• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US soldier freed from captivity in Afghanistan

you all had 13 years to put them on trial. neither Bush nor Obama could be bothered to do so.

holding people without trial is unAmerican. Guantanamo should be closed.

They are war criminals, they can be held to the day they die of natural causes. And when they are found to be responsible for the deaths of more Americans I can just see the excuses flying….
 
Based on what little I have read from you, I doubt you ever were…

Bush voter in 2000; got very angry at him about the patriot act, and that he wasn't conservative enough on fiscal issues.

of course then his economy went straight to **** partially because trickle down is a farce, and then i had to navigate our ****ty health care system. started doing some research about my political opinions, and realized that i was wrong about a lot of stuff. by the time i got here, i was a left independent.

now i'm reading posts advocating holding prisoners for life without trial and lambasting me for being happy that a POW has been released. i've seen a lot of really partisan stuff, but this is just unbelievable.
 
sorry. should have tried them. holding prisoners without trial is not American.

Holding enemy combatants without trial during a war isn't out of the ordinary. I mean, they could all be summarily executed for not wearing a uniform if you prefer.
 
Holding enemy combatants without trial during a war isn't out of the ordinary. I mean, they could all be summarily executed for not wearing a uniform if you prefer.

If I didn't oppose the death penalty, maybe I would. I agree with Helix, though, that holding these men this long without a trial is "un-American."

I don't understand either why we returned five of theirs for one of ours.
 
Holding enemy combatants without trial during a war isn't out of the ordinary. I mean, they could all be summarily executed for not wearing a uniform if you prefer.

no, i prefer to try them or let them go.
 
If I didn't oppose the death penalty, maybe I would. I agree with Helix, though, that holding these men this long without a trial is "un-American."

I don't understand either why we returned five of theirs for one of ours.

It's not "Un-American", its War. Too many people have a really backwards view of what war actually is and how it is waged. These combatants are not some guys dragged off an American street for selling dope. They aren't entitled to trial in an American court. They are subject to the Geneva Convention. The Geneva convention is not kind to non-uniformed combatants, which these monster's are. They really are not entitled to anything but a bullet in the heart.

The reason is because the Geneva Convention was created in order to protect civilians in a time of war. To differentiate civilians from enemy combatants the GC incentivised wearing uniforms by offering special protections to uniformed combatants. By not wearing uniforms the Taliban made civilians targets, which of course is part of the battle plan of the Taliban. I don't care if they spend the rest of their lives hanging from their toes.

Claiming that releasing them is the only solution because of a bogus interpretation of what is and isn't "American" ignores the entire History of warfare and undermines the purpose of the GC which was designed to protect civilian populations from animals like the Taliban. These men SHOULD suffer for not following the GC. All your way accomplishes is giving the Taliban more justification for ignoring the GC.

Your attempt at high mindedness has supported releasing these dogs back into Afghanistan in a years time.. Please read:

1. Mohammad Fazl

One of the first detainees captured in Afghanistan to be transferred to Guantanamo — in January 2002 — Fazl is the Taliban’s former deputy minister of defense. He was one of the Taliban’s founding members, rising through the ranks to become Taliban Chief of Army Staff when it ruled Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch accuses Fazl of presiding over the mass killings of Afghanistan’s Shi’ite Muslims in 2000 and 2001.

2. Mohammad Nabi

The former chief of Taliban security in Qalat, the capital of Afghanistan’s southern Zabul Province, Nabi was a latecomer to the Taliban, joining only in the late 1990s. After taking a few years away, he rejoined in 2000 to work as a radio operator for the Taliban’s communications office. He has claimed during U.S. military interrogations to have been working for the C.I.A. in the search for Taliban Chief Mullah Omar and al-Qaeda operatives. Those confessions may earn him difficulties upon his release.

3. Abdul Haq Wasiq

Also accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture during the Taliban’s time in power, the Taliban’s former deputy minister of intelligence is considered to have been at one time one of Mullah Omar’s closest confidants, with a direct line to the elusive leader.

4. Mullah Norullah Nori

Nori was the senior Taliban commander in the strategic northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif when U.S. forces arrived in late 2001. A former governor of two northern provinces, he is considered to be one of the most high-ranking Taliban officials ever to be held in Guantanamo. He is also accused of being involved in the massacre of thousands Shi’ite Muslims in 2000 and 2001, when the Taliban attempted to purge Afghanistan of what it deemed a deviant form of Islam.

5. Khairullah Khairkhwa

The former Taliban governor of Heart Province, which borders Iran, Khairkhwa has also served as a military commander and a minister of the interior. He was close to Mullah Omar as well as current Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who briefly worked with the Taliban administration in the 1990s. According to the Associated Press, Khairkhwa’s U.S.-based lawyers have argued in court filings that by the time of his capture in 2002 he had already distanced himself from the Taliban.


It is amazing how much death and destruction people can willful put in motion for a false vision of what war is, or should be. The inocent civilians of Afghanistan cower at your good intention.
 
It's not "Un-American", its War. Too many people have a really backwards view of what war actually is and how it is waged. These combatants are not some guys dragged off an American street for selling dope. They aren't entitled to trial in an American court. They are subject to the Geneva Convention. The Geneva convention is not kind to non-uniformed combatants, which these monster's are. They really are not entitled to anything but a bullet in the heart.

The reason is because the Geneva Convention was created in order to protect civilians in a time of war. To differentiate civilians from enemy combatants the GC incentivised wearing uniforms by offering special protections to uniformed combatants. By not wearing uniforms the Taliban made civilians targets, which of course is part of the battle plan of the Taliban. I don't care if they spend the rest of their lives hanging from their toes.

Claiming that releasing them is the only solution because of a bogus interpretation of what is and isn't "American" ignores the entire History of warfare and undermines the purpose of the GC which was designed to protect civilian populations from animals like the Taliban. These men SHOULD suffer for not following the GC. All your way accomplishes is giving the Taliban more justification for ignoring the GC.

Your attempt at high mindedness has supported releasing these dogs back into Afghanistan in a years time.. Please read:

1. Mohammad Fazl

One of the first detainees captured in Afghanistan to be transferred to Guantanamo — in January 2002 — Fazl is the Taliban’s former deputy minister of defense. He was one of the Taliban’s founding members, rising through the ranks to become Taliban Chief of Army Staff when it ruled Afghanistan. Human Rights Watch accuses Fazl of presiding over the mass killings of Afghanistan’s Shi’ite Muslims in 2000 and 2001.

2. Mohammad Nabi

The former chief of Taliban security in Qalat, the capital of Afghanistan’s southern Zabul Province, Nabi was a latecomer to the Taliban, joining only in the late 1990s. After taking a few years away, he rejoined in 2000 to work as a radio operator for the Taliban’s communications office. He has claimed during U.S. military interrogations to have been working for the C.I.A. in the search for Taliban Chief Mullah Omar and al-Qaeda operatives. Those confessions may earn him difficulties upon his release.

3. Abdul Haq Wasiq

Also accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture during the Taliban’s time in power, the Taliban’s former deputy minister of intelligence is considered to have been at one time one of Mullah Omar’s closest confidants, with a direct line to the elusive leader.

4. Mullah Norullah Nori

Nori was the senior Taliban commander in the strategic northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif when U.S. forces arrived in late 2001. A former governor of two northern provinces, he is considered to be one of the most high-ranking Taliban officials ever to be held in Guantanamo. He is also accused of being involved in the massacre of thousands Shi’ite Muslims in 2000 and 2001, when the Taliban attempted to purge Afghanistan of what it deemed a deviant form of Islam.

5. Khairullah Khairkhwa

The former Taliban governor of Heart Province, which borders Iran, Khairkhwa has also served as a military commander and a minister of the interior. He was close to Mullah Omar as well as current Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who briefly worked with the Taliban administration in the 1990s. According to the Associated Press, Khairkhwa’s U.S.-based lawyers have argued in court filings that by the time of his capture in 2002 he had already distanced himself from the Taliban.


It is amazing how much death and destruction people can willful put in motion for a false vision of what war is, or should be. The Afghani people cower at your good intention.

So it is your opinion that anyone not in uniform that is arbitrarily deemed as a "combatant", can be either killed on the spot or detained forever without trial? All of these with no other evidence other than "someone said so"?

If someone is so obviously a terrorist, it should be no problem convicting them in some kind of court. This becomes even more important considering this "war" we're fighting is ambiguously defined and pertains to every country in the world. And I KNOW you're not idiotic enough to seriously have just claimed that the way we treat and handle our "terrorist" prisoners is in line with the geneva convention.
 
So it is your opinion that anyone not in uniform that is arbitrarily deemed as a "combatant", can be either killed on the spot or detained forever without trial? All of these with no other evidence other than "someone said so"?

If someone is so obviously a terrorist, it should be no problem convicting them in some kind of court. This becomes even more important considering this "war" we're fighting is ambiguously defined and pertains to every country in the world.

I would like to see due process. And if legal precedents need to be established, these too.
 
no, i prefer to try them or let them go.

It doesn't matter what YOU prefer. Jesus wept, how narcissistic of you. These monsters will be let loose of the people of Afghanistan (primarily the WOMEN of Afghanistan who can not avoid their brutality) because YOU demand more rights for these monsters than they are entitled to under international law.

Why can the US make no inroads into Islamic nations? Because we do stupid **** like this to people every couple of years. Why the **** would any moderate Muslim in the Middle East side with the US when our idiotic bleeding hearts are so willing to deliver them back to their killers on some misguided and disastrous view of justice?
 
So it is your opinion that anyone not in uniform that is arbitrarily deemed as a "combatant", can be either killed on the spot or detained forever without trial? All of these with no other evidence other than "someone said so"?

If someone is so obviously a terrorist, it should be no problem convicting them in some kind of court. This becomes even more important considering this "war" we're fighting is ambiguously defined and pertains to every country in the world. And I KNOW you're not idiotic enough to seriously have just claimed that the way we treat and handle our "terrorist" prisoners is in line with the geneva convention.

That is the way things are in war, yes. This is how you are supposed to enforce uniforms and minimize targeting of civilians. By the rules of the GC, the people responsible for the detention of innocents are the Taliban who made the civilians targets by not wearing uniforms.
 
It doesn't matter what YOU prefer. Jesus wept, how narcissistic of you. These monsters will be let loose of the people of Afghanistan (primarily the WOMEN of Afghanistan who can not avoid their brutality) because YOU demand more rights for these monsters than they are entitled to under international law.

we hold plenty of monsters in prison here in the states. and we try every one of them, sometimes multiple times. indefinite detention without trial is not American.

Why can the US make no inroads into Islamic nations? Because we do stupid **** like this to people every couple of years. Why the **** would any moderate Muslim in the Middle East side with the US when our idiotic bleeding hearts are so willing to deliver them back to their killers on some misguided and disastrous view of justice?

so holding five guys indefinitely without trial is going to win us friends in the Middle East? i doubt that.

try them or let them go.
 
We agree on something! Lets stick to the facts. Its a dangerous political game accusing someone before knowing the entire situation. What we know for sure is the President negotiated with terrorists after his state dept said they dont do that, and the US has a long standing policy of trying to avoid that. We should make every effort to rescue captured soldiers, but the Taliban is not a recognized Geneva convention state, thus standard POW exchanges do not apply.

And you know what? I just read Guderian's Panzer Leader, and he pointed out that the German High Command said the same thing to the Wehrmacht before the commencement of Operation Barbarossa, that the Soviet Union was not a signatory to [whatever agreement there was at the time - can't remember offhand what he said it was], and so they didn't have to treat Soviet prisoners like they did those from France or England. And we all know how that went for those who were taken prisoner on the Eastern Front.

We should not use the fact that the Taliban aren't a signatory to the Geneva convention as an excuse to refuse to do prisoner exchanges anyway...because the reason we do prisoner exchanges is not about whether one is a signatory to a piece of paper. It's all about bringing our troops home, no matter what.
 
That is the way things are in war, yes. This is how you are supposed to enforce uniforms and minimize targeting of civilians. By the rules of the GC, the people responsible for the detention of innocents are the Taliban who made the civilians targets by not wearing uniforms.

So if the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, the United States military can and should kill or permanently detain anyone arbitrarily because of it? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? What would you think of say, Russia, arbitrarily labeling US citizens as terrorists then holding them indefinitely?

Fair game right? Those civilians shouldn't have been wearing civilian clothes.
 
That is the way things are in war, yes. This is how you are supposed to enforce uniforms and minimize targeting of civilians. By the rules of the GC, the people responsible for the detention of innocents are the Taliban who made the civilians targets by not wearing uniforms.

So you think holding people without trial for the rest of their lives is going to win the hearts and minds of Muslim countries?
 
So if the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, the United States military can and should kill or permanently detain anyone arbitrarily because of it? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? What would you think of say, Russia, arbitrarily labeling US citizens as terrorists then holding them indefinitely?

Fair game right? Those civilians shouldn't have been wearing civilian clothes.
Under the Geneva convention that is exactly the way it goes.
 
Good, we only need people that see the greatness in America.

You can criticize the actions of a country and still see greatness. The ones that REALLY hurt America are those that think America can do NO wrong or ALWAYS do wrong. both extremes are harmful to America.
 
Good, we only need people that see the greatness in America.

i don't doubt that most on both sides want to make America a better place. however, all of the hyperpartisan nonsense gets us no closer to that goal.
 
we hold plenty of monsters in prison here in the states. and we try every one of them, sometimes multiple times. indefinite detention without trial is not American.

War is not a civilian endeavor. You don't help your case by confusing the two. Enemy combatants are subject to international law and treaties and US military law, not US civil law.

so holding five guys indefinitely without trial is going to win us friends in the Middle East? i doubt that.

The people who want those monsters back in Afghanistan are not, and have never been, friends of the US.

try them or let them go.

Repeating the statement doesn't make it any less oblivious.
 
War is not a civilian endeavor. You don't help your case by confusing the two. Enemy combatants are subject to international law and treaties and US military law, not US civil law.



The people who want those monsters back in Afghanistan are not, and have never been, friends of the US.



Repeating the statement doesn't make it any less oblivious.

you support holding enemy combatants for life without trial. i do not, because that does not jibe with my vision of America. we're never going to agree on this. probably should just agree to move on.
 
You can criticize the actions of a country and still see greatness. The ones that REALLY hurt America are those that think America can do NO wrong or ALWAYS do wrong. both extremes are harmful to America.

We do a lot of wrong, and this hostage/deserter/POW exchange is one of them.
 
Nobody is convicting him. We have the same opinion of him as his platoon mates. The people who watched their friends die trying to find him. The people who watched him ransomed for what amounts to 5 enemy generals, two of whom are UN recognized war criminals, all of whom cost even more American lives to capture.

So no, we aren't convicting him. The deal stinks to high heaven, though, and many men have died for Bergdahl's stupidity. That is not in question.

Are you agreeing that he has not been convicted of a crime? If so, is he presently guilty, or is he innocent until proven guilty of a crime?

And even if he is guilty, is it or is it not our national duty to bring every soldier home?
 
So if the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, the United States military can and should kill or permanently detain anyone arbitrarily because of it? That's kind of ridiculous isn't it? What would you think of say, Russia, arbitrarily labeling US citizens as terrorists then holding them indefinitely?

"Should" and "arbitrarily" are arguments I never made. Can you point to me where 5 of the top Taliban officials wound up in GMTO arbitrarily?

Fair game right? Those civilians shouldn't have been wearing civilian clothes.

I never said the civilians were fair game. The military has a much harder fight when the enemy dresses as civilians, and many more American soldiers and civilians die from the confusion brought about by the actions of the Taliban.

In the end, it appears that the US screwed everyone over but the Taliban.

Afghan government angered by Bergdahl, Taliban prisoners swap - Stripes
 
Back
Top Bottom