Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 CptJake wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status.

You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status because the laws of warfare don't apply.
Non-legal combatants capturing one of our guys? They should act like legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare!

And our troops do. They don't interrogate then execute. They provide medical care. They give access to IRC, they allow a legal process to review status, and so on. We do act like legitimate folks and do follow the laws of war. The exceptions get punished when caught.

The bad guys, not so much.

So are they POWs now after you said they were not POWs?

Did we have POW exchanges in other wars?

Been like ten soldiers over time that have been captured and executed by Insurgent forces. I listed three of them on this thread already.

Which doesn't do anything to answer the question I gave you.

Even the notion of not negotiating with terrorists isn't as clear cut as people think.

Negotiating with terrorists over a specific act of terror is generally unwise.

Negotiating with a terrorist organization because its also a de facto government is usually the only option to have any dialogue. There's also no reason to completely limit options.

No country is tougher on terrorists than Israel, and even they will negotiate with the PLO.

CptJake provided that answer

They are not POW's
They are held in a "Detainee Camp"

As for POW exchange I leave that up to you to look up

So our captured soldiers are not POWs either and the enemy consists of unlawful combatants that we refuse to negotiate with because they are terrorists and not any kind of armed force or government but who we expect to follow the laws of warfare when it suits us.

Up to you to look up POW rights

But our guys are not POWs.

Insurgent forces are not a country. Insurgent forces did not sign the Geneva Conventions. So they do not have to follow the rules and guide lines for POW's as stated in the Geneva Convention.

 Ahtman wrote:

The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.

The VA has had problems for a long time, why would it now suddenly require such an odd story to try and counteract it? Especially since at best it also keeps the VA problems in the light as well since this guy will be dealing with the VA.

Just look at the two issues and think about it.

Which goes back to it being there only if that is what you want to see. If you actually think about it it doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.

The VA secretary was just forced to resign under massive allegations of systemwide fraud. THATS new.

Week old maybe....

 Frazzled wrote:
The VA secretary was just forced to resign under massive allegations of systemwide fraud. THATS new.

And yet this story still hasn't made you, or anyone else, forget it. The argument is that somehow rescuing this guy is supposedly to bury the negative VA stories, but it hasn't done that, and even if there weren't problems with the Bergdahl story it still wouldn't make people forget that the VA needs serious work. It also isn't something that is new to this administration. I find the argument that it was done as deflection ludicrous.

Calm down Ahtman

You single handily debunked that perception on Dakka

 Jihadin wrote:
Insurgent forces are not a country. Insurgent forces did not sign the Geneva Conventions. So they do not have to follow the rules and guide lines for POW's as stated in the Geneva Convention.

Thank you. That's only what I've been saying for a couple of pages now.

Which is why I think that this:

 CptJake wrote:
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Is a mindset that doesn't work when dealing with them. "Following laws that they don't have to follow because they are unlawful combatants" is no incentive at all.

Which means that their incentive for US soldiers so far has been: "Kill them instead of capturing them" or "capture, then kill them on camera". Continuing the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" mantra just keeps that the only viable options they have for dealing with our soldiers.

"We don't negotiate" made a nice slogan once, and it might have even been a viable strategy at some point in our history.

But we are in a point in history where the line of "fighting a war" and "fighting terrorists" has become very blurred and often times they are the same thing. So a lot of our ideas have to change along with that. We can't have a "these are the rules we follow when fighting every terrorist organization" and "these are the rules we follow when fighting a war against a 'real' country" anymore, because the lines are becoming to blurry. War changes, and the wars we fight now are different than WW2, Vietnam, and even the 1st Gulf War.

 d-usa wrote:
So our captured soldiers are not POWs either and the enemy consists of unlawful combatants that we refuse to negotiate with because they are terrorists and not any kind of armed force or government but who we expect to follow the laws of warfare when it suits us.

The laws of war apply to those nations that have signed the accords. But... and this is a pretty big exception, it only applies to what international law considers "legal combatants." This is defined generally as having an officer corps, wearing uniforms, etc. Generally, it means that when in uniform, legal acts of war (such as shooting people) are not criminal acts, but rather legal acts fo war.

Like a lot of terms, POW has both colloquial and legalistic definiations, and differing definitions in different legal frameworks. To a group that is not a signatory to the Hague conventions (such as the Taliban), the term POW as defined there simply has no meaning.

Believe it or not, the US and its allies actually bend over backwards with regards to insurgents. Most of that is out of awareness of publicity, but especially in Afghanistan, where we started out as allies of a semi-legitimate poltical entitiy, our Armed Forces are legally there. Any illegal combatants could, IIRC, simply be executed or otherwise dealt with under local law.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The VA secretary was just forced to resign under massive allegations of systemwide fraud. THATS new.

And yet this story still hasn't made you, or anyone else, forget it. The argument is that somehow rescuing this guy is supposedly to bury the negative VA stories, but it hasn't done that, and even if there weren't problems with the Bergdahl story it still wouldn't make people forget that the VA needs serious work. It also isn't something that is new to this administration. I find the argument that it was done as deflection ludicrous.

I should be clear, I don';t think that was the reason. I'm down with the CNN argument that they want to start dumping people out of GITMO and saw a chance to get this guy back at the same time. Their mistake was: breaking the law; making this Bardahl guy out to be Sgt. York.

 CptJake wrote:
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.

Can you please extrapolate on what those bigger issues are?

 Frazzled wrote:
making this Bardahl guy out to be Sgt. York.

As a side note, that's easily one of my top 5 favorite movies.

"Gobble, gobble, gobble,gobble,gobble,gobble" *BLAM*

"I'm a drinkin' agin' Nate Thompkins..."

Yea it was good wasn't it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Their mistake was: breaking the law;

Which is murky at best.

 Frazzled wrote:
making this Bardahl guy out to be Sgt. York.

Even before the desertion accusations I haven't seen anything remotely like that. Just that he was one of ours and we got him back.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Their mistake was: breaking the law;

Which is murky at best.

The law is actually pretty clear, the constitutionality of the law is another thing.

I'm leery about the executive taking unilateral action, OTOH, matters of negotations with hostile groups is completely within the purview of the executive.

What's murky is what, if anything, happens if the notice isn't given?

 Frazzled wrote:
making this Bardahl guy out to be Sgt. York.

Even before the desertion accusations I haven't seen anything remotely like that. Just that he was one of ours and we got him back.

Yeah, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that either.

Aside from the standard respect given any POW, that is.

1. No its clear. They just didn't want to deal with it, so they ignored it, again.

2. Rice stated he served with "honor and distinction." No, either she's ignorant or a liar, and they got called on it.

 Frazzled wrote:
1. No its clear. They just didn't want to deal with it, so they ignored it, again.

he, the courts have been really leery about giving one branch of the government another branches power. Look at the line item veto.

I'll agree it's odd they didn't at least give some sort of accelearted notice, even if they didn't want to wait 30 days.

2. Rice stated he served with "honor and distinction." No, either she's ignorant or a liar, and they got called on it.

Well, again, nothing about this guy's service appears to be proven.

Also, that's hardly making him out to be Sgt. York. It seems more like hte sort of polite thing you say.

If she'd said "He was a scumbag, but we bailed him out" I think people would be offended.

Didn't have to say anything, just "he was freed."

Having said that, I stick with my earlier point. Getting him out good. Military should look to see if he merits trial for his actions that got him there.
All the other stuff is not much of an issue to me.

Heard today that he has walked off station two times prior, but always came back within a couple of hours.

So with that they said there was no certainty if this was like the other times or if he got captured and prevented from returning.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.

Truly we live in interesting times.

In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.

Many here in OT do not seem to object to the release being secured. It is inexcusable to leave a brother/sister-in-arms behind. The controversy here arises from the manner in which the POW was captured, the White House lauding him as a hero, making a deal with terrorists, not following the law in relation to GITMO detainees, and the fact that his alleged actions have caused the deaths of other servicemen.

Exactly. Why weren't the parents of the soldiers killed trying to save him invited to the Rose Garden to thank them for the sacrifice of their sons?

 Polonius wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Their mistake was: breaking the law;

Which is murky at best.

The law is actually pretty clear, the constitutionality of the law is another thing.

I was thinking of the Constitutionality of the law, I should have been more specific. There was a discussion elsewhere about that and I crossed the wires.

Now we have people in the administration calling Bergdhal's accusers from his platoon psycopaths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hud-official-tweet-was-bergdahls-unit-long-on-psychopaths/

Relapse wrote:
Now we have people in the administration calling Bergdhal's accusers from his platoon psycopaths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hud-official-tweet-was-bergdahls-unit-long-on-psychopaths/

I guess "the administration" is responsible for all the gak I type on Dakka as well...

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Now we have people in the administration calling Bergdhal's accusers from his platoon psycopaths.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/05/hud-official-tweet-was-bergdahls-unit-long-on-psychopaths/

I guess "the administration" is responsible for all the gak I type on Dakka as well...

Um... okay... sure.

O.o

Just like some accuse me of being the far-right conservative parrot.