No I did not. I said there was a committee set up for this. Congress DOES have input on this after that process.
Yes, the Afghans as in the people who were killed by the people we just released.
And we didn’t instal anyone. People died voting for those in office so your cavalier attitude is inappropriate. The Afghan people have had to put up with a lot of shit from terrorists with or without our intervention.
Yes, they can shut it down. They control the money spent which was how the law was written. But you managed to wander off the original argument I made about Obama ignoring this process. He gave up the support he would have gained by those put in a position to support it. He made this his own and gets all the criticism that comes with it.
It’s disingenuous on anyone’s part to complain about the criticism when he went out of his way to create it.
And these guys, they aren’t Afghans? The Taliban, they aren’t Afghans? I can sure tell you who isn’t Afghan, and that would be us. We aren’t Afghan. People have an odd habit of resentment towards foreign powers who “intervene” with military force. Even though the intervention comes from the most noble and selfless purposes, still, they don’t much like it.
Most people, in fact, are like that. As the “Afghans” demonstrated in their resistance to the Soviet “intervention”. And most people recognize that resistance to foreign invasion…excuse, “intervention”, sorry…is a right, even a duty.
Is it your position that such a right evaporates when the “intervention” is performed by Americans?
“Sure, you can resist the Soviets, hell, we’ll even help you! Here, have a bunch of guns and stuff! Just don’t take on any weird ideas like you have some right to resist us, because we are the Americans, so that doesn’t count.”
So, I guess the difference between a terrorist and a patriot is pretty much who they are shooting at?
my position is that the people of Afghanistan don’t want these 5 terrorists set free.
I didn’t wander off. You said that if he followed the law, this wouldn’t have happened. If he had followed the law, it still would have happened, and the Republicans would be even more pissed that he ignored them.
He doesn’t have any legal obligation to get approval. They can not ‘shut it down’.
“Under the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by Obama late last year, the administration gained some added flexibility in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, but was required to notify Congress 30 days in advance. However, legislators had no power to block such a transfer.”
So it’s your contention that had he given the notice, the transfer wouldn’t have happened because of pressure not to do it, so Obama wouldn’t be getting criticized now? Or is it your contention that if he had given the 30 day notice and the trade happened anyway, which it could have because Congress has no authority to stop it, that Obama wouldn’t be getting criticized now? I find both scenarios unlikely.
A close friend was actually interviewed on Fox News yesterday about this, and he had some good points to make.
-
Prisoner swaps have lots of historical precedent, and a 5:1 ratio is very favorable to the US relative to the 20:1 and 100:1 ratios of Korea and Vietnam era prisoner swaps.
-
Like others have said, when the hostilities end, the prisoners are repatriated. We’d likely have let these 5 Taliban clowns loose inside of a year anyway.
-
Things get really murky when you’re dealing with non-state actors like the Taliban, who incidentally, is NOT listed as a terrorist organization by the State Dept.
My thinking is that those are very telling- we are not negotiating with terrorists, we got a very favorable exchange ratio, and we’d have let those guys loose in a year or so anyway.
Seems like a terrifically good deal to me.
Your friend is dead on the money Bump. Number 3 is very relevant. It’s not like there’s a North Korea or Vietnam country we can deal with. It gets murky fast.
Any chance you have a link?
Remember in 2009 when North Korea was holding two American journalists prisoner and all that it took to release them was a Bill Clinton photo-op andconservatives still complained about negotiating with terrorists despite the fact it was Bush who had removed NK from the terrorist blacklist in 2008.
And it was a huge thing in the news, right? No. It was a news cycle and then it was forgotten.
This is a “thing”, and it’s not a thing just because Republicans want it to be thing. It’s a thing because it’s actually significant and raises major questions about his judgement.
Which people in Afghanistan, though? There’s hardly much opinion-polling in that country, but what little there is (see, e.g., this 2013 poll) shows sharp regional divides.
For example, in the south and east of Afghanistan, in the areas traditionally dominated by the Pashtun, half or more of the residents polled (including about 80% of urban males) wanted the Taliban to have at least some role in government.
In Kabul, no, I don’t think the people want these five set free. In Zabul Province in the south, however, I suspect you’d get quite a different response. Which group accurately and completely represents “the people of Afghanistan”?
You can’t logically criticize it if you approved it (unless your John Kerry). When Bush waged war in Iraq he got Democrats to sign on to the war. It didn’t stop criticism but it legitimized his efforts. He was criticized for everything under the sun just as Clinton, Carter, Reagan and every other President was. The difference is the degree to which each president reached out to the other party. Clinton Kennedy, and Reagan learned to work with Congress. Nixon, Carter and Obama, not so much.
If Michael Moore or Oliver North have an opinion then so what? If members of Congress have an opinion on laws broken then they are legitimate criticisms. It’s not logical that you don’t see a problem with releasing 5 dangerous terrorists against the advice of the advisory board, Congress, and the Afghan government.
The group that doesn’t approve of the terrorists in question slaughtering people.
He should be; he’s a history professor who wrote a recent book on US treatment and attitudes toward POWs through history, and he also happens to work for the military. Plus, he’s a very intelligent, level-headed and pragmatic sort of guy, as well as professionally apolitical.
I don’t have a link to his interview- it doesn’t seem to be on the Fox News site. I got wind of it from his Facebook page and DVRed it.
Thanks. That’s a useful summary.
What Susan said. It was spot on. Thanks.
Um, pretty much EVERY group in power in Afghanistan today has at some point slaughtered people. Civil wars are rarely very civil.
What you are saying amounts to: “the people in Afghanistan who don’t like this particular group don’t like this particular group’s people being let loose.” That’s self-evident. You’ve given no data, however, to suggest that the subset who don’t like this particular group are representative of the majority of Afghan citizens, or the majority in the parts of Afghanistan from which these five hail. That’s what I’m asking for: do you have evidence that the majority of the people of Afghanistan oppose this release?
Still, that was a dandy answer, if the purpose of an answer is to evade the question while simultaneously implying that only an amoral jerk would have asked it.
I heartily endorse the opinions offered on Fox News above, and will have more to say after the shock passes… Oh, you say it disappeared? Well, all right then…
If we are not at war, we are at peace. Different varieties of peace, there is harmonious peace, edgy and suspicious peace, all the way to teetering on the brink of bloodshed. All of these are preferable to the alternative.
A successful negotiation is a serious and concrete step towards reaching peace. I don’t foresee any cultural exchange missions or trade negotiations, but a lack of bloodshed will do, for now.
so they’re all blood thirsty savages. Nice.