Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 15:44:29 GMT -5
Re Taliban as terrorists or non-combatants: time.com/2809612/bowe-bergdahl-obama-taliban/The difference with Bergdahl, as Obama argues, is that he wasn’t really a hostage grabbed by terrorists. He pretty neatly fit the classic definition of a prisoner of war. He had just left a military outpost in an obvious war zone while (presumably) wearing his uniform. History is loaded with examples of nations—including America—making deals to free their soldiers. For those not wishing to read the entire Time article here is the pertinent part: And however nasty the Taliban may be, it’s not really a “terrorist” enemy as we commonly understand the word. The group is not on the State Department’s official list of terrorist organizations and has has long been a battlefield enemy in the ground war for control of Afghanistan. It is not plotting to, say, hijack American airplanes—even if it does have sympathies with people who are. Ditto the Taliban leaders released over the weekend. They are members of a savage and deplorable organization. But unlike, say, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, they have no history of plotting attacks on the U.S. homeland. Given all that, the real debate isn’t whether Obama negotiated with terrorists—he didn’t. Another article on the same point: Authors have distinguished between members of the Taliban and members of Al Qaeda. The Taliban constituted the Afghan government at the time of the conflict, while Al Qaeda has been described as a terrorist organisation, supported by the Taliban, but not a part of it. [8] As to the Taliban fighters, since they were part of the government forces they should have the right to a POW status when captured. Those members of Al Qaeda who were integrated into the Taliban armed forces as militias could also be entitled to a POW status, provided they conformed to the conditions of combatancy. [9] In February 2002 the President of the United States made a statement in which he determined that the Third Geneva Convention was applicable to the Taliban detainees. However, in its application of the Geneva Conventions, the Government had concluded that the detainees were not entitled to a POW status, ‘ nder the terms of the Geneva Convention’. The statement did not further explain what ‘terms’ these were, or rather which provisions the detainees did not comply with.[10] Furthermore, according to the President, members of Al Qaeda did not qualify as POWs, as Al Qaeda was not a party to the Conventions, but rather a ‘foreign terrorist group’.[11]
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886 
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jun 5, 2014 17:05:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 5:57:09 GMT -5
This is a prime example of how FOX (and you) slants how they interpret and report the "facts"! Here are the salient points from that article and they paint an entirely different picture than the one you present in your use of the FOX headline as being representive of the story: 'Reached by telephone, retired U.S. Marine Corps Gen. James N. Mattis, a 45-year service veteran who served as CENTCOM commander from August 2010 to August 2012, told Fox News he may have received bits and pieces of the intelligence generated by Eclipse, but said Ashley, with whom he maintained a close working relationship, had not forwarded on to him the specific SITREPs cited by Fox News. Mattis was also adamant that no one at CENTCOM or within the broader U.S. military or intelligence community -- despite intensive investigation of such allegations -- ever learned of anything to suggest Bergdahl had evolved into an active collaborator with the Haqqani network or the Taliban. "We were always looking for actionable intelligence," Mattis said. "It wasn't just the IC [intelligence community]. We had tactical units that were involved in the fight. We had SIGINT. Any collaborators who were on the other side and who came over to our side. We kept an eye on this. ... There was never any evidence of collaboration." Experts consulted by Fox News said that SITREP # 3023 presents a picture of an American captive who, if not an active collaborator, may have succumbed to Stockholm Syndrome -- the dynamic by which hostages can become enamored of their captors and join their cause -- or simply feigned allegiance in order to survive. The New York Times, in its 2011 profile of Clarridge, described his agents' dispatches as "an amalgam of fact, rumor, analysis and uncorroborated reports." The fabled ex-spook made the more than one dozen SITREPs that Eclipse prepared on the Bergdahl case -- all previously unpublished -- available to Fox News because he wanted to demonstrate, as he put it: "We know what we're talking about.' My tske: Bergdahl appears to have deserted his OP - there are reports that he had done that on other occasions to take photos and or to work with local non-Taliban civilians. Time will tell whether those reports are factual and if they prove to be it would appear no one in his chain of command saw those excursions as cases of desertion. There is no evidence that he defected to the Taliban as so many now seem to want to believe. In fact he attempted several escapes and succeeded one time. After his recapture he was put in a metal cage, similar to what American POW's were kept in during the Vietnam war. He was obviously a high valued prisoner - a force of some 200 took part in keeping him in captivity. The "report" generator had a brief, less than one year, contract with DOD and was then dropped. The report you cited was generated by him using his own funds and a healthy dose of his own imagination likely to create the impression that he had some value and should be awarded a new contract. |
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Jun 6, 2014 6:42:47 GMT -5
I will go back and say that the particulars of his 'capture' does not matter as much to me. I trust that he will undergo a proper investigation and trial if necessary here. To me, the big question is whether we should have made the deal to begin with. As the title of this thread indicates, do we now negotiate with terrorists and what does that do to our foreign policy?
I know it's slightly different circumstances but similar concept: Wasn't it John McCain who declined being released as a POW because he did not want special treatment because his father was a significant officer with the Navy? How many of our guys died in captivity there?
|
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,845
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jun 6, 2014 6:53:26 GMT -5
MP - Drop the Republican thing here. Yes, politics is being played. Dems neeeever do that right?!?!
All that aside - tell me how, on its own merits, this was a good idea. All you can do is point to a Republican who said he *might* be in favor of it. If that's the case, then why didn't Obama go to Congress with McCain at his side and sell it? Probably because he knew that it would never fly.
This was a horrible idea that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to. It doesn't matter who said what. This is where Dems lose focus. Sometimes you need to do the right thing - politics be damned. Obama didn't do it. He made a bad deal for a traitor - probably to distract from one of his other numerous cluster f*cks (VA? IRS? Benghazi?) Everything this moron touches turns to sh*t because he doesn't operate based on a policy. He operates based on politics. At some point you need to have a guiding set of principles.
So I ask again... without pointing to anyone else... why was trading 5 high level "non-combatants" for a traitorous pfc a good idea?
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jun 6, 2014 6:57:10 GMT -5
I choose to believe these lads over the White House! END OF STORY!
|
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jun 6, 2014 7:07:29 GMT -5
PART 2
|
|
|
|
Post by SaintsFan on Jun 6, 2014 7:20:12 GMT -5
Like so many other topics, everyone rushing to opinions without even remotely close to all the facts
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 7:58:05 GMT -5
MP - Drop the Republican thing here. Yes, politics is being played. Dems neeeever do that right?!?! All that aside - tell me how, on its own merits, this was a good idea. All you can do is point to a Republican who said he *might* be in favor of it. If that's the case, then why didn't Obama go to Congress with McCain at his side and sell it? Probably because he knew that it would never fly. This was a horrible idea that the vast majority of Americans are opposed to. It doesn't matter who said what. This is where Dems lose focus. Sometimes you need to do the right thing - politics be damned. Obama didn't do it. He made a bad deal for a traitor - probably to distract from one of his other numerous cluster f*cks (VA? IRS? Benghazi?) Everything this moron touches turns to sh*t because he doesn't operate based on a policy. He operates based on politics. At some point you need to have a guiding set of principles. So I ask again... without pointing to anyone else... why was trading 5 high level "non-combatants" for a traitorous pfc a good idea? Simple answer - in one year when we complete our withdrawal and our active part in any hostilities they would go free - totally, unequivocally free and have no negotiating value to obtain Bergdahl's release. Instead, we get him back and they spend a year in Qatar under watchful "eyes" and "ears"! |
|
glen
Team Captain
Posts: 1,845
Dislikes:
|
Post by glen on Jun 6, 2014 12:04:59 GMT -5
MP - where is that documented?
It is an interesting take on it - if Bergdahl wasn't a traitor to start with. Keeping these 5 guys under the watchful eyes of MPs at Gitmo sounds like a better idea, no?
|
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Jun 6, 2014 12:35:44 GMT -5
Simple answer - in one year when we complete our withdrawal and our active part in any hostilities they would go free - totally, unequivocally free and have no negotiating value to obtain Bergdahl's release. Instead, we get him back and they spend a year in Qatar under watchful "eyes" and "ears"! On what basis do you say that is a given? I assume you mean that is what Obama would want and may very well try to do, but that would be a decision that I would hope gets debated by all our elected leaders in Congress. |
|
indian82
Assistant Coach
Posts: 6,450
Dislikes:
|
Post by indian82 on Jun 6, 2014 12:48:47 GMT -5
Like so many other topics, everyone rushing to opinions without even remotely close to all the facts I assume you are speaking about the 'deserter' topic. You're correct, all the facts are not in. At what point is anybody allowed to form an opinion? The admin would like us to form one. Do we have to wait until a trial or forget it if there is no trial (govt must be right again). And there is certainly enough suspicion to prevent the President from declaring this an amazing foreign policy victory and declaring this on the White House lawn (just as it was questionable for Bush to declare victory from that carrier years ago.) The people closest to Begdahl at the time - platoon leaders and comrades, seem to be vocal about how they feel how it went down. I am not claiming that they are 100% correct but I certainly value their opinion and it has considerable weight. All that said, I still do not believe the manner of his leaving the base is as an important question now as the wisdom of trading 5 highly important hostages to one low level sergeant (?). And, yes, I do value the lives of our American soldiers - and that is part of the reason I question this trade. |
|
th24
Team Captain
Posts: 2,886
Dislikes:
|
Post by th24 on Jun 6, 2014 13:28:26 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 20:13:54 GMT -5
MP - where is that documented? Don't fall into the trap that anyone is saying Gitmo must be closed and all prisoners released. This situation involves the Taliban and not al-Qaida detainees. Adherence to the Geneva Conventions has always been a US hallmark and I see nothing that would change that. It is an interesting take on it - if Bergdahl wasn't a traitor to start with. Keeping these 5 guys under the watchful eyes of MPs at Gitmo sounds like a better idea, no? "The scope of the authority to detain, including its duration, is immensely complex," said Steven R. Ratner, University of Michigan law professor. The first thing to note is that the Guantanamo detainees include alleged members of two different groups -- al-Qaida and the Taliban -- and there’s a case to be made that the two types of prisoners qualify for different levels of protection under international conventions. Article 118 of the Geneva Convention, which covers the treatment of military personnel, says that "prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities." Taliban detainees would seem to have a better argument for being repatriated following the end of hostilities in Afghanistan than detainees of al-Qaida. "Afghanistan is a party to the Geneva Conventions, and the Taliban represented the nation’s de facto government," said Richard D. Rosen, a retired Army colonel who now directs the Center for Military Law and Policy at Texas Tech University. Indeed, the United States’ decision under President George W. Bush to treat the Taliban as unlawful combatants not qualifying for the Geneva Convention’s protections was controversial partly for these reasons. By contrast, al-Qaida is a non-state actor, and thus it’s easier to make the case that its members aren’t covered by the Geneva Convention and its provisions on post-war repatriation. "Once hostilities are over, we have an obligation to release the Taliban detainees, but not the al-Qaida detainees, and perhaps not those members of the Taliban who are affiliated with al-Qaida," Rosen said. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Dislikes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 20:15:59 GMT -5
|
|
