It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 8
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: BobAthome

*SNIP*


But are the criminals then? Because in the USA we put criminals on trial and then put them in prison. We don't detain them indefinitely without trial in Cuba. That's what we do.
edit on 6/2/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6/2/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Bad behavior? No. Legal precedent? Yes. There is no law preventing Obama from making a POW exchange. THE GOPpers are only making hay over the "30 day notice" since their stance has been to be obstructionists to Obama at all costs, even when they have to pull an about face over their own past actions. They had no problem ignoring Congress in launching the war in Iraq or trading arms to Iran.

PS: I'm not justifying what Obama did, only pointing out the hypocrisy of the complaints coming from the right wing.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


So I ask again, do you believe that these men are innocent and if yes why?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackmarketeer


There is no law preventing Obama from making a POW exchange.


These are the situations which bring about new legislation and we'll see about that in the future, as they 'ol saying goes.


THE GOPpers are only making hay over the "30 day notice" since their stance has been to be obstructionists to Obama at all costs, even when they have to pull an about face over their own past actions.


The GOP represents me about as much as the DNC does at this point. They've both gone to their dark little corners of extreme like boxers in a prize fight. Well, I'm tired of being the prize being two drunk fighters. I see a MAJOR PROBLEM with releasing top level commanders of the enemy forces WHILE the war is still ONGOING.


That isn't political, that's basic intelligent strategy and common sense..or so I'd have thought before seeing what Obama just did. I'm still just in a bit of shock at who he figured made a fair trade for one guy who contemporary reports, written back when he vanished, heavily questioned the circumstances of.

There is a lot here that doesn't make sense, and "nothing to see here..move along now" isn't likely to be an effective approach for the talking heads, IMO. Nope..Not on this one. That's just one bunny's opinion though.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Wrabbit2000



PS: I'm not justifying what Obama did, only pointing out the hypocrisy of the complaints coming from the right wing.



But by pointing out the hypocrisy you are justifying what he did.

If what Reagan did upset you I'm sure what Obama did also upsets you, right?

Just trying to figure out where you stand on the situation.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thesaneone

They're foreign military POWs. Or do you believe they deserve to be locked away without trial or conviction to the end of time? As it is, we have no idea what their actual crimes are, only the sound bites from the military of what they claim they did. IF they committed acts of terrorism against the USA, then TRY them. No trial, means we can't even asses what they're accused of.

Two of them, Noori and Fazl, the ones being called the most senior of the Taliban commanders, were only accused of leading military actions against Shiite's in Afghanistan before 2001. The US took them out of Afghanistan not for what they did to us, but apparently to secure Afghanistan's cooperation in hunting Bin Laden. Their biggest crimes appear to be killing Shiites and wiping out the Northern Alliance. (hint: the USA was backing the Taliban's Northern Alliance.)

To date, not one of these men has convicted of anything or even taken to trial. That's what Bush-style "indefinite detention" has gotten you. The USA has scooped up anyone anywhere and made all sorts of allegations using 'extraordinary rendition.' Now the military is exchanging them for a POW, think this is happening without their approval? Of course it is. They've had these men in their clutches for nearly 13 years. We've run out of excuses for holding them. An illegal war has resulted in illegal prisoner detention. We've used propaganda to prosecute a "war on terror," based on lies and more lies.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Chances are high ,we will end up coming across 4 out of 5 of these guys again. It won't be because of some secret tracking tech ,it will be because of the trail of dead body's they leave behind.

This same deal was proposed before and people from both sides of the aisle were opposed to it..That was back before the last election. Notice the date on LINK.

worldnews.nbcnews.com...

It all happened so fast we didn't have time to get it approved by Congress..



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
There is no law preventing Obama from making a POW exchange. .

Obama's own people admitted they broke the law. Obama was required to notify Congress 30 days prior to the release of prisoners or “detainees” held at the detention center in Guantanamo.

Washington Post

A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.


Obama himself signed it. And then he turned around and thumbed his nose at everyone and said that he wouldn't follow rule of law, even one he had just signed, because the law infringed upon his power.

What he has done is beyond belief.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: BobAthome


*SNIP*


Go join a crusade. I wasn't aware it was our role to invade foreign countries, kill it's citizens, and 'indefinitely detain' people based on our perception as the 'world police.'
edit on 6/2/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan


Obama was required to notify Congress 30 days prior to the release of prisoners or “detainees” held at the detention center in Guantanamo.


The WH stated the deal was in the works for more than two years. Congress has had plenty of notice, if they were paying attention. The law in question was written by the House and passed in 2013 (sounds like they were attempting to thwart the deal). They did this knowing the deal was out there, even as negotiations failed time after time.

Here's the caveat - once again, the Republican presidents set the precedent: Obama signed the house bill with a 'signing stipulation.' It says he acknowledges the language in the bill, but doesn't agree to it. The same 'signing stipulation' used by Bush to bypass the law against torture. So the very same argument used by the Repubs to get their war and get their torture methods is now used to make a prisoner exchange.

Like I said, hypocrisy.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

1,500 missiles were part of that deal. What do you think those would have been used for?



Since they were AT missiles, I suppose they would be used for killing tanks?

To put a finer point on it, since Iran was at war with Iraq, I suppose they would be used for killing Iraqi tanks?




"5 of the most dangerous commanders..." That's the justification used by the CIA and military for holding them in eternity, after torturing them and who knows what else. But now they want to horse trade them in exchange for a POW, it turns out not so much. Seriously, I believe the military inflated the position and alleged crimes of every one of it's prisoners in order to facilitate keeping them detained without trial indefinitely.



You are entitled to believe anything you like - some people believe in fairies, too. That, of course, doesn't make their belief any more concrete or any more logical than YOUR belief.

They don't need "inflated crimes" to hold POW's, who are, of course, not being held for crimes. They're being held because a war is on, and may be held until the war is off, with no further justification.

I dunno... if you really wanted to know what these fellas were about, maybe you should ask an Afghan what they think of it?



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: FlyersFan


Obviously that SOB traitor wasn't a 'captive' but was there fully friendly-engaged with terrorists.


Ah, and your proof of this? Maybe remind yourself once in a while "innocent until proven guilty."


The evidence has been presented in this thread, and several others. You might try reading them before simply jerking a knee in reaction to what you perceive as political opponents...



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
The WH stated the deal was in the works for more than two years.

So what?

Congress has had plenty of notice, if they were paying attention.

Um .. thats not how it works. The White House was supposed to officially notify congress and go through them.

The law in question was written by the House and passed in 2013

AND SIGNED BY OBAMA. It's a LAW. He signed it. He's supposed to follow the law like everyone else in this country. Even if he doesn't like the laws.

Washington Post

When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.


See that? That's called HOGWASH. Obama signed it and at the same time said it was 'unconstitutional'. That's bunk. If it was unconstitutional, he shouldn't have signed it.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

The right-wing push that Obama "broke the law" in this prisoner exchange needs to be addressed:


Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel did, in fact, notify Congress of the U.S.’s intention to transfer five prisoners held at Gitmo to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bergdahl.


source

There is no law saying the executive branch has to notify Congress of such an exchange, the closest is a rider added in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) saying 'detainee transfers' require such a notice. Obama signed it since it alone funds the military, but added a signing stipulation that he only acknowledges the change added by Repubs but does not agree with it. Even so, Hagel provided notice to Congress of the exchange deal even though most ignored it. The fact is, this deal was pushed 2 years ago as well, so technically, Congress has had more than 2 years to mull it over.

Notice the language: The NDAA rider added in 2014 says only that Congress should be notified of 'detainee transfers', not that it requires any approval from them.


Many in Congress will still be opposed to the swap, but lawmakers gave up their right to stop it. A small change in the Fiscal Year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which passed last December, now makes it only a requirement that the Defense Secretary notify Congress when releasing Guantanamo prisoners. Before the change, Congressional sign off on any Guantanamo releases would have been needed.


Source



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing

How can you guys defend Guantanamo?



Very handily, it appears, since there has been no refutation of the points presented. What do you mean "how"? You just do it, and see if anyone can refute the argument in defense. It appears not.




Some of you are saying they do not deserve a trial but are POWs. Think about this for a minute. We might be in Afghanistan for decades. A war with no end. Where is the official end to this war? So, you're saying that it's okay to capture foreign solders for decades and decades and decades just because we have a war with no end. If these were American POWs you'd be singing a different song.



That is correct. Held until the war's end. Not my problem if their people want to keep it going until we are all wahabbis, and those who aren't are dead. Maybe they should have a word with their peole about that if they want loose sooner...

Nope, POWs are POWs, regardless of nationality. The applicable laws are governed by the Geneva Conventions. Being an American POW isn't special - but there are so damned few of those, now aren't there? It seems the opposition's proclivity to lop off heads may have deprived them of much in the way of bargaining power.

Now, to be fair to you, I'm not sure why we are abiding by the Geneva Conventions in this case, anyhow. They are international law from international treaties which the opposition is not signatory to, nor even pays much attention to. I'm just not sure why WE are abiding by an agreement that THEY never agreed to.




I stand by my original post. They couldn't be that important or dangerous since we haven't put them to trial yet. What kind of a war has no end? A colonial Occupation. That's what kind of a war.



You can stand by it, on it, or under it. Makes no difference in the legal standing of POWs where you stand in relation to your post. They do not rate a trial unless they are charged with war crimes, and the two who have in this case seem to have gotten a "get out of jail free" card, courtesy Obama.

WE (i.e. the US) don't try them. WE don't have jurisdiction to do so, since it's an international law. The court of jurisdiction is the ICC, I believe. What you are suggesting is on a par with having the state of Illinois prosecute a resident of Idaho for an alleged federal crime committed in Texas. See, none of those jurisdictions match or overlap. The only one in that scenario with prosecutorial jurisdiction is Federal court. In the case at hand, the only body with jurisdiction is an international court.

The US CAN'T legally prosecute them for war crimes on it's own. Not any more than Illinois can prosecute for a federal crime committed in Texas by an Idaho native. Illinois can't even prosecute for a FEDERAL crime committed in Illinois.

So instead, we hold them as POWs until they're tired of fighting.




Let's start treating human beings like human beings.



You know, I have a real problem in that area. I don't treat adults as adults if the act like children, and I don't treat human beings like human beings if they act like animals.




Now you can say they were terrorists. In that case put them to trial.



Nope. Can't. Lack jurisdiction. The only jurisdiction we have in in prosecuting a war, so they are held. As POWs. That's all we can do.




It's been over a decade since 9/11. These guys don't have any pertinent information. Everything's changed since they were in the game.



Yes, any information they had should have been ferreted out long ago. They're not being held as teachers or educators.




And if you really want to talk about terrorism. Let's count all the innocent civilians and children that the USA has killed in IRAQ and AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN with our wars and our continuing drone strikes. Yes?



No.

My my.

You seem to have left out Vietnam. And Korea. And Germany. And Japan. And Italy. Perhaps a more important question, from my standpoint, is why are you limiting it ONLY to collateral damages from the US? Why does everyone else get a pass on it? If we are to include EVERYONE, well, that body count could go pretty high. Then again, I'm not big on body counts. Never have been. You apparently ARE.

I find body counts to be somewhat barbaric - which is saying quite a lot, given my lack of personal civilization.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
This is all BS by Obama, he want's to stop the war in Afgahnistan and Iraq, but he doesnt want to leave POWs behind. I say any American POW stupid enough to get caught by the Taliban should stay there. We dont need him.

Bergdahl is a traitor and should be left behind as a POW to teach other traitors a lesson.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:01 PM
link   
The mere fact these Taliban were sent to Guantanamo is all the proof we need they are guilty. We dont need to put them on trial, we just need to hang them. If the military says they are guilty then that should be good enough for us. They would never lie.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:25 PM
link   
I can't get over the whole for 30 years 'WE DON"T NEGIOATE WITH TERRORISTS' !


Pretty clear we do.

Oh here is another kicker.

For the last 6 years of not wanting to call the WAR on terror a war ?

They 'exchanged prisoners' like the do in WAR.

From the news reports that guy wasn't worth getting back.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Kids, pull up a chair or three. GrandPa beez has a story to tell you.


Way back when there used to be an America, wars were fought to be won. And then invaded Afghanistan. Then we got Obama as president. And his foreign policy took over.

We just left Iraq. And we just left Afghanistan. You see, before we would fight until we won. Now we fight according to budgets and fiscal years.

Obama let all the prisoners in Gitmo go free. That was so we could close down Gitmo. He said it was a bad place. I suppose it was. Don't know any real nice prisons.

He (Obama) released 5 of the really bad men so we could get back a man who hated America's war and hated America. I suppose that if you are American, you are free to hate America, but he sure picked a funny profession to show it.

Now you all go on, finish your supper. . .run along now.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer

Two of them, Noori and Fazl, the ones being called the most senior of the Taliban commanders, were only accused of leading military actions against Shiite's in Afghanistan before 2001. The US took them out of Afghanistan not for what they did to us, but apparently to secure Afghanistan's cooperation in hunting Bin Laden. Their biggest crimes appear to be killing Shiites and wiping out the Northern Alliance. (hint: the USA was backing the Taliban's Northern Alliance.)



Oh.

I see.

It's ok if the innocent folks they kill are just Shi'ites, eh?

No biggie if that's their "biggest crime", I guess.

Now they can go back to business as usual, and finish off those troublesome innocent Shi'ites.

About that "wiping out the Northern Alliance" thing... they seem to have did it wrong. It was, in fact, the Northern Alliance who rolled up Kabul...

... and the US had a mere 200 boots on the ground at the time.

And ANOTHER thing... if you think the Northern Alliance was Taliban (i.e. "hint: the USA was backing the Taliban's Northern Alliance."), you might need some political re-education concerning Afghanistan. If you can't even get that right, how much of the rest of what you have to say can be trusted?

Here's another hint: if these two gents were killing off Shi'ites, AND trying to roll up the Northern Alliance, can you guess which political faction the were a part of? Bonus points if you said "the Taliban, whom the US was at war against at the time."

Why hell, that might even be how they ended up as prisoners of WAR!




To date, not one of these men has convicted of anything or even taken to trial.



And why WOULD they be? The US was holding them as POWs, not criminals. The criminality of their actions falls within the purview of the international criminal court, not in US jurisdiction. To be fair, Obama SHOULD have released them to the ICC rather than back into the wild and giving them a "get out of jail free" card, but what's done is done, however boneheaded that might be.

I've got to wonder why you aren't howling about THAT... you know, being all gung ho to convict criminals and whatnot...




That's what Bush-style "indefinite detention" has gotten you.



Bush ain't in office any more (thank God). Now, it's "Obama-style indefinite detention"... well, unless you're a commander of terrorists, I guess. That detention seems to have been truncated...




The USA has scooped up anyone anywhere and made all sorts of allegations using 'extraordinary rendition.'



Not clear on what "extraordinary rendition" is, either, I see. Hint: it doesn't involve making allegations.




Now the military is exchanging them for a POW, think this is happening without their approval? Of course it is. They've had these men in their clutches for nearly 13 years. We've run out of excuses for holding them.



Don't need an excuse. The Geneva Conventions pretty well cover it already.




An illegal war has resulted in illegal prisoner detention. We've used propaganda to prosecute a "war on terror," based on lies and more lies.



Jesus H. Truman Christ! Everyone seems to be a legal scholar these days! Teach me. What is it that you think makes this war "illegal"?

I'm waiting. I gotta hear this!



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join