Obama over rode Pentagon, CIA, Intelligence Agencies to release the 5 terrorists

[Soul Crusher]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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
































 



   

           

[Soul Crusher]

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 ...

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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....

[Archer77]

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.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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

[Archer77]

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?

[dario73]

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.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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. 

[Archer77]

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.

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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

[Archer77]

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

[Dos Equis]

I'd like to know how Vince has so much inside info.?  Must be pretty well connected. 

[Archer77]

I'd like to know how Vince has so much inside info.?  Must be pretty well connected. 

Muscle phone?

[Dos Equis]

Muscle phone?

 

[Soul Crusher]

Susan Rice sent out rhere again to spread lies.    F yhese traitors.   

[Vince G, CSN MFT]

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

[headhuntersix]

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.

[Archer77]

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. 

[Straw Man]

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

[AbrahamG]

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. 

[headhuntersix]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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.

[AbrahamG]

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.