I didn’t say anything about bloodthirsty savages, so don’t put words in my mouth.
They have, however, been fighting a civil war (or series of civil wars) for going on forty years. Like I said, civil wars are rarely civil–pretty much every civil war has its share of atrocities. In Afghanistan, virtually every faction has been accused of war crimes: the Taliban slaughtered Northern Alliance prisoners, Gen’l Dostum’s forces slaughtered the Taliban and its supporters, warlords and Jamiat Islami slaughtered both. Fighters and civilians, men, women, and children–at least a million Afghan citizens died in the wars, and they weren’t all battlefield deaths. For example, the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission mapped more than 180 mass graves and named more than 500 political figures as tied to the killings, ranging from one of the men just released from Gitmo to both the first and second vice-presidents in the current government of Afghanistan.
The hostilities with whom? In Afghanistan? Did these 5 terrorists represent any nation state? Since they represent the Taliban, did your close friend mean they should be released inside of a year after the Taliban ends all hostilities?
–Mohammad Nabi Omari: According to intelligence estimates, Omari is “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained” at the Guantanamo Bay prison. Omari apparently has strong ties to, among other terror groups, Al Qaeda.
–Mullah Norullah Noori: Another “significant” Taliban player who takes credit for slaughtering thousands – thousands – of the Shiite Muslim minority in Afghanistan during the Taliban’s rise to power before Sept. 11, 2001.
–Mullah Mohammad Fazl: The former Taliban deputy defense minister, and a partner with Noori in the massacre of Shiite Muslims.
–Abdul Haq Wasiq: There’s little public information about Wasiq, except that he’s pals with the rest of the Taliban officials, and worked in the Taliban intelligence department.
–Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa: The former minister of the interior under the Taliban regime, and a provincial governor.
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
The law actually says that the Sec of Def doesn’t have any money to transfer GITMO detainees without giving 30 days notice. Congress included the 30 day notice because Congress wanted a say in how the GITMO detainees were moved about. While the word vetted isn’t used, the term vetting means to study or examine something. There’s no point in vetting a transfer after the transfer is made. Elected Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Partiers are strongly objecting to Obama’s imperial action.
It seems to me that since Congress had already made it clear that they didn’t want these 5 specific terrorists released to the non nation-state Taliban, Obama chose to ignore the law and free up 5 beds at GITMO. Did the Sec of Def illegally transfer funds from another government department or did Obama pay for the transfer out of his own pocket?
I could have also included anyone with a lick of common sense. These are 5 extremely dangerous people who will have to be tracked down again and, hopefully, killed the next time.
No, but the Taliban are in Afghanistan (and adjacent areas of Pakistan). Within the year, we won’t be. We will not have combat troops in either Afghanistan or Pakistan, and therefore we won’t be engaged in hostilities in either country or with the residents of either country.
I’m not aware of any instance where the Taliban has conducted hostile operations outside those two countries. Are you?
The law you quote does NOT say “Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual and then Congress votes to decide whether to allow it.”
At the end of the 30 days, the president would in full compliance with the law still be able to transfer the five, unless Congress passed and the president signed a new law (or Congress passed a new law over the president’s veto) specifically saying otherwise. (In the unlikely event that Congress could get it together enough to pass such a law within the time limit, however, we have even more constitutional objections about Congress’s intrusion into the day-to-day operations of the executive branch.)
Of course, it’s entirely possible that the president gives 30 days notice, then the Taliban change their minds or Bergdahl dies or for some other reason the whole thing becomes moot.
These 5 specific terrorist wouldn’t have to be released until the Taliban stops hostilities. Do you think that will be with the next year as someone up thread suggested?
You’re suggesting that if things were different, things would be different. And you’d be right. As it is, elected Democrats and Republicans are pissed that Obama chose to ignore Congress. Many members of the public are pissed that Obama chose to ignore Congress and that he made such a stupid and dangerous trade. Other’s adore everything Obama says or does.
Why do you think that they wouldn’t have to be released until the Taliban stops hostilities, as opposed to when the U.S. stops hostilities with the Taliban?
If the five have to be released when the war is over, I submit that the war in which the U.S. is involved will be over next year. Some other war will continue in that part of the word, as other wars have continued for decades, but the U.S. war won’t.
(Per Wikipedia: “The War in Afghanistan (2001–present) refers to the intervention by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and allied forces in the ongoing Afghan civil war.” NATO and all its allies are heading for the exits.)
That’s always been the central issue with Gitmo - that it’s effectively outside *any *law other than the President’s say-so.
And they’re not really prisoners of war if the President calls them “enemy combatants” instead. So, no real, enforceable obligation to do a damn thing.
Er… When we pulled our troops out of Vietnam IIRC we released members of the NLF/VC even though they were still fighting the South Vietnamese “government”.