Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 04, 2014, 08:58:54 AM
-
Pentagon, Intelligence officials used Top Secret intelligence to prevent previous release of Taliban Five, officials tell TIME
AFGHANISTAN-TALIBAN-UNREST-US-QATAR
More
Video Shows American Soldier’s Release From Taliban Captivity
Bowe Bergdahl: Terrorist Hostage or POW?
How the Bergdahl Story Went from Victory to Controversy for Obama
To pull off the prisoner swap of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the White House overrode an existing interagency process charged with debating the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners and dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on Top Secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men, sources familiar with the debate tell TIME.
More
Bowe Bergdahl: Terrorist Hostage or POW?
Secret Service Plans to Get Really, Really Good at the Internet
'Slender Man' Cited in Stabbing Is a Ghoul for the Internet Age NBC News
Men Charged With Toppling Ancient Rock Formation Avoid Jail Time Huffington Post
Comet Outlives Predictions Weather.com
National Security Council officials at the White House decline to describe the work of the ad hoc process they established to trade the prisoners, or to detail the measures they have taken to limit the threat the Taliban officials may pose. They say consensus on the plan was reached by the top officials of Obama’s national security team, including representatives from the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence community and Joint Chiefs of Staff. “These releases were worked extensively through deputies and principals,” says National Security Counsel Deputy for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes. “There was not a dissent on moving forward with this plan.”
Popular Among Subscribers
Laverne Cox Transgender Time Magazine Cover
The Transgender Tipping Point
Subscribe
Having It All Without Having Children
The Man Who Guards The Planet
But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.
Obama has broad authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to order the prisoner exchange as commander in chief of America’s armed forces. The lengths to which he went to bring it about show how determined he was to resolve the lingering issue of America’s only prisoner of war in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration first considered whether the five men were safe to release at the very start of his term as president. In January 2009, Obama ordered a Justice Department-led review of all 240 Guantanamo Bay detainees. The five Taliban leaders were found to be high risks to return to the fight against Americans, confirming Bush administration assessments of the threat they posed, according to officials familiar with the group’s findings. “These five are clearly bad dudes,” says a second source familiar with the debate over their release, adding that the detainees are likely to return to the fight.
Thereafter, the administration established a regular process for handling the release of detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Releases were considered and approved through the “Guantanamo Transfer Working Group” which comprised officials from the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Over time, 82 detainees have been released by the Obama administration, according to the latest report to Congress by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The question of the release of the five Taliban leaders was a recurrent subject of debate in the administration and was a key element of the behind the scenes effort by the State Department and the White House to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban. The transfer of the five was discussed as a possible confidence-building measure to pave the way for a deal. The debates over their release were contentious, officials familiar with them say.
Those opposing release had the benefit of secret and top secret intelligence showing that the five men were a continuing threat, officials familiar with the debate tell TIME. But in the push from the White House and the State Department to clear the men, opponents to release found themselves under constant pressure to prove that the five were dangerous. “It was a heavy burden to show they were bad,” says the second source familiar with the debate.
Opponents of release say absent a peace deal with the Taliban, the release makes no sense. “When our military is engaged in combat operations you’re always going to err on the side of caution,” says the first official familiar with the debate. “Just conceptually, how much sense does it make to release your enemy when you’re still at war with him?”
During previous debates, opponents were aided by a law passed by Congress during Obama’s first term that required the administration to certify to a set of onerous conditions that the administration said were nearly impossible to meet. That changed thanks to the efforts of Sen. Carl Levin, who managed to weaken certification standards in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to allow the Secretary of Defense to release Guantanamo prisoners when it is in the national security interests of the United States.
That change made it easier for the President to exert his commander in chief powers in effecting the prisoner swap. So far the White House has said little about the measures they negotiated to assure the men would not be a threat upon release. Administration officials have said the men will remain in Qatar under a one-year travel ban. Under existing procedure, released detainees are monitored by the CIA station chief in the country where they reside. On Tuesday, Obama said he had confidence the U.S. would “be in a position to go after them if in fact they are engaging in activities that threaten our defense.”
But Republicans now question whether the president has gone too far, even under the new law, which still requires 30 days’ notice ahead of a release from Guantanamo Bay. Administration officials told members of the Senate armed services and intelligence committees “repeatedly they weren’t going to [release the five men] and they would be notified and consulted if they did,” says a GOP Senate aide. The committees were only notified after the fact.
At least one member of the Senate did have advance notice. “We were notified of the plan to secure Sergeant Bergdahl’s release on Friday,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, however, told TIME that there was no advance notice given to the leader of the House. Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein was not informed in advance, either, and on Tuesday Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken called her to apologize for the oversight, she told reporters.
The White House said Tuesday the President had exercised his constitutional authority out of a sense of urgency for Bergdahl’s safety. “Delaying the transfer in order to provide the 30-day notice would interfere with the Executive’s performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the President: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement released to the press. “Because such interference would significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President, and could even raise constitutional concerns, we believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances,” Hayden said.
Jack Goldsmith, a Bush administration veteran of the battles between the executive branch and Congress over Commander-in-Chief powers in the war against terrorists, says Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”
Even many of those who opposed the release in the past accept the president has the power in conflicts to effect a prisoner swap. “We have done prisoner swaps in the past,” says the first official familiar with the debate over the release. But, the official added, “That’s been in international armed conflict where you have a state with which you can negotiate and you can say this guy will not go back to the fight.”
–with additional reporting by Zeke Miller and Alex Rogers/Washington
http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house
-
But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.
Obama has broad authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to order the prisoner exchange as commander in chief of America’s armed forces. The lengths to which he went to bring it about show how determined he was to resolve the lingering issue of America’s only prisoner of war in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration first considered whether the five men were safe to release at the very start of his term as president. In January 2009, Obama ordered a Justice Department-led review of all 240 Guantanamo Bay detainees. The five Taliban leaders were found to be high risks to return to the fight against Americans, confirming Bush administration assessments of the threat they posed, according to officials familiar with the group’s findings. “These five are clearly bad dudes,” says a second source familiar with the debate over their release, adding that the detainees are likely to return to the fight.
Thereafter, the administration established a regular process for handling the release of detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Releases were considered and approved through the “Guantanamo Transfer Working Group” which comprised officials from the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Over time, 82 detainees have been released by the Obama administration, according to the latest report to Congress by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The question of the release of the five Taliban leaders was a recurrent subject of debate in the administration and was a key element of the behind the scenes effort by the State Department and the White House to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban. The transfer of the five was discussed as a possible confidence-building measure to pave the way for a deal. The debates over their release were contentious, officials familiar with them say.
Those opposing release had the benefit of secret and top secret intelligence showing that the five men were a continuing threat, officials familiar with the debate tell TIME. But in the push from the White House and the State Department to clear the men, opponents to release found themselves under constant pressure to prove that the five were dangerous. “It was a heavy burden to show they were bad,” says the second source familiar with the debate.
Opponents of release say absent a peace deal with the Taliban, the release makes no sense. “When our military is engaged in combat operations you’re always going to err on the side of caution,” says the first official familiar with the debate. “Just conceptually, how much sense does it make to release your enemy when you’re still at war with him?”
During previous debates, opponents were aided by a law passed by Congress during Obama’s first term that required the administration to certify to a set of onerous conditions that the administration said were nearly impossible to meet. That changed thanks to the efforts of Sen. Carl Levin, who managed to weaken certification standards in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to allow the Secretary of Defense to release Guantanamo prisoners when it is in the national security interests of the United States.
That change made it easier for the President to exert his commander in chief powers in effecting the prisoner swap. So far the White House has said little about the measures they negotiated to assure the men would not be a threat upon release. Administration officials have said the men will remain in Qatar under a one-year travel ban. Under existing procedure, released detainees are monitored by the CIA station chief in the country where they reside. On Tuesday, Obama said he had confidence the U.S. would “be in a position to go after them if in fact they are engaging in activities that threaten our defense.”
But Republicans now question whether the president has gone too far, even under the new law, which still requires 30 days’ notice ahead of a release from Guantanamo Bay. Administration officials told members of the Senate armed services and intelligence committees “repeatedly they weren’t going to [release the five men] and they would be notified and consulted if they did,” says a GOP Senate aide. The committees were only notified after the fact.
At least one member of the Senate did have advance notice. “We were notified of the plan to secure Sergeant Bergdahl’s release on Friday,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, however, told TIME that there was no advance notice given to the leader of the House. Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein was not informed in advance, either, and on Tuesday Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken called her to apologize for the oversight, she told reporters.
The White House said Tuesday the President had exercised his constitutional authority out of a sense of urgency for Bergdahl’s safety. “Delaying the transfer in order to provide the 30-day notice would interfere with the Executive’s performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the President: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement released to the press. “Because such interference would significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President, and could even raise constitutional concerns, we believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances,” Hayden said.
Jack Goldsmith, a Bush administration veteran of the battles between the executive branch and Congress over Commander-in-Chief powers in the war against terrorists, says Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”
Even many of those who opposed the release in the past accept the president has the power in conflicts to effect a prisoner swap. “We have done prisoner swaps in the past,” says the first official familiar with the debate over the release. But, the official added, “That’s been in international armed conflict where you have a state with which you can negotiate and you can say this guy will not go back to the fight.”
–with additional reporting by Zeke Miller and Alex Rogers/Washington
-
Daily Mail ^ | 6-5-2014 | David Martosko, U.s. Political Editor
Posted on June 5, 2014 at 8:23:20 PM EDT by sheikdetailfeather
The Obama administration passed up multiple opportunities to rescue Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl because the president was dead-set on finding a reason to begin emptying Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a Pentagon official.
'JSOC went to the White House with several specific rescue-op scenarios,' the official with knowledge of interagency negotiations underway since at least November 2013 told MailOnline, referring to the Joint Special Operations Command. 'But no one ever got traction.'
'What we learned along the way was that the president wanted a diplomatic scenario that would establish a precedent for repatriating detainees from Gitmo,' he said.
The official said a State Department liaison described the lay of the land to him in February, shortly after the Taliban sent the U.S. government a month-old video of Bergdahl in January, looking sickly and haggard, in an effort to create a sense of urgency about his health and effect a quick prisoner trade.
'He basically told me that no matter what JSOC put on the table, it was never going to fly because the president isn't going to leave office with Gitmo intact, and this was the best opportunity to see that through.'
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
-
Pentagon, Intelligence officials used Top Secret intelligence to prevent previous release of Taliban Five, officials tell TIME
AFGHANISTAN-TALIBAN-UNREST-US-QATAR
More
Video Shows American Soldier’s Release From Taliban Captivity
Bowe Bergdahl: Terrorist Hostage or POW?
How the Bergdahl Story Went from Victory to Controversy for Obama
To pull off the prisoner swap of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the White House overrode an existing interagency process charged with debating the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners and dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on Top Secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men, sources familiar with the debate tell TIME.
More
Bowe Bergdahl: Terrorist Hostage or POW?
Secret Service Plans to Get Really, Really Good at the Internet
'Slender Man' Cited in Stabbing Is a Ghoul for the Internet Age NBC News
Men Charged With Toppling Ancient Rock Formation Avoid Jail Time Huffington Post
Comet Outlives Predictions Weather.com
National Security Council officials at the White House decline to describe the work of the ad hoc process they established to trade the prisoners, or to detail the measures they have taken to limit the threat the Taliban officials may pose. They say consensus on the plan was reached by the top officials of Obama’s national security team, including representatives from the Pentagon, State Department, intelligence community and Joint Chiefs of Staff. “These releases were worked extensively through deputies and principals,” says National Security Counsel Deputy for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes. “There was not a dissent on moving forward with this plan.”
Popular Among Subscribers
Laverne Cox Transgender Time Magazine Cover
The Transgender Tipping Point
Subscribe
Having It All Without Having Children
The Man Who Guards The Planet
But officials in the Pentagon and intelligence communities had successfully fought off release of the five men in the past, officials tell TIME. “This was out of the norm,” says one official familiar with the debate over the dangers of releasing the five Taliban officials. “There was never the conversation.” Obama’s move was an ultimate victory for those at the White House and the State Department who had previously argued the military should “suck it up and salute,” says the official familiar with the debate.
Obama has broad authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to order the prisoner exchange as commander in chief of America’s armed forces. The lengths to which he went to bring it about show how determined he was to resolve the lingering issue of America’s only prisoner of war in Afghanistan.
The Obama administration first considered whether the five men were safe to release at the very start of his term as president. In January 2009, Obama ordered a Justice Department-led review of all 240 Guantanamo Bay detainees. The five Taliban leaders were found to be high risks to return to the fight against Americans, confirming Bush administration assessments of the threat they posed, according to officials familiar with the group’s findings. “These five are clearly bad dudes,” says a second source familiar with the debate over their release, adding that the detainees are likely to return to the fight.
Thereafter, the administration established a regular process for handling the release of detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay. Releases were considered and approved through the “Guantanamo Transfer Working Group” which comprised officials from the State Department, the Pentagon, the intelligence community, the Department of Homeland Security and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Over time, 82 detainees have been released by the Obama administration, according to the latest report to Congress by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
The question of the release of the five Taliban leaders was a recurrent subject of debate in the administration and was a key element of the behind the scenes effort by the State Department and the White House to negotiate a peace deal with the Taliban. The transfer of the five was discussed as a possible confidence-building measure to pave the way for a deal. The debates over their release were contentious, officials familiar with them say.
Those opposing release had the benefit of secret and top secret intelligence showing that the five men were a continuing threat, officials familiar with the debate tell TIME. But in the push from the White House and the State Department to clear the men, opponents to release found themselves under constant pressure to prove that the five were dangerous. “It was a heavy burden to show they were bad,” says the second source familiar with the debate.
Opponents of release say absent a peace deal with the Taliban, the release makes no sense. “When our military is engaged in combat operations you’re always going to err on the side of caution,” says the first official familiar with the debate. “Just conceptually, how much sense does it make to release your enemy when you’re still at war with him?”
During previous debates, opponents were aided by a law passed by Congress during Obama’s first term that required the administration to certify to a set of onerous conditions that the administration said were nearly impossible to meet. That changed thanks to the efforts of Sen. Carl Levin, who managed to weaken certification standards in the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to allow the Secretary of Defense to release Guantanamo prisoners when it is in the national security interests of the United States.
That change made it easier for the President to exert his commander in chief powers in effecting the prisoner swap. So far the White House has said little about the measures they negotiated to assure the men would not be a threat upon release. Administration officials have said the men will remain in Qatar under a one-year travel ban. Under existing procedure, released detainees are monitored by the CIA station chief in the country where they reside. On Tuesday, Obama said he had confidence the U.S. would “be in a position to go after them if in fact they are engaging in activities that threaten our defense.”
But Republicans now question whether the president has gone too far, even under the new law, which still requires 30 days’ notice ahead of a release from Guantanamo Bay. Administration officials told members of the Senate armed services and intelligence committees “repeatedly they weren’t going to [release the five men] and they would be notified and consulted if they did,” says a GOP Senate aide. The committees were only notified after the fact.
At least one member of the Senate did have advance notice. “We were notified of the plan to secure Sergeant Bergdahl’s release on Friday,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. A spokesman for Republican House Speaker John Boehner, however, told TIME that there was no advance notice given to the leader of the House. Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein was not informed in advance, either, and on Tuesday Deputy National Security Advisor Tony Blinken called her to apologize for the oversight, she told reporters.
The White House said Tuesday the President had exercised his constitutional authority out of a sense of urgency for Bergdahl’s safety. “Delaying the transfer in order to provide the 30-day notice would interfere with the Executive’s performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the President: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement released to the press. “Because such interference would significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President, and could even raise constitutional concerns, we believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances,” Hayden said.
Jack Goldsmith, a Bush administration veteran of the battles between the executive branch and Congress over Commander-in-Chief powers in the war against terrorists, says Obama may have been acting legally. On the website Lawfare Tuesday he wrote, “If the statute impinged on an exclusive presidential power, the president properly disregarded it and did not violate it.”
Even many of those who opposed the release in the past accept the president has the power in conflicts to effect a prisoner swap. “We have done prisoner swaps in the past,” says the first official familiar with the debate over the release. But, the official added, “That’s been in international armed conflict where you have a state with which you can negotiate and you can say this guy will not go back to the fight.”
–with additional reporting by Zeke Miller and Alex Rogers/Washington
http://time.com/2818827/taliban-bergdahl-pow-release-objections-white-house
So did Bush...that's what Commander in Chief means.... ::)
-
So did Bush...that's what Commander in Chief means.... ::)
Still doesnt make the decision the right one. How far have we fallen when people start to excuse Obama's actions because that idiot Bush did the same thing.
-
Still doesnt make the decision the right one. How far have we fallen when people start to excuse Obama's actions because that idiot Bush did the same thing.
We would have actually had to release them in about 6 months anyway. They are not allowed to leave the country and they are under US watch. The Taliban are pretty much contained at this point....a shell of what they were
-
We would have actually had to release them in about 6 months anyway. They are not allowed to leave the country and they are under US watch. The Taliban are pretty much contained at this point....a shell of what they were
We didnt "have to" release anyone at anytime. They are under the watch of an islamic country and that fact shouldn't provide anyone with intelligence a fraction of security. Pakistan provided Bin Laden safe heaven for years and evidence indicates the government of Pakistan was well aware he was there and might even be complicit in providing Bin Laden safe haven.
Are the Taliban a shell? Where have you gathered this information?
-
Are the Taliban a shell? Where have you gathered this information?
He gets it from his idol. The same idol who claimed that Al Qaeda was on the run. Yeah, they are running. Running over many governments and claiming more land under their control.
-
We didnt "have to" release anyone at anytime. They are under the watch of an islamic country and that fact shouldn't provide anyone with intelligence a fraction of security. Pakistan provided Bin Laden safe heaven for years and evidence indicates the government of Pakistan was well aware he was there and might even be complicit in providing Bin Laden safe haven.
Are the Taliban a shell? Where have you gathered this information?
Under the traditional laws of war, we do....otherwise we look even worse than we already do. Fact is that the US paid 5k a head to bounty hunters to fill up Gitmo. The majority of them are either low level or innocent people....goatherders, farmers, shopkeepers, etc. The CIA has even acknowleged that.
Yes, we are currently holding people indefinitely without trial, without conviction, that have been tortured into false confessions......sorry but that shit has to end because that's North Korean behavior.
-
Under the traditional laws of war, we do....otherwise we look even worse than we already do. Fact is that the US paid 5k a head to bounty hunters to fill up Gitmo. The majority of them are either low level or innocent people....goatherders, farmers, shopkeepers, etc. The CIA has even acknowleged that.
Yes, we are currently holding people indefinitely without trial, without conviction, that have been tortured into false confessions......sorry but that shit has to end because that's North Korean behavior.
But they arent being held to the standards to which you refer. The Geneva convention does not apply to them. Dont you remember the entire public debate about that issue? The taliban arent a an offical army of a nation.
The terrorists obama released were not low level goat farmers as you are implying but important higher ups in the Taliban organization.
-
But they arent being held to the standards to which you refer. The Geneva convention does not apply to them. Dont you remember the entire public debate about that issue? The taliban arent a an offical army of a nation.
The terrorists obama released were not low level goat farmers as you are implying but important higher ups in the Taliban organization.
They've not been convicted of terrorism or anything....most of them are not even terrorists and the government knows it in addition to knowing that if they were taken to trial, they would not even be found guilty due to the confessions made after being tortured not to mention that they were picked up by bounty hunters, not US soldiers for 5k a pop. In addition, if they are not soldiers then why have some of them faced military tribunals. You simply can't have it both ways
-
They've not been convicted of terrorism or anything....most of them are not even terrorists and the government knows it in addition to knowing that if they were taken to trial, they would not even be found guilty due to the confessions made after being tortured not to mention that they were picked up by bounty hunters, not US soldiers for 5k a pop. In addition, if they are not soldiers then why have some of them faced military tribunals. You simply can't have it both ways
Even if youre correct that has nothing to do with the individuals just released. You need to stay on topic
-
I'd like to know how Vince has so much inside info.? Must be pretty well connected.
-
I'd like to know how Vince has so much inside info.? Must be pretty well connected.
Muscle phone?
-
Muscle phone?
:D
-
:D
Susan Rice sent out rhere again to spread lies. F yhese traitors.
-
I'd like to know how Vince has so much inside info.? Must be pretty well connected.
Wikileaks has everything you need to know....and then stuff you shouldn't know
-
We would have actually had to release them in about 6 months anyway. They are not allowed to leave the country and they are under US watch. The Taliban are pretty much contained at this point....a shell of what they were
Vince.....you don't know what you're talking about. They are not POW's....they have never been POWs...they are enemy combatants...an up until now new designation that means they should never be released and it would be better if they all just died. The Taliban will control Afghanistan within 4-6 months of Nato's pull out. These guys are not under any US control nor are the Qataris monitoring them...u can google statements by their gov on that. You could not be more wrong. This is not WW2 where everybody goes home..u release dudes like this u get more war.
-
Vince.....you don't know what you're talking about. They are not POW's....they have never been POWs...they are enemy combatants...an up until now new designation that means they should never be released and it would be better if they all just died. The Taliban will control Afghanistan within 4-6 months of Nato's pull out. These guys are not under any US control nor are the Qataris monitoring them...u can google statements by their gov on that. You could not be more wrong. This is not WW2 where everybody goes home..u release dudes like this u get more war.
I tried to explain that to him but its like trying to explain quantum physics to a slug.
-
Vince.....you don't know what you're talking about. They are not POW's....they have never been POWs...they are enemy combatants...an up until now new designation that means they should never be released and it would be better if they all just died. The Taliban will control Afghanistan within 4-6 months of Nato's pull out. These guys are not under any US control nor are the Qataris monitoring them...u can google statements by their gov on that. You could not be more wrong. This is not WW2 where everybody goes home..u release dudes like this u get more war.
HH - where are you getting the conclusion that enemy combatant means that they should never be released
First of all we have released hundreds (if not more) people we designated at enemy combatants or "unlawful combatants"
This was written in 2002 and basically says an “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict
http://www.cfr.org/international-law/enemy-combatants/p5312
-
Who gives a fuck if they go back to Afghanistan to wage jihad. If we are not there what do we have to worry about. They didn't do 911. They responded to us occupying their country because of 911 and fought back.
-
As a POW...which Bergdahl was not.....don't ask...but he was not a POW by law. You have rights....we are giving guys some things but they are all considered terrorists. Each case is different but these guys were supposed to be released....its a fucked up situation but basically we're fighting people who won't stop fights...so we can't release them. We have released some...some its made no difference and some have gone back to the fight. There is not going to be some mass exoduc of dudes from gitmo.....a lot will be tried in court. Obama doesn't want this. What we'd really like is if a big meteor could hit gitmo and kill only the douchbags. My unit is also loosely responsible for these guys. I don't get to involved in anything that happens there.
-
Who gives a fuck if they go back to Afghanistan to wage jihad. If we are not there what do we have to worry about. They didn't do 911. They responded to us occupying their country because of 911 and fought back.
We have troops there who will have to face these terrorists now and some will die all because that worthless pos hadnto get his va scandal off the news
-
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.
"After arriving in Qatar, Noorullah Noori kept insisting he would go to Afghanistan and fight American forces there,” a Taliban commander told NBC News via telephone from Afghanistan.
-
PESHAWAR, Pakistan - One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.
"After arriving in Qatar, Noorullah Noori kept insisting he would go to Afghanistan and fight American forces there,” a Taliban commander told NBC News via telephone from Afghanistan.
Who the fuck cares.
-
We would have actually had to release them in about 6 months anyway. They are not allowed to leave the country and they are under US watch. The Taliban are pretty much contained at this point....a shell of what they were
Idiot...the same things were said about Al Qaeda. Right up to the time that they launched a highly organized attack on our consulate in Benghazi...
-
Idiot...the same things were said about Al Qaeda. Right up to the time that they launched a highly organized attack on our consulate in Benghazi...
Man, they sound scary. lol
-
Idiot...the same things were said about Al Qaeda. Right up to the time that they launched a highly organized attack on our consulate in Benghazi...
Even a broken clock like Al Qaeda gets the right time on occasion....and there was no organization or planning. Just an unplanned use of an opportunity
-
If you truly believe that the attack on Benghazi didn't involve a great deal of planning then you truly are an idiot. (hint...look at the calendar)
-
Even a broken clock like Al Qaeda gets the right time on occasion....and there was no organization or planning. Just an unplanned use of an opportunity
Where do you come up with this shit? Seriously, you spent what 3 mos as a cook in the navy, now you know everything there is to know about terrorist operations? Word of advice, go back to peddling your "fitness" bullshit..........
-
Even a broken clock like Al Qaeda gets the right time on occasion....and there was no organization or planning. Just an unplanned use of an opportunity
Obama and al queada on the same page - go figure
-
Where do you come up with this shit? Seriously, you spent what 3 mos as a cook in the navy, now you know everything there is to know about terrorist operations? Word of advice, go back to peddling your "fitness" bullshit..........
He was to busy scrubbing the poop deck.
-
Benghazi was 125 to 150 well armed militants attacking for 8 hours. Conspiracy theorists like Glen Beck have suggested why their attack was SO focused, what was really going on there, but whether or not that's true, who knows.
It was silent right before they attacked, according to the witness accounts. 12 dozen bad guys crawled in secrecy before their prolonged attack. They were very focused and despite taking serious losses (our dudes had some heavy firepower) they finally burned them out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_Compound
-
Benghazi was 125 to 150 well armed militants attacking for 8 hours. Conspiracy theorists like Glen Beck have suggested why their attack was SO focused, what was really going on there, but whether or not that's true, who knows.
It was silent right before they attacked, according to the witness accounts. 12 dozen bad guys crawled in secrecy before their prolonged attack. They were very focused and despite taking serious losses (our dudes had some heavy firepower) they finally burned them out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack#Assault_on_the_Compound
I don't think it was organized......I believe that it only succeeded due to the large crowd of people protesting that movie
-
I don't think it was organized......I believe that it only succeeded due to the large crowd of people protesting that movie
LOL "that movie"
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/f6/f68e1fc8c0e4924b863c321d573137304cc1ecd7f74df0ac3459cf2f2c4c0d38.jpg)
-
LOL "that movie"
(http://s2.quickmeme.com/img/f6/f68e1fc8c0e4924b863c321d573137304cc1ecd7f74df0ac3459cf2f2c4c0d38.jpg)
No...not the movie. The crowd. Rules of engagement state that you can't fire on civilians. If there was no crowd, those militants would have been crop dust....two SEALS with SAW's can take all of them out easily
-
No...not the movie. The crowd. Rules of engagement state that you can't fire on civilians. If there was no crowd, those militants would have been crop dust....two SEALS with SAW's can take all of them out easily
You have never been in combat in your life, probably never picked up a weapon, you saw "Rules of Engagement" so shit must be true ::)
-
You have never been in combat in your life, probably never picked up a weapon, you saw "Rules of Engagement" so shit must be true ::)
No, fortunately I've never had to go into combat however there was a confusion between civilians and actual militant. In any event, this incident is null and has nothing to do with today.
-
the groups arrived in trucks with their terror group logo.
They silently crept into position - didn't alert security at all, until they had completely surrounded the embassy.
Then they all attacked at once, lobbing grenades to clear the men, THEN firing, THEN coming in with the artillery and the anti-aircraft to prepare for the US help to arrive, which they expected but didn't come.
They knew they weren't getting past the fused gates so they brought a shitload of diesel fuel to "smoke them out" - pouring it under and lighting it, which is what killed the ambassador.
In my opinion, it was an organized military style attack on a target. Well planned, executed at nightfall from every direction, with the tools to smoke em out.
-
the groups arrived in trucks with their terror group logo.
They silently crept into position - didn't alert security at all, until they had completely surrounded the embassy.
Then they all attacked at once, lobbing grenades to clear the men, THEN firing, THEN coming in with the artillery and the anti-aircraft to prepare for the US help to arrive, which they expected but didn't come.
They knew they weren't getting past the fused gates so they brought a shitload of diesel fuel to "smoke them out" - pouring it under and lighting it, which is what killed the ambassador.
In my opinion, it was an organized military style attack on a target. Well planned, executed at nightfall from every direction, with the tools to smoke em out.
Yet over a 100 of the militants died in the attack. Well armed and ready perhaps but obviously the planning was shitty if you're telling everyone to bum rush the building.... ::)
-
There was no protest re any movie....that is a complete fabrication. You can argue the tactics they employed to launch the attack, but the notion that this was some kind of opportunistic, spur of the moment, as if by happenstance attack is nonsense. It was planned..
-
Who the fuck cares.
People like me with multiple friends currently in the fight in Afghanistan. Anyone who cares about the safety and welfare of our men and women in uniform.
-
People like me with multiple friends currently in the fight in Afghanistan. Anyone who cares about the safety and welfare of our men and women in uniform.
As if these 5 assholes who most likely will end up going back aren't a dime a dozen. I don't give a fuck and stand by original sentiment.
-
As if these 5 assholes who most likely will end up going back aren't a dime a dozen. I don't give a fuck and stand by original sentiment.
That is because you are a pos
-
That is because you are a pos
You are eloquent in your wording.
-
Al Qaeda insurgents have moved down from Syria and taken Samarra, Mosul, Tikrit and Fallujah...they're within 40 miles of Baghdad. Yep...we sure did crush Al Qaeda.
-
Their 9/11 Role
The Taliban Five are even worse than you’ve heard.
Thomas Joscelyn
June 23, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 39
One of the five senior Taliban leaders transferred to Qatar in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl played a key role in al Qaeda’s plans leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Mohammad Fazl, who served as the Taliban’s army chief of staff and deputy defense minister prior to his detention at Guantánamo, did not have a hand in planning the actual 9/11 hijackings. Along with a notorious al Qaeda leader, however, Fazl did help coordinate a military offensive against the enemies of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan the day before. And Osama bin Laden viewed that September 10 offensive as an essential part of al Qaeda’s 9/11 plot.
The 9/11 Commission found that the hijackings in the United States on September 11, 2001, were the culmination of al Qaeda’s three-step plan. First, on September 9, 2001, al Qaeda assassinated Northern Alliance commander Ahmed Shah Massoud in a suicide bombing. Massoud’s death was a major gift to the Taliban because he was their chief rival and still controlled parts of the country. The assassination was also intended to weaken opposition to the Taliban and al Qaeda within Afghanistan before the United States could plan its retaliation for the most devastating terrorist attack in history. The Northern Alliance did, in fact, play a role in America’s response.
The following day, September 10, al Qaeda and the Taliban took their second step. A “delayed Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance was apparently coordinated to begin as soon as [Massoud] was killed,” the 9/11 Commission found. Fazl and one of bin Laden’s chief lieutenants, Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, played key roles in this setup for 9/11. At the time, al Iraqi oversaw what al Qaeda called the Arab 55th Brigade, which was Osama bin Laden’s chief fighting force inside Afghanistan and fought side by side with Mullah Omar’s forces.
According to a leaked Joint Task Force Guantánamo (JTF-GTMO) threat assessment of Fazl, al Iraqi met with Fazl “on several occasions to include immediately following the assassination of [Massoud] in September 2001.” Al Iraqi “stated the Northern Alliance was demoralized after the assassination and [he] met with [Fazl] to immediately coordinate an attack with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance.”
Al Qaeda viewed both the assassination of Massoud and the offensive launched the following day as necessary components of the 9/11 plot. At first, Mullah Omar and other Taliban leaders were said to be wary of any spectacular attack against the United States, as it would likely draw fierce retaliation from the world’s lone superpower. (The 9/11 Commission did find “some scant indications” that Omar “may have been reconciled to the 9/11 attacks by the time they occurred.”) The plan to attack the United States was controversial even within al Qaeda, with some senior leaders objecting to the idea.
But Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders believed, correctly, that the first two steps of their plan would ensure the Taliban’s continuing support. The 9/11 Commission found that as Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda’s military chief at the time, Mohammed Atef, “deliberated” the 9/11 hijackings “earlier in the year,” they “would likely have remembered that Mullah Omar was dependent on them for the Massoud assassination and for vital support in the Taliban military operations.” And, while the commission’s sources were “not privy to the full scope of al Qaeda and Taliban planning,” bin Laden and Atef “probably would have known, at least,” that the “general Taliban offensive against the Northern Alliance” on September 10 “would rely on al Qaeda military support.”
The 9/11 Commission’s final report goes on to say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), the mastermind of 9/11, remembers Atef “telling him that al Qaeda had an agreement with the Taliban to eliminate Massoud, after which the Taliban would begin an offensive to take over [all of] Afghanistan.”
Mohammad Fazl’s cooperation with al Iraqi was, therefore, part of the plan KSM remembered.
As controversy over the deal for Sgt. Bergdahl has continued to swirl, current and former Obama administration officials have sought to draw a sharp distinction between the threat posed by the Taliban Five and al Qaeda.
“These five guys are not a threat to the United States,” former secretary of state Hillary Clinton said during an interview on NBC News last week. “They are a threat to the safety and security of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s up to those two countries to make the decision once and for all that these are threats to them. So I think we may be kind of missing the bigger picture here. We want to get an American home, whether they fell off the ship because they were drunk or they were pushed or they jumped, we try to rescue everybody.”
State Department deputy spokesperson Marie Harf relied on this same talking point during a press conference on June 5. “Look, these were not good guys. I am in no way defending these men,” Harf said. “But being mid- to high-level officials in a regime that’s grotesque and horrific also doesn’t mean they themselves directly pose a threat to the United States.” During testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on June 11, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel insisted that “we had no direct evidence of any direct involvement in their direct attacks on the United States on any of our troops.” (Under questioning, Hagel conceded that the Taliban Five were, in fact, involved in planning operations against U.S.-led coalition forces in late 2001.) Behind closed doors, other key Obama administration officials have similarly stressed that the Taliban Five don’t directly threaten the United States. The Daily Beast reported that John Brennan, director of the CIA and previously President Obama’s chief counterterrorism adviser, has “argued that the Taliban Five were primarily focused on fighting against other Afghans and never had a record of attacking Americans outside of their own country.”
The Obama administration’s argument misses the point. It is true that Fazl and his Taliban colleagues have not directly planned 9/11-style attacks on the United States. But according to this logic, most of al Qaeda wasn’t a threat on 9/11 and isn’t today. Most al Qaeda operatives are not involved in spectacular terrorist plots against the West. (The 9/11 attacks, for instance, were highly compartmentalized.) Regardless, the Taliban’s relationship with al Qaeda made it considerably easier for Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants to plan their war against the United States, and this nexus remains a threat.
The Taliban’s Afghanistan “was the incubator for al Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks,” the 9/11 Commission found. Another passage from the commission’s final report reads: “The alliance with the Taliban provided al Qaeda a sanctuary in which to train and indoctrinate fighters and terrorists, import weapons, forge ties with other jihad groups and leaders, and plot and staff terrorist schemes.”
In addition to Fazl, each of the other four members of the Taliban Five contributed to this alliance. According to leaked JTF-GTMO files and court documents, the U.S. government believes that Khairullah Khairkhwa was tied to Osama bin Laden and oversaw one of the deceased al Qaeda master’s training camps in western Afghanistan.
According to the United Nations, Abdul Haq Wassiq served as the deputy director of intelligence for the Taliban, and in this role he “was in charge of handling relations with Al-Qaida-related foreign fighters and their training camps in Afghanistan.” It was in these same camps that al Qaeda trained terrorists for its plots against the United States.
Like Fazl, Norullah Noori was a Taliban military commander, and in this capacity he coordinated operations with al Qaeda’s paramilitary forces.
And, finally, JTF-GTMO concluded that Mohammad Nabi Omari planned anticoalition attacks with al Qaeda and other affiliated forces.
The Taliban Five may not plan any direct attacks against the United States in the future. But they have already strengthened the hand of al Qaeda terrorists who have planned such attacks in the past. Why should we assume, as the Obama administration asks us to, that they will not do so again in the future?
The administration once recognized the true nature of the Taliban-al Qaeda alliance. In December 2009, President Obama announced a surge of forces in Afghanistan to reverse the Taliban’s “momentum” and “defeat” al Qaeda. “We must deny al Qaeda a safe haven,” Obama said. And he reminded his listeners that prior to 9/11, “al Qaeda’s base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harbored by the Taliban—a ruthless, repressive, and radical movement that seized control of that country after it was ravaged by years of Soviet occupation and civil war, and after the attention of America and our friends had turned elsewhere.”
America is once again turning elsewhere. The Taliban is still allied with al Qaeda.
Thomas Joscelyn is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Subscribe now to The Weekly Standard!
Get more from The Weekly Standard: Follow WeeklyStandard.com on RSS and sign-up for our free Newsletter.
Copyright 2014 Weekly Standard LLC.
Source URL: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/their-911-role_794957.html
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/bergdahl-expected-plead-guilty-desertion-case-monday-074707026.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=fb
Obama is probably hooking up w Harvey Weinstein at the moment,.
-
https://nypost.com/2021/08/16/taliban-leader-was-freed-from-guantanamo-in-2014-swap-by-obama/
-
Our leaders are very smart.