Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama explained why he's leaving troops there --- 'to train Afghan security forces, support counterterrorism missions and protect the progress made in political freedom over there.'
You can reject those reasons or consider them a subterfuge. Maybe it's as simple as he doesn't want the ultimate failure of his Afghan policies to be noticeable until after the 2016 election and he's out of office.
Oh, I understand why he's leaving nearly 10,000 troops there. What I don't understand is why he released the extremely dangerous (Pentagon and U.S. Intelligence assessment, according to TIME magazine) "Obama 5" when he insists on keeping nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan for more than 2 more years.
Obama is unnecessarily endangering those 10,000 troops.
OK, say we finally do put them on trial after 12 years of detention.
If any of them are found guilty, the next question becomes "Why did you wait so long, since you had the evidence?'
If any of them cannot be found guilty, the next question becomes "Why did you hold innocent people for so long?"
The answer to both questions is the same -
We did it because we could, and for no other reason.
They should have been tried, by either the US or the UN, whichever is appropriate, within some reasonable time frame. That was the only way the US could have come out of this with our self-image as good people even somewhat intact. Well, that ship has sailed. We just have to straighten up the mess as best we can, having lost another opportunity to prove up on our own hype as a defender of freedom and justice.
It is completely inappropriate and extremely dangerous for Obama to release those 5 when he plans on keeping nearly 10,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan for more than 2 more years.
They were major players in Taliban. Better to hold them than to release them
Yep.
Quote:
...the White House overrode an existing interagency process charged with debating the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners and dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on Top Secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men, sources familiar with the debate tell TIME
Or do you think it is OK to knowingly abandon an American soldier?
Obama plans on leaving nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan for another 2 years after he ends the war. Why? His release of the "Obama 5" intentionally endangers those 10,000 troops.
The soldier tells about the Taliban or whoever had him didn't trust him...what the heck was he expecting?
You can be a deserter but that means you end in no new land since the other side will not think you are who you are.
It doesn't change the main thing that he is a deserter is everything is true what all the other soldier have been saying so far and let him get his day in court.
My view on this is that he will not stand trial and the Holder and Obama will make sure he will be diagnosed as incompetent and moved to the side...case closed as everything has been case closed since Holder was hold in contempt and nothing happened and he has to be in charge and Obama will cry racism against himself.
Oh, I understand why he's leaving nearly 10,000 troops there. What I don't understand is why he released the extremely dangerous (Pentagon and U.S. Intelligence assessment, according to TIME magazine) "Obama 5" when he insists on keeping nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan for more than 2 more years.
Obama is unnecessarily endangering those 10,000 troops.
Then don't release detainees who've been involved in killing U.S. Troops. Pretty simple, really.
You can stop your BS on having to release Gitmo detainees, too.
Quote:
Whether the Geneva Convention’s provisions on releasing prisoners applies to the war in Afghanistan "is an open question," Janda said. Among other things, "the United States did not declare war, and we have always maintained that the captured terrorists are not prisoners of war under international law and so therefore we are not obligated to treat them according to the Geneva Convention."
There’s another reason to be doubtful that such a closure would be forced on the United States any time soon. Article 119 of the Geneva Convention says, "Prisoners of war against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment.
These 5 dangerous Taliban POWs don't seem to have been all that dangerous.
Quote:
The five men, who are now in Qatar and barred from traveling for a year, do not really live up to their monster billing, however.
Khairullah Said Wali Khairkhwa, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Mullah Noorullah Noori, Mullah Mohammad Fazl and Mohammad Nabi Omari had been in Guantanamo Bay since the early days of the war.
Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analyst Network spent weeks researching the five men’s biographies in 2013, and came up with a much more nuanced picture.
“It is mystifying to know where the Guantanamo Bay authorities got the idea that Khairkhwa was known, in their words, as a ‘hardliner in terms of Taliban philosophy.’ During the Emirate, he was considered one of the more moderate Taliban in leadership circles,” she writes.
Noori and Fazl had negotiated surrender of Taliban fighters to General Abdul Rashid Dostum in November, 2001, based on what they believed was a promise of safe passage home. Instead, hundreds of Taliban fighters were massacred, and Fazl and Noori were arrested.
Wasiq was taken in a sting operation — according to Clark, he was cooperating with the US at the time and was trying to arrange reintegration with the new government. Instead, he was arrested and sent to Guantanamo.
The Guantanamo Docket, a project of The New York Times based on the WikiLeaks documents, also yields some interesting information.
Omari, for example, was a minor Taliban figure who said he was selling used cars when the war started. He also claimed that he was given $500 and a cell phone by a CIA officer named Mark and told to go find Mullah Omar. When he failed to deliver, he was arrested.
Not a very impressive background for what the media are calling the “worst of the worst.”
The Geneva convention does not trump U.S. laws. I'm not going to do it again because it's been posted many times. U.S. laws says prisoners will be released at the end of the conflict. (surrender or not)
You don't fool anyone by now taking up international law over U.S. law. You would quickly argue the opposite if it didn't fit your argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
