Five of the Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. Custody Exchanged for American Captive

a reply to: thesaneone

Has this soldier already been tried and convicted? If not, then he is being treated as any POW.

Reagan circumvented Congress and traded arms to a hostile country holding US civilians hostage. Mull that one over if you want to whine about Obama.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer


I'm sorry my mistake I thought that Reagan was no longer a president.

We are talking about today's world not the 80's.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Did Ronald Reagan release prisoners which compromise some of the most high ranking and proven leaders of the other side ..in a war which isn't quite over yet? (Really, this "ending" at all is based on our saying so and hoping they follow).

Yes Reagan did wrong...and Ford, and Nixon and Eisenhower and Hoover for the last few Republican Presidents. Hell, they all screwed up in one form or another and some more than others, to be sure.

This doesn't give Democrat Presidents a free pass on anything and it doesn't preclude anyone from observing when they screw the pooch so badly, it almost qualifies as animal cruelty.

Kinda like releasing 5 top level commanders like he just did, because he and his people personally thought it up as a good idea.

Umm.. No... It wasn't a good idea, IMO...and I hope not many people die in the process of seeing that proven, given just WHO walked by this deal.

Five of the Most Dangerous Taliban Commanders in U.S. Custody Exchanged for American Captive

- Obviously that SOB traitor wasn't a 'captive' but was there fully friendly-engaged with terrorists.
- What Obama did is illegal.
- Either Obama is exceptionally stupid OR he's doing all he can to aid the terrorists. (or both)

The American should have been left to rot with his terrorist buddies.
I hope that the military prosecutes to the fullest extent that UCMJ will allow.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

1,500 missiles were part of that deal. What do you think those would have been used for?

"5 of the most dangerous commanders..." That's the justification used by the CIA and military for holding them in eternity, after torturing them and who knows what else. But now they want to horse trade them in exchange for a POW, it turns out not so much. Seriously, I believe the military inflated the position and alleged crimes of every one of it's prisoners in order to facilitate keeping them detained without trial indefinitely.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Obviously that SOB traitor wasn't a 'captive' but was there fully friendly-engaged with terrorists.

Ah, and your proof of this? Maybe remind yourself once in a while "innocent until proven guilty."

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: BobAthome

Maybe we should lock up all the Muslim's in the country too? Like we did with the Japanese. We're at war after all, nothing drastically different.

No need for a trial, we know Islam is evil and so are its followers. So, just throw them all in a prison camp for our safety. Until the war is over, of course. Then they won't be enemies anymore.

/sarcasm

well it has been done before,,"Maybe we should lock up all the Muslim's",,,notice modern day Spain,,,
wounder why its not a Muslim country today????

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Well, you're welcome to think anything you'd like. That's the joy of a free nation. We can do that. Think different things....

It's not like the Taliban, where they shot women in the head in public, in a sports stadium as regular displays for anyone who wanted to come, take a seat and watch the executions for the day. That's not suspected...They LOVE video. They did in the 90's as much as they do now, and they taped all that before releasing it themselves. I recall watching some then, and the same videos are still online now.

It's a wonder how proud the extremes of Islamic faith can be while being so tone deaf about how offensive it is to even the moderates of their own belief system.

At least one of the men released was a sitting public official of the Taliban regime. Nothing to fudge there. Nothing to inflate with it. It is what it is and paper printed in the 90's can verify that was, in fact, the case. Ditto on much of what is claimed that one of the 5 did.

That's just one of the 5...and these were not unit commanders or even battalion commanders. They were FORCE and STRUCTURE commanders if not actual officials of the Government who we went to war with.

Releasing them DURING the war, however it may be winding down, was sheer and 100% pure lunacy and idiocy on the part of our President, as the very best interpretation...which few seem apt to give him the benefit of right now, anyway.

We will likely always think differently on this though, as is our right in a free nation.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
Ah, and your proof of this? Maybe remind yourself once in a while "innocent until proven guilty."

His own words convict him.

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

1,500 missiles were part of that deal. What do you think those would have been used for?

"5 of the most dangerous commanders..." That's the justification used by the CIA and military for holding them in eternity, after torturing them and who knows what else. But now they want to horse trade them in exchange for a POW, it turns out not so much. Seriously, I believe the military inflated the position and alleged crimes of every one of it's prisoners in order to facilitate keeping them detained without trial indefinitely.

This action has nothing to do with past presidents.........period....

It wasnt excusable then its not excusable now........

Stop trying to derail and deflect..........

With your logic because a person has gotten away with rape or murder before, then its fine for other people to do it too.........THATS the logic youre using........

And then you presume to make it political, because people are genuinely outraged by this action by our president, when we have 1 Marine who served over 100 combat missions , imprisoned falsely in Mexico, and thousands upon thousands of Vets here in the US being ignored by the administration, while he frees 5 terrorists to bring back 1 man who absconded from his post.....

This goes BEYOND POLITICS..Its an outrage......

If you are so completely blind to that, that you have to make it political, then you are clearly more of a SHILL then you constantly accuse others of being....

How can you guys defend Guantanamo? Some of you are saying they do not deserve a trial but are POWs. Think about this for a minute. We might be in Afghanistan for decades. A war with no end. Where is the official end to this war? So, you're saying that it's okay to capture foreign solders for decades and decades and decades just because we have a war with no end. If these were American POWs you'd be singing a different song.

I stand by my original post. They couldn't be that important or dangerous since we haven't put them to trial yet. What kind of a war has no end? A colonial Occupation. That's what kind of a war.

Let's start treating human beings like human beings. Now you can say they were terrorists. In that case put them to trial. It's been over a decade since 9/11. These guys don't have any pertinent information. Everything's changed since they were in the game. And if you really want to talk about terrorism. Let's count all the innocent civilians and children that the USA has killed in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN with our wars and our continuing drone strikes. Yes?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: FlyersFan

Obviously that SOB traitor wasn't a 'captive' but was there fully friendly-engaged with terrorists.

Ah, and your proof of this? Maybe remind yourself once in a while "innocent until proven guilty."

Do you honestly believe that these dogs are really innocent?

a reply to: amazing

Well, first of all. Guantanamo Bay Prison Camps were NEVER the problem here. They built those people a $750,000 soccer field for Gods sake, and they ate better than I do. Literally. That it was all a part of 'butter them up to loosen them up' is secondary to living a pretty good life if they worked our system down there. Move them into general population in any average Federal prison. Oh..Please do at this point. See if it's better for 'em.

There were sites I believe torture and mayhem and perhaps even murder DID happen in this war. They are Black Sites by name and by nature and don't even know of one which is 100% confirmed in public domain as a location yet. When we have THAT side of the war for a truth, we'll have a fair part of the ugly core we need to come to terms with and move on.

Gitmo wasn't a Black Site. It was where the ICRC and legal terms WERE allowed to a degree and was kept in presentable condition, as such.

The problem here was the same as the problem I highlight in another recent thread with ICE detainees being held for 12+ months without a hearing. Our legal system is broken. Gitmo *IS* the place to hold exceptionally dangerous people (Since McMurdo seemed to be discounted.....I tried to suggest with an Email! lol) but the system used to do it was fundmentally flawed and unAmerican.

Bush used a 'ends justify the means' approach, and sadly, so has Obama. Bush owned the creation of that House of Injustice...and Obama has insured it lived up to that description right into it's last days, IMO.

Now we'll be told how the WORST have been released anyway, so why hold the lesser ones..in terms of closing the place.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

This action has nothing to do with past presidents

Yes, it does. Obama is doing exactly what his predecessors have established. This is the president's executive privilege, 100% established by Reagan and both Bushes.

Where the hypocrisy comes into play, is that the calls for "treason" are coming from GOP fanatics like Ted Cruz. However the big difference, is that Obama is fully authorized by executive privilege to make a prisoner exchange (even bypassing Congress), while Reagan, also bypassing Congress, traded arms to a hostile country we had an arms embargo against.

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Yes, it does. Obama is doing exactly what his predecessors have established. This is the president's executive privilege, 100% established by Reagan and both Bushes.

NO it doesnt! The man and his administration are responsible for their OWN actions regardless of what anyone else has done

Its called accountability!

So if your father before you made a habit of committing illegal acts, youre justified in doing so to?

I like how you keep circumventing this......

Hes responsible for his own actions period..........and this is an atrocity, the only shill I see on this thread is you

a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Oh boo hoo, the republicans did it so can us dems blah blah blah.


Hope and Change? Nope just more of the same.

a reply to: thesaneone

Indeed... Justifying bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior for relativism fails to note one very important thing.

There is still FAR too much bad behavior going on, regardless of how entitled they've come to feel about doing it.

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Accountability? Obama is accountable for any military personnel left behind. Bergdahl was a POW. He's now free.

Like it or not, What Reagan, Bushes and Clinton have done laid the groundwork for this war and this POW exchange.

Or do you prefer the alternative, leave him behind? He's an American POW, let him rot, he's a deserter, right?