Tiernan;1621996 wrote:POWs are different than War Criminals dumbass

Were these guys war criminals or did we pick them up as enemy combatants? If they're war criminals we should try them and punish them as appropriate. If not then when our military engagement with their country ends we need to give them back.

No ones saying to just leave the guy with terrorists. But you don't give up 5 high ranking Taliban officials for a deserter.

I Wear Pants;1621997 wrote:Were these guys war criminals or did we pick them up as enemy combatants? If they're war criminals we should try them and punish them as appropriate. If not then when our military engagement with their country ends we need to give them back.

Wtf are you saying? These aren't guys that surrendered and we are just holding them until the "war" is over. They are TERRORISTS. They weren't supposed to ever go back.

iclfan2;1622002 wrote:Wtf are you saying? These aren't guys that surrendered and we are just holding them until the "war" is over. They are TERRORISTS. They weren't supposed to ever go back.

So you're saying they're war criminals then. Put them on trial and give them the appropriate punishment.

It's a tricky situation because we went to war with a government that we consider a terrorist organization so anyone we capture in combat or otherwise we get to label a terrorist.

Manhattan Buckeye;1621839 wrote:They should be sentenced to 3 meals a day at the Waffle House. That would teach them a lesson.

Calm down there Satan.

I Wear Pants;1622004 wrote:So you're saying they're war criminals then. Put them on trial and give them the appropriate punishment.

It's a tricky situation because we went to war with a government that we consider a terrorist organization so anyone we capture in combat or otherwise we get to label a terrorist.

Well Obama traded them for a deserter soooo we can't do anything with them now except for try to find and re-capture (or kill) them when they inevitably kill innocent people again.

IWP... They don't get a trial. They have no protections of our constitution. We can do whatever we want with them. That's the rub.

iclfan2;1622009 wrote:IWP... They don't get a trial. They have no protections of our constitution. We can do whatever we want with them. That's the rub.

War criminals get trials. Hell the Nazi's got trials.

If the results are the same as Nazi trials I'm all for them.

Terrorists don't get trials. Have you seen them get trials? They don't. Why are you so caught up on this? This is why I called you a terrorist sympathizer. Who f'ing cares. Would you rather they hang each one then keep them in Gitmo?

Trials turn into circuses and are only for people that are "innocent until proven guilty". These guys aren't that.

This also has nothing to do w this thread anymore. We're not going to agree so let's get back to the thread at hand.

iclfan2;1622016 wrote:Terrorists don't get trials. Have you seen them get trials? They don't. Why are you so caught up on this? This is why I called you a terrorist sympathizer. Who f'ing cares. Would you rather they hang each one then keep them in Gitmo?

If found guilty and that's the punishment then yes. And to be clear, when I say trial I don't mean a trial with the same rules and rights that a US citizen gets.

When we go to Iraq or other countries and kill a bunch of women and children with bombs and famine, it is just collateral damage. No outrage there.

So, forgive me, if I'm not outraged by an American being shown mercy and granted new life. Hopefully the same would be said for the others. Maybe they will also choose peace now that they had a taste of prison.

rydawg5;1622026 wrote:When we go to Iraq or other countries and kill a bunch of women and children with bombs and famine, it is just collateral damage. No outrage there.

So, forgive me, if I'm not outraged by an American being shown mercy and granted new life. Hopefully the same would be said for the others. Maybe they will also choose peace now that they had a taste of prison.

You know there is absolutely no chance of that happening.

like_that;1622029 wrote:You know there is absolutely no chance of that happening.

That's racist... but yeah I threw that in for shits and gigs

I Wear Pants;1622021 wrote:If found guilty and that's the punishment then yes. And to be clear, when I say trial I don't mean a trial with the same rules and rights that a US citizen gets.

Imo, the fact the US grabbed them, means they had enough intel and that the men were already proven guilty. They "had" their trial by showing whoever enough proof that they should be captured. I'm not sure what more you want.

like_that;1622029 wrote:You know there is absolutely no chance of that happening.

Yes but maybe they realize that when they do get a US soldier or citizen that they're better off keeping them alive then chainsawing their heads off.

I Wear Pants;1622034 wrote:Yes but maybe they realize that when they do get a US soldier or citizen that they're better off keeping them alive then chainsawing their heads off.

More likely more Americans will be held hostage until every Taliban member is freed from capture.

So occupying their country is one thing but if we trade a couple prisoners then they start feeling all froggy and shit

The more I hear about Bergdahls old man the more I want to give this little smug fuck a shave with a weed-wacker.

Let's look at all the alleged pros and cons so far (feel free to add to the list):

Pros:
-An american soldier is finally brought home after being captive for 5 years. He will finally get to see his family.

Cons:
-Said soldier is believed to be a deserter.
-Based on previous tweet, it seems to be the soldier's father is anti-american.
-Based on alleged emails, it seem to be the soldier himself is anti-american and might actually be a traitor.
-We traded 5 taliban leaders for the potential traitor/deserter.
-Chances are these 5 leaders will go back to goat fucking, and find a way to harm/kill our own.
-Obama broke the law to make trade for deserter. The best defense for breaking the law so far is "the soldier was in bad health," even though they had FIVE years to bring back the soldier.

like_that;1622049 wrote:Let's look at all the alleged pros and cons so far (feel free to add to the list):

Pros:
-An american soldier is finally brought home after being captive for 5 years. He will finally get to see his family.

Cons:
-Said soldier is believed to be a deserter.
-Based on previous tweet, it seems to be the soldier's father is anti-american.
-Based on alleged emails, it seem to be the soldier himself is anti-american and might actually be a traitor.
-We traded 5 taliban leaders for the potential traitor/deserter.
-Chances are these 5 leaders will go back to goat fucking, and find a way to harm/kill our own.
-Obama broke the law to make trade for deserter. The best defense for breaking the law so far is "the soldier was in bad health," even though they had FIVE years to bring back the soldier.

Pros:
The american soldier finds a woman and gets married. The baby grows up to be the first female president of the united states. Peace reigns for 100 years.

Cons:
Republicans are pissed.

Just playing a little devil's advocate from some other stuff I read. These are a little out there, but I suppose a possibility and I don't think it would be worth it:

Soldier could be some sort of double agent for the government? The 5 guys released could have some sort of chip in them for tracking and locating other members?

Regardless, not worth the price of the US live's who were lost in search of him.

Oh great rydawg is here to grace us with his ever so popular presence.

SportsAndLady;1622059 wrote:Oh great rydawg is here to grace us with his ever so popular presence.

I paid my $12 to be here so shut it.