It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:52 PM

originally posted by: links234
We should just close Guantanamo. It's a damn travesty that we've had it open this long anyway.

An illegal, bullpucky prison camp holding people that we're not even sure are guilty of any crime anyway.

Forgive me, but "illegal"?

That's one of my pet peeves, the misuse of the term "illegal", so it might help me here to explain yourself, and tell me just how Guantanamo is "illegal".

I'm all for closing it, and just X-ing out the remaining POW's, sending them for a long walk on a short rope, but unfortunately that WOULD be illegal - actual illegal, under the Geneva Conventions, not just emotional "illegal" based upon no known law...

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 09:58 PM

originally posted by: ausername
The strategy should be clear now, the Obama administration wants to end the war in Afghanistan, and to appease the Taliban, which will certainly return to power in that region. Basically undoing the whole war, and having our forces leave in disgrace, all who fought there fought for nothing in the end.

This captive was a willing participant in a plot to free Taliban detainees, it took years, and in the end Susan Rice claims they didn't have 30 days, it was that urgent to make this swap.

Just like that, soon we are right back where we were the day after 9/11.

The price for appeasment and weakness will eventually be high.


Yes indeed - ask Neville Chamberlain how that turns out...

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:02 PM
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.


posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:14 PM

originally posted by: amazing
Can I just say that they couldn't have been that dangerous or important, since we haven't even bothered to bring them to trial yet. We just had them sitting there in Cuba for no reason.



There seem to be way too many people here unclear on the concept of "Prisoner of WAR".

It's a war. It's not a civil disturbance, it's not a parking ticket. It's a WAR.

POW's are not classified as "criminals", they are captured to take them out of the fight, not to punish them. As an example, our pilots captured by the Nazis in WWII were not "criminals", they were "POWs". POWs were not, and are not, charged with "crimes". They are just taken out of the fight until the fighting is over.

Now, to be fair, two of these guys just released WERE charged with war crimes under international law - but by the UN, not by the US. The UN, however, is not the one who captured them, the US was.

If the UN want's to prosecute them on the charges now, I guess they'll just have to go find them and arrest them on their own.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:27 PM
a reply to: nenothtu

You seem keen on the Geneva Conventions...did you skip the part where it mentioned the illegality of torture? Or is that ok because they're 'POW's'?

If they can be classified as prisoners of war, which I don't think they can be, then what do we do with them once we pull out of Afghanistan? Where will our war be? Where will we send them?

The entire war on terrorism is a sham. I'm not particularly happy with the medals I 'earned' during that time. We've managed to kill more civilians than terrorists. We haven't won hearts and minds. We've failed.

We, as a nation, are better than just locking people up without a good reason. A good reason that's determined through trial by jury rather than just because our government says so.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:27 PM

originally posted by: Milleresque

No trial, nor move to a trial, equates itself roughly to "well, we don't really have a case at all, but we gotta keep some of ya'll imprisoned up in this place or else well, it's going to look like we don't have a good reason to keep it opened any longer." A joke, a farce, and a thumb in the eye to all of those American forefathers you feel like dragging up out of their tombs every other minute.

See above for clarification on the difference between "POWs" and "criminals". One goes to trial, one does not. The Founding Fathers understood that important distinction, as POWs were kept by both sides in the Revolution, but not charged with "crimes". See "Prison Ship Jersey" for clarification.

That being said, if these folk weren't inclined towards radicalisation and violent exhibitions of said radicalisation, then you can bet your bottom dollar that after the horrific internment and treatment they've faced for the past...decade...they might very well be looking at terrorism as a pretty decent catharsis.

What rock did you just crawl out from under? Have you not done your due diligence to find out just who these gents are, and WHY they were picked up in the first place? I think not, or you wouldn't make a comment like "if these folks weren't inclined to radicalization before" - they WERE "radicals"... LEADERS of radicals.

Glad they got that young bloke home, by the way

Not me. Should have left his flunky ass to rot in his newly chosen home.

Now, my wife was glad for his family that he was brought home before... but then she researched the matter, found out what his dear old dad has been doing and saying, and is no longer happy for them. Her take, as a Muslim, is that the boy was "liberated" from one nest of wahabbis and dropped into another nest of wahabbis... but this new nest of radicals is MUCH closer to home here.

Nope, as a Muslim she ain't happy about that development at all. She's worried that it's gonna give Islam a brand new black eye that it really doesn't need at this point.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 10:42 PM

originally posted by: TritonTaranis
People really should think before acting and jumping to conclusion

Personally I think it's pretty "obvious" that there must have been something else going on here... Something really really important must stand to be gained from all this otherwise it wouldn't have reached the very top and the policy would have not been over turned, congress being bye passed would also indicate that it was information that couldn't not be disclosed for security purposes

Otherwise none of this make an ounce of sense

Logical... Common sense etc

Here are just a couple of facts. You may use logic to stitch them together and connect the dots as you like.

1) Obama administration supports radical Muslims including al Qaeda affiliates, in a takover of Egypt.

2) Obama administration supports radical Muslims including al Qaeda affiliates, in a takover of Libya.

3) Obama administration opposes the retaking of Egypt by the Egyptian people.

4) Obama administration supports radical Muslims including al Qaeda affiliates, in a tekeover bid in Syria.

5) Obama administration blows the cover of a CIA Station Chief in Kabul when he's running several covert ops to take down radical Muslims in Afghanistan (and perhaps somewhat further afield), thereby supporting the radical Muslims, including al Qaeda affiliates.

5) Obama administration makes a hero out of a deserter, who deserted TO the Taliban, going so far as to PROMOTE him, TWICE, rather than mete out the punishment prescribed by the UCMJ for desertion, or indeed even holding a Courts Martial to determine the course of action for desertion. "Incidental" to this action (yeah, right, "incidental"), the Obama administration releases FIVE COMMANDERS of the Taliban back into the wild, thereby supporting radical Muslims.

Now, use some logic to connect some dots there...

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:16 PM

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: nenothtu

You seem keen on the Geneva Conventions...did you skip the part where it mentioned the illegality of torture? Or is that ok because they're 'POW's'?

I'm fairly well versed in the Geneva Conventions, since that was the law I lived under rather than US law for a good long while. It pays to know the law you live under. I didn't skip the part about "torture". I'm well aware of it. You, however, did not say that torture was illegal, you said that GUANTANAMO was illegal. Justify that assertion, please.

I'm also sure that you ought to be aware that the definition of "torture" is a bit nebulous. Is waterboarding torture? The general consensus these days seems to be that it is. I have BEEN waterboarded. Have you? There has been no real consensus on whether or not torture has occurred at Gitmo, just allegations and accusations, mostly by lawyers (who have no business in a war, anyhow), and some of what I've read as "torture" there seems to be pretty flimsy and reaching.

Your mileage apparently varies.

Be that as it may, the people who are accused of torture should be brought up on war crimes charges... but that in no way affects the legality of the camp itself, only the actions of some f the people there.

If they can be classified as prisoners of war, which I don't think they can be, then what do we do with them once we pull out of Afghanistan? Where will our war be? Where will we send them?

I'm not quite sure why you don't think they can be classified as POWs. When we leave Afghanistan, we parole them and send them home, as is usually done with POWs. "Home" can deal with them from there.

The entire war on terrorism is a sham. I'm not particularly happy with the medals I 'earned' during that time. We've managed to kill more civilians than terrorists. We haven't won hearts and minds. We've failed.

I don't give a damn about hearts and minds, but I can agree that medals are pretty useless things. I have (or at least had) some for years, awarded by foreign nations, and I've not seen them in years. I didn't go so far as to pawn them or throw them in a river, but I DID toss them in the bottom of a box where they will probably never see daylight again, if they even still exist and didn't get carried out in one trash run or another.

We probably HAVE "failed", but not because of any medals or hearts or minds. We've failed because not only have we not attained the objective, we have been made to actively work against our own interests now. Folks should not go to wars if they don't intend to fight like they mean it.

We, as a nation, are better than just locking people up without a good reason. A good reason that's determined through trial by jury rather than just because our government says so.

While true in a way ( I don't believe in trial by jury except in civil or criminal cases), and we ARE better than just locking up people for no good reason, we HAD good reason to lock these fellas up as POWs. Just have a look at their jackets.

posted on Jun, 1 2014 @ 11:22 PM
I read his father's tweets and Bowe's email. And Obama a Muslim, that he is supposedly not, and releasing 5 of the worst Muslim terrorists, it may be indicating that he is CIA. But, the father, he acts like he is a Muslim and Bowe's email strongly suggest it. I say it doesn't look good for the father, Bowe, or Obama. Why else would Obama bypass Congress after 5 years trying to release Bowe? JMO. Sad in any case that our world and other countries have come to this. I got pressing matters to attend too.

edit on 1-6-2014 by Diabolical because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:38 AM
ATS confuses me from time to time...
When there is a thread to bash Obama you can read "he did not close Guantanamo yet... blablabla all lies"
Now he lets 5 prisoners go, everybody is screaming.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:59 AM
The following is a mostly unedited analysis organized by very general headings with limited verifiable research being done by myself. I make no conclusions, either in support of or in condemnation of this decision, only analyze all information and draw obvious conclusions.


- Assertion that he "joined" the Taliban isn't reliable given that he was paraded around as a prisoner. Very plausible (but not quite probable) that he walked off his post.

- Improbably (but possibly) "turned" by Taliban with the intention of having him spy after a successful exchange. The reasoning being that the Taliban is a regional organization with little need to know of operations in the US aside from their own sphere of influence. Even upon release they would understand he cannot grant them any relevant information they would not be able to ascertain themselves.

Obama Administration

- Recently announced the draw down of troops through the end of 2014, and eventual complete withdrawal by 2016. It's plausible that this could have contributed to the decision to do the exchange now. See Taliban for why.

- Would assess that the likelihood of released individuals harming American interests is low; if they were either tortured or treated humanely (or, more likely, both) their morale would be affected.

- Probably ascertained the value of operatives and assumed worst possible scenarios with them rejoining the organization. Also likely has multiple means of eliminating them (drones, assassins, military, local police) if there is a hint of impropriety.

- Plausibly gained extensive information about Taliban organization and future plots against American interests from individuals.

- Possibly recruited released individuals as agents for the US government. Less likely due to apparent plans to leave Afghanistan, and Taliban's status as regional organization limiting importance of expanding the intelligence network there.


- Will have to expend resources to monitor the released prisoners for extended period of time. May also kill or sever ties with them in lieu of expending additional resources.

- After news about 2014 withdrawal, would have reassessed value of prisoners of war. If the US is leaving, the Taliban would consider it a victory. This would also mean they have no reason to keep looking after a prisoner.

- Little motivation to now "capture American soldiers"; additional expenditure of resources would outweigh potential benefit of getting more live soldiers for exchange. Conversely, the loyalties of any returned prisoners would be in question.

- Have acquired more influence in Qatar, possibly allowing them to reopen their office there. This is unlikely in the near term (next couple of years) given US still has substantially more influence, but chances of expanding diplomatically increase substantially over the medium and long term (next five to ten years).


- Was obviously not informed as their indecisiveness would have prevented a potential political victory on the part of the President. Congress likely would have forced the postponement of this operation until after he left office.

- The precedent for going to war without Congressional approval, but requiring a withdrawal of troops within 60 days, is likely to be mirrored here with prisoner exchange. Given the finite nature of prisoner exchange, however, Congress does have reason to worry about their power being eroded.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:04 AM
Iam just happy for the six families whom welcome home their sons soon.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 03:03 AM
Has anyone thought that this might be the first step by OB to shut down Gimo? If he can clear the place out one way or another he can then say it is obsolete now.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:54 AM
a reply to: links234

Perhaps you don't understand war at all. We didn't lock up "muslims" for no good reason, we locked up people who were actively fighting against us in a war.

Also, perhaps you don't understand Afghanistan at all... however, those "people" who did go to gitmo were well out of the hair of the Muslims who they were endangering as well. Perhaps you never heard how the Taliban made life a living hell for ordinary muslims in Afghanistan? I promise you they did... and the afghani people were none too happy about it either.

We #ed up that war pretty quickly because some general decided he wanted medals etc and changed how we fought the war... thereby making all that could have been done impossible. But that does not make the war itself any less a very valid war. Iraq was not, but Afghanistan was very valid.

As far as locking up all muslims your a fool if you truly believe that's all gitmo was about. Two of those we decided to release are wanted by the UN on charges of war crimes.... THAT is the type of people we released, and are holding there...

if you want to see them walk free then I daresay something is very wrong with your thinking.

PS. I am an American Muslim, don't use me for your political propaganda.
edit on 2-6-2014 by OpinionatedB because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:02 AM

originally posted by: TritonTaranis

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
No matter which way you choose to look at it , it will only make sense when you start to understand the Gladio A/B operation and understand that tptb are not American . Yea the Americans are just puppets in how the shots are called .Think Turkey ,Bulgaria ,An the Zionist and you might be on the right trail .

The US needs it's friends and it's friends also have a say at the table

This American is not America anymore BS is just conspiracy... If America lead from the front without listening it would lose key allies in the west it has to bend a bit to make the alliance fair and work

These new "friends" of the United States are the enemies of every American... they might be friends of this administration, but they are rabid dogs to the rest of us.

If these are the friends of this administration, I want to see this administration impeached; they no longer have American interests at heart.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 08:41 AM
Not to worry,
The army implanted these guys with indestructible micro chip transmitters.
Obama just wants some more target practice.
We have some armed UAV's which pick up on the location of these
transmitters and if the target is hit and killed, the transmitter
sends out body temperature readings ans gps coordinates.

When the body gets buried, we bomb the funeral procession.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: buster2010

Weren't you just bashing another OP for bringing up that this was strange? Saying he was an islamaphobe or something?

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:26 AM
According to" target="_blank" class="postlink">this article, the average Afghani is not happy about these five guys being released.

"They will definitely go back to fight, if health-wise they are able to go," said a top official at Afghanistan's spy agency, who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of the topic.

Here is the word from the Taliban about this prisoner swap:

The Taliban denied the prisoners would return to battle but said the swap should not be regarded as a gesture of good will or a step towards the revival of peace talks between Islamist insurgents and the Afghan government. "This is purely a negotiation between the Taliban and the Americans. ... It won't help the peace process in any way, because we don't believe in the peace process," said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid.

I, for one, cannot believe we are releasing these guys and just blindly trusting that they will keep their noses clean and abstain from terrorism from now on.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:04 AM
Blah blah "we do not negotiate with terrorists..."

Just remember, Ronald Reagan traded 1,500 missiles to Iran in exchange for American captives.

Ronald Reagan Gave Iran 1,500 Missiles for Hostages. Obama Trades Five Guys? GOP Heads Explode.

The arms-for-hostages proposal divided the administration. Longtime policy adversaries Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and Secretary of State George Shultz opposed the deal, but Reagan, McFarlane and CIA director William Casey supported it. With the backing of the president, the plan progressed. By the time the sales were discovered, more than 1,500 missiles had been shipped to Iran. Three hostages had been released, only to be replaced with three more, in what Secretary of State George Shultz called "a hostage bazaar."

We Should Have Traded All of Guantanamo and Sold Iran Weapons to Get Sgt. Bergdahl Home Sooner

From the same people who brought you, "They hate our freedoms," "Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat," and "Liberals hate America," come the latest gems from Congressmen Mike Rogers and Ted Cruz. Rogers recently commented on the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl by stating,"If you negotiate here, you've sent a message to every al Qaeda group in the world...That is dangerous." Not to be outdone, patriotic Senator and climate change expert Ted Cruz articulated his foreign policy expertise by stating, "The idea that we're now making trades, what does that do for every single soldier stationed abroad?"

As for the precedent of trading something of worth to terrorists for the release of a hostage, President Reagan already set that precedent in 1985. As summarized by the Cold War Museum, Reagan gave a lot more to terrorists than Obama in negotiating to bring home Americans...

As usual, more right-wing rhetoric and hypocrisy.

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:10 AM
a reply to: Blackmarketeer

Difference is Reagan didn't make the exchange for a deserter.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in