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

[Armoured]

Let me take this. It was still a WAR. There were soldiers, who were identifiable, and clearly on one side not the other, not pretending to be civilians. I'm not sure I agree with the stress on "wearing a uniform" as we have it today, but they did that too. The Brits didn't like it because we didn't engage them in tactics they were familiar with, in which they certainly would have won, without even much of a contest. So yes we engaged in guerrilla tactics, but it was still WAR, not terrorism.

See the difference?

The people we've been holding in Gitmo did not engage in war, neither were they soldiers. They had no rights of any sort, and could've been legally executed had we felt like it. Not that that alone makes anything we've done right, but "right" is an option that flew out the window long ago.

Hopefully these 5 detainees will not fly out the window upon their transfer.

So the Taliban, the recognised leaders of a internationally recognised nation state, are terrorists when fighting an invader, but oath breaking traitors engaged in insurrection against their legal government are war fighters. Sure, why not.

 

[theophilus777]

So the Taliban, the recognised leaders of a internationally recognised nation state, are terrorists when fighting an invader, but oath breaking traitors engaged in insurrection against their legal government are war fighters. Sure, why not.

1. A big problem, and reason for this thread, is that the US man in question was an oath breaking traitor, but treated as a soldier in the exchange. It makes no sense.

2. The Taliban certainly were not any recognized leaders when this war began. Any claim they lay to leadership is questionable at best. What makes you think their leadership should be recognized? More importantly, how does that make this swap anything but an even worse idea?

 

[Armoured]

2. The Taliban certainly were not any recognized leaders when this war began.

You might like to look it up. The Taliban was the recognised government of Afghanistan at the time.

Any claim they lay to leadership is questionable at best. What makes you think their leadership should be recognized? More importantly, how does that make this swap anything but an even worse idea?

Like it or not, there's all sorts of governments recognised internationally that aren't particularly nice, or that
don't have a lot of legitimacy. Want a list?

 

[SaphireOwl]

Maybe this deserter will replace Susan Rice who said he served with honor and distinction.

Rice should be embarrassed for the rest of her life for saying that.

 

[theophilus777]

You might like to look it up. The Taliban was the recognised government of Afghanistan at the time.

No need to look it up, I lived through it and remember. Next you'll have a bridge to sell me?

 

[Armoured]

No need to look it up, I lived through it and remember. Next you'll have a bridge to sell me?

Ok, so who do you think was the recognised government of Afghanistan at the time?

 

[theophilus777]

There was a CONFLICT. The Talibs were attempting to take over, and had control over certain parts of the Country. The legal Gov't welcomed our help. (the timing of our actual entrance was as bad as could be in every possible way, but I digress)

I have not kept up with all the developments since then, but I do know we saw them hold Democratic elections, which I think is pretty cool even though there were problems.

And as I understand it the Talibs are still in conflict with the duly elected Gov't., and still retain control over parts of the Country but not all of it. Some reporting indicates they are tiring of conflict, but I don't trust said sources and don't know what to think about that. But I do not believe AF was ever a "Taliban Nation."

Do you have info otherwise?

 

[Armoured]

Do you have info otherwise?

Yep. The Taliban was the government of Afghanistan from '96 to '01. Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[theophilus777]

Um, dude? Your own link says they never controlled AF. Right in the first sentence, I think.

 

[GondwanaLand]

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

Here’s PJ Media in January encouraging people to sign a petition for the White House to secure the release of Bergdahl by ANY means necessary. Including mentioning the possible trade of 5 Taliban GITMO detainees.

(Continued in the link)

Another showing McCain and Ayotte and their flipflopping:

McCain's reversals on Bowe Bergdahl | MSNBC

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., speaks to workers at MD Helicopters, Friday, May 30, 2014, in Mesa, Ariz.
Matt York/AP Photo



McCain’s reversals on Bowe Bergdahl

06/03/14 02:51 PM—Updated 06/04/14 01:25 AM
facebook twitter 1 save share group 51


By Steve Benen
It was just last week when Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) delivered a Memorial Day message in which she urged Americans to keep Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl “in our thoughts and prayers.” She added, “I renew my call on the Defense Department to redouble its efforts to find Sergeant Bergdahl and return him safely to his family.”

Less than a week later, the Defense Department announced that Bergdahl had been freed and he’ll be returned safely to his family – prompting a new round of criticism from Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.).

But all things considered, these conflicting statements are mild compared to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and his recent reversals, highlighted today by Doug Mataconis.

The Arizona senator, himself a former prisoner of war, initially balked at the idea of a prisoner swap, calling the idea in 2012 “bizarre.” A few months ago, however, McCain changed his mind.

...

McCain appears to have change course again after the Bergdahl announcement was made over the weekend.

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

Ex-Bush administration official John Bellinger told Fox News that "we don't leave soldiers behind" and defended Obama's decision to make the trade. “I think we would have made the same decision in the Bush administration.”

 

[Armoured]

Um, dude? Your own link says they never controlled AF. Right in the first sentence, I think.

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

 

[conamer]

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

Key word:were, turn the page.

 

[conamer]

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):

Who cares? Obama broke the law, both sides have a problem with that.

 

[Armoured]

Key word:were, turn the page.

*sigh* The discussion was about whether they were ever the government of Afghanistan or not. If you're going to but in to someone else's exchange, please have the courtesy to backtrack a few posts so you understand the context.

 

[conamer]

*sigh* The discussion was about whether they were ever the government of Afghanistan or not. If you're going to but in to someone else's exchange, please have the courtesy to backtrack a few posts so you understand the context.

No kidding. And that is relevant to this thread how?

 

[GondwanaLand]

Who cares? Obama broke the law, both sides have a problem with that.

Reagan broke the law too. What about it?

 

[PopesFollower]

Here is what Obama did:

He got back a deserter who's father is a pro-Taliban anti-American, and he gave up 5 prisoners out of Gitmo in a disgusting deceptive attempt to advance his wish to close Gitmo.

Five terrorists free, on traitor and son of a traitor home.

His acts have been condemned by both Democrats AND Republicans.

 

[PopesFollower]

Did Obama Trade 5 Terrorists in Order to Try a Traitor?
By Scott Ott - LINK

If, as some in Bowe Bergdahl’s unit have alleged, he was not a P.O.W., but at best a deserter, possibly a traitor, the penalty under the Uniform Code of Military Justice can be death for either offense.

And if that is so, then it’s possible that President Obama traded away five detained Muslim terrorists in order to retrieve a traitor.

For what? So we can court-martial and then execute him?

The facts as we know them will likely change in the coming days, but what we now hear is deeply disturbing. And as of this writing, the Pentagon and the White House have not addressed the most concerning of these allegations.

As to Defense Secretary Hagel’s assertion that we urgently had to make the deal to protect Berhdahl’s health, the media reported as early as June 2012 that a Gitmo prisoner swap for Bergdahl was in the works, even giving the accurate Taliban terrorist count contemplated in the deal. So what was the rush two years later?

I’m hoping that the actual facts are different than this. The president’s actions make no sense, except under a most-bizarre and frightening scenario.

 

[PopesFollower]

Who cares? Obama broke the law, both sides have a problem with that.

Reagan broke the law too. What about it?

Proof please?

And by the way, the schoolyard defense, "Well, well, he did it toooo" is lame.

 

[MachZer0]

Reagan broke the law too. What about it?

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?