14
   

Bergdahl Prisoner Swap:Obama Obeys ONLY the Laws He Wants To.

 
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 03:32 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

We are well rid of the five Afghans, who were captured in 2002. They are not terrorists as the Reps like to say. They are militants who were running the country when we invaded it.


Well, it's not just Republicans who are saying this and the Administration disagrees with you:

Quote:
But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.

The U.S. is offering $10 million for information leading to the capture of the Taliban's leader, Mullah Omar, through the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program, an effort designed to “fight against international terrorism.” The National Counterterrorism Center also lists “Taliban Presence in Afghanistan” on its global map of “Terrorist Groups.”

Though the State Department has not designated the Afghan Taliban as an FTO, it has designated the group’s sister network, the Pakistani Taliban, as well as the Haqqani Network, a group closely associated with the Taliban that was believed to have been actually holding Bergdahl for most of his captivity.


They were "running the country" because they had engineered a brutally violent take-over, killing tens of thousands of civilian men, women and children. Only three nations throughout the entire world recognized them as the legitimate government of Afghanistan: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

Their "running of the country" consisted in large measure of campaigns of terror against Afghan civilians; their citizens. The examples of their brutal acts of oppression and sadistic displays of evil are horrendous and legion.

While they were "running the country" they not only gave safe harbor and material support to al Qaeda, al Qaeda's 055 Brigade conducted civilian massacres on their behalf. Given the chance to preserve their hold on the country by agreeing to turn over bin-Laden and all of his followers, they basically gave the finger to the US and invited the war.

Once they were overthrown, they immediately transformed into an insurgency against a democratically elected Afghan government; employing terrorism as a major component of their strategy and tactics.

Quote:
The United Nations reported that the number of civilians killed by both the Taliban and pro-government forces in the war rose nearly 50% between 2007 and 2009. The high number of civilians killed by the Taliban is blamed in part on their increasing use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), "for instance, 16 IEDs have been planted in girls' schools" by the Taliban.

In 2009, Colonel Richard Kemp, formerly Commander of British forces in Afghanistan and the intelligence coordinator for the British government, drew parallels between the tactics and strategy of Hamas in Gaza to those of the Taliban. Kemp wrote:

Like Hamas in Gaza, the Taliban in southern Afghanistan are masters at shielding themselves behind the civilian population and then melting in among them for protection. Women and children are trained and equipped to fight, collect intelligence, and ferry arms and ammunition between battles. Female suicide bombers are increasingly common. The use of women to shield gunmen as they engage NATO forces is now so normal it is deemed barely worthy of comment. Schools and houses are routinely booby-trapped. Snipers shelter in houses deliberately filled with women and children.
—Richard Kemp, Commander of British forces in Afghanistan

The Taliban has often targeted health officials that work to immunise children against polio due to fears of the vaccine, including the fear that it is used to gather intelligence about their organisation. Polio vaccines were banned in the North Waziristan region of Pakistan in June 2012 and in December 2012, Taliban assassins killed four female UN polio-workers in Pakistan because they were thought to be spies. The Afghan government was forced to suspend vaccination efforts to eliminate polio from the Nuristan province in March 2013 because of a large Taliban influence in the province.


Anyone who has been awake during the years since 1996 know what the Taliban are capable of, but if it somehow passed you by, you can learn the horrific details with only a little bit of effort and Google search.

Quote:
I don't see where they pose any special danger to the USA.


Why? Because you have heard Republicans say they do?

These five men held leadership positions in the Taliban. They were officers, not foot soldiers. Having survived American captivity in Gitmo, and been central to an exchange which, make no mistake, Islamists around the world see as a Taliban victory and American defeat, these men are living legends. It is agreed by experts that at least four of the five will return to top leadership positions, and they will be able to go a long way in solidifying their positions while they are in Qatar, as there will be zero restrictions on their communications.

It's highly unlikely that their hatred for America and Americans diminished while they were in Gitmo, and it has been argued (with some evidence already evident) that their release will lead to increased efforts by the Taliban (not to mention other Islamists) to capture American military members and civilians. They will be back in Afghanistan before the last US soldier withdraws.

When, after our withdrawal, the Taliban retake the government there is every reason to believe that they will return to supporting Islamist terrorist groups. Less blatantly perhaps, but they will.

Combine all this and it's clear that they present a threat to our national security. Will they be instrumental in the destruction of the United States? Hardly likely, but, obviously, threats to our security need not be existential in nature to be real and serious.

And of course, let's ignore what their release means to the Afghan people. Whether we should have or not, we decided to help them build their nation, to establish a democratic government and prevent the Taliban from again imposing their brand of theocratic terrorism on them.

Apparently our leaders felt this mission was worth the lives of thousands of American soldiers and marines, but not the continued captivity of one soldier. I'm having trouble squaring the fact that a goal so important that it was worth thousands of American lives and billions of American dollars could be willingly so compromised for the release of one soldier. Yes, we will be withdrawing our troops very soon, and "the war" will be over for us, but when we leave, it will truly begin in earnest for the Afghans. If the Taliban take back power, (and the release of these five terrorists increases that possibility) hundreds of thousands of men, women and children will be slaughtered for working with Americans to keep them out all these years, not to mentions for the horrible sins of kissing one another in public, being a member of any faith other than Islam, or being homosexual.

If I'm not mistaken Advocate, you are one of the many who like to say that conservatives have the attitude of "I got mine, the hell with the rest of you." You don't see this playing out in this situation?

source
source
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 03:59 pm
@revelette2,
I don't believe that a final determination has been made and they are refusing to release it. That's Advocate's opinion. I was merely trying to help him actually give some critical thought to this issue. If, as he believes, a final report exists but has not been released, he needs to ask himself why that may be?

President Obama could have explained to us from the Oval Office, or even the Rose Garden (minus the air of celebration), that he recognized that these men present a real and serious threat to both the US and our ward, if not ally, Afghanistan; that the circumstances around Bergdahl's capture are troubling and require further investigation, that he chose not to notify congress because he believes he has the constitutional authority to make the deal without doing so, that this was a very difficult and grave decision to make, but he honestly believes that the commitment to our troops that no one will be left behind trumps all of these other considerations.

My problem with this exchange is not that it cannot possibly be justified, but because of all the self-serving mendacity and bullsh*t the White House has surrounded it with, I have no faith that his reason for making the decision is what he says it is.


.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 04:06 pm
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:

At least one of them has been released from the service on less than honorable discharge.


And that somehow taints the veracity of the other five?

You have continuously made a case for not jumping to conclusions in this thread. Do you know precisely why he received an Other Than Honorable discharge and that it is actually reason to question his credibility in this matter?

Quote:
In any case, in the report which was given, he was not charged with desertion. I will wait until the final investigation and report comes out before coming to any conclusions.


That's not an unreasonable position to take, but neither is it unreasonable to examine all that we know now and conclude that he deserted.

The only reliable conclusion that can be drawn from the fact that he has not yet been charged with desertion is that the military's investigation has not been concluded.

[/quote]
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 04:07 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I am not impressed with all the terminology used by the Obama people, or anyone else. The fact of the matter is that they are Afghans who were running the country, and they fought off our invasion of their country. That hardly makes them terrorists.

BTW, I had a good laugh at how you are going to improve my thinking. You think like a conservative, which is a sad fact.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 04:53 pm
@Advocate,
Obviously it didn't work.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 05:06 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

...it was criminal how Bush lied us into invading Iraq. Seeing Bush show up at VA hospitals makes me want to barf. The man is a war criminal.


Thanks for proving the point I previously made. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long for someone to go off on Bush being a war criminal.
Advocate
 
  3  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 06:19 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Obviously it didn't work.


Just look at the damage the cons have done to our country. They brought us to a near depression, and they were ready to let our auto industry go down the drain. Looking back, they were the royalists during the Revolutionary War, and they caused the great depression. But somehow you are going to improve my thinking. You are too funny.
Advocate
 
  2  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 06:21 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Advocate wrote:

...it was criminal how Bush lied us into invading Iraq. Seeing Bush show up at VA hospitals makes me want to barf. The man is a war criminal.


Thanks for proving the point I previously made. I knew I wouldn't have to wait long for someone to go off on Bush being a war criminal.


Bush is absolutely a war criminal. He went to war with Iraq to steal its oil. His people even drafted a map dividing up the oil areas among the American companies. Do a little research for once in your life.

The great pity is that the man will not go to trial. I doubt that he will travel to Europe, where he may be arrested and brought to trial.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 06:28 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Bush is absolutely a war criminal. He went to war with Iraq to steal its oil. His people even drafted a map dividing up the oil areas among the American companies. Do a little research for once in your life.


The oil money was not supposed to go into the general fund, it was to reimburse the USA for the cost of saving them from Suddam. Maybe this is a distinction without a difference, but lets no leave out there any ambiguity about the fact that the USA never intended on making a profit from invading Iraq.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 06:37 pm
@Advocate,
Ahhh, you must be one of those liberals who don't believe in innocent until proven guilty.

Except a scolding from revelette any time now.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 06:40 pm
@Advocate,
Have you asked yourself the questions I suggested yet?

Share with us your thinking that requires no improvement. Why is the Administration holding secret it's determination on Berdahl leaving his base.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 08:40 pm
@revelette2,
Do you have a link to back up the less than honorable discharge claim? Even if they did, what does it matter to his accounts of Bergdahls desertion.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Jun, 2014 09:19 pm
@Baldimo,
It's true. If you scroll back through the thread you'll find further detail.

What is not currently known is why he received an Other Than Honorable discharge. It could have been smoking pot or getting in fights. The point is that there is no way to know if the OTH is an indication that he is not credible.

He's taken a public stance on Bergdahl, and as far as I know he hasn't explained the reason why he got the OTH, so I think its fair to question his credibility to some extent, however his OTH has no bearing on the credibility of the five other guys and they are saying the same thing as him, and so in the final analysis, it's much ado about nothing.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 03:05 am
@hawkeye10,

Quote:
The oil money was not supposed to go into the general fund, it was to reimburse the USA for the cost of saving them from Suddam.


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy

Yes that's right. "I will invade your country, and present you with a bill afterwards to defray expenses."
As Iraq splits into warring factions now (with almost nuclear capability, millions of displaced people, no central control) we see the results of Bush and Blair's action.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 08:05 am
I've been trying to find some kind confirmation that Bush ruled a difference between the Taliban and AQ.

Bush says Geneva Convention applies to Taliban, not al-Qaida fighters
Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush said Thursday the Geneva Convention applies to Taliban prisoners but not to captured al-Qaida terrorists as he sought to quell international outcry without changing the way Afghan war detainees are treated.

"They have always been treated consistent with the principles of the Geneva Convention, which means they will be treated well," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

The Bush administration, pledging to abide by the "values and principles" of the 1949 Geneva Convention, took the largely symbolic step in part to ease international complaints about the imprisonment of more than 180 fighters at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba.

But Bush refused to consider classifying al-Qaida or Taliban fighters as prisoners of war, denying them a wide range of rights and privileges afforded to POWs under the Geneva Convention.

The president settled that key POW issue weeks ago, leaving a the question of whether the conflict in Afghanistan and the detainees fall under the Geneva pacts.

In saying the conflict did apply, Bush sought to preserve protections afforded U.S. troops if they are captured in Afghanistan or elsewhere during the war on terrorism, administration officials said.


So since the Taliban falls under Geneva Conventions, they have to be returned at the end of the war which is probably why officials have been saying soon the Taliban will have to be returned at the end of the war. As far as why the Taliban would worry about the prisoners if they knew they would soon would return, who knows, all I know they were the ones who reached out for the deal in the first place according to reports I read some back.


0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  0  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 04:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
But Hawk, the iraq government dident ask us in. Bush just invaded them on his weapons of mass destruction BS. And the map was drawn long before we went into their country.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 08:39 pm
@RABEL222,
Quote:
But Hawk, the iraq government dident ask us in


Makes no difference. The conflict now comes from a Shiite government that the Sunnis oppose. It is the oldest feud in Islam.

Quote:
but a good approximation is that approximately 87-89% of the world's Muslims are Sunni[1] and approximately 11-12% are Shia,[2][3] with most Shias belonging to the Twelver tradition and the rest divided between several other groups.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shi%27a%E2%80%93Sunni_relations

0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2014 08:47 pm
Quote:
Top 8 lies about Bergdahl from the White House


Only 8? Are they getting better?
Quote:
#1: Bergdahl was very sick – no he just had poor hygiene.

#2: The Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl – even Sen. Dianne Feinstein said there was no credible intel on that.

#3: The administration informed Congress about the swap – well, if you count the discussion about prisoner transfer several years ago.

#4: The U.S. didn’t negotiate with terrorists – Ambassador Susan Rice said by negotiating through the government of Qatar, they weren’t negotiating with terrorists — except Qatar wasn’t holding Bergdahl captive, the Haqqani Network was. The Obama administration officially designated the Haqqani Network a terrorist group in 2012.

#5: Berghdal served with honor and distinction – if you count the distinction of being the only American soldier to desert his post in Afghanistan and walk into the arms of the enemy.

#6: The release of the terrorists poses little to no risk to the U.S. – Just days after being released from GITMO, family members of one of the five detainees released by the United States told NBC news that the former Taliban commander, Mullah Norullah Nori, planned to return to the fight in Afghanistan.

#7: The five terrorists released from Guantanamo Bay will be under U.S. monitoring – Qatari government officials would beg to differ and said the deal that was reached did not allow for U.S. monitoring of the detainees, and that they would be free to move about the country while they remained in Qatar.

#8: This was the “last, best chance” to bring Bergdahl home – Maybe, but to date, the Taliban have failed to engage in any meaningful peace talks with the U.S. or the government of Afghanistan. So why this time?


http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/top-8-lies-bergdahl-white-house/
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2014 06:13 am
@revelette2,
revelette2 wrote:
I think after reading in Wikipedia the reason the 500 something detainees were released or transferred to their country was something to do with the Supreme court rulings and Habeas corpus. Its all a little complicated, however right before Obama became President, the Bush administration won a court ruling which made it harder to release detainees.

Detainees were mostly released because they convinced people that they were an innocent civilian and not an enemy fighter.

The court rulings that you're referring to said that the then-existing process for "separating enemy fighters from civilians" was not good enough because it did not give civilians enough opportunity to establish that they were not enemy fighters.

The courts took over the process of "determining who was who" until Congress developed a more satisfactory system. By that time, the Democrats had taken over Congress, and they elected to not develop a new system and to just let it stay in the hands of the courts.

But the courts are doing the same thing that was done before they took over: trying to decide whether someone really is an actual enemy fighter, or whether they are an harmless civilian who happened to get swept up in the conflict.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jun, 2014 08:56 am
@oralloy,
In the end, it was finally decided (see my previous post) that the Taliban was afforded the rights of the Geneva Conventions but not POW's. I would have to look and see the rights non POW's receive under the GC to know exactly which rights they have. However, the reason a distinction was made was in case we needed to do prisoner exchanges and that is the main point to the whole line of this particular discussion of the difference between the Taliban and AQ.

As far as the thirty rule, the administration's stated reasons really don't matter in the end, they made a signing statement (of which is perfectly legal) which sort of nullifies the thirty day rule because the rule itself was unconstitutional as it infringed on the separation of the powers and the commander in chief ability of flexibility.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 06:36:00