2016 Postmortem

hue

(4,949 posts) Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:19 PM Jun 2014

Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon, No Matter What

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/06/02/3443719/the-case-for-negotiating-for-bergdahls-release/

Less than forty-eight hours after securing the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo, Republicans in Congress and conservatives in media began attacking the deal. In doing so, they are refusing to accept the reality of the situation on the ground in Afghanistan and the way wars end.

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

Sgt. Bergdahl was a U.S. soldier captured in an active zone of combat. The circumstances of his capture make him a Prisoner of War, not a hostage as some have erroneously claimed. In traditional conflicts, both sides would release their prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities. This is not a traditional conflict, however, and the Obama administration rightly had no expectation that Sgt. Bergdahl would have been released when U.S. forces redeployed out of Afghanistan. As that date neared, any leverage the United States possessed would have been severely undermined.

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon, No Matter What (Original Post) hue Jun 2014 OP

Yup--every week and month we have fewer and fewer resources on hand TwilightGardener Jun 2014 #1

I think that is a pretty simplistic analysis of international law as applied to the circumstances onenote Jun 2014 #2

That may be. But the American family of the released prisoner truedelphi Jun 2014 #8

Which is why we don't leave foreign policy to individual families. former9thward Jun 2014 #9

And once again maindawg Jun 2014 #3

Our President does the right thing.Pres. O adapts to our ever changing world faster than R-sloths. Sunlei Jun 2014 #5

if Rs were told early they would have ruined 'the deal & the Tals would have killed Sgt. Bergdahl Sunlei Jun 2014 #4

They May Have Been Told erpowers Jun 2014 #10

I wonder if my RW high school buddy and former Airborne Ranger is attacking Obama as usual or Dustlawyer Jun 2014 #6

I keep saying the Republicans claim it ain't over 'till ALL of the enemy is DEAD.... Spitfire of ATJ Jun 2014 #7

Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2014 #11

TwilightGardener

(46,416 posts)

1. Yup--every week and month we have fewer and fewer resources on hand

Reply to hue (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 03:30 PM

Jun 2014

in Afghanistan to secure his release. They had to move when they did, or lose leverage and possibly be too late to save him, either from a safety standpoint (they kill him outright) or from a health standpoint (malnutrition, suicidal thoughts, etc.)

onenote

(42,684 posts)

2. I think that is a pretty simplistic analysis of international law as applied to the circumstances

Reply to hue (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:54 PM

Jun 2014

If this was a war between states and there was a cessation of hostilities in which both sides laid down their arms and renounced fighting, it would be would one thing. But this isn't really any of those things, so it is misleading to treat it as such. Whether there is continued legal justification for detaining any of the five (or others at Guantanamo) -- and whether there was ever any justification for doing so -- is not as simple a question as the article in the OP suggests. Even under International Law, continued detention is permitted if the detainees are suspected of crimes against civilians.

The unlimited detention of detainees at Guantanamo without charges and trials is wrong imo. But that is my view as a matter of moral objections more than a judgment on the admittedly more complex legal questions.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

8. That may be. But the American family of the released prisoner

Reply to onenote (Reply #2)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:57 PM

Jun 2014

Might not care one way or the other about the fine points of law.

former9thward

(31,965 posts)

9. Which is why we don't leave foreign policy to individual families.

Reply to truedelphi (Reply #8)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 08:03 PM

Jun 2014

maindawg

(1,151 posts)

3. And once again

Reply to hue (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 05:57 PM

Jun 2014

Our president does the right thing. Ofcourse the raging ninnies of the radical right will scream for Impeachment. Theres nothing like a good old fashioned impeachment circus to rally the Dems to the polls.

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)

5. Our President does the right thing.Pres. O adapts to our ever changing world faster than R-sloths.

Reply to maindawg (Reply #3)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:08 PM

Jun 2014

Sunlei

(22,651 posts)

4. if Rs were told early they would have ruined 'the deal & the Tals would have killed Sgt. Bergdahl

Reply to hue (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:03 PM

Jun 2014

In public, in some horrible way.

Republicans hate our President and "The People" so very much, all republicans care about is votes to get in office...they would have let Sgt. Bergdahl rot there or die. Then they would have used the youtube death videos as republican campaign material.

IMO

WELCOME HOME SGT. BERGDAHL

erpowers

(9,350 posts)

10. They May Have Been Told

Reply to Sunlei (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 3, 2014, 10:01 AM

Jun 2014

The Obama Administration is claiming that Republicans were consulted about the Berghdal release deal. It is possible some Republicans are trying to use this issue to anger their supporters. It is possible they realize that even if some mainstream news outlets point out that the Obama Administration actually told Republicans about the release there is still FOX News and other right wing radio and internet outlets so that the false story can be kept alive.

Dustlawyer

(10,495 posts)

6. I wonder if my RW high school buddy and former Airborne Ranger is attacking Obama as usual or

Reply to hue (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:19 PM

Jun 2014

keeping silent.
Looks like he is observing radio silence on this mission! I wish that the mostly Republican armed forces would pay attention to what the party that they love so much has been doing. Lying us into a war in Iraq, cutting security at embassy's, cutting Veteran's benefits, and cutting money to the V.A. At the same time, it is the Democrats who are trying to look out for them by opposing these draconian tactics. My guess is they will keep silent and wait in ambush for the next opportunity to slam Libruls and/or Obama.

Spitfire of ATJ

(32,723 posts)

7. I keep saying the Republicans claim it ain't over 'till ALL of the enemy is DEAD....

Reply to hue (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:29 PM

Jun 2014

Response to hue (Original post)

Name removed Message auto-removed

Reply to this discussion