Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. King: Taliban at Gitmo Will Be Released Soon, Adding Pressure to Deal Now
Breitbart ^ | 06 Jun 2014 | John Sexton

Posted on 06/07/2014 10:09:43 AM PDT by Hoodat

According to a Senator who has been defending the administration's deal for Bowe Bergdahl, the 5 Taliban prisoners would have been freed sometime soon anyway, making this our last chance to get something for them. Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said this at the end of his interview with CNN Thursday:

There's one other very important point that needs to get out there. There is a reasonable legal argument that these five guys would have had to be released any way within the next year under the law of war. They were being held in Guantanamo as enemy combatants. Under the law of war, when hostility cease, enemy combatants have to be released. Now, we could have argued we held them under other authority or civilian authority, but there's a reasonable argument this may have been the last chance to get Bergdahl where these guys had true value to us as a negotiating tool, because if they had to be released anyway, we'd be in the same situation without Bowe Bergdahl home.

There has been speculation that the deal for Bergdahl was actually part of a longer term goal to close Gitmo before the President leaves office. King's remarks may be the first time someone on the administration's side of the argument has suggested pressure to empty Gitmo played into the Bergdahl deal.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; US: Maine
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; angusking; bobbergdahl; bowebergdahl; gitmo; maine; taliban
It always amazes me to see the abject idiocy that permeates our US Senate as well as the idiocy of the voter that elects these idiots.

There is nothing reasonable about his argument. Yet it is worth noting to see the lengths that some will go to in order to defend the indefensible. And obviously, King deems it worthwhile to expend his own political capital in doing so. To him, saving Obama's legacy must be worth it no matter how much he must lie to do so.

1 posted on 06/07/2014 10:09:43 AM PDT by Hoodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Islam’s war against civilization is FAR from over.


2 posted on 06/07/2014 10:10:44 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

“Under the law of war, when hostility cease, enemy combatants have to be released.”

Does he actually think that just because Obama is abandoning Afghanistan that the Taliban will stop trying to kill every non-Muslim on earth?


3 posted on 06/07/2014 10:12:19 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

I will get flamed, but just want to make this point.

We have never actually declared war on anyone since World War II.

We never declared war on Iraq, or the Taliban, or Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda, or any other terror groups or individuals.

Legally speaking, I just wonder what the legal status of things are, considering that we are not officially at war, so wonder how the laws of warfare apply here.

Flame away. I’m just asking questions which I don’t know the answers to. I think we should have actually declared war, but, for whatever reasons, we never did.


4 posted on 06/07/2014 10:14:00 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (et)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

So, this mental giant from Maine thinks the Taliban and such groups are following the “laws of war”, or the Geneva Conventions. I don’t think these five and their fellow travelers qualify for, let alone follow, the GC, which is one reason a special prison was set up for them outside the US.


5 posted on 06/07/2014 10:14:16 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

So why did our blood and treasure waste their time and their lives to capture these illegal enemy combatants in the first place if our traitorous leaders were just going to turn them loose?

This country has turned to absolute poop ;/


6 posted on 06/07/2014 10:15:15 AM PDT by chris37 (heartless)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
. . . that the Taliban will stop trying to kill every non-Muslim on earth?

The Taliban doesn't have a problem killing muslims either. Two of the prisoners that Obama just set free were wanted by the UN for war crimes, specifically the mass slaughter of over a thousand Shiite muslims.

7 posted on 06/07/2014 10:17:16 AM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

What will Linda Graham have to say about potential IMPEACHMENT? Or is a notification to Congress just going to give the clown approval? A pox on all of you up there in the District of Corruption. Gitmo is there for a very good reason - outside the USA.


8 posted on 06/07/2014 10:19:13 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Keep telling lies until you have enough for the media to use in your defense.


9 posted on 06/07/2014 10:19:19 AM PDT by airborne (My heroes don't wear capes - My heroes wear dog tags!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
They most likely were never part of the deal. As a matter of fact, we most likely had to pay someone to take them.

Think about it. We paid millions to get Bergdahl back, but really it was money laundering thru the whitehouse.

Islam knows Obama wants to close Gitmo in the worst way. The value of the detainees is inverse at this point.

10 posted on 06/07/2014 10:20:29 AM PDT by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Good questions, I don’t know either....


11 posted on 06/07/2014 10:22:05 AM PDT by yield 2 the right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Sad thing is, Obama is only a sub-par chess player. He thinks a move or two ahead.

Trouble is, Congress thinks about three moves behind.

Obama comes off looking like a genius.

The release of these people in GitMo will cost tens of thousands of lives.

It’s war crime level abuse of power IMO.


12 posted on 06/07/2014 10:22:10 AM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
You obviously don't consider The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, a declaration of war.

Where do you find the legal definition of a proper DECLARING WAR in the US Consultation?

Not flaming, just asking your opinion?
13 posted on 06/07/2014 10:22:54 AM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Jeez. We’re screwed. Totally and without question with these people in office.

Lesson, learned? In the future, kill all of them and take no prisoners.


14 posted on 06/07/2014 10:23:55 AM PDT by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
"Islam’s war against civilization is FAR from over."

and Barrys new best friend is on the front lines


15 posted on 06/07/2014 10:25:24 AM PDT by MeshugeMikey ( "Never, never, never give up". Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
During apartheid the ANC had a battle cry “one settler,one bullet”.Our policy regarding Gitmo punks should be “one jihadi,one bullet”.And that should apply to Major Hassan too...and maybe even to Private First Class Birddog.
16 posted on 06/07/2014 10:26:20 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Rat Party Policy:Lie,Deny,Refuse To Comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“We never declared war on Iraq, or the Taliban, or Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda, or any other terror groups or individuals.”

Which I’ve been wondering—since it is not a declared war, do VA benefits transfer to the deceased vet’s surviving spouse? As far as I know, this doesn’t happen.

I know my grandmother never got a dime after my grandfather died (veteran fought against Poncho Villa and the Moros in the Philippines).

And I understand neither will my mother—Dad a combat vet of Korea.


17 posted on 06/07/2014 10:27:53 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
Legally speaking, I just wonder what the legal status of things are, considering that we are not officially at war, so wonder how the laws of warfare apply here.

I think whatever rules or agreements there are that govern war and prisoners are between nations, and not terrorists or other non-governmental groups. And I think one requirement to be covered by those agreements is that the combatants wear the uniform of a specific nation.

Little if anything about these terrorists groups fall under any agreements between nations, and the terrorists groups sure aren't following any "laws of war".

18 posted on 06/07/2014 10:31:40 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Think about this.

You are holding prisoners of war, who are not enemy combatants in a state on state war. You then announce your goal is to get them released and home. Now if that is the case, of what value would they be to their home state or organization? The answer is of none actually! The home state or organization is now in a position to demand a reverse ransom.

If Obama were genuine in his negotiations and really wanted something of value for Gitmo detainees, he would be publicly declaring they will never be allowed to see the light of day. As a matter of fact, we may be considering executing them, just to test their value.

My guess is that pretty soon any cargo ship headed to an Islamic nation will be required to have three free Gitmo detainees in exchange for docking rights to unload their goods.

19 posted on 06/07/2014 10:32:35 AM PDT by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio

In my understanding the authorization for use of military force did not use the words, indicating that it was a declaration of war. That was the basis for my wondering if these military conflicts actually are considered wars, legally speaking.

In my understanding, the votes in Congress for other wars, suc as World War I and World War II, did specifically use the words that we were declaring that a state of war existed between ourselves and other nations.

Anyone else who can shed light on this, please do so. Of course we know that troops fought and died in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. My questions had to do with whether these conflicts were officially considered states of war.


20 posted on 06/07/2014 10:34:49 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (et)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

No flames from me.


21 posted on 06/07/2014 10:36:27 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Obama acts like he held a dinner party and has some guests that won’t leave, so he called their relatives to ask to take them back. The relatives would only take them back for $20 million and some stupid white bread yankee who will smokescreen the $20 million with some Rose Garden looney jibber-jabber from his father, taking off the focus.


22 posted on 06/07/2014 10:42:29 AM PDT by blackdog (There is no such thing as healing, only a balance between destructive and constructive forces.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats crypto-Marxist

Fixed it.

23 posted on 06/07/2014 10:54:03 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

The US has signed certain international agreements related to military conflicts such as the Geneva Conventions. A declaration of war by the US is not necessary for those conventions to apply. All signatories of the GC are bound by them, and reading in Wiki, international bodies try to extend the authority of the GC to non-signatories such as terrorists and parties to internal civil wars.

It sounds as if the UN and International courts try to apply the conventions to most all conflicts, but how successful they are varies widely. But based on how the terrorists groups operate, there is little reason they should be covered by the GC, and no reason to think they ever abide by them. Targeting civilians, a major terrorist tactic, is absolutely prohibited by the GC.

The final paragraph at this link titled “The Geneva Conventions today” sounds like a pretty good summary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions


24 posted on 06/07/2014 11:04:03 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Hostilities have not ceased we are just cutting out and leaving. The Taliban are just a bunch of terrorists not a nation state.


25 posted on 06/07/2014 11:04:54 AM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose o f a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blackdog; DoughtyOne
One thing that many are ignoring here is the timing of this release. Obama could have done this at any time in the past 5½ years. Yet he waited until now, which begs the question, what event triggered it.

Looking back at the previous week, Obama was embroiled in the VA scandal. Since then, he has embarked on improving his image among the military. This includes:


It is the second item on the list that holds the key. Because during his visit to Baghram, Obama was slighted by Karzai's refusal to come meet him. And it is because of this that Obama decided now to release these five Gitmo prisoners. I mean what better way to show Karzai who's really boss here. This release of Gitmo has been the driving force behind this whole mess. Getting back Bergdahl was secondary (and the third item on the list). Obama released these prisoners purely out of the pettiness of getting back at Karzai for not dropping everything he was doing and coming to meet him at Baghram AFB.
26 posted on 06/07/2014 11:08:00 AM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

I don’t see anything ‘crypto’ here. It is blatantly obvious.


27 posted on 06/07/2014 11:09:32 AM PDT by Hoodat (Democrats - Opposing Equal Protection since 1828)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

But he doesn’t CALL himself one.


28 posted on 06/07/2014 11:13:21 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants
“Under the law of war, when hostility cease, enemy combatants have to be released.”

We may decide that we are not at war with them but BOTH sides have to come to the same conclusion for it to have any meaning. IOW the WAR ain't over till the fat muslim sings.

29 posted on 06/07/2014 11:23:53 AM PDT by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

The way we are fighting it, capture and release, the war against terrorism will never end.


30 posted on 06/07/2014 11:29:54 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

When someone has declared war on you, it really wont matter what declarations you make in response. You are at WAR whether you like it or not.


31 posted on 06/07/2014 11:31:25 AM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Excuse #557.


32 posted on 06/07/2014 11:50:22 AM PDT by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Not if the military trials had concluded they had committed crimes against humanity - but - alas - that was not to be.


33 posted on 06/07/2014 12:17:38 PM PDT by impactplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Ollie North was on the Hugh Hewitt show yesterday. North said that he was consulted by someone high in the administration during the hostage negotiation. North has experience with hostage negotiations from his time in the Reagan Administration.

North said that the discussion over Bergdahl’s release was always about money. The people holding him were never interested in a hostage exchange. So when exactly did this become a hostage exchange, and exactly how much money did we give them for Bergdahl?


34 posted on 06/07/2014 12:40:00 PM PDT by Rocky (The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it. George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

I agree. I would say he’s clueless, but you can’t do this much harm without trying.


35 posted on 06/07/2014 1:17:17 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat; blackdog

I think you make some valid points here.

At this point, pretty much all he does is position related.

Each infraction seems to be at a higher level, because the last one was so bad he needed to up the anti to take the public’s mind off of it.

The guy acts like nine year old pushing the boundaries due to neglectful parents. He’s just seeking attention, by any means possible.

He’s still suffering from the missing father syndrome.

Now who’s to step in and slap the snot-nosed kid?

THAT is the problem. Nobody!


36 posted on 06/07/2014 1:21:00 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Each infraction seems to be at a higher level, because the last one was so bad he needed to up the anti to take the public’s mind off of it.
It's ante from the grand game of poker.

Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation
I, for one, welcome our new Cybernetic Overlords /.

37 posted on 06/07/2014 1:26:41 PM PDT by Mycroft Holmes (<= Mash name for HTML Xampp PHP C JavaScript primer. Programming for everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mycroft Holmes

Yes, you’re right. There are times when I don’t pay as close attention as I should. And there are times when I simply don’t know the difference.

This was an oversight. Thank you.


38 posted on 06/07/2014 1:42:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WKUHilltopper

My husband served during Nam. He qualified for a VA loan and can go to the VA hospital for dr appointments.


39 posted on 06/07/2014 2:34:56 PM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat
I guess this moron never read the "Military Commissions Act of 2006"...

These Taliban vermin are unlawful enemy combatants... Not subject to the "Laws of War"

40 posted on 06/07/2014 2:47:16 PM PDT by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

My question is, can surviving spouses of veterans, of undeclared wars, be able to tap into VA benefits when the vet passes? My grandmother couldn’t because my grandfather fought in two undeclared wars.


41 posted on 06/07/2014 4:57:15 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I just wonder what the legal status of things are

There is no legal status in the US anymore. With the judiciary overturning any laws that the DC crowd doesn't like, with invaders being given driver's licenses and just about any freebee they could imagine, with a Department of Education that now controls what children can learn, with an out of control banking system that makes the wealthy wealtier while impoverishing the rest of us, with the US funding terrorists to fight and topple elected govs overseas. law doesn't have anything to do with it.

The idea that Obama would feel compelled to release terrorists because he was told by some entity he had to is just not something he'd be likely to respond to.....unless he felt like it.

42 posted on 06/07/2014 5:07:44 PM PDT by grania
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Angus, if they are enemy combatants, where are their uniforms?

No uniforms?

Then, no Geneva Convention protections.


43 posted on 06/07/2014 5:08:02 PM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoodat

Newby King knows more about Gitmo than Senators Feinstein, McCain, Graham, and others on the Intelligence Committee?

I think not.


44 posted on 06/07/2014 8:15:52 PM PDT by jch10 (The Democrat mascot shouldn't’t be the donkey; it should be the tick.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson