Well, it will be interesting to see folks defend signing statements here. 
Sure it does good to tell Congress. That is the law. The president should tell Congress as much as he can in order to comply with the law. Unless, that is, you want to advocate that the president is above the law.
Every single Guantanamite should have been given a trial by now, and either moved to a proper prison or released. A LONG time ago. If we’re going to release prisoners who haven’t been convicted of anything, then we might as well get something in exchange.
I have to wonder if this was just a ploy to get rid of some detainees (which the administration has been wanting to do since day 1) more than just getting a soldier, who may or may not have deserted to join the enemy, back.
Plus, I wonder if silenus is correct that the US is hoping those released detainees will lead some SpecOps teams right to Al-Qaeda HQ after release.
I think you missed the point I was attempting to make.
It does no good to tell Congress we are going to be releasing some guys, UNLESS you can tell them who. If Congress doesn’t know exactly which ones are going to be released, or their rank or nationality or history, what kind of meaningful response can they give? (The law requires that the president name names, anyway, not just say “some guys.”)
Your argument was that the whole negotiations may well have lasted more than 30 days. However, there is no reason at this stage to suppose the exact number and identities were established at the onset. Even if the negotiations lasted six months, it’s entirely possibly the first five and a half were spent negotiating whether there even could be an exchange.
Once the negotiations reach the point of actually agreeing on exactly which guys, only then can the 30 day clock start. However, is there grounds for thinking that the Taliban, having from their point of view concluded an agreement, are going to be satisfied to wait around another 30 days without changing their minds or having an internal power struggle that voids the whole deal?
Yes, I think generally the president should tell Congress as much as he can. However, I’m not so sure that as much as he can = everything Congress wants to know.
Theer are two broad categories of people in Guantanamo- a small number of really evil men who were part of major conspiracies against the US and who are faced with real evidence of this and may well be guilty in international law. There are another group who have inadequate evidence to ever move against the legally or morally- foot soldiers or innocent people picked up in bounty hunter deals.
It seems strange that five of the worst of the worst have been released while many innocents are still detained and tortured for unknown reasons.
POWs and Illegal combatants cannot get trial accoding to the Geneva conventions. They are not held as criminals, therefore they cannot be moved to a prison for criminals.
They can be, accodring to Geneva:
a) Set free whenever the captor wants
b) At the end of the war
whatever comes first.
Israel is incompetent on this matter. Prior to Shilat, the last prisoner exchange released a kidnapper and murderer who beat a four year old girl to death and four others in exchange for the corpses of two Israeli soldiers who were killed during another kidnapping attempt. That is just obscene.
Which was an idiotic decision reaching underpants on head levels of stupidity. Its unfortunate that while Israel is inflexible on issues it ought to be flexible on (such as settlements in the West Bank), it is utterly lacking in spine and manly firmness on this issue. It is quite probable that far more Israeli soldiers will die at the end of these released terrorists then if Gilad Shalit had been murdered by the terrorists.
We should never conduct any prisoner exchanges unless (at the least) it was a ratio of 1:1.
Well, I didn’t say it was a good deal. Mileage varies and all that. But it’s silly for US officials to be up in arms about five guys being exiled to the other side of the world when Israel let a thousand go and the only thing separating Israel from the final destination of those prisoners is a fence.
I also assume the US is crafty in such things and has some means of tracking these five dangerous men. I have no idea what kind of options they might have available for this but I imagine something like a very small tracking device embedded so deep in the body it would kill the person if you tried to remove it. Or having them drink something mildly radioactive so they won’t die (right away) but will leave a nice green trail of footprints right to Jihad Central, which will then be blown away by drone strike.
I think too many people in the US, particularly in government, have an over-inflated sense of how dangerous these guys are. I’m sure they are mad as hell and ready to rejoin the fight and I’m sure they’ll feel that way right up until the Hellfire missile comes through the window. Letting them go does not have to be a victory for the bad guys and could in fact be a huge victory for the good guys.
Well, the fact that another country engaged in an even more foolish policy, does not prefer or detract from an appropriate criticism of a bad policy of this country. of course this does not exclude the possibility that some people may exaggerate the potential dangers of this action.
One would certainly hope that such measures are being taken, but judging from past experiences, it isn’t that likely.
As soon as they step out of Qatar, they’ll be shot by drones.
There is nothing in that article even suggesting he was going to join the Taliban.
It is the US’s position that these folks are not POWs, so you can scratch that off the list.
“Illegal combatant” is a term invented by the US, and not used in the GCs. Anyone who is not a POW and is held in detention is due a prompt hearing to determine that person’s actual status.
I don’t mind them in principle. They have no legal effect. I was upset about the nature of some of Bush’s signing statements.
Frankly, it sounded like he had a psychotic break.
Yeah, thinking he was going to hike it to China or something is tres loco.
Kind of ridiculous the deaths they are trying to lay at his feet in that article. I mean, if his outpost had been attacked and him ditching guard duty allowed a more successful outcome for the Taliban, that’s one thing. But 4 days later an IED kills someone in a group out looking for him? Like that IED wouldn’t have been set somewhere without him AWOL? And oh, because we put all our resources into a search effort, we couldn’t close down this other base and it got attacked so that’s his fault too. Howsabout you don’t turn your entire war effort into a search for 1 AWOL soldier?
This.
We elect a President every four years, and invest him with the authority to act on our behalf. He has access to relevant information we don’t, and it’s his job to set and steer our foreign policy. It’s his call to make.
Once again shades of the Crusades; the people invading another country, killing, torturing and imprisoning natives without trial are the good guys and the people in their own country rejecting the invaders are the terrorists. Got to love these white man wars.
Of course the US president is the son of some really white Kansas chick.