Bergdahl release
Forums › General Discussion › Bergdahl release-
What are thoughts about his release? Did America just show the Taliban that there is value in hostage taking? Top 5 leaders at GitMo were released in exchange.
-
Who is he ?
-
He was a marine being held by the Taliban for the last 5 years.
-
Oh woah. That's some long time staying there!
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I heard he was a deserter too 😏He was a marine being held by the Taliban for the last 5 years.
-
‡℟ɸɱⱥɲ☧ɭɇɠɩɸɳ‡ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I heard he was a deserter too 😏He was a marine being held by the Taliban for the last 5 years.
Yea. He disappeared under suspicious circumstances.
-
Like it or not, the Taliban were the legitimate ruling force when we invaded Afghanistan. Those Taliban prisoners were technically uniformed soldiers of a foreign military power under Geneva Convention protocols, not terrorists. This is a POW swap, plain and simple.
-
Sorry the Taliban have never been considered a legitimate army. Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, were signators of the Geneva Conventions.
-
In order to assure the protections of Geneva Convention for their soldiers a country must sign and ratify the treaty.
In addition to the treaty ratification requirements, Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war if the combatant satisfies four additional pre-conditions. To enjoy the protections of the Convention as a prisoner of war (POW), a combatant must satisfy four conditions:
Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
Carry any weapons openly; and
Conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. -
The Taliban forces did not differentiate themselves from the civilian population.
The Taliban did not conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Unless it is acceptable to roll into town and take every male out their home and slit their throats in front of their wives and children.
-
👆 may just be the most well explained response I've ever read here. Bravo.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
👏👏 good one RagnarThe Taliban forces did not differentiate themselves from the civilian population.
The Taliban did not conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Unless it is acceptable to roll into town and take every male out their home and slit their throats in front of their wives and children.
-
You're wrong, Ragnar. Official US policy is to apply Geneva Conventions to captured Taliban fighters:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960
-
Here's the official memorandum from 2002:
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/olc/taliban.pdf
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
In order to assure the protections of Geneva Convention for their soldiers a country must sign and ratify the treaty.
In addition to the treaty ratification requirements, Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention protects prisoners of war if the combatant satisfies four additional pre-conditions. To enjoy the protections of the Convention as a prisoner of war (POW), a combatant must satisfy four conditions:
Be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
Have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
Carry any weapons openly; and
Conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. -
The USA has signed and ratified the treaty. In order for it to be taken seriously, they must treat soldiers of enemy nations with the same conditions with which they expect their own soldiers to be treated. Additionally, you should read the small bit right before the section you quoted. Your list is for members of militia. Immediately before that, it states "(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." You really need to read the full text, not just pick the parts that apply to your argument. One more thing. Afghanistan has signed and ratified as of 2009. And he was being held for the last 5 years? That means he was protected as a POW.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
As signators of the Geneva convention we are always bound to act within the rules of the treaty in an international armed conflict. That doesn't make the Taliban a legitimate army or its members lawful combatants.You're wrong, Ragnar. Official US policy is to apply Geneva Conventions to captured Taliban fighters:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960
-
Full text is here: http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2F681B08868538C2C12563CD0051AA8D
Read it. Practically anyone is covered.
One more thing I just realized. Afghanistan signed and ratified the original Conventions, which includes the POW section, way back in 1956.
-
HA! Those two additional protocols that Afghanistan ratified in 2009? The USA has only signed them, not ratified them!
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
He was not being held by the Afgans.The USA has signed and ratified the treaty. In order for it to be taken seriously, they must treat soldiers of enemy nations with the same conditions with which they expect their own soldiers to be treated. Additionally, you should read the small bit right before the section you quoted. Your list is for members of militia. Immediately before that, it states "(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." You really need to read the full text, not just pick the parts that apply to your argument. One more thing. Afghanistan has signed and ratified as of 2009. And he was being held for the last 5 years? That means he was protected as a POW.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
"(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict" i.e. the Taliban.He was not being held by the Afgans.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Ragnar, you're the one who said Afghanistan didn't ratify the Geneva Conventions.Sorry the Taliban have never been considered a legitimate army. Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, were signators of the Geneva Conventions.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
This isn't conjecture and it's not up for debate. It is official stated US DOD policy. Whether you accept it or not dose not change the facts.★fnord★ wrote:
As signators of the Geneva convention we are always bound to act within the rules of the treaty in an international armed conflict. That doesn't make the Taliban a legitimate army or its members lawful combatants.You're wrong, Ragnar. Official US policy is to apply Geneva Conventions to captured Taliban fighters:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
I'm mistaken, Afghanistan did sign it. That doesn't mean the Taliban is entitled to it's protections. Especially, with the way they treat the civilian population of Atghanistan and Pakistan✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Ragnar, you're the one who said Afghanistan didn't ratify the Geneva Conventions.Sorry the Taliban have never been considered a legitimate army. Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, were signators of the Geneva Conventions.
-
Your argument seems to be that we should sink to whatever levels our enemies will sink to. I disagree. Countless American lives are saved by having an enemy know that they will be treated well if they surrender rather than fight to the death. It's really basic stuff.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
Policy is not law. Policy is how an organization directs its people act.✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
This isn't conjecture and it's not up for debate. It is official stated US DOD policy. Whether you accept it or not dose not change the facts.★fnord★ wrote:
As signators of the Geneva convention we are always bound to act within the rules of the treaty in an international armed conflict. That doesn't make the Taliban a legitimate army or its members lawful combatants.You're wrong, Ragnar. Official US policy is to apply Geneva Conventions to captured Taliban fighters:
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43960
-
It is the law that congress is to be notified before any prisoners are released from Gitmo. Apparently, that law matters little to this admin.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
What law is that? The CIC is supreme commander of the military and military prisons by extension.It is the law that congress is to be notified before any prisoners are released from Gitmo. Apparently, that law matters little to this admin.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
The US has said the Taliban is entitled to its protections. The Geneva conventions dictates how the ratifying body will act, not how their enemies will act. By the USA ratifying the conventions, we are saying that we will treat any enemy combatants in accordance with the procedures.λΙΙuviøη wrote:
I'm mistaken, Afghanistan did sign it. That doesn't mean the Taliban is entitled to it's protections. Especially, with the way they treat the civilian population of Atghanistan and Pakistan✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
Ragnar, you're the one who said Afghanistan didn't ratify the Geneva Conventions.Sorry the Taliban have never been considered a legitimate army. Neither Afghanistan, nor the Taliban, were signators of the Geneva Conventions.
-
In addition, though the Taliban may not be a state with borders, they are a self-recognizing nation. Like the Kurds of Iraq, or any other stateless nation. In fact, the reason they are a stateless nation is because USA removed them from power in Afghanistan in 2001. Due to this, they are considered POW eligible by the section of the conventions you butchered. Specifically, "A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."
-
"Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations." Convention III Article 2. So forget US policy, and US law, and your opinions. The Geneva Conventions says USA must be bound by the conventions regardless of who they fight.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC