it and we still had active agents in the field; he would have arguably been committing treason if he divulged what he knew about it...

To try to compare Iran-contra (which Reagan may or may not have known about, since this was during the Cold War and there were a lot of intelligence gathering ops that the President may not have been informed of), to what Obama did in handing over 5 core leaders of terrorist groups is extremely disingenious.

Turning over prisoners of war compared to giving an axis of evil country missiles in return for hostages.

You're right there is no comparison. Iran/Contra was much worse.

 

[GarfieldJL]

Turning over prisoners of war compared to giving an axis of evil country missiles in return for hostages.

You clearly have no idea what a POW is, I'm not giving an opinion, I'm stating a fact.

A POW is a soldier that has been captured while in uniform, these 5 whom were captured, were not in uniform they were "unlawful combatants" (actually they could have been classified as spies and shot on sight).

These were the worst of the worst being returned for a deserter (whom was also possibly a traitor).

You're right there is no comparison. Iran/Contra was much worse.

I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran, I thought the Cold War was between the Soviet Union and its' proxies and the United States and its allies and proxies.

I really don't think Reagan would have approved Iran/Contra, and the during the Cold War, the CIA was well known for doing things behind the back of the President. The CIA didn't have the oversight back in that time period, that it ended up having under Clinton and Bush Jr.

 

[JustOneWay]

You clearly have no idea what a POW is, I'm not giving an opinion, I'm stating a fact.

A POW is a soldier that has been captured while in uniform, these 5 whom were captured, were not in uniform they were "unlawful combatants" (actually they could have been classified as spies and shot on sight).

These were the worst of the worst being returned for a deserter (whom was also possibly a traitor).

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. There is a war because Bush told us there was, and we captured these people on the field of battle - they are prisoners of war.

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

I wasn't aware that we were at war with Iran, I thought the Cold War was between the Soviet Union and its' proxies and the United States and its allies and proxies.

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. One does not need a declaration of war to identify one's enemies.

I really don't think Reagan would have approved Iran/Contra, and the during the Cold War, the CIA was well known for doing things behind the back of the President. The CIA didn't have the oversight back in that time period, that it ended up having under Clinton and Bush Jr.

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

 

[theophilus777]

They never controlled 100% of it, but they were still the country's government.

Key word:were, turn the page.

I don't think the Taliban were the "legally recognized" leadership of AF, at any time. That's what I responded to. I don't think they had legal control, nor that they were recognized. One good measurement of this would be if we went in facing a Taliban Army, defending a nation, wearing uniform. I don't think any of that happened.

I think the local population felt they were oppressed, overrun by unwelcome tyranny, and wanted to oust the Taliban. Of course nothing is ever so simple; some folks may have been on the side of the Talibs, some may have said so for fear of their lives, and others may have had their own political aspirations.

Will anyone agree with Armoured that the Taliban were in fact the legally recognized Gov't of AF when we attacked them? That we went to war against a Nation? (Anyone besides Just One Way I mean.)

 

[theophilus777]

Darn, my mistake. Bergdahl was being held for over five years by Taliban associated pacifist tree huggers. *throws peace sign*

Ahhh, this all makes sense now. Nothing to see here, move along ...

 

[theophilus777]

Mincing words and playing semantics will not convince anybody that these people captured were not soldiers.

These people captured were not soldiers. Everybody knows that. You have no means of convincing anyone otherwise. Are you sure OBL isn't your hero?

 

[JustOneWay]

These people captured were not soldiers. Everybody knows that. You have no means of convincing anyone otherwise.

semantics.

 

[theophilus777]

Not semantics at all, but the crux of the case. That's why Armoured's false claim about the Taliban being the recognized legal Gov't of AF when we went in is relevant to the thread. If we were fighting a Nation, these would be soldiers, and afforded all the rights of the Geneva conventions.

Such is NOT the case, and it makes a world of difference. It would be nice if you were up to speed on at least some of the basics before opining, but I guess we can't expect rationale from every poster in an open online forum.

The 5 Talibs under discussion here were criminals when they were captured. They were busily oppressing the good people of AF who just wanted to live in peace. We weren't so much drawn into their Civil War, as we were disrupting their training bases designed to cause us more harm on domestic soil. It WORKED.

Upon their capture, goons like these caused us a great dilemma: even though we had every legal right to just execute them, that would instantly make them martyrs and fuel their cause. We couldn't very well turn them loose. Even in captivity they could be highly dangerous, so what to do? Let them figure out how to swim from Cuba back to AF. Make their comrades back home fear that if they're captured, they will fare about as well as our boys at their mercy would; level the playing field. We did a lot to create that image, and unfortunately many of our own soldiers went too far, actually abusing combatants, and then civilians too.

And so we have a mess. This was new ground at every turn, and therefore controversial by definition. Are you filled in yet?

 

[JustOneWay]

Not semantics at all, but the crux of the case. That's why Armoured's false claim about the Taliban being the recognized legal Gov't of AF when we went in is relevant to the thread. If we were fighting a Nation, these would be soldiers, and afforded all the rights of the Geneva conventions.

I never implied that the Taliban was Afghanistan's 'official' army. I said these prisoners were soldiers, and if you asked them they would say they are soldiers.

My argument was noting like Armoured, so your comparison is not valid.

Military of the Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taleban,[7] is an Islamic fundamentalist political movement in Afghanistan. It spread throughout Afghanistan and formed a government, ruling as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from September 1996 until December 2001,

Taliban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you sure Hitler isn't your hero?

 

[Veritas]

It's hilarious to see how rapidly Republicans are flipping on this and changing their tunes. Not long ago they were supporting petitions for Obama to work (through "ANY" means necessary) to bring this fellow back home, etc.. And not They're trying to smear him as a deserter and attack the exchange.

I've heard the "Obama broke the notification law" and "we don't negotiate with terrorists" lines a number of times on this topic. I guess they missed the founding father of their current iteration of GOP-hood, Ronald Reagan, who broke numerous laws to secretly exchange over 1500 missiles for 3 hostages in Iran (Iran went and captured more to replace them), until his Iran-Contra operation was exposed to the public.

Here's just a few examples of the flip-flopping that has occurred now that suddenly the Republican demands have been met (can't have Obama be said to have anything good, can we?):

Flashback! 1/2014: PJ Media Encourages Readers to Sign Petition to Free Bergdahl "By Any Means Necessary" - Little Green Footballs
(Continued in the link)

Another showing McCain and Ayotte and their flipflopping:

McCain's reversals on Bowe Bergdahl | MSNBC



Oh and then we have John Bellinger (Legal Adviser for the U.S. Department of State and the National Security Council under Bush):

I don't know why you think this is so funny. How many actually knew that Bergdahl was a deserter and likely traitor back then? A lot has been revealed since he was released. To come out now and be against the deal, is NOT flipping. It's being realistic. It was a mistake and I'd be willing to bet Obama knew just who Bergdahl was. Why do you think he did an end run around Congress, violating the law to give them a 30 day notice? You don't think in 30 days they would have discovered the truth and opposed this absurd trade?

People who broke the law were charged, tried and convicted and our liberal friends fully supported doing so. Will they be consistent and support charging those who broke the law in this case?

We both know the answer to that.

 

[GarfieldJL]

semantics.

You're the one whom is trying to argue over semantics.


In any case:
Soldier: We Were Told To ‘Keep Quiet’ About Bergdahl Leaving Afghan Base « CBS DC

I think that adds even more to this latest Obama Scandal.

 

[Armoured]

Not semantics at all, but the crux of the case. That's why Armoured's false claim about the Taliban being the recognized legal Gov't of AF when we went in is relevant to the thread. If we were fighting a Nation, these would be soldiers, and afforded all the rights of the Geneva conventions.

Such is NOT the case, and it makes a world of difference. It would be nice if you were up to speed on at least some of the basics before opining, but I guess we can't expect rationale from every poster in an open online forum.

The 5 Talibs under discussion here were criminals when they were captured. They were busily oppressing the good people of AF who just wanted to live in peace. We weren't so much drawn into their Civil War, as we were disrupting their training bases designed to cause us more harm on domestic soil. It WORKED.

Upon their capture, goons like these caused us a great dilemma: even though we had every legal right to just execute them, that would instantly make them martyrs and fuel their cause. We couldn't very well turn them loose. Even in captivity they could be highly dangerous, so what to do? Let them figure out how to swim from Cuba back to AF. Make their comrades back home fear that if they're captured, they will fare about as well as our boys at their mercy would; level the playing field. We did a lot to create that image, and unfortunately many of our own soldiers went too far, actually abusing combatants, and then civilians too.

And so we have a mess. This was new ground at every turn, and therefore controversial by definition. Are you filled in yet?

Again, I ask, if my claim was "false" then who do you think was the government of Afghanistan between '96 and '01?

 

[AirPo]

First it was Birth certificate, then Bengahzi, now Bergdahl.

Bad things come in 3s.


And in Bs!

 

[cow451]

First it was Birth certificate, then Bengahzi, now Bergdahl.

Bad things come in 3s.


And in Bs!

Shouldn't that be a capital "s"?