What do you think Obama

Quote:

---

should have done with them, handed them over to the Afghans to be executed?

---

at least 2 of them(Mullah Mohammad Fazl and Mullah Norullah Noori) should be locked up in the Hague awaiting trial by the "international community ".They are both wanted by the UN.

Mullah Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa is one of Mullah Omar's closest confidants and aides . He was governor of Afghanistan's western Herat province before capture . So let's stop the bs that they were not high valued prisoners who will not be important parts of the Taliban command structure shortly.

Quote:

---

don't see why you don't see this as part of Obama fulfilling his promises, he can't shut Gitmo while there are prisoners there and he can't hold people indefinately without trial.

---

lol the existence of GITMO was ONLY an issue when Bush was President . Since the beginning of the emperor's reign ,the compliant press has been mute. If he wants to shut it down then why doesn't he ?He can issue one of them executive orders he loves so much . Heck this prisoner swap was in complete violation of the law and we barely hear a protest . He did make a token apology to some of his Senate partners for the obvious violation of the law and usurpation of Congressional power . But that is as far as he'll go .
As far as trials .... he could have the trials any time he wants to have them . GITMO is equipped with a state of the art secured court house.

Tom you forget those prisoners can't be transferred to the US otherwise they might acquire rights to due process so in order to shut the place they have to go somewhere. You say give them to the Hague but your country doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of that court. Your kangaroo courts haven't executed them so give them back, They have gone to Qatar, who no doubt have an interest in keeping you onside so as I said before you may yet get Omar out of it. What you are saying is just sour grapes, if the Taliban captured some of your luminaries, let's say Kerry or McCain wouldn't you want them back.

In reality you have forgotten what the war on terror is about and have made this a war on Islam. You can't beat an idea with a gun Tom you should have learned that by now, but then in a nation which sees the gun as a solution to everything, I guess not. Besides this gives you the opportunity for a show trial of a sometime defecter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Tom you forget those prisoners can't be transferred to the US otherwise they might acquire rights to due process so in order to shut the place they have to go somewhere. You say give them to the Hague but your country doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of that court. Your kangaroo courts haven't executed them so give them back, They have gone to Qatar, who no doubt have an interest in keeping you onside so as I said before you may yet get Omar out of it. What you are saying is just sour grapes, if the Taliban captured some of your luminaries, let's say Kerry or McCain wouldn't you want them back.

In reality you have forgotten what the war on terror is about and have made this a war on Islam. You can't beat an idea with a gun Tom you should have learned that by now, but then in a nation which sees the gun as a solution to everything, I guess not. Besides this gives you the opportunity for a show trial of a sometime defecter

---

it never was a war against terrorism . Terrorism is a tactic ;not a nation ,not an ideology . The war was always against radical Islam(or as I call it ,Jihadistan) ,and the nations that harbor and support jihadists .
If one of our "luminaries " were captured ,I wouldn't expect 5 of them to be traded for a battle field soldier .
AND what you are doing is elevating the Taliban to the status of legitimate national representatives worthy of negotiating at the highest levels of our government .
What happens now when narco-terrorists start grabbing Americans ? Do we empty our jails of Drug lords in exchange ?
You have no case here. This was foolishness borne of a White House full of amateurs .

I think most of us would pay to have them take John Kerry (or any other Obama appointed trained monkey) or McCain (who apparently has dementia these days)... we certainly wouldn't trade their top 5 guys for them.

since you mentioned it ...

Attachment 46106

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

it never was a war against terrorism . Terrorism is a tactic ;not a nation ,not an ideology . The war was always against radical Islam(or as I call it ,Jihadistan) ,and the nations that harbor and support jihadists .
If one of our "luminaries " were captured ,I wouldn't expect 5 of them to be traded for a battle field soldier .
AND what you are doing is elevating the Taliban to the status of legitimate national representatives worthy of negotiating at the highest levels of our government .
What happens now when narco-terrorists start grabbing Americans ? Do we empty our jails of Drug lords in exchange ?
You have no case here. This was foolishness borne of a White House full of amateurs .

---

Have you listened to yourself, your illusterous leader Bush, him of the I can't put two words together fame, called it a War on Terror, he didn't specifically mention Islam.

I am not elevating the Taliban who were once the legitimate government of that benighted place, aided and abetted by you, a fact you conveniently forget, so they are entitled to negotiate with whoever, but it is your government who considers they are worth negotiating with, not me. I don't reward stupid/

As to kidnap, I hear that that is a national pasttime south of the border, so you have an option negotiate or begin your War on Terror in another place

Bush was being politically correct in calling it a 'war on terrorism' .

;and you have nothing linking the US in assisting the Taliban in taking over the nation. They were/are clients of the ISI and proxies of the Pakistani military . As I have mentioned many times ;the Paki's were setting up a client state in Afghanistan to counter India in Kashmir . When Bush said "you are either for us or against us " it was a not so subtle message to Musharraf . It worked in that he got a large segment of the Paki military to turn against the Taliban. But not all of the military ,or the ISI backed him .

I guess Clete hasn't heard Obama stuttering and stammering like a fool when he's not reading a script off a teleprompter...making a futile attempt to speak off the cuff.

He didn't stutter when he said he won't apologize for bringing home a captured US soldier. While republicans clamor to delete their prayers for him tweets like the hypocrites they are. They were for it before they were against it, even since this deal has been cooking since 2011.

All you constitution thumpers all of a sudden don't believe in innocent until proved guilty, or due process? You sure holler loud about YOUR rights though.

He handed over 5 Senoir Taliban commanders in exchange for one deserter who deserves to be executed for it.

He left a NOTE saying he was doing it... the Army Command knows he did it.. everyone in his unit knows he did it.. there is no question he did it.

I'm all for due process. That doesn't mean I defer opinion. I don't care if he's Audie Murphy . That exchange for him is dangerous ,ridiculous, and out of proportion ..AND leaves ALL Americans travelling overseas in danger . The fact that he is most likely at best a deserter ,and probably a traitor makes it even worse.

That the delusional emperor thought there would be some sorta "euphoria" (in the words of Chuck Todd) over this exchange shows how out of touch he is with the American people.

Tom don't get your knickers in a knot, this is simply a PR exercise, local boy brought home, we don't leave our people behind sort of thung, and if he proves to be a deserter, that's one more that didn't get away, a win-win situation.

Those Taliban commanders have been away a long time and probably under suspicion, They cannot leave Qatar for a year at least, but the opportunity to open a dialogue has been presented and that might mean much in the future. Your troops will be out before they get involved so not a big threat

Quote:

---

They cannot leave Qatar for a year at least

---

you really believe that ? Even if they can't they can be a tremendous influence in recruiting and leadership off the battlefield .
By your logic ,had we captured Reinhard Heydrich,Adolf Eichmann,Hermann Goering ,we should've exchanged them for a private gone AWOL . Nonsense . Once we were gone in 2016 ,then maybe we could talk about release (assuming that they aren't subject to some war crime tribunal ,which apparently at least 2 of them should be ). No sane nation releases top commanders of the enemy for a deserter .

I see the irony of Hess in this, you had him, he wasn't worth anything, and you didn't get anything for him. Now had you captured the Nazi high command it would have shortened the war. Who knows what effect depriving the Taliban of these men for ten years made and who knows what change their influence might make now, exchange successful command for a bunch of losers, Hmmmmm!

But then greater minds than mine are behind this strategy, it might be to get a sleeper behind enemy lines

greater minds ????? not in the current adm. ,and frankly ,I'm beginning to have doubts about the upper command of the military ;and certainly their civilian Sec Def.

Your opinion is noted, but your credentials are lacking (as are mine), so lets get more opinions

Former Bush Official Blasts GOP On Bergdahl: Bush Would Have Done The Same Thing | ThinkProgress

Quote:

---

Though Cheney told Fox News on Monday that he would not have agreed to the deal, Bellinger stressed that the Bush administration “returned something like 500 detainees from Guantanamo.” Statistics from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence show that only 6 percent (5 in total) of Guantanamo detainees released during the Obama administration have potentially engaged in militant activities. That compares with a rate of nearly 30 percent under the Bush administration.

---

I just point out your opinion, and the right wing talking points are full of what if's, and I get the risk, despite the safeguards, but if you let those what if's stop you from dealing with your own in an appropriate manner then the enemy wins anyway. Noman left behind doesn't say unless you are a deserter. Nor has any evidence that has come to light that this soldier's commanding officers or his comrades had any inkling there was a problem assigning him to his post that he allegedly deserted.

Now if you are saying he should be judged without due process of our law (not Taliban law), which is his right as an American soldier, then say that so I can point out to you, the same as I do Smoothy, you guys holler about your rights while you pick the rights of others, and will add that as scary and dangerous as you are of these fellows, and as tempting as it maye to throw away the key, they were never dealt with when we had them for more than a decade.

But of course we can't talk about that because they were dangerous scary men. The Taliban have done just great without them for a long time so I suggest they are just 5 of many dangerous men. And as we remove potential targets from these fellows, from THEIR country, maybe we can focus more on our own dangerous men in our own country who are killing innocents at an ever increasing rate.

As was pointed out these 5 were but a small number of dangerous guys (more than 5 hundred) released in recent years. Yeah and some went back to the fight for sure, as these may also. So to be more scared of these 5 and not the 500 before make NO SENSE!

Just saying since neither of us is charged with the responsibility of making such decisions. Plus great minds or not, they are more privy to a lot more facts than we are.

John Bellinger who ??? If it's any consolation to you ..... I'm also pissed with the Obots for dealing with Hamas as a legitimate negotiating partner ....especially after he broke his campaign pledge not to .

My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

Quote:

---

Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, he laughs. “Definitely,” he says. “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

---

TIME - Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews

so now you are into inspiring the Taliban and yet nothing you do could inspire them unless it is to leave their country. I think you singularly lack the ability to inspire anyone these days. The Taliban might be a little slow, you think? It took five years for them to turn holding Bergdahl to an advantage, and yet they didn't kill him on sight, strange don't you think? What resources were tied up moving him around and guarding him?