trump calls off Taliban negotiations

[Markle]

Enemy combatants are entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention that we weren't providing these guys. Yes, they did awful stuff to their enemies in Afghanistan... which totally wasn't our problem.

Bush released hundreds of guys from Gitmo, and usually didn't get anything for them. Some of them actually were caught on the battlefield again.

I'm not "sympathetic" towards terrorism... I'm pragmatic.

When the Taliban and Bin Laden were killing Russians in Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan called them "Freedom Fighters"

Wrong...still!

Enemy Combatant
Captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the geneva convention; a saboteur.
Enemy combatants

 

[Markle]

There was no reason, whatsoever to release these barbarian terrorists, none whatsoever!

Were they convicted of a crime in an American Court or an International Court?

Nope.

Then there was no reason to hold them.

Last time I checked, we lived under the rule of law.

Either you convict them of crimes, other than being on the losing side of a war, or we release them as part of the end of hostilities.

Should point out, we held these guys for 12 years. This is longer than we held most Nazi and Japanese war criminal after WWII. (By 1957, 12 years after the end of WWII, we were still only holding THREE high ranking Nazis. Only one actually died in prison.)

NO legal reason was required to hold them. They were not American Citizens nor were they in America.

They were and are ENEMY COMBATANTS and therefore not entitled to any Geneva protections.

You should read up on the Geneva Convention.

Customary IHL - Rule 3. Definition of Combatants

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007) states:
“Lawful enemy combatant” means a person who is:
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.

These guys qualify, as they were legitimate government leaders at the time of their capture.

The elephant in the room is that we violated the Geneva Conventions by interrogating and torturing these people.

We had no legal right to hold them as neither criminals nor POW's. But we did.

(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

 

[ABikerSailor]

Trump is playing hardball during these negotiations with the Taliban. The Taliban will give in to Trump, the master negotiator. It's the art of the deal.

The Taliban will give in to Trump? Will they do it like Un did?

 

[ABikerSailor]

Just how bright is President Trump? The reader can be the judge.

Trump repeatedly condemned Bolton's suggestion (more than a year ago) that the U.S. pursue the "Libya model" for the denuclearization of North Korea.

Trump had no idea what Bolton was talking about. The Libyan deal as a model for North Korea’s own denuclearization was first mentioned by Trump’s national security adviser, John R. Bolton, and then by Vice President Mike Pence. How the ‘Libya Model’ Became a Sticking Point in North Korea Nuclear Talks

Then after revealing he had no idea what Bolton was referring to, the President then sided with the enemy. "What a disaster using that to make a deal with North Korea," Trump said. "I don't blame Kim Jong-un. ... He wanted nothing to do with John Bolton."

In-freaking-credible!!! Any other President who had a National Security Advisor who was disliked by the communist dictator of North Korea would have lauded the guy. Maybe even given him a raise. What does Trump do? He fires him. Kim and Trump have exchanged love letters.

But we all know why Trump fired Bolton and it has nothing to do with the Libyan model, North Korea, or Kim. Trump wanted to invite terrorists partly responsible for 9/11 days before the anniversary to Camp David to meet with him personally. Bolton knew what it was -- another photo op to glorify Trump and grab some headlines. Bolton wasn't alone. Several Republican lawmakers considered it a horrible idea and not one supported Trump's scheme.

Trump revealed his idea for the photo op late Saturday. By Monday morning Bolton was gone.

Trump couldn't fire the members of Congress, but he sure could fire Bolton.

You know when I saw this story as to Bolton being fired because he pissed off Un by saying something about the Lybia model, I suddenly had a flash that if the N. Korea talks fail, Trump will point to Bolton as the cause.

 

[JoeB131]

Wrong...still!

Enemy Combatant
Captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the geneva convention; a saboteur.

Sorry, buddy, at the time these guys were captured, they were legitimate leaders of the Afghan Government. Therefore entitled to protections under Geneva.

(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

Sorry, man, these guys qualified. They were leaders in the valid and legitimate government of Afghanistan at that time.

 

[Markle]

Wrong...still!

Enemy Combatant
Captured fighter in a war who is not entitled to prisoner of war status because he or she does not meet the definition of a lawful combatant as established by the geneva convention; a saboteur.

Sorry, buddy, at the time these guys were captured, they were legitimate leaders of the Afghan Government. Therefore entitled to protections under Geneva.

(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

Sorry, man, these guys qualified. They were leaders in the valid and legitimate government of Afghanistan at that time.

What part of this is not clear to you?
(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

 

[basquebromance]

Trump is running the country like a game show. he would rather LIE than LEAD

 

[JoeB131]

What part of this is not clear to you?
(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

Pretty clear to me.. Our guys know who they were fighting...

Sorry, man, they were a legitimate government and were legitimate issues.

 

[Markle]

What part of this is not clear to you?
(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

Pretty clear to me.. Our guys know who they were fighting...

Sorry, man, they were a legitimate government and were legitimate issues.

What is not clear to you?

wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

 

[JoeB131]

What is not clear to you?

wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

All of which these guys did. It's pretty clear to me. WE invaded THEIR country. They were leaders of the legitimate government at that time. Therefore, they were entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention.

I'm sorry this isn't clear to you, but our conduct during the War on an Emotional State violated nearly all the established rules of war in handling prisoners. It's why we STILL can't bring guys like Khalid Sheihk Mohammed to trial.. because our conduct would get 99% of the evidence against him thrown out.

 

[pknopp]

What part of this is not clear to you?
(2) LAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.—The term ‘lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is—
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.[1]

Pretty clear to me.. Our guys know who they were fighting...

Sorry, man, they were a legitimate government and were legitimate issues.

Not that this necessarily disputes you point but if we knew who we were fighting we wouldn't have armed those who then turned those arms against our soldiers.

 

[JoeB131]

Not that this necessarily disputes you point but if we knew who we were fighting we wouldn't have armed those who then turned those arms against our soldiers.

Oh, I think it was worse than that.

The problem here was because in the 1980's, the CIA didn't have people who spoke Pushtan or Tajik or Urdu... but they had lots of disaffected Arabs who would go over and kill Commies because they might teach girls how to read or something.

 

[pknopp]

Not that this necessarily disputes you point but if we knew who we were fighting we wouldn't have armed those who then turned those arms against our soldiers.

Oh, I think it was worse than that.

The problem here was because in the 1980's, the CIA didn't have people who spoke Pushtan or Tajik or Urdu... but they had lots of disaffected Arabs who would go over and kill Commies because they might teach girls how to read or something.

You would have though that those who came after that would have learned something.

 

[JoeB131]

You would have though that those who came after that would have learned something.

That's the problem, we NEVER learn. We keep thinking we can play these people off against each other.

We enabled Stalin to help defeat Hitler, then wondered why Stalin wouldn't give Eastern Europe back after the war.
We armed Ho Chi Mihn to fight the Japanese, and then wondered when he turned on us.
We thought Saddam and Osama were great guys, when they were killing people we didn't like. When they started killing us or people we liked, that was a problem.

Heck, I'll go even further back. The Mexican American War, we thought that if we helped get Santa Anna back into power (Despite what he did at the Alamo) he would negotiate a peace treaty favorable to us. We even arranged to get him back into Mexico from his exile in Cuba. Instead, he seized power and went to war with us.

 

[Markle]

What is not clear to you?

wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

All of which these guys did. It's pretty clear to me. WE invaded THEIR country. They were leaders of the legitimate government at that time. Therefore, they were entitled to protections under the Geneva Convention.

I'm sorry this isn't clear to you, but our conduct during the War on an Emotional State violated nearly all the established rules of war in handling prisoners. It's why we STILL can't bring guys like Khalid Sheihk Mohammed to trial.. because our conduct would get 99% of the evidence against him thrown out.

 

[lennypartiv]

The Taliban will give in to Trump?

It wouldn't surprise those who have seen Trump work his magic before.

 

[Markle]

All of which these guys did.

No need to read any further when you lie like the above.

These are the facts.

wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

 

[JoeB131]

All of which these guys did.

No need to read any further when you lie like the above.

These are the facts.

wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

Guy, The fact is, the Talbian was the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time we invaded. Their leaders were entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions...

So either.

1) We release them at the end of hostilities.
2) We put them on trial for war crimes under an international tribunal.

We obviously couldn't do the latter, given we tortured these guys in violation of treaties WE signed.

 

[Markle]

All of which these guys did.

No need to read any further when you lie like the above.

These are the facts.

wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war;

Guy, The fact is, the Talbian was the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time we invaded. Their leaders were entitled to the protections of the Geneva conventions...

So either.

1) We release them at the end of hostilities.
2) We put them on trial for war crimes under an international tribunal.

We obviously couldn't do the latter, given we tortured these guys in violation of treaties WE signed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Guy, The fact is, the Talbian was the legitimate government of Afghanistan at the time we invaded.

By taking Kabul by force? Well then, that makes our puppet government just as valid, as we did the same thing.