huh?
US solider freed from captivity in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Jones
- Start date
soberups
Pees in the brown Koolaid
There is a difference between negotiating with terrorists for the return of hostages, and negotiating with a military enemy for the exchange of POW's.
Hostages are unarmed noncombatants who are kidnapped in order to extort financial or political concessions from their home country. Such actions violate international law and as a matter of policy if you make concessions to terrorists and reward their behavior you only encourage them to keep doing it.
POW's are uniformed military personnel who surrender on the field of battle, and it is an accepted norm of international law for enemies to exchange them. During WWII we exchanged seriously wounded POW's with the Germans thru the Red Cross. We also negotiated the exchange of civilian internees and diplomatic personnel with Japan after the outbreak of war. During the Cold War, we also exchanged captured spies with the Soviet Union.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture, the fact remains that he was a POW and exchanging him for other POW's in our custody does not equate to making concessions to terrorists.
Hostages are unarmed noncombatants who are kidnapped in order to extort financial or political concessions from their home country. Such actions violate international law and as a matter of policy if you make concessions to terrorists and reward their behavior you only encourage them to keep doing it.
POW's are uniformed military personnel who surrender on the field of battle, and it is an accepted norm of international law for enemies to exchange them. During WWII we exchanged seriously wounded POW's with the Germans thru the Red Cross. We also negotiated the exchange of civilian internees and diplomatic personnel with Japan after the outbreak of war. During the Cold War, we also exchanged captured spies with the Soviet Union.
Regardless of the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture, the fact remains that he was a POW and exchanging him for other POW's in our custody does not equate to making concessions to terrorists.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
moreluck
golden ticket member
I think the soldier is "sucky" too, but the 5 detainees weren't.
They were 5 of the most dangerous held at Gitmo. They will plot to carry on their killing of Americans and this whole thing will come back to bite us in the ass.
One sucky detainee would have been an even trade (imo)
They were 5 of the most dangerous held at Gitmo. They will plot to carry on their killing of Americans and this whole thing will come back to bite us in the ass.
One sucky detainee would have been an even trade (imo)
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
Our view is completely
different. I don't see them as detainees but as POWs.
If they were criminal detainees they should have been brought to the US for criminal trial per our constitution.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
From ABCNews:
But Tuesday White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in July 2002, even if it is not listed as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) by the State Department. Either designation triggers asset freezes, according to the State Department, though they can differ on other restrictions imposed on the target organization. The Treasury Department told ABC News the Taliban is still on their SDGT list.
...
Though the State Department has not designated the Afghan Taliban as an FTO, it has designated the group’s sister network, the Pakistani Taliban, as well as the Haqqani Network, a group closely associated with the Taliban that was believed to have been actually holding Bergdahl for most of his captivity. Hayden told ABC News the U.S. “did not negotiate with the Haqqanis” for Bergdahl.
Rather than arguing the status of the Taliban, however, the administration has launched a coordinated effort to characterize Bergdahl as a prisoner of war, rather than a hostage.
“Sgt. Bergdahl was not a hostage, he was a member of the military who was detained during the course of an armed conflict,” Hayden said. “The United States does not leave a soldier behind based on the identity of the party to the conflict... It was a prisoner exchange. We’ve always done that across many wars. With the Germans. The Japanese. The North Koreans.”
As President Obama put it earlier Tuesday, “This is what happens at the end of wars.”
It would seem that the reasonable thing to do, is get Bergdahl home and healthy, then get facts, rather than rush to judgement. I have heard that he witnessed some atrocities and war crimes committed by his fellow soldiers. Is this true? I have no idea, and I'm not rushing to judge him until all the facts see the light of day.
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
brett636
Well-Known Member
the terms of their release is that they not leave the country of Qatar for one year. They have been put up in some luxury hotels, and are allowed to move freely about the country. Hardly the definition of incarceration.
I can see why you have so much faith in the NSA and its work. Their intelligence worked flawlessly preventing the Benghazi attacks...
brett636
Well-Known Member
So why didn't the Pentagon have him listed as a POW?
av8torntn
Well-Known Member
My assumption is they have evidence he left the FOB on his own. Probably even aided the enemy. Until convicted responsibility is ours to bring him home.
Babagounj
Strength through joy
They are only required to remain in Qatar for one year . They are free to move about and to communicate with whom ever they wish .
Similar threads
