US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Llamalandia]

Well I certainly thank you for your service sir.

I don't. Being enlisted doesn't grant one the liberty of disregarding the life of another soldier. It's reprehensible. Regardless of the man's choices, he's an American soldier and should be freed. Whatever "justice" must be handed out to him should be done by Americans. Not gwaca gets no respect from me for those words up there - especially for being a soldier himself.

NO but a deserter (if that is the case here) is no longer truly a soldier. Of course more over freedom of speech gives all americans at least the right to say anything they want about anyone, whether military or not strictly speaking.

Also what the hell does does that mean exactly? Are you referring to bergdahl or to the poster?

[Ashmoria]

Okay, well, what are the consequences? Does the law list penalties for not informing Congress?

IIRC, what constitutes as an impeachable offence depends on what the majority of the House of Representatives decides at that point.

So, yes, he theoretically could be impeached over this. Not that it'll happen of course.

it would if this had happened before the end of primary season. the tea party would be demanding impeachment as a test of being a true conservative under threat of being primaried.

[Distruzio]

I don't. Being enlisted doesn't grant one the liberty of disregarding the life of another soldier. It's reprehensible. Regardless of the man's choices, he's an American soldier and should be freed. Whatever "justice" must be handed out to him should be done by Americans. Not gwaca gets no respect from me for those words up there - especially for being a soldier himself.

Also what the hell does does that mean exactly? Are you referring to bergdahl or to the poster?

The poster. Not gwaca was their name.

[Distruzio]

IIRC, what constitutes as an impeachable offence depends on what the majority of the House of Representatives decides at that point.

So, yes, he theoretically could be impeached over this. Not that it'll happen of course.

it would if this had happened before the end of primary season. the tea party would be demanding impeachment as a test of being a true conservative under threat of being primaried.

Well... we don't want the terrorists to win, do we?

Somehow, that made sense 12 years ago. Doesn't it make sense now?

*scratches head*

[Llamalandia]

Also what the hell does does that mean exactly? Are you referring to bergdahl or to the poster?

The poster. Not gwaca was their name.

Oh, my bad, but dude that's kinda not cool then. I mean, unless you somehow know they are trolling or something?

But yeah, I misread that, I though you were saying Not!, gotch ya as in Not! I fooled you.

[Llamalandia]

it would if this had happened before the end of primary season. the tea party would be demanding impeachment as a test of being a true conservative under threat of being primaried.

Well... we don't want the terrorists to win, do we?

Somehow, that made sense 12 years ago. Doesn't it make sense now?

*scratches head*

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

[Imperializt Russia]

According to Harvard professor and CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin.



http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/02/pro-obama-harvard-professor-president-clearly-broke-the-law-with-gitmo-prisoner-transfer/

Pretty surprising accusation, and coming from a Harvard law professor it seems credible. Especially since the man is (was?) pro-Obama.

I think this will just be swept under the rug and ignored, since the Prez is too big to fail, but what say you, NSG?

what do you think could be done?

maybe now the republicans will drop Benghazi and take up the new cause of impeaching the president over the rescue of sgt bergdahl.

They don't even need to change too many letters.

[Ashmoria]

I can't believe this deserter got a Rose Garden Ceremony. Lest we forget, he deserted, and peopled died looking for him. Sure, we are all glad he's back. But don't being him to the Rose Garden.

when do you think he was in the rose garden?

[Llamalandia]

what do you think could be done?

maybe now the republicans will drop Benghazi and take up the new cause of impeaching the president over the rescue of sgt bergdahl.

They don't even need to change too many letters.

No, but more ammo never hurts, it's not either or we can go after both these issues simultaneously. Also as I 've been saying there does need to be an investigation of the bergdahl incident because apparently there hasn't been one yet, and he disappeared under very suspicious conditions.

[Ashmoria]

Just imagine if this was Mitt Romney, I'm sure almost everyone here would be ripping him apart.

Seriously, how loyal are you people to the President?

why would I ever diss a president who got a pow released?

[Condunum]

Or, back here in reality land, it might show them that we aren't just a bunch of fat white pigs who don't give two shits for the lives of others.

There's no way to convince them of that. They don't care about reason, only power and fundametal islamic bullshit which just hurts Islam and everyone else.

I thought I made it clear you're on my ignore list. Please refrain from replying to me.

[Distruzio]

The poster. Not gwaca was their name.

Oh, my bad, but dude that's kinda not cool then. I mean, unless you somehow know they are trolling or something?

Nah. I meant it sincerely. A soldier gets no respect from me for having been, or being, a soldier.

[Distruzio]

Well... we don't want the terrorists to win, do we?

Somehow, that made sense 12 years ago. Doesn't it make sense now?

*scratches head*

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

How?

[Farnhamia]

There's no way to convince them of that. They don't care about reason, only power and fundametal islamic bullshit which just hurts Islam and everyone else.

I thought I made it clear you're on my ignore list. Please refrain from replying to me.

You putting someone on your ignore list doesn't mean they can't reply to you or shouldn't. Let it go. You're ignoring him, remember?

[Ashmoria]

what do you think could be done?

maybe now the republicans will drop Benghazi and take up the new cause of impeaching the president over the rescue of sgt bergdahl.

They don't even need to change too many letters.

and at least there is a credible story of how the president broke the law.

and like the impeachment of bill Clinton it would be a disaster for the republians

win/win

[Kelinfort]

Well... we don't want the terrorists to win, do we?

Somehow, that made sense 12 years ago. Doesn't it make sense now?

*scratches head*

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

No...no we don't. That's like saying negotiating with the enemy automatically means we lose.

[Llamalandia]

There's no way to convince them of that. They don't care about reason, only power and fundametal islamic bullshit which just hurts Islam and everyone else.

I thought I made it clear you're on my ignore list. Please refrain from replying to me.

I fail to see why whether or not I'm on your "ignore list" has any bearing on me. I mean, don't read what I have to say if you don't want to but I don't think you can tell me not to say it. Plus, I'm not going to try and keep track of who is or when people are ignoring me or not it gets too tedious.

[The New Lowlands]

Well... we don't want the terrorists to win, do we?

Somehow, that made sense 12 years ago. Doesn't it make sense now?

*scratches head*

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

[Llamalandia]

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

No...no we don't. That's like saying negotiating with the enemy automatically means we lose.

No not when negotiating with a legitimate enemy, that is a state actor. Like say Japan or Germany in WW2. Or a better example Vietnam, or Korea.

[Valaran]

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

Perhaps as it makes them out to be a legitimate body (like a nation), when in fact they are violent fanatics? It also implies that the West has to negotiate, as they can't help their own soldiers otherwise. These are things i disagree with, but i can see where he is coming from on this one, though I still disagree with that point of view.

[The New Lowlands]

No...no we don't. That's like saying negotiating with the enemy automatically means we lose.

No not when negotiating with a legitimate enemy, that is a state actor. Like say Japan or Germany in WW2. Or a better example Vietnam, or Korea.

Why are terrorists an exception?

[Kelinfort]

Just imagine if this was Mitt Romney, I'm sure almost everyone here would be ripping him apart.

Seriously, how loyal are you people to the President?

No, a POW at home is good. This is what I hate. A POW is returning home, and I hope more will, and yet, people are using this to attack the president. Attack the policies, not a goddamn freedom exchange in a nation we're leaving in a year.

[Kelinfort]

No...no we don't. That's like saying negotiating with the enemy automatically means we lose.

No not when negotiating with a legitimate enemy, that is a state actor. Like say Japan or Germany in WW2. Or a better example Vietnam, or Korea.

What makes an enemy legitimate?

[Llamalandia]

No it still does make sense, but by negotiating with terrorists we let them win be default.

Why does that maxim work for nobody except terrorists?

Because, terrorists fundamentally don't play by the rules of civilization. Unlike armies, they often don't wear uniforms, they target neutral and non combatant civilians, they use any means necessary to achieve their goals. In other words they unlike actual nations don't fight fair.

[Limborg]

(CNN) -- Together with the announcement that U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was released after nearly five years of captivity came the news that five detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being transferred to Qatar.

A plane carrying the detainees left the U.S. Navy base in Guantanamo, Cuba, after the announcement that Bergdahl, who was captured by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2009, had been exchanged for the five men.

Saturday's transfer was brokered through the Qatari government, a senior Defense official said. According to senior administration officials, Qatar agreed to take custody of the detainees and provide assurances they would not pose a threat to the United States, including a one-year ban from travel out of Qatar.

Two senior administration officials confirmed the names of the five released detainees as Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Nori, Abdul Haq Wasiq and Mohammad Nabi Omari.

They were mostly mid- to high-level officials in the Taliban regime and had been detained early in the war in Afghanistan, because of their positions within the Taliban, not because of ties to al Qaeda.

So here's the thing we traded 5 of our prisoners from Gitmo for this one guy. Now I'm for all for not leaving a man behind in a war zone, but basically this meant the US essentially made a deal with terrorists, which something we say we never do it's part of policy in fact.

So my question is this, was this guy worth the cost to rescue. Personally, I think he wasn't, given that we had to negotiate with terrorists. I believe it was mostly done by Obama for political reasons to make our withdrawal from Afghanistan look "cleaner".

So what say you nation staters was it the right decision to do the deal, or should we have found another to get him back?

ps. much respect to all US troops, veterans and allies.

Edit: link added

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/bergda ... le_sidebar

you should know how many goverments say they would never negotiate with terrorists, and yet at the same time they do.