American held hostage by al Qaeda appeals to Obama... (2 Viewers)

[BigSteelThrill]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

So we would have returned Osama Bin Laden?

That's Al Qaeda. I think you may be confused.

Its already been discussed, with state and defense departments official stances. Just look back a few pages.

 

[jon_mx]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

So we would have returned Osama Bin Laden?

That's Al Qaeda. I think you may be confused.

Why could the Taliban not claim him? You can belong to multiple organizations.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

So we would have returned Osama Bin Laden?

That's Al Qaeda. I think you may be confused.

Why could the Taliban not claim him? You can belong to multiple organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

 

[mr roboto]

I feel like TA is a closet libertarian who would be at least sympathetic to the conservative side if only the kooks weren't in such control of the movement.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

Separate issue:

Can someone explain how...

... in the country that practically invented tv, films and the art of the image...

... in the country that created the political consulting profession, where the impression has become more important than the deed...

...in an administration that may actually be the "Greatest" ever in working the media, being on top of every little issue, message, talking point for and against on every possible available medium and outlet...

...how did we end up with the final image of this situation being on the one hand the Taliban handing over a weak, crying, shaved soldier with an overlay stating "Don't Come Back," juxtaposed with Taliban elite celerating the return of their Top 5 leaders in captivity?

How did the Obama team allow such a ridiculous propaganda victory to be handed to the Taliban?

Lots of reasons:

1. Poor messaging by the White House.

2. A badly demoralized Taliban looking for any kind of propaganda in their favor.

3. A certain segment of the American public which hates President Obama so much that they are eager to believe anything that makes him look bad.

1) Poor execution from front to back, messaging is the hand in a magic trick that distracts you.

2) Aside from the "not negotiating with terrorists" trading 5 extremists for a deserter is not Taliban propaganda, it's winning.

3) I'd rather you read/listen to those closer to the fire. The members of Bergdahl's command and family members of those that died in the search.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

Why bother saying no one died trying to save him, why not say it doesn't matter how many did, even if that one was a POS traitor?

I never said no one died trying to save him. You lose.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I feel like TA is a closet libertarian who would be at least sympathetic to the conservative side if only the kooks weren't in such control of the movement.

Shhh.....I feel like you are staring at my soul and it frightens me...

 

[mr roboto]

I feel like TA is a closet libertarian who would be at least sympathetic to the conservative side if only the kooks weren't in such control of the movement.

Shhh.....I feel like you are staring at my soul and it frightens me...

sorry

 

[HellToupee]

I feel like TA is a closet libertarian who would be at least sympathetic to the conservative side if only the kooks weren't in such control of the movement.

isn't it KooKs® ?

 

[TxBuckeye]

Is there any thread in the FFA that doesn't become a total dooshfest? It's a rhetorical question of course. The answer is in front of me. There are some seriously vile poeple on this board.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I feel like TA is a closet libertarian who would be at least sympathetic to the conservative side if only the kooks weren't in such control of the movement.

isn't it KooKs® ?

Thank you for being considerate of my intellectual property rights.

 

[Rove!]

Are the Democrats now implicitly conceding that the term "swift-boating" means to tell painful truths about a fellow soldier? It sure sounds like it....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

Did anyone say that none of that matters? Or did they say that none of that factors into the decision of making this deal? Do we say no deal because 1, 6, 600 soldiers died looking for him? We already gave up to much already! If anything every soldier that died looking for him (assuming there were some) factors in as a greater need to make this deal and a greater need to not walk away. How it lessens the desire to go get him back (without using troops) doesn't even register. At best the argument could be made that these 5 guys put our troops in greater danger so we need to factor that in, but that added danger is being over played also, It seems pretty trivial in the scheme of things.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I feel like TA is a closet libertarian who would be at least sympathetic to the conservative side if only the kooks weren't in such control of the movement.

This is in question?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Are the Democrats now implicitly conceding that the term "swift-boating" means to tell painful truths about a fellow soldier? It sure sounds like it....

Only in the bubble.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Would we have really released these five terrorists anyways? I doubt it based on their resumes, but who knows.

Absolutely. Not even in question. The Taliban are covered by the Geneva Convention and they arent considered terrorists. They are considered enemy combatants. Unless a POW is charged with war crimes, they all get released when the conflict ends. We have had these guys in Gitmo for years and years without enough to charge them. They would probably be let go before 2015. Now they will be in Qatar until mid 2015, when they can go back to Afghanistan where we supposedly wont have any more combat troops. So they go back to Afghanistan when they probably would have anyway and we get a US soldier back.

So we would have returned Osama Bin Laden?

That's Al Qaeda. I think you may be confused.

Why could the Taliban not claim him? You can belong to multiple organizations.

There were many other terrorist teams that had worse records and would get the chance to put a waiver claim on Osama long before Al Qaeda.

 

[3C's]

Is there any thread in the FFA that doesn't become a total dooshfest? It's a rhetorical question of course. The answer is in front of me. There are some seriously vile poeple on this board.

Who's hottest polls and threads about kittens.

 

[humpback]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

Why bother saying no one died trying to save him, why not say it doesn't matter how many did, even if that one was a POS traitor?

I never said no one died trying to save him. You lose.

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

 

[Hang 10]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

 

[humpback]

Homer, that article is not nearly as definitive as you are on the conclusions you are apparently drawing from that article.

It says right in the heading "facts are murky", yet his hack translator reads that as NOBODY ####### DIED LOOKING FOR HIM!

 

[timschochet]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They're not war criminals. War criminals get tried in a court of law.

 

[jonessed]

Where did I say they weren't? I'm asking how you factor them in. Tim said he doesn't, curious if others agree with him.

The soldiers killed, as an abstract?

They shine a bright light on the cost of the continuing search for him (or any captive soldier) in addition to the costs already paid when fulfilling our commitments to our soldiers.

Is there a cap on the number of soldiers you'd be willing to sacrifice in order to rescue one, or do you subscribe to "at any cost"? Would it make a difference if that one was a deserter?

1) We don't sacrifice them.

2) No cap on our efforts. As I stated, we still try to return Vietnam soldiers whole or part. Its ingrained as part of the culture of our military forces and the commitment.

3) You say "deserter" which is different then AWOL. He would need to have faced (even if not present) a UCMJ Article 85 (or Article 86) and judged accordingly.

He hasn't as of yet. But if he had, and found guilty, then it would certainly change his designation as a soldier and what our commitments are to him.

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

They are just bull####ting... well, not necessarily bull####ting, but definitely talking bull####. It's all bull#### these days. Now you prepare that Fetzer valve with some 3-in-1 oil and some gauze pads. And I'm gonna need about ten quartz of anti-freeze, preferably Prestone. No, no make that Quaker State.Get on it! Pronto dumb####! There's a lot of bull####ting to clean up in here!

So when are you going to admit that you were wrong?

I have no idea what you are even talking about. You seem really angry about something, but it's hard to make out exactly what it is.

Apparently you missed this from last night:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/middleeast/can-gi-be-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html

Whenever you're ready to apologize, I'm hear to listen.

What on earth are you talking about? I read that article before you even posted it.It's right in the title, "... The Facts are Murky". I trust the soldiers' accounts, you don't. I disagree that they are bull####ting or full of bull#### or however else you want to characterize their opinions.

We know he left willingly, the rest is unverifiable at this point. What part of that makes me "butt-hurt" or a "dumb####" or an "asskisser" or whatever other juvenile term you wish to come up with?

 

[humpback]

This is all a hypothetical- right now we really can't say if he was AWOL, a deserter, a traitor, or one of our best soldiers, and we don't know how many guys died looking for him. The issue I have is with people who essentially say "none of that matters". That's pretty absurd IMO, of course it matters.

Did anyone say that none of that matters? Or did they say that none of that factors into the decision of making this deal? Do we say no deal because 1, 6, 600 soldiers died looking for him? We already gave up to much already! If anything every soldier that died looking for him (assuming there were some) factors in as a greater need to make this deal and a greater need to not walk away. How it lessens the desire to go get him back (without using troops) doesn't even register. At best the argument could be made that these 5 guys put our troops in greater danger so we need to factor that in, but that added danger is being over played also, It seems pretty trivial in the scheme of things.

I'm not talking about the NFL draft pick trade value of the 5 taliban soldiers vs. 1 of ours. This is the about the entire situation. When people say "we bring him home no questions asked", or "no matter what the cost", or "it's irrelevant if he was a deserter", aren't they saying exactly that?

 

[timschochet]

Apparently Bergdahl tried to escape from the Taliban a few times. Doesn't sound like much of a collaborater.

 

[jonessed]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

 

[timschochet]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

 

[jonessed]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

I have no doubt.

 

[Hang 10]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They're not war criminals. War criminals get tried in a court of law.

Did the UN ever bring any of these guys to trial? Were they innocent?

 

[timschochet]

Senator Jim Inhofe on June 14, 2013:

I supported this amendment that raises awareness of SGT Bergdahl’s capture to continue to maximize efforts to return him and reminds the Senate of one of the basic pillars of the Army’s Warrior Ethos: ‘I will never leave a fallen comrade. The mission to bring our missing Soldiers home is one that will never end. It’s important that we make every effort to bring this captured Soldier home to his family.”

Senator Jim Inhofe on June 2, 2014:

With this trade, the White House has put US soldiers at risk. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans

 

[timschochet]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They're not war criminals. War criminals get tried in a court of law.

Did the UN ever bring any of these guys to trial? Were they innocent?

The UN? I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

[Hang 10]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They're not war criminals. War criminals get tried in a court of law.

Did the UN ever bring any of these guys to trial? Were they innocent?

The UN? I have no idea what you're referring to.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl

Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. He has been accused of war crimes during Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s. Fazl was detained after surrendering to Abdul Rashid Dostam, the leader of Afghanistan's Uzbek community, in November 2001. He was wanted by the United Nations in connection with the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites during the Taliban's rule. "When asked about the murders, he did not express any regret," according to the detainee assessment. He was alleged to have been associated with several militant Islamist groups, including al Qaeda. He was transferred into U.S. custody in December 2001 and was one of the first arrivals at Guantanamo, where he was assessed as having high intelligence value

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/bergdahl-transferred-guantanamo-detainees/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

 

[tommyboy]

Senator Jim Inhofe on June 14, 2013:

I supported this amendment that raises awareness of SGT Bergdahl’s capture to continue to maximize efforts to return him and reminds the Senate of one of the basic pillars of the Army’s Warrior Ethos: ‘I will never leave a fallen comrade. The mission to bring our missing Soldiers home is one that will never end. It’s important that we make every effort to bring this captured Soldier home to his family.”

Senator Jim Inhofe on June 2, 2014:

With this trade, the White House has put US soldiers at risk. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans

from my perspective,its not the quality of the person we "rescued" that matters in this entire affair. Its the trade itself, its the lying by the Admin, its the excuse making. At the end of the day, we just rewarded an enemy with a grossly onesided trade and THAT will cost us more in the future.

 

[jonessed]

Senator Jim Inhofe on June 14, 2013:

I supported this amendment that raises awareness of SGT Bergdahls capture to continue to maximize efforts to return him and reminds the Senate of one of the basic pillars of the Armys Warrior Ethos: I will never leave a fallen comrade. The mission to bring our missing Soldiers home is one that will never end. Its important that we make every effort to bring this captured Soldier home to his family.

Senator Jim Inhofe on June 2, 2014:

With this trade, the White House has put US soldiers at risk. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans

It sounds like he was supportive of rescue missions, but not a negotiated exchange of prisoners.

"Every effort" obviously has limitations. Are we calling him out for hyperbole? That's going to encompass quite a lot of politicians.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Bergdahl is the worst thing you can be in the military: a buddyfu**er.

And we still dont leave any of our soldiers, including him, in the hands of our enemies. Only we have the right to hang our soldiers. The enemy can either kill them on the battlefield or get killed by them, and we get to charge Bergdahl and convict him if appropriate.

All goofs making this about politics are vile.

Yes, even if 100 good soldiers die trying to save 1 scumbag, the price doesn't matter!

But 100 soldiers didnt die trying to save him, nor did 6. You lose.

What if they did? You lose.

No. You lose.

Why bother saying no one died trying to save him, why not say it doesn't matter how many did, even if that one was a POS traitor?

I never said no one died trying to save him. You lose.

Let's try to get back to the question- do you believe we should do whatever it takes to bring back one soldier, no matter how many other soldiers die in the process, and does it make a difference if the one they are searching for is a deserter?

That is a ridiculous question. Of course I dont think we should do "whatever it takes ... no matter how many other soldiers die in the process...". No one believes that. There have been numerous plans made by our military to go in and snatch him back since he as captured and they didnt because of the risks and dangers. I am fine with that.

And it doesnt make a difference to me if he is a deserter, which in this case he hasnt even been charged with other than on Fox News. There is a big difference between deserting and joining the enemy and fighting against America as a traitor. In the former case, the soldier is subject to the UCMJ and should be investigated and tried and convicted if the facts support it--BY US. In the latter case, I advocate immediate drone strikes on all traitors who fight with our enemies. But in this case, the facts are murky, and I support our military, even members of it who have problems, issues, etc., and who allegedly walk off their posts and get snatched by the enemy.

 

[Todd Andrews]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

Those detainees arent war criminals. They havent been charged with anything and the government has conceded they wont be charging them.

 

[NCCommish]

Has anyone seen pics of Bob Bergdahl, the soldier's father? He looks like an American Taliban himself. And from what I've heard of his tweets, he apparently sounds like one, too.

Looks like a Duck Dynasty guy to me. Are they American Taliban?

 

[timschochet]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They're not war criminals. War criminals get tried in a court of law.

Did the UN ever bring any of these guys to trial? Were they innocent?

The UN? I have no idea what you're referring to.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl

Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. He has been accused of war crimes during Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s. Fazl was detained after surrendering to Abdul Rashid Dostam, the leader of Afghanistan's Uzbek community, in November 2001. He was wanted by the United Nations in connection with the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites during the Taliban's rule. "When asked about the murders, he did not express any regret," according to the detainee assessment. He was alleged to have been associated with several militant Islamist groups, including al Qaeda. He was transferred into U.S. custody in December 2001 and was one of the first arrivals at Guantanamo, where he was assessed as having high intelligence value

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/bergdahl-transferred-guantanamo-detainees/index.html?iid=article_sidebar

We didn't charge him as a war criminal. We didn't charge him with ANY crime.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

 

[Fennis]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

Cool. Maybe we can stop talking about him now since he has absolutely nothing to do with this.

 

[3C's]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

Presbyterian, Muslim. They all look the same.

 

[Fennis]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

Cool. Maybe we can stop talking about him now since he has absolutely nothing to do with this.

He sure had a lot to do with it when he was speaking Muslim in the White House.

 

[Henry Ford]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

 

[StrikeS2k]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

Cool. Maybe we can stop talking about him now since he has absolutely nothing to do with this.

He sure had a lot to do with it when he was speaking Muslim in the White House.

Nope. He didn't have anything to do with it then either. People were over reaching for more criticism if they thought he did. I don't see how you can fault a father for doing anything when he's trying to get his kid back.

 

[Henry Ford]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Afghanistan signed the Geneva Convention of 1949. U.S. government lawyers determined the convention applies to Taliban captured since the war on terrorism began.

• ARTICLE 118 Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
  
  

You have to actually know what the Geneva Convention says, of course, but yes. It does say they have to be released.

 

[jonessed]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Yeah, that references treatment in prison and it's mixed on their status. The Obama administration considers them enemy combatants and that is consistent with the article (that they are not POWs).

 

[jonboltz]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Its the very first line.

 

[Henry Ford]

So now the talking point is that we were just going to release these guys anyway? Since when do we free war criminals immediately after a war?

They are enemy combatants and we were under no obligations to release them. Their rap sheets were quite extensive. They would have never been released outside of a "deal" of some sorts.

Everything I have read contradicts this assertion.

As far as I can tell the only thing you've "read" is a "progressive" opinion piece, which you posted a link to here. I did a google search and was unable to find any other articles asserting the same things as in the article you posted. If you've got other, credible sources for your assertion that we would have released these guys anyways please post them. As I noted earlier IMO the administration would be screaming from the treetops that we would have had to release these guys anyways if they actually believed that to be true. Their own report from a couple of years ago says these guys should NEVER be released, and I don't think we would have released them just because we left Afghanistan. But again, if you've got any other credible supporting articles I'd love to read them. I'm betting that you don't though.

You could just look at the defense department's website (posted earlier by BigSteelThrill)http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960

Nothing in that says we will release these guys. Ever.

Yeah, that references treatment in prison and it's mixed on their status. The Obama administration considers them enemy combatants and that is consistent with the article (that they are not POWs).

You're meaning to use "unlawful combatants." "Enemy combatants" includes lawful and unlawful combatants.

 

[squistion]

Turns out Bowe's dad is a Presbyterian and not a Muslim.

Cool. Maybe we can stop talking about him now since he has absolutely nothing to do with this.

He sure had a lot to do with it when he was speaking Muslim in the White House.

Perhaps he should have spoken Presbyterian instead of Muslim to avoid confusion.