Trading 5 Taliban Mass Murderers For 1 US Deserter

[Kshartle]

Forget the country… what was the gain for Obama himself? I would posit that the answer is nothing, and that's exactly why he's such a lightweight. He has pleased nobody and unnecessarily created a controversy that harms him and his party, and plays right into his opponents' stereotypes. He should have seen this coming a mile away.

He is a teleprompter reader. It sounds like his advisors (handlers) are running him into the ground. It seems like this happens in the 2nd half of a 2nd term. I expect the press to pile on with maybe only MSNBC still carrying water for him.

[Kshartle]

Do you think the bottom line results of this trade are:

1. in the best interest of the country?

2. Is the answer to the above any different to the bottom line results from virtually all the fireign policy decisions of this administration?

1. I guess I never know what this means. I think in terms of best interests of individuals. To me the concept of the "country" is like some imaginary dragon.  Do you mean is it in the best interest of the 300 million people living inside the US government's jurisdiction? I don't think it matters one bit to 99.99% of them. This kids family is happy. There are fewer captives in Gitmo. Some politicians will use it to get votes. Other than that it's an absolute non-event for the other 99.99% of the humans here.

2. Yes sometimes the foreign policy decisions really affect Americans and almost always in bad ways like tarrifs, bombings etc.

[MachineGhost]

Forget the country… what was the gain for Obama himself? I would posit that the answer is nothing, and that's exactly why he's such a lightweight. He has pleased nobody and unnecessarily created a controversy that harms him and his party, and plays right into his opponents' stereotypes. He should have seen this coming a mile away.

I'm a little confused about this whole operation, but it seems to be business as normal where the past several Presidents have non-publically negotiated with terrorists to do prisoner/hostage swaps.  But what I don't get is why this guy was so damn singularly important that he was worth exchanging several hundred terrorists for?  WTF?  That is just fvcking stupid; yet the entire Obama administration at all levels of the executive branch passed muster on this swap before it happened.  That's just mind blowing elitist or something.  Again, it just goes to show how electing candidates without any executive experience results is a VERY BAD IDEA when it becomes a decision between two evils.

I'll say this now.  Hillary may deserve the Presidency because she hitched her wagon to a charismatic political slickster who couldn't keep it in his pants, but ambition alone is NOT A VALID REASON to elect someone to the Presidency.

[MachineGhost]

I think that is a complete and total misreading of Obama. On the contrary, I think he's an insecure, inexperienced narcissist who does what he thinks will make him personally popular (short term) or contribute to a "legacy" of some sort (long term). He has a savior complex but his naiveté and inexperience hurt his ability to actually do what people truly want. Rather than an ideologue, he is an ineffectual waffler who attempt to compromise when he has the upper hand and is bold when his power is weak.

In other words, he's a pussy.  The Bushes may have been plump dumb morons, but at least they had balls.

[Kshartle]

I think that is a complete and total misreading of Obama. On the contrary, I think he's an insecure, inexperienced narcissist who does what he thinks will make him personally popular (short term) or contribute to a "legacy" of some sort (long term). He has a savior complex but his naiveté and inexperience hurt his ability to actually do what people truly want. Rather than an ideologue, he is an ineffectual waffler who attempt to compromise when he has the upper hand and is bold when his power is weak.

In other words, he's a pussy.  The Bushes may have been plump dumb morons, but at least they had balls.

The only thing...and I mean the only thing I liked about W was it was obvious he didn't care what the Americans thought. At least he didn't fake it.

[RuralEngineer]

The reports are that at least 6 US servicemen died in Afghanistan trying to recover this deserter.  How many people will die in the future as the result of releasing these mass murderers back into the field?

Sometimes wild animals belong in cages.

Why not just put them down, then? Serious question.

If I were the POTUS, I think the first thing I would do would be to issue an executive order saying that everyone in gitmo needed to be immediately executed or released, but the prison's administrator would have sole discretion to choose. That would really shine a light on which ones really were "animals" and which ones were just poor schlubs didn't pose much of a threat to anyone.

I think if I were POTUS I'd rather push for immediate trials for every inmate held at GITMO instead of giving sole discretion to the prison admin.  I'm sure there's a few in there that deserve a hangman's noose, and some that may very well deserve freedom.  Either way, I'd give them all their day in court, and then set them free or put them in the ground.  Then I'd shut the place down.

[Kshartle]

The reports are that at least 6 US servicemen died in Afghanistan trying to recover this deserter.  How many people will die in the future as the result of releasing these mass murderers back into the field?

Sometimes wild animals belong in cages.

Why not just put them down, then? Serious question.

If I were the POTUS, I think the first thing I would do would be to issue an executive order saying that everyone in gitmo needed to be immediately executed or released, but the prison's administrator would have sole discretion to choose. That would really shine a light on which ones really were "animals" and which ones were just poor schlubs didn't pose much of a threat to anyone.

I think if I were POTUS I'd rather push for immediate trials for every inmate held at GITMO instead of giving sole discretion to the prison admin.  I'm sure there's a few in there that deserve a hangman's noose, and some that may very well deserve freedom.  Either way, I'd give them all their day in court, and then set them free or put them in the ground.  Then I'd shut the place down.

Why do you think they don't do this?

[barrett]

I think if I were POTUS I'd rather push for immediate trials for every inmate held at GITMO instead of giving sole discretion to the prison admin. I'm sure there's a few in there that deserve a hangman's noose, and some that may very well deserve freedom. Either way, I'd give them all their day in court, and then set them free or put them in the ground. Then I'd shut the place down.

Why do you think they don't do this?

because they can't be tried in civilian court and the left wont let the military do the trials... or so it seems..

civilian court is a logistic and legal nightmare, i don't really know the thinking on why military trials are bad...

Simon,

Is this really a left/right issue? I am at least leftish but Gitmo is just a disgrace and should have never happened. Obama promised to close it back when he was campaigning in 2008. Was he insincere or did he become privy to some new info once he became president? Holding people without trial just destroys our credibility with the rest of the world (yes, I think it's still possible to have some).

it was a few years ago the left pushed for civilian trials and the right pushed for military. this may have changed over time....
the whole gismo thing seems like a blunder from the start, their legal status is neither this nor that, (except for american citizens being held who should have clearly defined rights but don't) and some of them are dangerous so you are damned if you do let them go, and some are likely innocent so you are damned if you don't.
i doubt Obama or any president has the will or even the ability to unravel this, and no politician likes a no win situation, it would be a waste of political capital and hurt reelection.

[MachineGhost]

civilian court is a logistic and legal nightmare, i don't really know the thinking on why military trials are bad...

It's because it sets a nasty precedent for arresting American civilians and prosecuting them under the rules of the military court which is not even remotely the same as civilian courts; no trial by jury, innocence until proven guilty, etc..  Terrorists aren't considered "enemy combatants" because they're not captured from a sovereign military inside a theatre of war.  I'm not sure what happened with Obama's promise to try them under civilian jurisdiction, but it sounds like he relented and kept them as "enemy combatants" if this stupid POW swap was any indication.   Constitutional law professor, my ass.

[Pointedstick]

It's because it sets a nasty precedent for arresting American civilians and prosecuting them under the rules of the military court which is not even remotely the same as civilian courts; no trial by jury, innocence until proven guilty, etc..  Terrorists aren't considered "enemy combatants" because they're not captured from a sovereign military inside a theatre of war.  I'm not sure what happened with Obama's promise to try them under civilian jurisdiction, but it sounds like he relented and kept them as "enemy combatants" if this stupid POW swap was any indication.   Constitutional law professor, my ass.

I think it's because in a civilian court, they would clearly have to go free due to the fact that their rights were repeatedly violated (false imprisonment, torture, etc). Trying them in civilian court sets an even worse precedent that prisoners who have had their rights violated in terrible ways to acquire evidence can still be convicted of what they're charged with.

The basic problem is that Obama is just a weak-kneed vacillator. He's not willing to set bad precedents, but unable to muster the fortitude to just release them, which seems like the only course of action left. I suspect he's terrified of the political consequences. But the Republicans are going to get mad at him no matter what he does, so he just needs to do something.

What mystifies me about Obama most of all is how often is unwilling he is to anger Republicans in matters where any course of action he takes will piss them off. Instead of just getting it over with, he hems and haws forever and tries ineffectually to broker a compromise that's sheer fantasy to imagine working. Then once his indecision itself is starting to draw bad press, he awkwardly makes a decision that's usually not the best one and doesn't even cater to his base, and acts upset when everyone gets mad at him anyway.

[Ad Orientem]

civilian court is a logistic and legal nightmare, i don't really know the thinking on why military trials are bad...

It's because it sets a nasty precedent for arresting American civilians and prosecuting them under the rules of the military court which is not even remotely the same as civilian courts; no trial by jury, innocence until proven guilty, etc..  Terrorists aren't considered "enemy combatants" because they're not captured from a sovereign military inside a theatre of war.  I'm not sure what happened with Obama's promise to try them under civilian jurisdiction, but it sounds like he relented and kept them as "enemy combatants" if this stupid POW swap was any indication.   Constitutional law professor, my ass.

I think you have it backwards. Civilian courts have repeatedly tried terrorism cases with great efficiency and have a much better track record than the military courts. Whereas efforts to set up so called military tribunals have been a nightmare of procedure and endless appeals. In the military justice system, especially when dealing with courts-martial, the accused enjoy greater rights and protections than is generally the case in civilian courts. Not only do they have a presumption of innocence but there are extremely strict rules about evidence, minimal standards for legal council, who may serve as "members" (a military jury) etc. The Article 32 hearing (the military equivalent to the civilian Grand Jury) is also much more balanced. The defendant has the right to be represented in such hearings and to cross examine witnesses and challenge evidence, rights that don't exist in the civilian world. The convening authority (usually the local flag officer) also has the right to cut short the proceedings and to arbitrarily overturn a guilty verdict (but not a not guilty verdict) and he/she can arbitrarily reduce or commute sentences. Anyone sentenced to more than a year in prison and or a dishonorable discharge has their case automatically forwarded to the first rank of the respective military appellate courts for review. Appeals are free appellate council are routine.

In deed there have been a number of articles in legals journals suggesting that the military court system has become almost dysfunctional, especially in capital cases due to all of the safeguards and rights accorded to the accused.

[MachineGhost]

In deed there have been a number of articles in legals journals suggesting that the military court system has become almost dysfunctional, especially in capital cases due to all of the safeguards and rights accorded to the accused.

That seems rather backwards to me and not consistent at all with why the left didn't want to try the terrorists under military courts.  Too much rights?  What baloney!  Do you have some centrist sources to back up your claim?

[Ad Orientem]

In deed there have been a number of articles in legals journals suggesting that the military court system has become almost dysfunctional, especially in capital cases due to all of the safeguards and rights accorded to the accused.

That seems rather backwards to me and not consistent at all with why the left didn't want to try the terrorists under military courts.  Too much rights?  What baloney!  Do you have some centrist sources to back up your claim?

I think I misunderstood your comment as a criticism of the ordinary military justice system. I was not speaking to the tribunals.

The main argument against trying them in a military tribunal (as opposed to court) is the question of jurisdiction. The United States has consistently refused to classify the prisoners as either terrorists (a criminal classification) or as prisoners of war. The Bush Administration decided to attempt a revival of Military Tribunals as opposed to Courts Martial where the defendants would have very limited rights and could be denied access to evidence against them as well as the right to fully cross-examine witnesses. These concerns are not a left issue. The issues cross party lines with those supporting the tribunals mainly being from the neo-con wing. Those on the left as also libertarians tend to view the tribunals as a Kangaroo court.

For the most part the appellate courts have expressed extreme reservations about them and this is a major reason they have been moving at a glacial pace. Also they are highly controversial in the broader legal community where there is a belief (well founded IMO) that the tribunals are illegal under international law.

[MachineGhost]

I think I misunderstood your comment as a criticism of the ordinary military justice system. I was not speaking to the tribunals.

My bad.  What exactly is the difference between a military tribunal and military courts?

[Ad Orientem]

I think I misunderstood your comment as a criticism of the ordinary military justice system. I was not speaking to the tribunals.

My bad.  What exactly is the difference between a military tribunal and military courts?

A military tribunal is a court with very abbreviated rules of process and rights for the accused. Historically they were used in cases of what were considered unlawful combatants (a term still extant in international law, though the United States has refused to abide by the rules covering such cases) or persons considered hostes humani generis, i.e. pirates or enemy combatants wearing the uniform of the other side and caught in flagrante delicto. Such individuals were often the subject of summary trial and execution if they were not simply killed on the spot.

By contrast military courts martial are fully legal proceedings governed in the United States by Title 10 of the US Code and the Manual for Courts Martial and include all of the protections mentioned in my earlier post.

[Reub]

Why is Gitmo a disgrace?

[Reub]

You declare war on us.  Kill thousands of our civilians. We capture you and throw you in jail. What's wrong with that?

[Ad Orientem]

You declare war on us.  Kill thousands of our civilians. We capture you and throw you in jail. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, unless you care about the rule of law. If they are prisoners of war then they are entitled to be treated as such under the Geneva Convention. If they are criminals then they have the right to a speedy trial, effective council and so on. What are they?

[RuralEngineer]

The high ranking Nazis captured during WWII killed millions, and they were given a trial and subsequent hanging.  A trial doesn't preclude execution, I'm not sure why so many on the right are so fearful of a trial and think indefinite detention is superior.  Why keep these people around if you truly think they killed "thousands of us?"

On a side note, thanks Obama, you're swell....

http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-says-bergdahl-deal-means-170500137.html

I'd have taken the 5 prisoners out and fed them through a wood chipper feet first on live TV before trading them to the Taliban.  Negotiating with terrorists is beyond stupid.

i think the fear is of there being some innocents in amongst the terrorists being held without rights, treated badly, and held along time. If they had a clear legal designation from the get go, held trials in a reasonable time, and reserved torture for the few with a near certain "know something of immediate life saving value" then trials wouldn't be a problem...

[MachineGhost]

Nothing, unless you care about the rule of law. If they are prisoners of war then they are entitled to be treated as such under the Geneva Convention. If they are criminals then they have the right to a speedy trial, effective council and so on. What are they?

If we captured them in Afghanistan and Iraq which we invaded to provoke a theatre of war, then it seems to me they are prisoners of war.  How did it even come about that they could be considered civilian criminals?  Are there civilians mixed in with the prisoners of war at Gitmo?

Reub, the real risk here is the bad legal precedents being set that will be applied to Americans given enough time as thats always what hungry power-mongers in government do to validate their existence.  For some mysterious reason, NeoCons seem to have a mental blind spot about perceiving consequences of actions upon later generations.  It's not even unintended consequences, because just thinking it through beforehand should point out what a bad idea so or so actions will be!

[MachineGhost]

Negotiating with terrorists is beyond stupid.

But its nothing new and nothing unique with OBAMA!, so don't get your panties all twisted into a bunch just because he's a Democrat and you're a Republican.

[MachineGhost]

i think the fear is of there being some innocents in amongst the terrorists being held without rights, treated badly, and held along time. If they had a clear legal designation from the get go, held trials in a reasonable time, and reserved torture for the few with a near certain "know something of immediate life saving value" then trials wouldn't be a problem...

So I guess the real question is, how in the hell did Bush even fvck this up in the first place?  I vote zero confidence in these jokers that we keep electing to the Presidency.  Where's the moderate Reagan when you need him???  Even he had Niacaragua, so how far back do we have to go to find someone who isn't a twit?  Kennedy?  Eisenhower?  Coolidge?

[RuralEngineer]

Negotiating with terrorists is beyond stupid.

But its nothing new and nothing unique with OBAMA!, so don't get your panties all twisted into a bunch just because he's a Democrat and you're a Republican.

1.  I'm not a Republican.

2.  Who pissed in your cheerios?

3.  Obama gets a pass for being a dumb bastard because he's just the latest in a long line of dumb bastards?  Fail.

Frankly, I think the whole "you're just attacking Obama because he's a Dem!" nonsense should stop.  Unless you have evidence that the person you're charging supported the behavior under a GOP president, it's a very spurious argument.  Poor policy that harms the country is stupid and open for attack whether the President is a Dem or Republican.

edit to remove inflammatory content

[MachineGhost]

Negotiating with terrorists is beyond stupid.

But its nothing new and nothing unique with OBAMA!, so don't get your panties all twisted into a bunch just because he's a Democrat and you're a Republican.

1.  I'm not a Republican.

2.  Who pissed in your cheerios?

3.  Obama gets a pass for being a dumb bastard because he's just the latest in a long line of dumb bastards?  Fail.

Frankly, I think the whole "you're just attacking Obama because he's a Dem!" nonsense should stop.  Unless you have evidence that the person you're charging supported the behavior under a GOP president, it's a very spurious argument.  Poor policy that harms the country is stupid and open for attack whether the President is a Dem or Republican.

Someone's a little touchy today.  1) I'm not a Democrat.  2) No one pissed in my Cheerios.  3) Its expected based on past Presidential history,

edit to remove inflammatory content

[Pointedstick]

C'mon, guys.