Sgt. Bergdahl, GTIMO and the "Oh Crap" moment

[Rawedge Rim]

For years, two administrations have held people in GTMO, without trial, and no clear path to be released; essentially on indefinate prison as long as the US wanted to keep it that way. The primary argument against release or trial has been that the prisoners aren't defined by law as "criminals", nor have they been allowed to claim POW status, which would convey it's own set of rights:


Perhaps until now.


President Obama's administration may have opened the door on conferring POW status to the Detainee's in GTMO, after the very public swap of one Sgt. Bergdahl for five relatively high level Taliban.

Comments?


(got to admit that I OK with the thought that one probable deserter from the US Army is worth at least five high level enemies)

[finn]

If one believes we're winding down a war, it's just SOP.
Swapping prisoners pretty much always happens at the end.

If one doesn't think it was ever really a "war," it's still not really anything new. "We don't negotiate with terrorists" isn't completely true. We do, we have.

As a purely technical matter...strange as it might seem, I'm pretty sure the Taliban isn't listed as a terrorist group by the U.S. gov't. Probably specifically so we can negotiate with them in Afghanistan.

But if they are in Guantanamo Bay their status is not as POWs; it is a detention centre for illegal combatants, not a POW camp. They are, as a consequence, being held outside of the rules of the Geneva Convention, which is why many have still not had trials, even by military courts.

The rationale for Gitmo has been that it houses terrorists; clearly without a trial their guilt or innocence cannot be determined as such they should under most western bodies of law be considered innocent until proven otherwise. As such there should be a case for reparations to be paid to them, or they should be able to apply to the US courts for judgement and damages; tho' I don't doubt they have some sort of gag order on them.

Any which way something is wrong. Whilst its good that Bowe will be released, how come he is not seen to be a POW in the same sense that the Gitmo detainees are? It sounds like the rationale being played by the media is that he has been kidnapped, but the Gitmo detainees are terrorists when they need to keep them locked up without trial and then POWs when they want to release them.

If that were the case, what about war crimes charges against the US for the illegal detention and denial of POW status?

No sorry Vraith, these people are supposed to be terrorists, and they were supposed to have been tried and their status determined so that Gitmo could be closed..... that was an election promise. It did not happen supposedly because of the danger these people posed, so releasing 5 of them to buy back one soldier seems daft; will these people (who are too dangerous to be taken to the US mainland) not now go out and kill other "Bowes" or take them captive and wait till the yellow ribbons are on every lamp post in some other small American town and then swap them out for yet more dangerous detainees?

This is a stunt and is being acted out with no consideration to the collateral issues.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

We should never have been holding people in any prison indefinitely without a trial. Terrorist or not, that is not how the United States is supposed to conduct itself.

It is a greater evil to detain someone indefinitely than it would be to let that person go due to lack of evidence and they subsequently kill a couple dozen people. I would rather risk terror attacks than to be party to indefinite detentions without a trial.

Either the United States acts like the United States is supposed to act, we set about changing our name to something else, or we quit pretending that we are the defender of liberty.

[Avatar]

Amen.

And I'd be happier if they just quit pretending. That's the bit that gets to me.

--A

[Zarathustra]

So what was the problem with just trying them in court? Not enough evidence for a conviction?

[Rawedge Rim]

So what was the problem with just trying them in court? Not enough evidence for a conviction?

It's classified. They could tell you, but then they would have to kill you.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So what was the problem with just trying them in court? Not enough evidence for a conviction?

It's classified. They could tell you, but then they would have to kill you.

Sadly, that is pretty much what the government's response actually was.

Didn't Cail link the story of bin Laden's son-in-law, a high-ranking AQ operative, being tried in New York and nothing bad happened? Time for all the others to get trials or be sent back to their country of origin. If the country of origin doesn't want them....well, then that is just to damned bad.

[Rawedge Rim]

So what was the problem with just trying them in court? Not enough evidence for a conviction?

It's classified. They could tell you, but then they would have to kill you.

Sadly, that is pretty much what the government's response actually was.

Didn't Cail link the story of bin Laden's son-in-law, a high-ranking AQ operative, being tried in New York and nothing bad happened? Time for all the others to get trials or be sent back to their country of origin. If the country of origin doesn't want them....well, then that is just to damned bad.

That's why I put it that way. Essentially the Fed stated that presenting the evidence against the detainee, would compromise the method in which the evidence was gathered, and other such intelligence activities, and therefore was classified and may not be devulged. The defendant doesn't even have the right to know the evidence against them, little less his "lawyer", and can be convicted with this "secret evidence" without the ability to refute it.

Just freaking crazy.

[Cail]

So what was the problem with just trying them in court? Not enough evidence for a conviction?

It's classified. They could tell you, but then they would have to kill you.

Sadly, that is pretty much what the government's response actually was.

Didn't Cail link the story of bin Laden's son-in-law, a high-ranking AQ operative, being tried in New York and nothing bad happened? Time for all the others to get trials or be sent back to their country of origin. If the country of origin doesn't want them....well, then that is just to damned bad.

Cail did. The thread was met with yawns for the most part.

Rumor has it that the group that had the defector was no fan of the Taliban or AQ. All they wanted was money. Rumor has it that the prisoner exchange was the administration's idea.

[Avatar]

Dunno anything about the source, assuming it's "liberal," but some interesting points anyway:

www.thenation.com/article/180175/americ ... ed-failure

--A

[Hashi Lebwohl]

So here are five straightforward lessons—none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country—that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:

1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.

3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the US military is incapable of winning its wars.

5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the US military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.

I am glad that someone else is finally saying things I have been saying for years now. If we hadn't been fighting the unwinnable War on Terror for the last decade we could have built a science station on the Moon by now, or something equally grand and positive.

[SoulBiter]

www.nbcnews.com/#/storyline/bowe-bergda ... ap-n128356

I watched this on the news this AM and Chuck Hagel makes a compelling case for why they went after Bergdahl. One thing he said should resonate with people but I bet it wont.

Paraphrasing, he said: I am disappointed in the way he is being treated in the media and how his family is being treated. He is an America soldier. No charges were ever filed against him. Any charges filed if they ever are, are a separate issue from freeing an America Citizen. No one has found a connection between the hunt for Bergdahl and combat deaths.

“No family deserves this,” he said. “I hope there will be sober reflection on people’s conduct regarding this issue and how it relates to the Bergdahl family.”

[Rawedge Rim]

So here are five straightforward lessons—none acceptable in what passes for discussion and debate in this country—that could be drawn from that last half century of every kind of American warfare:

1. No matter how you define American-style war or its goals, it doesn’t work. Ever.

2. No matter how you pose the problems of our world, it doesn’t solve them. Never.

3. No matter how often you cite the use of military force to “stabilize” or “protect” or “liberate” countries or regions, it is a destabilizing force.

4. No matter how regularly you praise the American way of war and its “warriors,” the US military is incapable of winning its wars.

5. No matter how often American presidents claim that the US military is “the finest fighting force in history,” the evidence is in: it isn’t.

I am glad that someone else is finally saying things I have been saying for years now. If we hadn't been fighting the unwinnable War on Terror for the last decade we could have built a science station on the Moon by now, or something equally grand and positive.

I can agree, or at least understand 4 out of 5 of those statements; however the last one:

What fighting force in the world is better that the US military?
Secondly, it's much easier if the military is unleashed, rather than sending it in with inadequate forces, thier hands tied behind thier back, and one foot incased in a concrete block.

Biggest problem with the way we fight wars; we don't. We fight police actions.

Shoot that side of the street but not that side, radio in for permission before responding to enemy fire, stop if it looks like there may be civilians in the city you are fighting in. Use the 50k troops to patrol an area the size of Texas.

Hell, NYC has more cops that there are American troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

[Avatar]

His reasoning for point 5 was

A military whose way of war doesn’t work, doesn’t solve problems, destabilizes whatever it touches and never wins simply can’t be the greatest in history, no matter the firepower it musters.

--A

[TheFallen]

Yes, what Av said re the author's reasoning as to why the US military is not "the finest fighting force in the world".

However, there are other reasons that belie such a typically jingoistic and politically inspired statement. Yes the US military is almost certainly the best-equipped in the world and it's the second largest (falling behind China). However, "finest"?

That depends how you define "finest" of course. In terms of best-trained, the UK, Australia and Israel all train their troops far longer than the US. In terms of the most experienced, you'd have to give it to the Israelis.

As to "most élite unit", not trying to be too full of nationalistic pride here, but that accolade is almost invariably awarded to the British SAS (Special Air Service) and SBS (Special Boat Service), whose tactics and training methods are followed by pretty much all other élite forces around the world. An honourable mention for the US Navy SEALs though, who are the most competent and best-trained of all US forces, considerably more so than either Delta Force, the Green Berets or the Rangers.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

His reasoning for point 5 was

A military whose way of war doesn’t work, doesn’t solve problems, destabilizes whatever it touches and never wins simply can’t be the greatest in history, no matter the firepower it musters.

--A

I suppose then that the assessment should be "finest fighting force with piss-poor leadership".

If you are going to have a large military whose soldiers you have equipped with the latest and greatest firepower and armored support and you are hell-bent on using them to solve a problem or fight an enemy, then the way to use them is not to half-ass it and send in the minimum number required. Instead, you send in everyone and you shoot anything that moves. In other words, if you know that your hand is a really strong hand then you don't call and raise a pittance--you go all in. If you aren't going to use a powerful military in this manner then don't use them at all.

I am not going to worry about which force has the most highly trained units. There are groups in many military forces against whom I would never want to fight--trained killers who are comfortable with inflicting violence on others.

[Avatar]

It's a difficult call to make Hashi. Using them like that would be tantamount to admitting that the US are not good guys, and your government doesn't ever want to do that. They want that moral high ground, even if the claim becomes ever more dubious.

--A

[Rawedge Rim]

His reasoning for point 5 was

A military whose way of war doesn’t work, doesn’t solve problems, destabilizes whatever it touches and never wins simply can’t be the greatest in history, no matter the firepower it musters.

--A

No, I believe the US military performed it's real job as well as it was allowed to. The purpose of the military is the break things and kill people. We were very effective at that end of the operation. It is not the purpose of the military to provide and emplace governments; that is the purpose of politicians and statesmen. Those are the guys who suck.

If you use a hammer to turn screws, you shouldn't be surprised at the lousy results.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

If you use a hammer to turn screws, you shouldn't be surprised at the lousy results.

^ Yes, what he said.