Five Taliban For One American Soldier

[Big Guy]

The Americans have just announced that they have negotiated a swap with the Taliban for the return of an American soldier. The U.S. government secured Bergdahl's freedom in exchange for the release to the Taliban of five of its members detained at Guantanamo Bay. These five were on the Obama list of terrorists who were to be held “indefinitely” without charges.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/world/asia/afghanistan-bergdahl-release/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

The Americans had declared in the past that they would never negotiate with terrorists and refer to the American soldier as a POW – prisoner of war. Was this a prisoner of war or a hostage taken during a terrorist attack?

Canada has been involved in and sacrificed blood and treasure for this “expedition” into Afghanistan. Was Canada notified or asked to be part of these negotiations? Should we have been asked or participated?

What, if any, message does this send to terrorists around the world?

Is it time for our governments to better define our definitions of “terrorists” and review our labelling of so many groups as terrorists?

The explanation for the negotiations is that this American soldier was a POW. We have been told that Canada was involved in an attempt to flush out insurgents, terrorists, send girls to school, eradicate heroin etc.... or were we at war?

Would/should this change to direction of the Omar Khadr debate? Is Khadr really a POW?

[Signals.Cpl]

Its a little more complicated than wether we were in a war or not. Ultimately to be considered for POW status you have to meet certain criteria, NATO forces in Afghanistan meet said criteria, insurgents do not meet said criteria so just because Sgt Bergdahl is considered a POW does not automatically mean that any insurgent including Khadar should be considered a POW unless they fall in the category.

[GostHacked]

I wonder if the timing of Obama's recent visit to Afghanistan and the unintentional outing of the CIA operative had anything to do with this.

[Michael Hardner]

I would say that it likely did but when will we know what really happened ? Not in our lifetimes, I'm sure.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Canada has been involved in and sacrificed blood and treasure for this “expedition” into Afghanistan. Was Canada notified or asked to be part of these negotiations? Should we have been asked or participated?

No. It took years just to negotiate Omar Khadr's return to Canada from 'Gitmo.

[Big Guy]

More details of this unexpected move are starting to emerge. The Taliban five were high-ranking members of the Taliban government toppled by the US in 2001. Fazl was the deputy defence minister, while Noori was the governor of Balkh province.

The five are expected to live on compounds in Qatar, and their families will be brought there to live with them.

I am sceptical and disappointed. I assume that Canada was involved in these negotiations in view of our major participation in this conflict. If we were not then I am outraged. What we have done is help to create a government in absentia for the Taliban.

I am looking forward to a reaction from the Harper government on the results of this negotiations.

[kimmy]

Who cares about a few individual Talibans?

-k

[Wilber]

No. It took years just to negotiate Omar Khadr's return to Canada from 'Gitmo.

Because we didn't really want him back.

[Shady]

It seems as though the ultra-imperial presidency goes on without skipping a beat. The Obama adminstration broke the law by not informing congress of the negotiations and the eventual release of the P.O.W until after it had been completed. Oh well. When you have an administration that chooses what parts of immigration law to enforce, and what parts of the new health care law it wants to enforce, etc. This is small potatoes I guess.

They also negotiated with terrorists. Which might be perfectly legitimate, but at least they could have the decency to admit it.

[Shady]

I like how the administration trotted out Susan "Benghazi was because of a YouTube video" Rice, to explain this latest announcement. It's fitting.

[Guest]

What does Miss Manners say about the length of time one should wait before droning them?

[WWWTT]

Its a little more complicated than wether we were in a war or not. Ultimately to be considered for POW status you have to meet certain criteria, NATO forces in Afghanistan meet said criteria, insurgents do not meet said criteria so just because Sgt Bergdahl is considered a POW does not automatically mean that any insurgent including Khadar should be considered a POW unless they fall in the category.

Sounds like a load of BS to me!

Double standard!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

The Americans have just announced that they have negotiated a swap with the Taliban for the return of an American soldier. The U.S. government secured Bergdahl's freedom in exchange for the release to the Taliban of five of its members detained at Guantanamo Bay. These five were on the Obama list of terrorists who were to be held “indefinitely” without charges.

What, if any, message does this send to terrorists around the world?

The US is trying to play the victim card here. Trying to win sympathy.

Must be a big "drone strike" week!

This sends no message to the biggest terrorist organization in the world. The US government!

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

Sounds like a load of BS to me!

Double standard!

WWWTT

If you knew anything on the subject you wouldn't say that, but then again not really surprised. The reason that NATO troops are considered POW when captured and insurgents are not is simply because they don't meet the criteria. The first thing that comes to mind is the lack of a uniform or any other form of insignia to identify them as combatants... something NATO does NOT lack...see we wear uniforms and all. Then there is the requirement to carry arms openly something NATO does, but by and large insurgents don't unless they are firing at you, at other times its well hidden...

[Signals.Cpl]

The US is trying to play the victim card here. Trying to win sympathy.

Must be a big "drone strike" week!

This sends no message to the biggest terrorist organization in the world. The US government!

WWWTT

Victim card? Are we talking about the same event?

[WWWTT]

If you knew anything on the subject you wouldn't say that, but then again not really surprised. The reason that NATO troops are considered POW when captured and insurgents are not is simply because they don't meet the criteria. The first thing that comes to mind is the lack of a uniform or any other form of insignia to identify them as combatants... something NATO does NOT lack...see we wear uniforms and all. Then there is the requirement to carry arms openly something NATO does, but by and large insurgents don't unless they are firing at you, at other times its well hidden...

Typical answer.

The west created the rules, so no surprise there you are only regurgitating.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Victim card? Are we talking about the same event?

Victim card, news distraction, whatever you want to call it.

As long as we're not talking about "drone strikes"!

WWWTT

[WestCoastRunner]

The US is trying to play the victim card here. Trying to win sympathy.

Must be a big "drone strike" week!

This sends no message to the biggest terrorist organization in the world. The US government!

WWWTT

My, you are so dramatic! The US govt is the biggest terrorist organization in the world? Really?? Perhaps you forget that the U.S. govt has our back! I wouldn't be calling them terrorists if I were you.

[Big Guy]

If you knew anything on the subject you wouldn't say that, but then again not really surprised. The reason that NATO troops are considered POW when captured and insurgents are not is simply because they don't meet the criteria. The first thing that comes to mind is the lack of a uniform or any other form of insignia to identify them as combatants... something NATO does NOT lack...see we wear uniforms and all. Then there is the requirement to carry arms openly something NATO does, but by and large insurgents don't unless they are firing at you, at other times its well hidden...

I am sorry to say but it sounds silly to me. The description of a set of rules is for some kind of a game with referees enforcing the rules. Ground war is a kill or be killed situation. To be restricted by "rules" appears unrealistic. That would mean that people dressed in camouflage of the "unidentifiable" kind are out of uniform" What about commandoes who are dressed in black? What about our secret JTF2 elite forces. Are you saying they go into battle in uniform to play by the rules?

I thought that the only reason soldiers wear a particular uniform is to keep them from shooting each other.

As I have mentioned before, the Geneva Conventions are cherry picked and/or ignored by all. I would assume that on the battlefield one shoots at anybody who shoots at you. That is usually a good indicator who the enemy is.

The fact that a group of people do not wear uniforms and/or cannot afford them and/or have better use for the little money they have puts them into a special category reserved for rich nations sound silly to me.

Finally, the attitude that there are "rules" in war in who can wear what and who can kill who "under the rules" is mind boggling. War is hell. It is survival at any cost. Anybody going into conflict thinking that they are being protected by some imaginary set of "rules" that define how to win a war is mistaken. Who is the referee?

I submit that the decision of who is a combatant and non combatant is a political decision made by those with an agenda. They have nothing to do with reality.

[WWWTT]

My, you are so dramatic! The US govt is the biggest terrorist organization in the world? Really?? Perhaps you forget that the U.S. govt has our back! I wouldn't be calling them terrorists if I were you.

LOL!

Name me a terrorist strike in Canada then!

Take all the time you need lady!

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

Typical answer.

The west created the rules, so no surprise there you are only regurgitating.

WWWTT

Typical answer there buds, if we used the rules that the insurgents play by we would slit their throats upon capture and let them rot.

[Signals.Cpl]

Victim card, news distraction, whatever you want to call it.

As long as we're not talking about "drone strikes"!

WWWTT

Or this is the first NATO soldier who has been captured, held for a number of years and then is freed... usually they slit the throat after some torture and call it a day... it is newsworthy.

[WWWTT]

Typical answer there buds, if we used the rules that the insurgents play by we would slit their throats upon capture and let them rot.

Why?

That would be letting them off easy, no?

More degrading to imprison them, torture and humiliate!

Wouldn't look for human right leadership from the "drone strike Kings" in the US.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Or this is the first NATO soldier who has been captured, held for a number of years and then is freed... usually they slit the throat after some torture and call it a day... it is newsworthy.

Not like a drone strike on a wedding.

WWWTT

[Signals.Cpl]

I am sorry to say but it sounds silly to me. The description of a set of rules is for some kind of a game with referees enforcing the rules. Ground war is a kill or be killed situation. To be restricted by "rules" appears unrealistic. That would mean that people dressed in camouflage of the "unidentifiable" kind are out of uniform" What about commandoes who are dressed in black? What about our secret JTF2 elite forces. Are you saying they go into battle in uniform to play by the rules?

I thought that the only reason soldiers wear a particular uniform is to keep them from shooting each other.

As I have mentioned before, the Geneva Conventions are cherry picked and/or ignored by all. I would assume that on the battlefield one shoots at anybody who shoots at you. That is usually a good indicator who the enemy is.

The fact that a group of people do not wear uniforms and/or cannot afford them and/or have better use for the little money they have puts them into a special category reserved for rich nations sound silly to me.

Finally, the attitude that there are "rules" in war in who can wear what and who can kill who "under the rules" is mind boggling. War is hell. It is survival at any cost. Anybody going into conflict thinking that they are being protected by some imaginary set of "rules" that define how to win a war is mistaken. Who is the referee?

I submit that the decision of who is a combatant and non combatant is a political decision made by those with an agenda. They have nothing to do with reality.

1)There are rules of war, many nations signed the treaty, some choose to obey others not so much. Some didn't sign the treaty and thus don't even pretend to obey.

2) The rules are not restrictive, they are there to give you certain protection should you be captured... protecting you for lawful actions committed in the war. If you don't obey the rules you are not treated as a POW and are liable in some cases to the death penalty after a trial that is.

3)No that would mean that those who dress in civilian attire and have no visible identification are illegal combatants. A uniform does not need to be identifiable by much, it needs to be identified as a combatant. If Special Forces, wether they be American, Canadian or British play by the rules(identified by uniform) or if they choose civilian attire and hiding their weapons they would not be covered. But then again what our forces do is irrelevant as they do not expect quarter to be given should they be captured:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2011516/Scott-McLaren-British-soldier-paraded-Taliban-chiefs-killed-insurgents.html

wether NATO SF obey the rules or not, they know that should they be captured they will be tortured and executed and then mutilated and not necessary in that order.

4)That uniform is part to identify friendlies, and part to form unit cohesion,loyalty etc... it was added to the definition of legal combatant since it predates the treaty but it makes sense.

5)We are not talking about combat, we are talking about POW's if you do not obey the rules of law, you end up being an illegal combatant and thus your actions were/are illegal. The difference is after capture if I wore a uniform and met all other requirements a civilized nations will treat me as a POW thus giving me some sort of protection e.g. WW2 both sides on the western front, the Western allies and Germany tried to treat POWs to some level of decency some more than others. Whereas both sides on the Eastern Front and the Japanese in the Pacific did not treat POWs to any degree of decency which led to huge numbers of dying in captivity.

6)Identification could be as simple as a visible armband, badge or anything else that makes you identifiable as a combatant of a force.

Members of regular armed forces shall wear their uniform; combatants who are not members of uniformed armed forces have to wear a permanent distinctive sign visible from a distance and carry their arms openly.

it could be simple thing like an armband or a badge.

http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?site_id=9&level1=13336&level2=13374&level3=13458

7) The rules govern capture as well as conduct during the war. Example of the referee is the Nuremberg trial, the Tokyo trial and all subsequent war crime trials. The idea is to prevent events like the Rwanda Genocide and if that fails as it does on many occasions, it is to punish as many of the guilty party as possible.

If the rules of war do not exist, slaughtering millions of people would be a perfectly legitimate action, it is legitimate action right now because no one is willing to interfere in many of those conflicts but eventually those guilty of war crimes are brought to trial.