Maybe the men traded for Bergdahl weren’t the worst of the worst. Moe had never dealt with them which meant that they weren’t the worst of the worst or even on the list of 75 to be prosecuted for war crimes. These men had been at Guantanamo for over 12 years. They had never been charged.
No one is saying they are no longer a threat to the USA. There are no guarantees. However, the risk will never be zero.
Moe did an excellent job of explaining the situation. Thank goodness Chris Matthews wasn’t around to interrupt and answer his own questions. Alex Witt has far better manners and a more professional journalist.
Moe’s point was well made. Will they be a danger to the U.S.? Only time will tell. Somehow I believe the “worst of the worst” is Republican hyperbole. This morning there are “rumors” that Bergdahl was tortured and kept in a cage after he attempted to escape. Will we ever know the truth? Probably not.
Good job, Colonel.
I think Moe is wrong. Because the overall rate of recividism for released Gitmo prisoners is 25%, he assumes that only one or two will re-join the fight. He argues that only one or two constitutes a reasonable risk.
Here’s the counter-argument. The recividism rate includes people who were picked up by mistake or were at best marginal players in the Taliban. These five were specifically requested for release by the Taliban, because they are leaders who plan/organize operations. It seems to me that it is almost guaranteed that most, if not all, of them will return to the fight. If they are indeed organizers/planners, that means that they are important strategically for their ability to make their Taliban foot-soldiers much more effective and cohesive and deadly.
Even if Moe is right that they have to be released at the end of combat operations, why not wait until the end of combat operations to release them? Given the circumstances of Bergdahl’s disappearance and the potential for more U.S. casualties as these Taliban prisoners re-join the fight, a more responsible approach would have been to wait until the U.S. withdrawal has been executed to do the exchange.
They might have asked for a lot more and didn’t get them. We just don’t know. Also, Moe said he didn’t know, in fact, no one knew. How can an opinion, stated as such, be wrong?
Why not wait? Opportunity was knocking.
Kelley has a great point, these guys weren’t you average foot soldier types. They were leaders, which the Taliban specifically asked for for a reason. So that they could lead and plan more attacks.
And no disrespect to Moe but the attempt to minimize these 5 terrorist leaders lethality is a little confusing. It’s in direct contrast with Democratic Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein’s assessment of these guys. Something interesting Feinstein also mentioned is that the original deal for these guys included strict house arrest, but that was removed from the Obama deal.
They weren’t all that significant. Moe had not heard of them. They weren’t the top rank. They weren’t on the “let’s prosecute list.”
Plus, I would like to know how much $ we gave them as well. Nobody seems to be asking that question but we most likely gave them money, the question is how much money.
Spot on Kelly and the use of the word recividism is appropriate here because they are not soldiers, this not a war, they were not POWs – they were and are murderous criminals, leaders of a criminal terrorist enterprise. They do not represent a State. Thus, the end of an American presence in Afganistan does not represent a treaty or the end of hostilities.
@Kelly_3406
“Even if Moe is right that they have to be released at the end of combat operations, why not wait until the end of combat operations to release them?”
The Administrations reason for releasing these guys now is because Bergdahl was suppose to be on deaths door and they had to do it right away or he would have died. He was apparently in such bad physical condition the Administration didn’t even have time to notify a single person in congress, not even Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein much less the 30 day notice required by law.
However, that reason is quick falling apart. Exhibit A is the Taliban tape of him trotting to the rescue chopper under his own power. Exhibit B are the reports coming out that he “is in much better shape than expected”.
Then there was a second reason the Administration used… the the Taliban would have killed him if the deal leaked. However, that reason has also fallen apart. Exhibit A is the fact that that makes no sense, why would they kill him if this deal leaked? Exhibit B is that even Senate Intelligence Chairman Dianne Feinstein has stated publicly that “there was no evidence that the Taliban was going to kill him if the deal leaked”.
If there was any evidence that any of the five had participated in any capacity in hostilities with the U.S. he would have been charged. We prosecuted “foot soldiers” (David Hicks was assigned to guard a broken down tank at the Kandahar Airport where he never fired a shot and never even encountered U.S. forces) and we prosecuted Bin Laden’s driver. That’s not to say these aren’t bad guys … two are alleged to have committed war crimes in the internal conflict in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 … but there was no evidence they had anything to do with any bad acts directed at us. Will they in the future? I don’t know, but we do not have a legal basis to continue detaining them forever on the chance that even though they had not done anything before they might in the future. As for the Taliban requesting these five, did you really expect them to say “it doesn’t matter to us, you guys just pick five at random and it’ll be fine?”
As I noted elsewhere, when these five Taliban people were detained or surrendered, they held combined military and civilian positions in the Taliban-controlled government of Afghanistan. Nasty and cruel people to be sure but still officials of a government which we helped to overthrow in a case of regime change. I don’t see how we could have prosecuted them as terrorists, which is probably why Moe, as chief prosecutor, never encountered them. Seems to me that some of them at least should have been turned over to the international court in The Hague for trial on crimes against humanity (How many murdered Shi’ite Afghans and hanged women does it take to get arraigned at The Hague?). Instead of doing that, we just let them sit for 12 years with no legal action and with a made up label. Looks to me like we tripped ourselves up on this one.
As a side note, there were 7 countries that voted against creating the International Criminal Court: China, Iraq, Israel, Libya, Qatar, Yemen and the United States. State parties to the Rome Statute (the governing document for the ICC) are obliged to hand over suspected war criminals to the ICC. These men were first held by us and now Qatar, and neither one is a member of the ICC.
One of the reasons that I was heartsick for my country during the Bush Presidency was the amorality of throwing people into Guantanemo Bay indefinitely just because it was politically expedient.
I voted for Obama in 2008 in some part because he seemed to agree. I note that he left this apparatus as is for 5 1/2 years so far because it was politically expedient for him.
We the people believe in indefinitely detaining people if we prefer not to think about them, declare war, or charge them with a crime.
If you want another reason in the news to feel bad about yourself, or to reflect on the evil done to prop up our nice suburban lives, here’s a story about how those $5 bags of shrimp we can buy over at Walmart are as cheap as they are because of slave labor – captured men worked 20 hours a day – http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/jun/10/supermarket-prawns-thailand-produced-slave-labour
I don’t necessarily agree with the trade because of the 5 for 1 ratio and the nature of the individuals chosen, but there are some things to remember:
1. This trade was on the table for years, and the exact trade details were known for months. NO congressperson, including John McCain, expressed any opposition to it before it happened. The exact Taliban members involved were identified by Reuters in August 2012. To say congress wasn’t notified is ridiculous. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/06/06/did-john-mccain-flip-flop-on-the-bergdahl-deal/
2. The Taliban is not Al-Qaeda. While some (most?) of their affiliates are undoubtedly bad guys, they have never attacked America or any country outside the Middle East. The US government, with Saudi Arabia, funded the beginning of the group during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. This is all a nasty business, but the point is that releasing Taliban is not the same as releasing Al-Qaeda members. Al-Qaeda is, by their own declaration and actions, America’s enemy. The Taliban is fighting us because we’re in Afghanistan.
While the Obama administration could have handled this better (wow-how many times have I said THAT now!), it appears to me to be for the most part it’s more scandal-mongering by the GOP.
Having said all that- a Rose Garden ceremony and yet another Susan Rice appearance touting Mr. Bergdahl’s honorable service? Really?