Let's say for cigaretteman and freds sake, these weren't "high profile " terrorists. Just run of the mill, average, every day terrorists. In what world are 5. Yes, FIVE of them equal to one American?
Don't answer. It's liberal anti America logic.
Military Throwing the Book at Bergdahl
- Thread starter 22*43*51
- Start date
Don't answer. It's liberal anti America logic.
They were Commanders. Do they need to "return to the battlefield"? Or, leave Qatar for that matter? Plenty of terror sympathizers in Qatar.
I don't fully disagree. But, prisoners swaps are done after a conflict.
You don't reconstitute in anyway your enemies ability to make war, while you are still at war.
I'm with you. The apparent 'ranking' of the terrorists is irrelevant to me. Bergdahl deserted his fellow soldiers, put them at risk in the search & rescue, and I'm not convinced he didn't provide secrets to the Taliban. However trivial those may have been, if it puts even one American soldier in harms way that's treasonous in my book.
Fair enough. The article that is stating that they may cause issues is from 2014. The article you quoted from in 2015 says that they haven't done any of what the 2014 article stated they COULD do (depending on who you believe). Sounds like both the US and Qatar have done a good job of monitoring these individuals. I guess until they actually do something that is considered a "terrorist activity" it looks like it was a good trade.
Maybe they were running short on cannon fodder and needed any warm body.
Wrong. If he walked off on his own accord, the no soldier left behind policy should not be of primary concern...and we should not be risking other service member lives to recover a guy who didn't display the same loyalty back to his unit and this country.
Maybe true, but when the evidence shows he left of his own free will it should give the administration even less reason to do something which it should not be doing in the first place and that is making deals with terrorists.
I don't like making hard rules when it comes to things like this but there is good reason not to negotiate with terrorists and when you are talking about a person who in all likelyhood walked of his own free will away from his post it's even less of a reason to do so.
Really looks silly to give up like 5 terrorists who are obviously going to back to what they where doing before, that is killing innocent people for a single soldier that we are just going to put on trial and likely put in prison the rest of his life.
I get not assuming he's guilt but when there is evidence of the guilt already there you don't go making deals like this to get him back. This was quite frankly a bad move by the administration.
Do we get to hold enemy combatants forever, even if they have not participated in war crimes? Do other countries have this same right, to hold American citizens they suspect have participated in war crimes, forever and without any published proof?
No. That's just plain embarrassing.
Especially in the tongue of the enemy their son is on trial for collaborating with.
Make no mistake, Article 99 is reserved for collaborators. That is why it hasn't been seen since WWII.
Yes.
It is a matter of time before it is concluded that the WH supported a collaborator and his family.
Heady days.
I don't know about praising, but there was a blessing given in an Aribic tongue and BHO applauded.
And sent 5 guys back in return to shoot young girls in the head for going to school, hang women in public for showing their faces, and blow up innocent people regularly to prove a point.
It wasn't the fact we brought this tard back, it's the fact our master negotiator in chief once again got his dog walked in a deal.
So Forever basically. This is a war that will never end. Does the same criteria hold if the Taliban capture American troops? Are you accepting of torture and undefined length of detention for them as well?
Ummm... The doesn't keep captured service personnel. The behead them or assassinate them.
Note I did not include this loser... Since he wasn't captured....
Um.....no.. Obviously you are the one who is ignorant to the situation. It was well known before Obama brought him home. Obama did this for political reasons and it backfired.
