Skip to main content

View Diary: 'Leave no one behind' joins 'don't torture' as things conservatives now hate (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  #Bergdahlzi (26+ / 0-)
    Second, the Taliban officials were prisoners of war, officials in the Taliban government. The war is now over. Hence, under international law, they must be released. It's as simple as that. Shit, given this administration's aggressive drone policy, those officials were probably safer in Afghanistan than out and about, where the CIA can try and take them out. But again, the war is over. I know the neocons don't like it, but it's over.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Tue Jun 03, 2014 at 12:43:11 PM PDT

    •  Come on annieli....can't you get Fast and Furious (4+ / 0-)

      and the IRS stuck in there somewhere?....I give up.

    •  Another thought.... (0+ / 0-)
      "Second, the Taliban officials were prisoners of war, officials in the Taliban government. The war is now over. Hence, under international law, they must be released. "
      WWII - High level members of Nazi party were executed or sentenced to long (and maybe not long enough) jail terms.

      Yes, there were trials, but the end result was not all prisoners of war are freed.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Tue Jun 03, 2014 at 02:09:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Were they captured on the battlefield? (0+ / 0-)

        I'm a little hazy on this, but I don't believe that the Nazi officials were captured in battle, i.e. Prisoners of War.  I think they were surrendered, and then indicted and tried.

        The people in Guantanamo Bay are held there under the justification that they are prisoners of war, and therefore are not afforded criminal due process.  

    •  Is the war officially over? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett
      Second, the Taliban officials were prisoners of war, officials in the Taliban government. The war is now over.
      How officially was war declared in the first place?  Did Congress pass some "Authorization of the Use of Military Force"?  A problem with that is it's easier to leave open-ended than a declaration of war.  Declared wars usually end with a surrender, or with an armistice and a treaty.  Does a status-of-forces agreement with the current government in Afghanistan qualify?  

      As a practical matter, yes, when we sort of declare victory and leave, we have no excuse for continuing to hold prisoners of war.  Have we left yes, or are we close enough to leaving to say the war is over.  Of course, there may be some diehards who never admit the war is over, just as there were in the "War of Northern Aggression".

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Tue Jun 03, 2014 at 02:10:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  One very supportable view (0+ / 0-)

        The war, as such, in Afghanistan, is long over.

        Currently, it is "an armed conflict not of an international character."

        The failure to include Taliban at Bonn and similar negotiations, and thus the failure to get some sort of negotiated end to the war among the parties, has always been noted.

        A recent UK court decision says UK Detention Practices in Afghanistan Are Illegal. The proper legal framework now is Afghan law, not a military framework, and where ISAF prisoner captures would need to be turned over to Afghan authorities within 96 hours.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site