Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama admin. negotiates with terrorists (Page 7)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Obama admin. negotiates with terrorists
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385979/feds-obama-broke-law-bergdahl-swap-joel-gehrke

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap
By Joel Gehrke
August 21, 2014 2:57 PM

> President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

> “[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good link Cherry.

Not only was it a violation of federal law, but it was an unconstitutional violation of the power of the purse.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Pete,

I do.

If a country invades the US and captures any of our domestic politicians - say they invade and capture a bunch of senators and congressmen, and cabinet members, perhaps even the President and Vice President. None of those individuals would be wearing uniforms.

Are you saying they would not be subject to the Geneva convention?

From what I understand most of these captures were not on the battlefield.

For instance,

quote:
In October 2001, Abdul Haq Wasiq, another of the five, traveled to Ghazni province for a clandestine meeting with the CIA and Afghan warlords in an attempt to strike a deal. Wasiq worked with the Taliban's spy agency, and he was negotiating on behalf of his boss, according to the memoir of Harry Crumpton, then deputy chief of operations at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center.

Sounds like a Rudolf Hess situation. But then I'm not comfortable with what happened to Rudolf Hess.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Good link Cherry.

Not only was it a violation of federal law, but it was an unconstitutional violation of the power of the purse.

Mmmm, the flavor of the month (and every month), Impeach Mint.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by AI Wessex:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Good link Cherry.

Not only was it a violation of federal law, but it was an unconstitutional violation of the power of the purse.

Mmmm, the flavor of the month (and every month), Impeach Mint.
So are Dianne Feinstein and the GAO wrong that Obama broke these laws?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dunno. Maybe. Let's have more hearings.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bergdahl will now be charged with desertion.

So we now have confirmation that Obama negotiated with terrorists to get back someone that the military thinks deserted.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So you are of the opinion that Americans thought to have deserted should be left to rot in the hands of terrorists?
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given that he joined those terrorists of his own free will and we had to hurt our security to get him, a known traitor and deserter back he should have been left with them. He was not worth it.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Given that he joined those terrorists of his own free will and we had to hurt our security to get him, a known traitor and deserter back he should have been left with them. He was not worth it.
And you know that for a fact. It's not just hearsay and rumors. We knew, for a fact, that he "joined the terrorists of his own free will," that he was a "traitor" and a "deserter." Show me the facts, that you would wager your life on, that all this is absolutely true.

Because everything I have heard so far is hearsay, mainly from people who have a grudge against Obama. People who would have gladly left an American soldier in the hands of the enemy if it would smear, even a little bit, the image of the President. People who would gladly sacrifice an American soldier if they thought they could win a few political points from it.

But I'm sure you are absolutely sure of your facts, that they came only from the most trustworthy sources, and that everyone agrees that whatever the enemy did to him, and would ever do to him, is just punishment for his proven crimes.

So why don't you review for us these unshakable facts that you would bet your life on.

Because even if you wouldn't bet your own life on them, you wish we had bet Bergdahl's life on them.

Once you have done that, then perhaps we can discuss how disgusting it was that Obama saved an American soldier from the enemy.

[ January 27, 2015, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd bet my life on it.

Now that the military has decided to go ahead with the court martial it is all but certain he did it. Military court martials work differently than civilian courts. You still get a presumption of innocence but the standard for bringing a court martial is very, very high. It is a near certainty they have enough solid evidence to convict him.

The reason this is important is that we need to make a determination on whether he deserted BEFORE we traded for him, and the evidence for that was already there. That made Obama's actions disgusting and deplorable. And even the Democrats say that Obama violated the law when he did this.

[ January 27, 2015, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'd bet my life on it.
Well, if you like wild gambles, that's your business. [Smile]

Hopefully, your sources are more reliable than the source that said that the military has already made the decision to charge him.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The charge sheet statement was not denied, notice the military didn't clear him either. The charge sheet shows they are on the verge of announcing it and are probably a combination of angry that it leaked as well as fighting last minute panicked attempts from Obama to stop this from going forward.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
when did we ever have a presidential administration that did not negotiate with terrorists? Reagan began negotiating with terrorists even before he became President.negotiating with terrorists might as well be in the presidential oath of office.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh oh, looks like the terrorists that Obama traded are already trying to get back into terrorism...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/29/politics/bergdahl-swap-prisoner-militant-activity/

quote:
Washington (CNN)The U.S. military and intelligence community now suspect that one of the five Taliban detainees released from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in May of last year has attempted to return to militant activity from his current location in Qatar, CNN has learned exclusively.

The development has led to an ongoing debate inside the administration about whether there is a new threat from this man, and potentially the other four.

Several U.S. officials across different agencies and branches of the U.S. government have confirmed key details to CNN. The White House referred CNN to the Pentagon.

Under current law, this act placed the man in the category of being "suspected" of re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent activities. However, several officials say there is now a debate inside the administration that the intelligence may be stronger than the "suspected" classification. Some elements of the intelligence community believe the information is strong enough to classify the man as "confirmed" for returning to illegal activities.

Ooops!
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, if they've got them tracked so well, maybe we've gained intelligence by releasing them. The exchange might have been tactical, rather than humanitarian. Another tactical reason is that Bergdahl himself may have been a security threat in enemy hands. He'd probably already leaked information, but the training he could provide militants could be far more damaging.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In related news the Obama administration recently tried to make the case that the Taliban was not a terrorist group, because not only then would they be seen making concessions to terrorists but the people they released are already trying to join back up with the terrorists.

I guess the Taliban didn't appreciate Obama not "taking them seriously" so they just executed a terrorist attack that killed 3 Americans in Afghanistan.

Do you think Obama will allow us to call the Taliban terrorists now or do we have to wait for a certain number of Americans to get killed first?

[ January 30, 2015, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ScottF
Member
Member # 6897

 - posted      Profile for ScottF         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Well, if they've got them tracked so well, maybe we've gained intelligence by releasing them.

I quite like this notion - perhaps we implanted tracking devices (wrecked 'em? Damn near killed 'em!) that enables us to track them in real time. The Find My Terrorist app we've all been waiting to download.
Posts: 177 | Registered: Mar 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, that's what I said at the beginning of this thread. All it takes is some legitimate surgery, and you can slip a tracker in.

If the surgery is legitimate then there's not even a violation of humanitarian law.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
In related news the Obama administration recently tried to make the case that the Taliban was not a terrorist group, because not only then would they be seen making concessions to terrorists but the people they released are already trying to join back up with the terrorists.

I guess the Taliban didn't appreciate Obama not "taking them seriously" so they just executed a terrorist attack that killed 3 Americans in Afghanistan.

Do you think Obama will allow us to call the Taliban terrorists now or do we have to wait for a certain number of Americans to get killed first?

Whether or not the Taliban are called terrorists, we are still fighting them. I think they are terrorists now, but so long as we are fighting them, what's the big deal about what we call them.

in some cases, calling them terrorist actually prevents escalation of a conflict. For example, the day that Israel stops calling Hamas terrorists, and calls them a sovereign enemy government,is going to be war like we haven't seen for half a century.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The news is reporting today that the Obama administration has said it was Holder's call on violating the law and refusing to inform Congress about the Bergdahl trade, something that legislators from both parties agree was an illegal action by Obama.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, this is a long-standing separation of powers issue that predates both of us. in every presidential administration that I can remember, there has been an incident where Congress sets aside it's party difference to argue these points. the Supreme Court won't sorted out for them
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No surprise for me.

Finally, after an undoubtedly long siege by the Obama administration to try and subvert the rule of law, the military announced they are trying Bergdahl for desertion. Given the way military justice works the case against him must be incredibly strong, especially to resist all the political pressure the Obama administration must be putting on to avoid this.

When he is probably convicted will those of you who denied it finally admit this was a terrible trade, the way it was done violated the law and the Obama administration gave up several terrorists (who are already getting back into terrorism) for a gutless deserter?

[ March 25, 2015, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe this was the only politically acceptable way to rid ourselves of those prisoners as we are unwilling to execute them and keeping them detained beyond our borders indefinatly was also politically unacceptable?

I'm sure this is not the outcome the White House wanted. Being able to spin it as a rescue rather than an abdication of responsibility for the prisoners in question would be nice. That said, I don't know if it was a "terrible trade", but I never defended it in the first place.

Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Desertion in a time of war. He could get the death penalty. The Obama administration seems to so easily kill Americans but is unwilling to execute terrorists. Nice.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Makes you wonder how quick to capture enemy combatants we will be moving forward. I wonder how useful the intel is measured against sitting on them for... well forever?
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
No surprise for me.

Finally, after an undoubtedly long siege by the Obama administration to try and subvert the rule of law, the military announced they are trying Bergdahl for desertion. Given the way military justice works the case against him must be incredibly strong, especially to resist all the political pressure the Obama administration must be putting on to avoid this.

When he is probably convicted will those of you who denied it finally admit this was a terrible trade, the way it was done violated the law and the Obama administration gave up several terrorists (who are already getting back into terrorism) for a gutless deserter?

I was against the trade originally, but based on Seneca's information, I think it may have been a very good idea. If bergdahl deserted during the time of war to join the enemy, then he could have given the enemy information and training that would have hurt us a lot more than anything that the five people that we let go could do. it's also possible that at least one of the parts that we let go had been turned or implanted with a tracker, or was otherwise useful on the outside.the fact that the administration is not call me forward to defend its position, actually speaks very highly of Obama.makes it more likely that he has something up his sleeve that we aren't informed about.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From info already released he already gave them training and information. Why do the trade following that?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My guess is following this traitor's desertion conviction the Obummer admin will do everything they can to bury this photo:
http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/Entertainment/880/558/bergdahl%20parents%20obama%20reuters.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, does it bother you that we went to any trouble to rescue a "gutless deserter?" Or are you more bothered by the fact that we swapped some flesh for him?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
philnotfil
Member
Member # 1881

 - posted      Profile for philnotfil     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
From info already released he already gave them training and information. Why do the trade following that?

Because he is an American.

If we only protect those Americans that we like, we aren't doing it right.

Posts: 3719 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm actually a little upset by the idea that we should have found him guilty of desertion in absentia, and consequently concluded that a fit punishment would be to leave him a captive of terrorists.

The idea that we should have left Bergdahl to rot is not, from any angle I can see, one that is morally supportable.

That said, you can quibble over how we should have got him back, and I think critics of the administration have a more solid complaint here. While the prisoners we traded away were no great loss to our intelligence community (and no particular asset to the enemy), the manner in which the trade was made is something I find problematic. I'm not sure what alternatives exist, though, given the current climate of kneejerk Republican obstructionism; Obama can't simply shut the country down and wait for them to shuffle out of office. I sincerely wish Congress had enough sense of responsibility to try to govern. [Frown]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
From info already released he already gave them training and information. Why do the trade following that?

More training, OBVIOUSLY. Sheesh, Seneca. Since we dont have auto~download tech like in the Matrix, THE TRADE DEPRIVED AQ OF A permanent TRAINING RESOURCE!

Since you now inform me that his training of aq is publicly kmown, and that is yet another tactical Obama victory.potential Americans the factors are going to be less likely to defect to al-qaeda now that they are known to trading their own people over to American authorities.that little bit of counter terrorism would be a huge PR victory as this guy is put on trial and put to death, crying about his betrayal by Al Qaeda.

some of Tom's bad arguments (poor widdle al qaeda "captive") *for* obama are the best arguments that i have seen for *your* position, Seneca... but at the moment I think your bad anti Obama arguments provide a stronger argument for Obama's policy

[ March 26, 2015, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
some of Tom's bad arguments (poor widdle al qaeda "captive") *for* obama
By all accounts, which are as far as I know uncontested, he was in fact being held captive and treated rather badly.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's another wrinkle. military court martials normally move very quickly. this one does not seem to be moving quickly. there has got to be an interestingstory about this deviation from military procedure. Ever see Hart's War? it's possible that the court-martial is a false flag operation. I can think of three possible distinct scenarios that would justify is the exchange followed by a false flag court martial.any guesses?

any one, two, or all three of these scenarios could be simultaneously true.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
some of Tom's bad arguments (poor widdle al qaeda "captive") *for* obama
By all accounts, which are as far as I know uncontested, he was in fact being held captive and treated rather badly.
Western women that defect to Isis might not be treated like princesses, but we don't go offering to trade over 5 top al Qaeda prisoners for them. if you're going to give up stfive prisoners could have been exchanged for a dozen I think those five prisoners could have been exchanged for a dozen Yazidi women or Nigerian school girls.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Leaving him there was never a matter of "punishment" for his crimes so everyone needs to stop repeating that little straw man. The reason to leave him there based on the fact he was a deserter was that if he was there by his own free will then any rescue attempt would be too dangerous because of the likelihood of his participation in a trap in recovering him. How many died trying to find him? How many could have died in a botched rescue operation of fake trade that might have been a trap? This was the reason we needed to determine his status as a deserter before getting him back.

Also, we released at least one killer to get him back. That murderer should have stayed in jail for life. How is it fair that a murderer is released for this? Also, 3 out of the 5 terrorists, including the murderer, have already attempted to restart their terrorist activities that we KNOW of...

Pete, Bergdahl was a PFC. Given the Intel on how long he was there and his conversion and his training and helping the enemy they likely drained someone of his rank and access of all useful information within a matter of weeks. There is likely no more damage he could have done and recovering him was far too dangerous.

I also want an answer from Obama's defenders here. Is liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein lying when she said Obama broke one or two laws here?

[ March 26, 2015, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The reason to leave him there based on the fact he was a deserter was that if he was there by his own free will then any rescue attempt would be too dangerous because of the likelihood of his participation in a trap in recovering him.
So once it was ascertained that this was not the scenario, it was in fact a good thing that we got him back, yes?

quote:
That murderer should have stayed in jail for life. How is it fair that a murderer is released for this?
It intrigues me that you're concerned about "fairness" in this sort of situation, but not in others that I would consider far more important. Why is "fairness" a priority for you in this scenario?

-------

quote:
if you're going to give up stfive prisoners could have been exchanged for a dozen I think those five prisoners could have been exchanged for a dozen Yazidi women or Nigerian school girls
Well, that's assuming that we were actually trading with the same people, which we weren't. But yes, no doubt we could have gotten a better "deal" on the trade, if indeed there are not nuances involved in this trade of which I'm not aware. (I would like to point out that this is a big "if," as you have yourself noted.)
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
but we don't go offering to trade over 5 top al Qaeda prisoners for them.
You've inflated the case here. We release 5 Taliban functionaries, two of whom were baseline strongmen, the others of which were essentially just middle-management bureaucrats. The one that Seneca points out as a killer was, in fact, a prison administrator that put down a riot in which some people were killed. Blood on his hands, for sure, but within what would be expected casualties of war.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
All those quotes and yet somehow this wasn't responded to...

I wonder why...

quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Is liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein lying when she said Obama broke one or two laws here?


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1