Obama's Foreign Policy Sell-out

[Sparko]

The Taliban are not part of the Geneva convention. They are not a recognized force. They are terrorists, not a national army. They are not any part of the legitimate Afghani government or military. And as far as I know what we are doing in Afghanistan is not an actual war at all. We are basically training and assisting the Afghanistan government in ridding themselves of these criminals.

So legally they are not "POWs" nor are they subject to the Geneva convention.

[Cow Poke]

The Taliban are not part of the Geneva convention. They are not a recognized force. They are terrorists, not a national army. They are not any part of the legitimate Afghani government or military. And as far as I know what we are doing in Afghanistan is not an actual war at all. We are basically training and assisting the Afghanistan government in ridding themselves of these criminals.

So legally they are not "POWs" nor are they subject to the Geneva convention.

EGGzackly.

HOWEVER, let's pretend they ARE a party to the Geneva Convention.

If so, Part IV, Section 1, Article 109 would have required them to return Bergdahl because he, supposedly, was "in failing physical condition". Isn't that what the Obama idiots claimed?

Source: Atricle 109

Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.

© Copyright Original Source

This would NOT have required us to send them five of their top guys.

Article 110 continues

Source: Article 110

The following shall be repatriated direct:

1. Incurably wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

2. Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year, whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

3. Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely and pemmanently diminished.

The following may be accommodated in a neutral country:

1. Wounded and sick whose recovery may be expected within one year of the date of the wound or the beginning of the illness, if treatment in a neutral country might increase the prospects of a more certain and speedy recovery.

2. Prisoners of war whose mental or physical health, according to medical opinion, is seriously threatened by continued captivity, but whose accommodation in a neutral country might remove such a threat.

© Copyright Original Source

Further -- The Geneva Convention (to which the Islamist Extremists are NOT parties) does NOT require a "prisoner exchange" -- and the repatriation takes place "after the cessation of hostilities".

So, PLEASE, Jimmy --- try again. What is the legal requirement for us to send the bad guys their TOP FIVE LEADERS during ongoing hostilities?

[rogue06]

Just for your information, I'm sure you're all aware of this, but this trade, this exact same trade, has been in the works since 2011 at which time Republicans were lauding the deal. The Taliban backed out of the deal because one of the stipulations was that Bergdahl's name be kept secret until the deal was done, but it wasn't, his name was leaked, end of deal. Republicans pols and the GOP echo chamber are all acting as if this is all new to them, when they were all praising the deal back in 2011 and 12. Oh, you didn't know that? Benghazi, Benghazi!

While a swap was in the works FWIU it wasn't for these five guys. They were always considered no deal. And there had been a different trade in the works -- an exchange for cash but Obama quashed this because he wanted a prisoner swap and it looks like for these five.

[Cow Poke]

All liberals aren't right.

That works!

[rogue06]

So, PLEASE, Jimmy --- try again. What is the legal requirement for us to send the bad guys their TOP FIVE LEADERS during ongoing hostilities?

It would be like if we captured Himmler, Goering, Goebbels, Bormann and Heydrich and then swapped them for a deserter in the middle of WWII

[Zymologist]

All liberals aren't right all of the time you know, just most of the time.

Well, except for Obama, right? I mean, he does everything right.

[RumTumTugger]

This is all just a big smear campaign orchestrated by Republicans.



Nothing to see here folks. This is just another fabricated "controversy" meant to attack Obama because, I don't know, racism and stuff?

you forgot the sarcasm tags that probably don't work yet

[lilpixieofterror]

Geneva Convention! Even before the U.S signed on to the Geneva Convention prisoners of war were repatriated with their countries at the end of war.

You know Jimmy, just when I think you can't say anything any dumber, you go and surprise me and say something even dumber. For starters, the Taliban has never signed the Geneva Convention and they have violated it so much, they likely would have been rounded up and shot on site if the invasion had taken place decades earlier.

Actually you know nothing more about these particular guys than you do about any of the other prisoners at gitmo. Btw, Nuremburg was a trial.

And considering they are not part of any recognized government and have violated about every provision of the Geneva Convention anyway, being put on trial for war crimes would likely be the least of their concerns. Really Jimmy, stop talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

They are Afghani Taliban, which is an Afghan military force with whom we are at war in Afghanistan. And no, the Geneva Convention allows no such thing.

The Taliban is not part of the current Afghan government Jimmy, but were the post de facto dictators before the US came in. Even ignoring that, you seem to know nothing about the Geneva Convention. Stealing planes and using them to kill lots of people is against the Geneva Convention (IE I doubt they would be 'approved weapons'). Not wearing a military uniform during combat is also against the Geneva Convention. They don't avoid unnecessary suffering since they specifically target and kill lots of civilians and I somehow doubt planes full of people would fall into that either. Do you want me to go on about all the things the Taliban has done that is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention? In reality, if they were caught doing this stuff a century ago, it is likely they would have been rounded up and shot. However; the fact you'll defend such people that have no issue with killing any westerner is only further evidence that you don't have the slightest clue of what really is going on.

Just for your information, I'm sure you're all aware of this, but this trade, this exact same trade, has been in the works since 2011 at which time Republicans were lauding the deal. The Taliban backed out of the deal because one of the stipulations was that Bergdahl's name be kept secret until the deal was done, but it wasn't, his name was leaked, end of deal. Republicans pols and the GOP echo chamber are all acting as if this is all new to them, when they were all praising the deal back in 2011 and 12. Oh, you didn't know that? Benghazi, Benghazi!

No Jimmy you are totally clueless of the international laws of war as you have shown above and still haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop talking about military matters because your understanding of military law is dismal to non existent.

[lilpixieofterror]

All liberals aren't right all of the time you know, just most of the time.

You clearly are not, but that doesn't seem to stop you from opening your mouth and vomiting forth ignorance.

[lilpixieofterror]

In other words, you don't have a clue. So, in your mind, when Obama pulls troops from Afghanistan, all the Islamist extremists are going to smile and say, "NOW we can be nice to the world". ONLY in JimmyLand.

I don't think Jimmy is aware of their mind set. They had no issue with taking planes full of people being using them as bombs to kill buildings full of people and were even dancing in the street over the entire event. They have declared a Holy War upon the West and will not stop until their objectives are met or they are all gone. I don't think Jimmy and Co really understand that.

[JimL]

The Taliban are not part of the Geneva convention. They are not a recognized force. They are terrorists, not a national army. They are not any part of the legitimate Afghani government or military. And as far as I know what we are doing in Afghanistan is not an actual war at all. We are basically training and assisting the Afghanistan government in ridding themselves of these criminals.

So legally they are not "POWs" nor are they subject to the Geneva convention.

Just because we ousted them from power in Afghanistan, whether you believe it justified or not, doesn't all of sudden deligitimize their military status. We ousted them from power, but they, and we, are still fighting the same war with each other, and in a war, when you take prisoners, they are prisoners of war.

[JimL]

EGGzackly.

HOWEVER, let's pretend they ARE a party to the Geneva Convention.

If so, Part IV, Section 1, Article 109 would have required them to return Bergdahl because he, supposedly, was "in failing physical condition". Isn't that what the Obama idiots claimed?

Source: Atricle 109

Subject to the provisions of the third paragraph of this Article, Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war, after having cared for them until they are fit to travel, in accordance with the first paragraph of the following Article.

© Copyright Original Source

This would NOT have required us to send them five of their top guys.

Article 110 continues

Source: Article 110

The following shall be repatriated direct:

1. Incurably wounded and sick whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

2. Wounded and sick who, according to medical opinion, are not likely to recover within one year, whose condition requires treatment and whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely diminished.

3. Wounded and sick who have recovered, but whose mental or physical fitness seems to have been gravely and pemmanently diminished.

The following may be accommodated in a neutral country:

1. Wounded and sick whose recovery may be expected within one year of the date of the wound or the beginning of the illness, if treatment in a neutral country might increase the prospects of a more certain and speedy recovery.

2. Prisoners of war whose mental or physical health, according to medical opinion, is seriously threatened by continued captivity, but whose accommodation in a neutral country might remove such a threat.

© Copyright Original Source

Further -- The Geneva Convention (to which the Islamist Extremists are NOT parties) does NOT require a "prisoner exchange" -- and the repatriation takes place "after the cessation of hostilities".

So, PLEASE, Jimmy --- try again. What is the legal requirement for us to send the bad guys their TOP FIVE LEADERS during ongoing hostilities?

First off, if the opposition does not abide by the Geneva Convention, and a soldier is thought to be in immediate danger of death due to either murder or medical causes, then you try to make a deal to save the soldier. Second, we didn't send them home, we sent them to Qatar, to be monitored there for one year or until the war comes to an end. That decision was made in order to save a soldiers life and to bring him home to his family.

[JimL]

While a swap was in the works FWIU it wasn't for these five guys. They were always considered no deal. And there had been a different trade in the works -- an exchange for cash but Obama quashed this because he wanted a prisoner swap and it looks like for these five.

Yes it was for these five guys, these very same five guys, and it was well publicized in 2011 and Republicans at the time thought it to be a great deal. Now could I have a reference for the latter assertion?

[JimL]

Well, except for Obama, right? I mean, he does everything right.

Is that right?

[JimL]

You know Jimmy, just when I think you can't say anything any dumber, you go and surprise me and say something even dumber. For starters, the Taliban has never signed the Geneva Convention and they have violated it so much, they likely would have been rounded up and shot on site if the invasion had taken place decades earlier.

We signed it idiot.

And considering they are not part of any recognized government and have violated about every provision of the Geneva Convention anyway, being put on trial for war crimes would likely be the least of their concerns. Really Jimmy, stop talking about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

Yeah, i guess we should stoop to their level lilpix. If they are being held for war crimes, then they should be tried for war crimes. And lilpix, i don't know if you can grasp this or not, but we don't put POW's on trial for the crimes of their group, we try them as individuals for their own crimes.

The Taliban is not part of the current Afghan government Jimmy, but were the post de facto dictators before the US came in. Even ignoring that, you seem to know nothing about the Geneva Convention. Stealing planes and using them to kill lots of people is against the Geneva Convention (IE I doubt they would be 'approved weapons'). Not wearing a military uniform during combat is also against the Geneva Convention. They don't avoid unnecessary suffering since they specifically target and kill lots of civilians and I somehow doubt planes full of people would fall into that either. Do you want me to go on about all the things the Taliban has done that is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention? In reality, if they were caught doing this stuff a century ago, it is likely they would have been rounded up and shot. However; the fact you'll defend such people that have no issue with killing any westerner is only further evidence that you don't have the slightest clue of what really is going on.

Thats right, we ousted the Taliban regime and installed our own, which is fine by me, but that doesn't change the fact that we are still at war against the same army we began with. Our installing another government doesn't ipso facto deligitimize the Taliban.

No Jimmy you are totally clueless of the international laws of war as you have shown above and still haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about. Do yourself a favor and stop talking about military matters because your understanding of military law is dismal to non existent.

And this has what to do with the quote it is an answer to?