Hillary Clinton: How Bergdahl disappeared 'doesn't matter'

[Care4all]

Maybe the military needs a review board of some type to decide which POW's should be brought home and which one's to leave behind? We left prisoners in Korea because they elected to stay, so maybe that equation should be added to the mix. We could require American POW's to fill out a questionnaire first before we bring them back, and then we get to vote. Damn that would be fun for board members.
Millions were spent to bring home our dead, perhaps that needs a review too?

Or maybe they could just do some due diligence before releasing terrorists

Which 'terrorists' are you referring to? Was the time they were sentenced to as part of their trial up? Or were they released earlier than the judge and jury in their case affirmed they must serve?

These terrorists aka Taliban commanders are very well known. One that was released was wanted by the United Nations for war crimes.

"A senior U.S. defense official confirmed Saturday that the prisoners to be released include Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Mohammed Nabi Omari.

While not as well known as Guantanamo inmates like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Taliban 5 were some of the worst outlaws in the U.S. war on terror.

And their release will end up replenishing the diminished leadership ranks of the Afghan Taliban at a moment when the United States is winding down the war there.

“They are undoubtedly among the most dangerous Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo,” said Thomas Joscelyn, a senior editor at the Long War Journal who keeps a close watch on developments concerning the detainees left at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Fazl, for example, was the Taliban’s former deputy defense minister and is wanted by the United Nations for his role in massacres targeting Afghan’s Shi’ite Muslim population."

More at link:

Here are the Taliban Terrorists Obama Released to Free POW Bowe Bergdahl - The Daily Beast

Total bull tiny, find a better source..... true on the UN wanted guy but also exaggerated....but the other guys were minions.

The Pentagon dossiers released by wikileaks on these Taliban leaders aren't good enough for you?

You don't believe the Pentagon?

so tell me Tiny, are you saying no matter who our American POW that was being held captive was, you would have left him there and not made this trade???

A soldier of ours, in good standing....you would have blown him off and just left him there, instead of working this transfer deal with these 5 taliban men?

HERE is a profile of all 5 that I am going by....and they don't even come close to being what I would consider as being Nazi generals....

CNN profiled them two years ago, when their names first surfaced as candidates for a transfer as part of talks with the Taliban:

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa

Khairkhwa was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban's rule. He hails from the same tribe as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and was captured in January 2002. Khairkhwa's most prominent position was as governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001, and he was alleged to have been "directly associated" with Osama bin Laden. According to a detainee assessment, Khairkhwa also was probably associated with al Qaeda's now-deceased leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He is described as one of the "major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan" and a "friend" of Karzai. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities.

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.

Mullah Norullah Noori

Noori served as governor of Balkh province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance. Like Fazl, Noori was detained after surrendering to Dostam, the Uzbek leader, in 2001.Noori claimed during interrogation that "he never received any weapons or military training." According to 2008 detainee assessment, Noori "continues to deny his role, importance and level of access to Taliban officials." That same assessment characterized him as high risk and of high intelligence value.

Abdul Haq Wasiq

Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban regime's intelligence service. His cousin was head of the service. An administrative review in 2007 cited a source as saying that Wasiq was also "an al Qaeda intelligence member" and had links with members of another militant Islamist group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. Wasiq claimed, according to the review, that he was arrested while trying to help the United States locate senior Taliban figures. He denied any links to militant groups.

Mohammad Nabi Omari

Omari was a minor Taliban official in Khost Province. According to the first administrative review in 2004, he was a member of the Taliban and associated with both al Qaeda and another militant group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. He was the Taliban's chief of communications and helped al Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Omari acknowledged during hearings that he had worked for the Taliban but denied connections with militant groups. He also said that he had worked with a U.S. operative named Mark to try to track down Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

YOU DO REALIZE that the Geneva convention does not allow us to keep these prisoners forever, don't you? You do know that we are winding down the war in Afghanistan, don't you? You do know that we Americans, without caveats, leave no soldier behind don't you? You do know we are trying to close Gitmo once and for all, don't you?

 

[auditor0007]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

 

[kaz]

So clearly you've wiped your ass with the constitution. With that settled, lets look at US and international law. Where does indefinite detention with NO charges , NO trial and NO conviction for ANY crime fit into either?

Because I'd argue its anti-thetical to the US constitution, US law, international law, and the very concept of law.

Here's an interesting word for you to google, Jurisdiction.

And ironically you blow the President who murders people as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the wrong targets and passer byes with drone strike then say that.

You are too tool to do anything but laugh at

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

 

[kaz]

Maybe the military needs a review board of some type to decide which POW's should be brought home and which one's to leave behind? We left prisoners in Korea because they elected to stay, so maybe that equation should be added to the mix. We could require American POW's to fill out a questionnaire first before we bring them back, and then we get to vote. Damn that would be fun for board members.
Millions were spent to bring home our dead, perhaps that needs a review too?

Or maybe they could just do some due diligence before releasing terrorists

Which 'terrorists' are you referring to? Was the time they were sentenced to as part of their trial up? Or were they released earlier than the judge and jury in their case affirmed they must serve?

The Constitution isn't a world document, Homey, it's an American one. You pompous, self absorbed Americans who think your shit doesn't stink and you make the rules for the world are pathetic, no wonder everyone hates you

what country are you from, a citizen of....?

Michigan. Liberals are so arrogant

 

[tinydancer]

Or maybe they could just do some due diligence before releasing terrorists

Which 'terrorists' are you referring to? Was the time they were sentenced to as part of their trial up? Or were they released earlier than the judge and jury in their case affirmed they must serve?

These terrorists aka Taliban commanders are very well known. One that was released was wanted by the United Nations for war crimes.

"A senior U.S. defense official confirmed Saturday that the prisoners to be released include Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Mohammed Nabi Omari.

While not as well known as Guantanamo inmates like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Taliban 5 were some of the worst outlaws in the U.S. war on terror.

And their release will end up replenishing the diminished leadership ranks of the Afghan Taliban at a moment when the United States is winding down the war there.

“They are undoubtedly among the most dangerous Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo,” said Thomas Joscelyn, a senior editor at the Long War Journal who keeps a close watch on developments concerning the detainees left at the Guantanamo Bay prison.

Fazl, for example, was the Taliban’s former deputy defense minister and is wanted by the United Nations for his role in massacres targeting Afghan’s Shi’ite Muslim population."

More at link:

Here are the Taliban Terrorists Obama Released to Free POW Bowe Bergdahl - The Daily Beast

Total bull tiny, find a better source..... true on the UN wanted guy but also exaggerated....but the other guys were minions.

The Pentagon dossiers released by wikileaks on these Taliban leaders aren't good enough for you?

You don't believe the Pentagon?

so tell me Tiny, are you saying no matter who our American POW that was being held captive was, you would have left him there and not made this trade???

A soldier of ours, in good standing....you would have blown him off and just left him there, instead of working this transfer deal with these 5 taliban men?

HERE is a profile of all 5 that I am going by....and they don't even come close to being what I would consider as being Nazi generals....

CNN profiled them two years ago, when their names first surfaced as candidates for a transfer as part of talks with the Taliban:

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa

Khairkhwa was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban's rule. He hails from the same tribe as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and was captured in January 2002. Khairkhwa's most prominent position was as governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001, and he was alleged to have been "directly associated" with Osama bin Laden. According to a detainee assessment, Khairkhwa also was probably associated with al Qaeda's now-deceased leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He is described as one of the "major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan" and a "friend" of Karzai. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities.

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.

Mullah Norullah Noori

Noori served as governor of Balkh province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance. Like Fazl, Noori was detained after surrendering to Dostam, the Uzbek leader, in 2001.Noori claimed during interrogation that "he never received any weapons or military training." According to 2008 detainee assessment, Noori "continues to deny his role, importance and level of access to Taliban officials." That same assessment characterized him as high risk and of high intelligence value.

Abdul Haq Wasiq

Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban regime's intelligence service. His cousin was head of the service. An administrative review in 2007 cited a source as saying that Wasiq was also "an al Qaeda intelligence member" and had links with members of another militant Islamist group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. Wasiq claimed, according to the review, that he was arrested while trying to help the United States locate senior Taliban figures. He denied any links to militant groups.

Mohammad Nabi Omari

Omari was a minor Taliban official in Khost Province. According to the first administrative review in 2004, he was a member of the Taliban and associated with both al Qaeda and another militant group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. He was the Taliban's chief of communications and helped al Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Omari acknowledged during hearings that he had worked for the Taliban but denied connections with militant groups. He also said that he had worked with a U.S. operative named Mark to try to track down Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

YOU DO REALIZE that the Geneva convention does not allow us to keep these prisoners forever, don't you? You do know that we are winding down the war in Afghanistan, don't you? You do know that we Americans, without caveats, leave no soldier behind don't you? You do know we are trying to close Gitmo once and for all, don't you?

Let's get this out of the way first. I never said that these prisoners were the equivalent of Nazi Generals. I said the trade was the equivalent of giving back Nazi Generals in a time of war. That's the parallel. Trading high ranking officers in a time of war.

Let me refresh your memory. I am very specific with words. Well most of the time


"Those five Taliban were upper echelon Taliban. Not Mohammed six packs.

This trade was the equivalent of giving the Nazis back five Generals during WWII.

Edit to add: The country they were sent to was Qatar. The only country to date that has actually built a Taliban Embassy aka an Embassy for terrorists."


Now as far as the Taliban goes, these men were commanders. I even gave you the Pentagon links to their profiles.

Here's another from the Washington Post if you don't want to believe the Pentagon's dossiers that state that these were high ranking officials.

"The little information we know about them comes from their Guantanamo case files. All of them are described as "high risk, as he may pose a threat to the U.S., its interests and allies."

If you want to think these men were minions, by all means knock yourself out. The Pentagon and the Guantanamo files don't agree with you.

Bowe Bergdahl was traded for 5 Taliban commanders. Here’s who they are.

Bowe Bergdahl was traded for 5 Taliban commanders. Here s who they are. - The Washington Post

And from Politifact.

"It might be a slight exaggeration to place all five into the highest threat category among Taliban officials and leaders.

Still, these were very senior Taliban operatives, and leaked internal documents from U.S. officials at Guantanamo generally back up McCain’s assessment. We rate his statement Mostly True."

John McCain says five Taliban detainees freed in Bowe Bergdahl exchange are the hardest of the hard-core PolitiFact

I don't give a flying rat's ass about anything else to do with this secret trade except to say that it sucked but I'm glad Bergdahl is charged and hopefully will be convicted.






.

 

[Skylar]

So clearly you've wiped your ass with the constitution. With that settled, lets look at US and international law. Where does indefinite detention with NO charges , NO trial and NO conviction for ANY crime fit into either?

Because I'd argue its anti-thetical to the US constitution, US law, international law, and the very concept of law.

Here's an interesting word for you to google, Jurisdiction.

And ironically you blow the President who murders people as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the wrong targets and passer byes with drone strike then say that.

You are too tool to do anything but laugh at

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

And how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'?

Explain it to us.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to be specific about black bakers, cakes and the KKK. You've gone strangely mute on that one. Gee, I wonder why.

 

[Redfish]

This is as bad as national security adviser Susan E. Rice, who said last summer that Sergeant Bergdahl had served “with honor and distinction”.

Hillary Clinton How Bergdahl disappeared doesn t matter WashingtonExaminer.com

march 25 2015
In a comment that now seems akin to her "what difference does it make" dismissal of the Benghazi, Libya, terror slayings of U.S. officials, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that how U.S. soldier Bowe Bergdahl ended up in Taliban hands "doesn't matter."

Clinton was interviewed last June after President Obama traded five Taliban prisoners for Bergdahl, who on Wednesday was charged with desertion.

Obama was criticized by many after the trade, with some suspecting that Bergdahl sympathized with the Taliban.

But in the interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, Clinton defended Obama in comments that she may have to answer for on the campaign trail.

"If you look at what the factors were going into the decision, of course there are competing interests and values. And one of our values is we bring everybody home off the battlefield the best we can. It doesn't matter how they ended up in a prisoner of war situation," said Clinton.

It doesn't matter?" Sawyer asked.

"It doesn't matter," Clinton said. "We bring our people home."

And she is right. Now if, in this case, Bergdahl is guilty of a crime, then he should be tried for it as seems is now going to happen. Here is the thing. He is an American citizen and like any other, he deserves his day in court. Just because you may believe he deserted or aided the enemy in some way does not make it so. We do not execute criminals because we think maybe they did it. It has to be proven in court beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why bringing Bergdahl back was the right thing to do, but typical of the average con, you all felt he had no right to a trial.

There is a marine being held in Iran simply because he is a marine, there is a Christian minister being held in Iran simply because he is a Christian. Why wasn't one of these guys included in the exchange? Why only a known deserter?

It was a bad deal, OR, it was the deal obama wanted--------------any idea why?

 

[Redfish]

So clearly you've wiped your ass with the constitution. With that settled, lets look at US and international law. Where does indefinite detention with NO charges , NO trial and NO conviction for ANY crime fit into either?

Because I'd argue its anti-thetical to the US constitution, US law, international law, and the very concept of law.

Here's an interesting word for you to google, Jurisdiction.

And ironically you blow the President who murders people as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the wrong targets and passer byes with drone strike then say that.

You are too tool to do anything but laugh at

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

And how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'?

Explain it to us.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to be specific about black bakers, cakes and the KKK. You've gone strangely mute on that one. Gee, I wonder why.

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

 

[Manonthestreet]

NCIS concluded in 2009 he was a traitor.

 

[Redfish]

NCIS concluded in 2009 he was a traitor.

and obama knew that and still made the deal. Do ya think maybe he wanted those 5 terrorist commanders released? It makes one wonder whose side obama is really on.

 

[Skylar]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

 

[tinydancer]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

You know what Skylar? I've been an activist for womens and childrens rights in the ME for two decades now but Afghanistan and the Taliban are what first caught my attention 20 years ago.

ISIS has reached the number one spot on the evil scale just recently. They're newbies.

But in their hey day before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were number one.

If I'd had a chance to deal with any Taliban, trust me. They wouldn't have made it to Guantanamo Bay.

The atrocities they committed after that bitch from hell Benazir Bhutto set them up to run Afghanistan are really up there on the richter scale.

When the D's talk about a Republican "war on women" it truly makes me want to bazooka barf. What a freaking joke! Check out the list of "rules for women". And our feminists are bitching that their birth control isn't paid for.

Because I know what the Taliban did do to women. And how they tortured infants and children. Needless to say, many men died at their hands as well.

Here's some links. I hate them with a passion you can't even dream of. Only good Taliban is a dead Taliban to me.

I. The Taliban s War Against Women

List of Taliban s atrocities and crimes in Afghanistan

 

[Skylar]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

You know what Skylar? I've been an activist for womens and childrens rights in the ME for two decades now but Afghanistan and the Taliban are what first caught my attention 20 years ago.

ISIS has reached the number one spot on the evil scale just recently. They're newbies.

But in their hey day before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were number one.

If I'd had a chance to deal with any Taliban, trust me. They wouldn't have made it to Guantanamo Bay.

I can wrap my head around the sentiment. But their barbarity shouldn't define our willingness to abandon our values. Our values are more important than that. If they're prisoners of war, treat them as prisoners of war. If they're criminals, try them. But holding someone indefinitely without charges, trial, or conviction of anything isn't what we do.

Its what they do. And we're better than that. We're better than them. And its our values that makes us better.

 

[kaz]

So clearly you've wiped your ass with the constitution. With that settled, lets look at US and international law. Where does indefinite detention with NO charges , NO trial and NO conviction for ANY crime fit into either?

Because I'd argue its anti-thetical to the US constitution, US law, international law, and the very concept of law.

Here's an interesting word for you to google, Jurisdiction.

And ironically you blow the President who murders people as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the wrong targets and passer byes with drone strike then say that.

You are too tool to do anything but laugh at

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

And how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'?

Explain it to us.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to be specific about black bakers, cakes and the KKK. You've gone strangely mute on that one. Gee, I wonder why.

Who are all these people you think you are speaking for?

 

[Redfish]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

You know what Skylar? I've been an activist for womens and childrens rights in the ME for two decades now but Afghanistan and the Taliban are what first caught my attention 20 years ago.

ISIS has reached the number one spot on the evil scale just recently. They're newbies.

But in their hey day before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were number one.

If I'd had a chance to deal with any Taliban, trust me. They wouldn't have made it to Guantanamo Bay.

I can wrap my head around the sentiment. But their barbarity shouldn't define our willingness to abandon our values. Our values are more important than that. If they're prisoners of war, treat them as prisoners of war. If they're criminals, try them. But holding someone indefinitely without charges, trial, or conviction of anything isn't what we do.

Its what they do. And we're better than that. We're better than them. And its our values that makes us better.

Yes, they should all have been tried and either convicted or set free. Both parties and both Bush and Obama are responsible for not getting that done.

But this is not about the history of Gitmo. this is about a bad deal that obama made trading one deserter for 5 known terrorist leaders. Face reality, it was a BAD deal.

 

[kaz]

I can wrap my head around the sentiment. But their barbarity shouldn't define our willingness to abandon our values. Our values are more important than that. If they're prisoners of war, treat them as prisoners of war. If they're criminals, try them. But holding someone indefinitely without charges, trial, or conviction of anything isn't what we do.

Its what they do. And we're better than that. We're better than them. And its our values that makes us better.

Yes, they should all have been tried and either convicted or set free. Both parties and both Bush and Obama are responsible for not getting that done.

But this is not about the history of Gitmo. this is about a bad deal that obama made trading one deserter for 5 known terrorist leaders. Face reality, it was a BAD deal.

Those are the stupid Marcus of Queensbury rules that we endlessly get into with our stupid limited war policies.

I want to be very hesitant to get into wars, but then when we do, we act decisively and do what it takes.

Germany was a just war, no one was saying to try German soldiers or release them.

That we are in a war, and we're talking about needing to try soldiers right there shows our morality is fucked. Either we are where we should not be, or we don't have the courage to act with moral conviction to win it. We've already lost. I think it's the former, we would not be there. But everything we do like this just keeps making us more wrong

 

[depotoo]

They were not pow's. They have been classified as enemy, or unlawful combatants. The Geneva Conventions only apply in wars between 2 or more sovereign states.

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

You know what Skylar? I've been an activist for womens and childrens rights in the ME for two decades now but Afghanistan and the Taliban are what first caught my attention 20 years ago.

ISIS has reached the number one spot on the evil scale just recently. They're newbies.

But in their hey day before we invaded Afghanistan, the Taliban were number one.

If I'd had a chance to deal with any Taliban, trust me. They wouldn't have made it to Guantanamo Bay.

I can wrap my head around the sentiment. But their barbarity shouldn't define our willingness to abandon our values. Our values are more important than that. If they're prisoners of war, treat them as prisoners of war. If they're criminals, try them. But holding someone indefinitely without charges, trial, or conviction of anything isn't what we do.

Its what they do. And we're better than that. We're better than them. And its our values that makes us better.

 

[Redfish]

I can wrap my head around the sentiment. But their barbarity shouldn't define our willingness to abandon our values. Our values are more important than that. If they're prisoners of war, treat them as prisoners of war. If they're criminals, try them. But holding someone indefinitely without charges, trial, or conviction of anything isn't what we do.

Its what they do. And we're better than that. We're better than them. And its our values that makes us better.

Yes, they should all have been tried and either convicted or set free. Both parties and both Bush and Obama are responsible for not getting that done.

But this is not about the history of Gitmo. this is about a bad deal that obama made trading one deserter for 5 known terrorist leaders. Face reality, it was a BAD deal.

Those are the stupid Marcus of Queensbury rules that we endlessly get into with our stupid limited war policies.

I want to be very hesitant to get into wars, but then when we do, we act decisively and do what it takes.

Germany was a just war, no one was saying to try German soldiers or release them.

That we are in a war, and we're talking about needing to try soldiers right there shows our morality is fucked. Either we are where we should not be, or we don't have the courage to act with moral conviction to win it. We've already lost. I think it's the former, we would not be there. But everything we do like this just keeps making us more wrong

I agree that if we make the decision to go to war, we should put everything we have into winning it quickly and decisively. Viet Nam should have taught us that, but it didn't.

 

[Redfish]

they are enemy combatants captured during a time of war. We should hold them until the war is over. Let us know when ISIS and al qaeda surrender.

We're not at war with Afghanistan. Or in Afghanistan.

And the Taliban isn't ISIS or Al Qaeda. Indefinite imprisonment with no trial, no charges, no conviction, and sentence is ridiculous. If they're prisoners of war, then they fall under international law and have certain rights.

This 'right free zone' where we suspend the law, constitution and international law is not an American value. And harms us far, far more than imprisoning these men helps us. As it demonstrates that we don't actually believe in the values you espouse.

And is a literal recruiting tool used by our enemies to assemble fighting forces against us.

first, the US constitution applies only to US citizens or others who are in this country LEGALLY.

Taliban, ISIS, Al Qaeda, and the other radical muslims are at declared war with us.

What exactly and specifically do you propose that we do about that?

 

[Skylar]

So clearly you've wiped your ass with the constitution. With that settled, lets look at US and international law. Where does indefinite detention with NO charges , NO trial and NO conviction for ANY crime fit into either?

Because I'd argue its anti-thetical to the US constitution, US law, international law, and the very concept of law.

Here's an interesting word for you to google, Jurisdiction.

And ironically you blow the President who murders people as well as their families, friends, neighbors, the wrong targets and passer byes with drone strike then say that.

You are too tool to do anything but laugh at

Explain it to us. Tell us how jurisdiction made internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.

Or you could give us another one word answer and run. I'll be entertained either way.

The jurisdiction of the Constitution is the United States, not the world. That is what I said

And how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'?

Explain it to us.

And of course, I'm still waiting for you to be specific about black bakers, cakes and the KKK. You've gone strangely mute on that one. Gee, I wonder why.

Who are all these people you think you are speaking for?

So when I ask you how does the jurisdiction of the Constitution of the United States, not the world make internment with no charges, no trial, no conviction, no sentence somehow 'okay'.....

......you've got nothing. So much for your one word answers.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on the 'black bakers and the KKK' I am supposedly 'silent' on. What, pray tell, are you referring to? Surely you have a specific example in mind, an actual connection to reality.

Surely you do.