Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Prisoner Swap

Prisoner Swap (Page 2)
Thread Tools
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 05:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Rather than barter with terrorists? Yes. I believe we should.
Barter with terrorists? Like that traitor Pres. Reagan did?
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 05:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Of course we leave soldiers behind... and ambassadors, a marine in Mexico, etc.
Stop being so dense.

The Ambassador is not a soldier.

The Marine in Mexico was not captured because he was on active duty for the US governor. He was captured for illegally smuggling guns into Mexico.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 05:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Well, you're both missing the whole "five guys died looking for him" thing.
If they believe he was a deserter, why did they risk their lives searching for him? Is that standard military procedure? Just curious.

Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Tell the parents of the five that this is a good trade.
Tell the parents of the thousands of soldiers who died in the Iraq and Afghan Wars and ask them if the wars were worth it.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 05:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Every-time I hear someone say "Praise God" or "Praise Allah", I find it fishy.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 05:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Deckplate Justice = the aforementioned "accidentally" falling out of the helicopter.
Is that what happened to Pat Tillman? Because he was an Atheist and spoke negatively about Pres. Bush?

First they claimed he was killed by the enemy. Then they admitted he was killed by "friendly" fire.

Talk about being Pres. Bush's "Benghazi". Massive coverup and change in the story of what really happened.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 06:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Barter with terrorists? Like that traitor Pres. Reagan did?
"Traitor!" That especially funny, coming from you. So, in your mind, your great and glorious leader is no better than an already-mentally compromised Reagan whose flunkies were running amuk? Good to know.

and 5 posts in 12 minutes? Learn how to multi-quote, seriously.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 07:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Ok. No argument from me on that note. But you still didn't answer the QUESTION. Naturally you have every right to CRITICISM. But what is your ALTERNATIVE? And just for the sake of expediency my insistence is rooted in the observation I've been making about this so-called "controversy". A lot of people are quick to criticize but are loathe to keep it 100 and just say outright "The US government should have just abandoned Bergdahl!" Ostensibly because based on the commentary ... not "sworn testimony" ... of some of his peers he must have "deserted". Then again, perhaps he just left his post and wandered off like he had done previously even when training in California.
See your chart below.

As you can plainly see, this Administration had a hell of a lot of "pawns" to choose from. Instead, we gave 'em a queen, 2 rooks and 2 bishops for a knight. My alternative may not yet matter because I have a feeling the deal was even worse for us including a whole bunch of loot. Which makes the expenditures on the prisoners even more laughable.

Why should the "question" be between everything including the kitchen sink and abandoning Bergdahl?

What am I supposed to glean from the above?

Or perhaps the "objection" is because this particular POTUS authorized a prisoner swap like others have in the past without incident ... but as we've seen in so many other scenarios it's suddenly an issue when he does it?
It's about the slop, OAW. It's about the slop. Do you suppose it's possible that this Administration is simply inept at acting in such a way that doesn't nearly always raise a resounding WTF?!? The people freed from Gitmo. The trade-off freed from "captivity". The rose garden. Susan Rice, again. The reasons for doing so starting off with Bergdahl's health now apparently out of fear of a Congressional leak.

I disagree my friend. The "patently political" thing to do would be to wash one's hands of the "Closing GITMO" promise entirely and hang the de facto "Indefinite Detention Without Trial" thing entirely around the neck of the Congress. Because let's face it ... that's exactly what the ALTERNATIVE is. And here's the deal. I can understand if that's how people really feel about it. I mean seriously ... I can. What I can't stand is the fact that these same people won't MAN UP and just come right out and SAY that!
The political thing to do would be to empty Gitmo AT ALL COSTS, starting with the very 5 you know would cause the greatest challenge for your goal and use a stooge to accomplish that goal. Remember, this is the same guy that administers justice from 30,000 feet above. Gitmo isn't open because we get off on imprisoning people without cause.

Well it would seem things aren't quite so "black and white". Let's review the facts ....Most of 5 freed Taliban prisoners have less than hard-core pasts | LATimes.com
Let's -- Mohammed Fazl was chief of staff of the Taliban army and is accused of commanding forces that massacred hundreds of civilians in the final years of Taliban rule before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. He was arrested in November 2001 after surrendering to U.S.-allied warlords in northern Afghanistan.

So... could we have traded 4 of them instead of 5?

So this notion that "this President gave away his shirt to empty Gitmo" ... even though 5 out of 149 prisoners is hyperbole for the sake of argumentation at best .... is just not belied by the facts WRT to the background of these particular individuals. Again ... 3 politicians, a cop, and 1 guy that could reasonably be considered a "hard-core militant" who is himself pushing 50 and has been out of the game for over a decade.
I love this, you begin by decrying indefinite detention and then in the same post have rendered these militants feckless because of their time in detention. What's the statute of limitations on dangerous people, OAW? 5 years? 6 years? 8 years? Why a decade? We know that some 30% will return to the fight, but these men were "minds", not soldiers. When they return to the fight, it will be to plan them, not carry them out.

And since we are on the topic of "facts" ... I think this info-graphic speaks for itself. Just saying ....

Sure does. It says we had a wealth of options that didn't involve releasing 5 of the most revered encaptured minds of the Taliban.

Any questions?

OAW
Yeah, a whole bunch of 'em, but none that I'd expect this Administration to answer honestly. He's further losing his own party over this and there's a good reason that has nothing to do with how unfair the criticism of this President has been.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 08:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Barter with terrorists? Like that traitor Pres. Reagan did?
Umm... the Mullahs were the government of Iran. That's not negotiating with "terrorists", that's negotiating with a sitting government of a country.

Do you ever put more than 2 minutes thought into your posts?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"Traitor!" That especially funny, coming from you. So, in your mind, your great and glorious leader is no better than an already-mentally compromised Reagan whose flunkies were running amuk? Good to know.

and 5 posts in 12 minutes? Learn how to multi-quote, seriously.
I don't know that I agree that Reagan was mentally compromised at this time and believe the more salient point was that Reagan was negotiating with the government of Iran, not a scattered bunch of malcontents who target women and children. But I find it interesting that Obama should be measured by the likes of Reagan and Bush. Rather than criticize the guy they voted for in the hopes of NOT being a Reagan or Bush, the first defense of Obama is -- BUT REAGAN AND BUSH DID IT! Of course, not to mention Carter and Clinton too, but the petulant children always skip right past their favorite figures.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 08:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Stop being so dense.

The Ambassador is not a soldier.
And? Allow me to break it down for you --

Career Ambassador, awarded to career diplomats with extensive and distinguished service.
In U.S. terms, this corresponds to four-star general. Officers at these ranks may serve as ambassadors and occupy the most senior positions in diplomatic missions.

You're right, he wasn't a soldier, he was in diplomatic ranks -- a four-star general. Nice try.

The Marine in Mexico was not captured because he was on active duty for the US governor. He was captured for illegally smuggling guns into Mexico.
Umm... no, he took a wrong turn into Mexico, something that happens fairly regularly off that exchange. The first thing he did was try to call the US police and explain his error and then he immediately offered up to the border guardsmen that he had guns. i.e. they didn't "find" them, he told them he had them. The border guardsmen were in fact going to escort him back before one of their soldiers who was not involved in the stop, threw a fit and insisted he be taken to prison. He'll be released, albeit in a very slow process.

Oh and... goodbye. We'll generally not hear back from you until the next mind-numbingly stupid hit-and-run attempt.
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Umm... the Mullahs were the government of Iran. That's not negotiating with "terrorists", that's negotiating with a sitting government of a country.

Do you ever put more than 2 minutes thought into your posts?
Of course you realize the Taliban was the sitting government of Afghanistan until the US toppled them right? Before that they were the vaunted Mujahadeen glorified in Rambo movies when they were aligned with US government interests while fighting the Soviets who had invaded their land. But when they refused to hand over bin Laden because it would have violated one of their most deeply held cultural taboos then they suddenly became "terrorists" ... even though they've only ever attacked Americans AFTER the US military invaded and only in THEIR COUNTRY. Now don't get me wrong ... I fully supported the invasion. But at the end of the day when at war if there is negotiation to be done it has to be done with the ENEMY ... whoever that may be. Unless one thinks it's a good idea to negotiate with oneself?

OAW
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2014, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Of course you realize the Taliban was the sitting government of Afghanistan until the US toppled them right?
Wrong. The Taliban's Emirate was only recognized by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Why? Because the Taliban was fronted by Al Qaida, deemed a terrorist organization in 1999. Otherwise, the Islamic State of Afghanistan remained the only internationally-recognized, sitting government of Afghanistan.

Before that they were the vaunted Mujahadeen glorified in Rambo movies when they were aligned with US government interests while fighting the Soviets who had invaded their land. But when they refused to hand over bin Laden because it would have violated one of their most deeply held cultural taboos then they suddenly became "terrorists" ... even though they've only ever attacked Americans AFTER the US military invaded and only in THEIR COUNTRY.
Again, wrong. The notion that they "suddenly became terrorists" AFTER we asked for Bin Laden is laughable with all due respect.

Now don't get me wrong ... I fully supported the invasion. But at the end of the day when at war if there is negotiation to be done it has to be done with the ENEMY ... whoever that may be. Unless one thinks it's a good idea to negotiate with oneself?

OAW
I appreciate your idea of trying to break things down to the core, so let me just reiterate the single biggest complaints about the move; A. Horrible deal. B. Shady from jump. C. Entirely political having absolutely nothing to do with Bergdahl's health, Congressional leaks, or not wanting to leave a soldier behind, but everything to do with the fact that Congress would've opposed emptying Gitmo in this manner.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2014, 08:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Does anyone note the problem of saying "these aren't the hardcore ones" based on what they did before being held in an American gulag for more than a decade?

Whatever deficit of "hardcore" they had going in, we more than made up for it.
Not that I disagree, but that makes the situation all the more ****ed up. "You may not be a terrorist, but we're going to keep you forever, because if we were to release you, then you'd definitely be a terrorist."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2014, 12:50 PM
 
Which leads to the awkward situation where the proposal I made at the beginning of the Obama administration the lesser of two evils.

Put the ones you can on trial, let the others free, murder the ones you need to in cold blood. That's why we have a CIA.

By waiting this long, and not taking the obvious (and promised route), we've basically made the problem permanent. Every remaining prisoner there has now been martyred by two presidents.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 08:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"Traitor!" That especially funny, coming from you. So, in your mind, your great and glorious leader is no better than an already-mentally compromised Reagan whose flunkies were running amuk? Good to know.

and 5 posts in 12 minutes? Learn how to multi-quote, seriously.
Yes, Pres. Reagan is a traitor who negotiated with terrorists, illegally sold weapons to Iran to fund his illegal wars. Pres. Reagan is a deficit spending traitor who alone tripled our national debt will all his spending and funding of Bin Laden and the Taliban.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 08:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Umm... the Mullahs were the government of Iran. That's not negotiating with "terrorists", that's negotiating with a sitting government of a country.

Do you ever put more than 2 minutes thought into your posts?
So what you are saying is that Pres. Obama negotiated with Qatar, therefore he did not negotiated with terrorists right?
( Last edited by hyteckit; Jun 10, 2014 at 08:25 AM. )
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 08:22 AM
 
If you in the military, don't speak out against the wars and/or be a loner.

You either get yourself killed by "friendly" fire like Pat Tillman, or labeled as a deserter like Bowe Bergdahl.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 08:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post

You're right, he wasn't a soldier, he was in diplomatic ranks -- a four-star general. Nice try.
So you are admitting I was right that he was not a soldier?

So how many veterans and military men/women did Pres. Bush left to die in Katrina? He did nothing for days.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post

Umm... no, he took a wrong turn into Mexico, something that happens fairly regularly off that exchange. The first thing he did was try to call the US police and explain his error and then he immediately offered up to the border guardsmen that he had guns. i.e. they didn't "find" them, he told them he had them. The border guardsmen were in fact going to escort him back before one of their soldiers who was not involved in the stop, threw a fit and insisted he be taken to prison. He'll be released, albeit in a very slow process.

Oh and... goodbye. We'll generally not hear back from you until the next mind-numbingly stupid hit-and-run attempt.
The marine is not a POW. He was not in Mexico on a military mission.

Are you really that dense to think the US government is responsible for getting every single military person out of jail for violating that country's law? Maybe the US government can send lawyers. But this isn't a POW or military rescue mission.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Put the ones you can on trial, let the others free, murder the ones you need to in cold blood. That's why we have a CIA.
I agree with this. Though I seem to recall some major opposition to trying them in the US.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:15 AM
 
My sarcastic response to that is "if only the president was allowed more control over military matters".
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My sarcastic response to that is "if only the president was allowed more control over military matters".
That was early on, when Obama was conciliatory to the GOP.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:20 AM
 
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
That was early on, when Obama was conciliatory to the GOP.
I have a less charitable interpretation, which involves putting reelection over the good of the country.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I have a less charitable interpretation, which involves putting reelection over the good of the country.
What year are we talking about here? I seem to recall it being an issue rather early on.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 09:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I seem to recall it being an issue rather early on.
Yup.

That's my allegation. He was looking at 2012 in 2009. Earlier really.

Conciliatory would have been dropping health care and focusing on a flailing economy, (as recommended by CoS Emannuel). This was him being a wuss, or a liar, or a wuss liar.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 10:45 AM
 
Ollie North claimed on WMAL (Washington DC) that money changed hands on tis deal, negociated months ago, but the White House out of nowhere added the 5 terrorists in the mix. Seems Ollie is involved in this sort of thing these days.

http://www.wmal.com/common/page.php?...2993&is_corp=0
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2014, 11:27 AM
 
This is what seems to be overlooked. He wasn't being held by the taliban, but by the Middle East version of the Cosa Nostrsa.

North said it was the Haqqani network that was holding Bergdahl hostage, a centuries-old criminal network enterprise that has traded everything from opium to gold in order to profit from hostage exchange, he said.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 07:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
So you are admitting I was right that he was not a soldier?


So how many veterans and military men/women did Pres. Bush left to die in Katrina? He did nothing for days.


The marine is not a POW. He was not in Mexico on a military mission.
Are you really that dense to think the US government is responsible for getting every single military person out of jail for violating that country's law? Maybe the US government can send lawyers. But this isn't a POW or military rescue mission.
So you agree with me that Obama left this soldier behind?
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 11:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Yes, Pres. Reagan is a traitor who negotiated with terrorists, illegally sold weapons to Iran to fund his illegal wars. Pres. Reagan is a deficit spending traitor who alone tripled our national debt will all his spending and funding of Bin Laden and the Taliban.
Oy vey, that's a spectacular amount of revisionism in 2 sentences.

Here's a tip, take off your bias and compare W Bush & Obama objectively. In 90% of issues it's as if George never left office, and 75% of the rest pushes boundaries that even he wouldn't cross. He needs to be impeached and investigated, at the very least.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 11:40 AM
 
@ebuddy (or anyone)

I'm missing how the off-duty reservist really compares.

A deserter is still on-duty. That's what makes them a deserter.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
See your chart below.

As you can plainly see, this Administration had a hell of a lot of "pawns" to choose from. Instead, we gave 'em a queen, 2 rooks and 2 bishops for a knight. My alternative may not yet matter because I have a feeling the deal was even worse for us including a whole bunch of loot. Which makes the expenditures on the prisoners even more laughable.
No they didn't have a "hell of a lot of 'pawns' to choose from". And there is no evidence of any sort of cash ransom being paid so let's not even go there. The bottom line is that you can't go based on the total number of detainees being held at GITMO as if they were all candidates. Because the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of these individuals are from Yemen ... not Afghanistan. So I'm sure you realize that if the Taliban was going to engage in a prisoner swap they would only do so for their own right?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
What am I supposed to glean from the above?
That given his history perhaps Berghdahl might not have "deserted" but just "wandered off" as others in Afghanistan have also done. I wasn't there which is why a military investigation is in order and if warranted, a court martial should ensue to determine what actually happened.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Let's -- Mohammed Fazl was chief of staff of the Taliban army and is accused of commanding forces that massacred hundreds of civilians in the final years of Taliban rule before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. He was arrested in November 2001 after surrendering to U.S.-allied warlords in northern Afghanistan.

So... could we have traded 4 of them instead of 5?
Perhaps. But you speak as if the US government was in a position to dictate the terms of the agreement. Contrary to popular belief in some circles on the right, the other side actually does get a say in the matter. Whether that's the Taliban holding a US soldier hostage or Putin smacking around Ukraine. This notion that the US government should have some sort of "Because we said so!" attitude with respect to foreign affairs without regard to real-life consequences is naive at best and sophomoric at worst. It's great for the Sunday shows when some politician is pandering to his constituency. But in the real-world what's your alternative when the Taliban insists on all 5 or no deal? And see my additional comments below before responding.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I love this, you begin by decrying indefinite detention and then in the same post have rendered these militants feckless because of their time in detention. What's the statute of limitations on dangerous people, OAW? 5 years? 6 years? 8 years? Why a decade? We know that some 30% will return to the fight, but these men were "minds", not soldiers. When they return to the fight, it will be to plan them, not carry them out.
By the time they are able to leave Qatar the "fight" will be over given the end of the combat mission in 2014. So what difference does it make when they return to "plan" a war that's effectively over?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Sure does. It says we had a wealth of options that didn't involve releasing 5 of the most revered encaptured minds of the Taliban.
You keep saying that but what I see is you continuing to duck the question. When I ask you specifically to answer the question "What is your ALTERNATIVE?" .... your response was "My alternative may not yet matter because ..." and "we had a wealth of options that didn't involve releasing 5 ...". You have yet to spell out ... specifically ... your alternative course of action given the facts on the ground! So I'll outline the scenario for you one more time and then we'll see what you have to say:

There are 3 classes of the remaining 149 prisoners held at GITMO after the release of these 5 Taliban prisoners:

A. Awaiting Civilian Trial or Military Tribunal - 43 total, 3 Afghan

B. Lacks evidence to prosecute but deemed too dangerous to release - 38 total, 5 Afghan

C. Cleared for Release - 78 total, 4 Afghan

Prisoners - Welcome to "Close Guantánamo"

Now the 3 Afghans in Category A are deemed to be the true "worst of the worst" and the US government feels it can demonstrate that in a court of law so they were not released. The 4 Afghans in Category C are going to be released by the US anyway so why would the Taliban trade a prisoner for them? That only leaves the 10 Afghans in Category B to bargain over ... and the deal was struck to release half of them so now 5 remain. That being said, the thing we have to keep in mind is that the Afghan prisoners in Category B have a rapidly diminishing value for both the US as a bargaining chip and also the Taliban as a propaganda tool.

In addition, it is also apparent that the drawdown of troops will probably make the ongoing imprisonment of Taliban members untenable, as was explained by John Bellinger, who served as a legal adviser in the Bush administration. On Lawfare, Bellinger wrote, "it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan. The Administration appears to have reached a defensible, hold-your-nose compromise by arranging, in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, for the individuals to be held in Qatar for a year before they return to Afghanistan."
Missing the Point on the Guantánamo Taliban Prisoner Swap and the Release of Bowe Bergdahl - Articles - Welcome to "Close Guantánamo"

So given the fact that shortly after the end of the combat operation in 2014 the US ... as a matter of international law ... would have to release these 5 Talilban anyway ... does it not make sense to get something instead of nothing for that? If not, why not? And again, what is your ALTERNATIVE?

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:32 PM
 
No one is interested, but what I found most unexpected about the poll was how few people give a shit about Bergdhal, either way.


It contrasts highly with the amount of play this is getting in the media, let alone the torrent of outrage.

The other amusing thing was the % of people "angry" with him went up with age. That's more likely because of political leanings, though I like to think of it being caused by older people being more crotchety.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
That given his history perhaps Berghdahl might not have "deserted" but just "wandered off" as others in Afghanistan have also done. I wasn't there which is why a military investigation is in order and if warranted, a court martial should ensue to determine what actually happened.
There's some weird facts surrounding Bergdhal's behavior, like him having a history of leaving his post which frankly, makes me wonder how/why he was kept on. I have to think from a semantic pov, even if you return, if you leave your post, you're still a deserter, so I'm not sure that term is incorrect.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:35 PM
 
"Neither" could also mean "waiting for more info".

By all rights I should hate the guy, but I'm willing to see how things develop before I cast a final judgement.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
"Neither" could also mean "waiting for more info".
There is nothing in the coverage and response that would lead me to think "the majority of people don't have an opinion on this." This reeks of the media trying to create a narrative (for ratings!).

Edit: I think DK is more "waiting for more info"
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
There's some weird facts surrounding Bergdhal's behavior, like him having a history of leaving his post which frankly, makes me wonder how/why he was kept on. I have to think from a semantic pov, even if you return, if you leave your post, you're still a deserter, so I'm not sure that term is incorrect.
I'm not military so perhaps someone who is/was can chime in ... but IIRC if you leave your post and return you are AWOL. In my mind "desertion" sort of implies never coming back.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In regards to that, there seems to be an almost overwhelming consensus an American deserter isn't worth that many high-profile prisoners, not to mention he just made every American traveling abroad into a walking ATM for kidnappers.

You don't get the "overwhelming consensus" too often these days.
You'll probably disagree with my interpretation, but it looks to me like a majority believed in rescuing, regardless of the circumstances.

     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I'm not military so perhaps someone who is/was can chime in ... but IIRC if you leave your post and return you are AWOL. In my mind "desertion" sort of implies never coming back.

OAW
I had forgotten about that term.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You'll probably disagree with my interpretation, but it looks to me like a majority believed in rescuing, regardless of the circumstances.

Weird. Totally not the case inside my echo chamber.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 03:04 PM
 
As for why Bergdahl was kept on, my guess goes back to "you fight a war with the army you have". Disciplining him would have meant they were down manpower they couldn't afford to be.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2014, 05:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Weird. Totally not the case inside my echo chamber.
That's because the Pew Research poll was taken before much was known of the deal. Here's a CBS News poll from just a day or two later.

( Last edited by ebuddy; Jun 12, 2014 at 06:24 AM. )
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 08:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
before much was known of the deal
Call BS on that. People were flogging this deal as it was happening. The Pew poll was taken 5-8 days after his release, well after the media shitstorm. The facts didn't change much a few days after that.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 12, 2014, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Call BS on that. People were flogging this deal as it was happening. The Pew poll was taken 5-8 days after his release, well after the media shitstorm. The facts didn't change much a few days after that.
You're welcome to call BS on my speculation, but it doesn't change the fact that public sentiment changes wildly between Pew and CBS with a couple days difference between them.
ebuddy
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 10:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
You're welcome to call BS on my speculation
Interpretation, not speculation, and I would ask what new information came out those few days that you think swung public opinion so strongly. Certainly there's no trace of new info having been posted in this thread during that time.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
but it doesn't change the fact that public sentiment changes wildly between Pew and CBS with a couple days difference between them.
Perhaps I'm being naive, but it's not unheard of for different outfits to have different results. I have neither the time nor the training, but I would fathom that there's some difference in who they sampled or how they sampled or perhaps phrasing that could affect the results. Which is not to say the poll is without merit.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 01:29 PM
 
If this had happened instead of Benghazi, do you think we'd have a President Romney right now?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 01:39 PM
 
That's an unexpected question. No, I don't see why. To me losing 4 american lives in a consulate attack is worse than freeing 4 prisoners and gaining an American back.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 01:46 PM
 
One was an accident though, while the other is an example of executive skill.

Does this not move the scoring metric away from solely being a measurement of which is worse?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 02:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
One was an accident though, while the other is an example of executive skill.
If you believe his opponents, it was not an accident, but carelessness, and I believe that is worse executive skill. Obama's inability to barter has been on display with Congress since 2008.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 02:12 PM
 
Do you believe it was carelessness?

The material facts of how things went down in Benghazi are a little cloudy. The material facts of this situation are pretty much all on the table.

To put the above in the form of a question, which scenario do you feel more comfortable passing judgement on: Bergdahl or Benghazi?


My answer is Bergdahl. With Benghazi there's reasonable doubt all over the place.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 13, 2014, 02:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Do you believe it was carelessness?
No, but my opinion doesn't matter. The election hung on the general public's interpretation.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
To put the above in the form of a question, which scenario do you feel more comfortable passing judgement on: Bergdahl or Benghazi?

My answer is Bergdahl. With Benghazi there's reasonable doubt all over the place.
I don't intent this as a cop-out, but I feel my judgement on the matter is completely impaired. Any situation where I'm defending a topic which I would think would be the bread-and-butter of conservatives, I feel something went wrong somewhere. I think politics aside, I'd be merely apathetic and in my opinion, the majority of Americans are too. If that interpretation is correct, then Benghazi is worse.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:58 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,