Having concluded Bergdahl deserted, Army cancelled search effort . . .

Wordslinger wrote:Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Consider:  We're keeping untried, un-convicted Afghan captives at Guantanamo, for indefinite terms -- perhaps forever.  Does this practice conform to our own legal justice system?  Of course not.  Does it conform to international justice standards and rules?  Of course not.

Does keeping these men -- some of them are terrorists, some of them are not -- increase our nation's safety?  The answer is: no.  In fact, our rigid stance on maintaining terror suspects indefinitely provides recruiting fuel for every Jihad outfit in the world.  By our actions at Guantanamo, we're creating considerably more terrorists than the total number we now hold in our prisons.  

Consider also:  regarding the five who have been traded for Bergdahl, none have been proven to have been involved in any direct attacks on the United States homeland.  All were captured fighting our invading and occupying military forces.  Under such circumstances, are these men criminal terrorists or Afghan patriots?  

Consider: If some foreign force invaded and occupied America, would our own guerrillas be illegal terrorists or patriots?

Food for thought ...

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Consider:  We're keeping untried, un-convicted Afghan captives at Guantanamo, for indefinite terms -- perhaps forever.  Does this practice conform to our own legal justice system?  Of course not.  Does it conform to international justice standards and rules?  Of course not.

Does keeping these men -- some of them are terrorists, some of them are not -- increase our nation's safety?  The answer is: no.  In fact, our rigid stance on maintaining terror suspects indefinitely provides recruiting fuel for every Jihad outfit in the world.  By our actions at Guantanamo, we're creating considerably more terrorists than the total number we now hold in our prisons.  

Consider also:  regarding the five who have been traded for Bergdahl, none have been proven to have been involved in any direct attacks on the United States homeland.  All were captured fighting our invading and occupying military forces.  Under such circumstances, are these men criminal terrorists or Afghan patriots?  

Consider: If some foreign force invaded and occupied America, would our own guerrillas be illegal terrorists or patriots?

Food for thought ...

 
Yep just let them go and they will never go back to being terrorists and become model citizens....    
 
Our war against these types is not over. Even if we sat down with the actual Taliban (non nation state) and signed a peace agreement, they would not abide by it. There needs to be new ROEs....kill on sight and be done with it.

Even Berghdahl is a terrorist now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Consider:  We're keeping untried, un-convicted Afghan captives at Guantanamo, for indefinite terms -- perhaps forever.  Does this practice conform to our own legal justice system?  Of course not.  Does it conform to international justice standards and rules?  Of course not.

Does keeping these men -- some of them are terrorists, some of them are not -- increase our nation's safety?  The answer is: no.  In fact, our rigid stance on maintaining terror suspects indefinitely provides recruiting fuel for every Jihad outfit in the world.  By our actions at Guantanamo, we're creating considerably more terrorists than the total number we now hold in our prisons.  

Consider also:  regarding the five who have been traded for Bergdahl, none have been proven to have been involved in any direct attacks on the United States homeland.  All were captured fighting our invading and occupying military forces.  Under such circumstances, are these men criminal terrorists or Afghan patriots?  

Consider: If some foreign force invaded and occupied America, would our own guerrillas be illegal terrorists or patriots?

Food for thought ...

 
Yep just let them go and they will never go back to being terrorists and become model citizens....    
 
Our war against these types is not over. Even if we sat down with the actual Taliban (non nation state) and signed a peace agreement, they would not abide by it. There needs to be new ROEs....kill on sight and be done with it.

Even Berghdahl is a terrorist now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html

Just who should we kill on sight -- Afghan men, women, childen, Taliban suspects, grandmothers, or armed Afghans who are shooting at us?  Please define your new ROE!

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Consider:  We're keeping untried, un-convicted Afghan captives at Guantanamo, for indefinite terms -- perhaps forever.  Does this practice conform to our own legal justice system?  Of course not.  Does it conform to international justice standards and rules?  Of course not.

Does keeping these men -- some of them are terrorists, some of them are not -- increase our nation's safety?  The answer is: no.  In fact, our rigid stance on maintaining terror suspects indefinitely provides recruiting fuel for every Jihad outfit in the world.  By our actions at Guantanamo, we're creating considerably more terrorists than the total number we now hold in our prisons.  

Consider also:  regarding the five who have been traded for Bergdahl, none have been proven to have been involved in any direct attacks on the United States homeland.  All were captured fighting our invading and occupying military forces.  Under such circumstances, are these men criminal terrorists or Afghan patriots?  

Consider: If some foreign force invaded and occupied America, would our own guerrillas be illegal terrorists or patriots?

Food for thought ...

 
Yep just let them go and they will never go back to being terrorists and become model citizens....    
 
Our war against these types is not over. Even if we sat down with the actual Taliban (non nation state) and signed a peace agreement, they would not abide by it. There needs to be new ROEs....kill on sight and be done with it.

Even Berghdahl is a terrorist now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html

Just who should we kill on sight -- Afghan men, women, childen, Taliban suspects, grandmothers, or armed Afghans who are shooting at us?  Please define your new ROE!

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:Check this out:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

Consider:  We're keeping untried, un-convicted Afghan captives at Guantanamo, for indefinite terms -- perhaps forever.  Does this practice conform to our own legal justice system?  Of course not.  Does it conform to international justice standards and rules?  Of course not.

Does keeping these men -- some of them are terrorists, some of them are not -- increase our nation's safety?  The answer is: no.  In fact, our rigid stance on maintaining terror suspects indefinitely provides recruiting fuel for every Jihad outfit in the world.  By our actions at Guantanamo, we're creating considerably more terrorists than the total number we now hold in our prisons.  

Consider also:  regarding the five who have been traded for Bergdahl, none have been proven to have been involved in any direct attacks on the United States homeland.  All were captured fighting our invading and occupying military forces.  Under such circumstances, are these men criminal terrorists or Afghan patriots?  

Consider: If some foreign force invaded and occupied America, would our own guerrillas be illegal terrorists or patriots?

Food for thought ...

 
Yep just let them go and they will never go back to being terrorists and become model citizens....    
 
Our war against these types is not over. Even if we sat down with the actual Taliban (non nation state) and signed a peace agreement, they would not abide by it. There needs to be new ROEs....kill on sight and be done with it.

Even Berghdahl is a terrorist now.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html

Just who should we kill on sight -- Afghan men, women, childen, Taliban suspects, grandmothers, or armed Afghans who are shooting at us?  Please define your new ROE!

The faction that PaceDog represents is the same faction who tried to push Eisenhower into a nuclear first-strike on the Soviet Union in the 1950s; the same faction that argued with Kennedy about invading Cuba during the crisis of 1961; the same faction that pushed for a widened war in Vietnam by the middle 60s. The same ones who cheerleaded the wars started by Bush 43, more recently. They are all called "Hawks" and they are to be watched carefully when they assume power anywhere in our country.