DankNuggs 305 Posted June 2, 2014 Those 5 dudes looked like mean SOBs. The one 4 over looks like he should be cast in the next season of 24. Stereotypical mean dude. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted June 2, 2014 I love how the flat earthers are all "Obama negotiated with terrorists $#!!" while prisoner swaps are as old as war itself Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 I love how mouth breathers don't know the difference between fighting terrorists and being at war with a country and it's military. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted June 2, 2014 I love how mouth breathers don't know the difference between fighting terrorists and being at war with a country and it's military. How many other times have we sent over a 100,000 ground troops to "fight terrorism" in a specific country? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 How many other times have we sent over a 100,000 ground troops to "fight terrorism" in a specific country? Zero. Did you have a point, or are you just trying to expose your ignorance again? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IGotWorms 4,060 Posted June 2, 2014 Zero. Did you have a point, or are you just trying to expose your ignorance again? The point is self-evident, dummy Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,088 Posted June 2, 2014 I love how the flat earthers are all "Obama negotiated with terrorists $#!!" while prisoner swaps are as old as war itself I don't give a rats ass about 'negotiating' with anyone. However, when you break a law as the President, admitting such and still don't give a fock. Well, there we have a problem. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NorthernVike 2,088 Posted June 2, 2014 You guys have no focking clue what happened so you really should just shut it. Such a great quote, It needs to be posted as often as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 The point is self-evident, dummy Yes, it is. You are proving you are dumb. We are not at war with Afghanistan, their govt, and their military. The Taliban do not qualify as a military, and are not entitled to Geneva protections even though we give them to them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted June 2, 2014 when you break a law as the President, admitting such and still don't give a fock. Well, there we have a problem. I agree. It's been happening for about 14 years now :sad: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 It took longer than normal, but a hack managed to bring BUSH! into this. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hoytdwow 202 Posted June 2, 2014 It took longer than normal, but a hack managed to bring BUSH! into this. you disagree that Obama's executive overreach is merely an extension of Bush's? Oh, I forgot you are unobjective Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NewbieJr 541 Posted June 2, 2014 It took longer than normal, but a hack managed to bring BUSH! into this. It started to be bad in 2008? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 you disagree that Obama's executive overreach is merely an extension of Bush's? Oh, I forgot you are unobjective You're not allowed to mention anything negative about Bush here. You can't talk about laws broken, failed policies that contribute to today's problems, or his lies. Some people are blind to history here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 you disagree that Obama's executive overreach is merely an extension of Bush's? Oh, I forgot you are unobjective I guess if you have an example of Bush ignoring a law and announcing he did so because he was in a hurry we can discuss it. If not, I will continue to mock you for your pathetic diversion from the current issue. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 Warrantless wiretaps come to mind. I thought those were deemed illegal??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 Warrantless wiretaps come to mind. I thought those were deemed illegal??? Has something changed since the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the wiretaps last year? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted June 2, 2014 Such a great quote, It needs to be posted as often as possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 Has something changed since the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the wiretaps last year? That's why I was asking. I know the policy was started, then changed to better fit the law. So did they uphold both? The initial wiretaps, and then the post revised wiretaps? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 That's why I was asking. I know the policy was started, then changed to better fit the law. So did they uphold both? The initial wiretaps, and then the post revised wiretaps? I have no idea. You brought the subject up so I figured you had some clue as to what happened. I guess I was wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phurfur 70 Posted June 2, 2014 Obama negotiates with terrorists! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 I have no idea. You brought the subject up so I figured you had some clue as to what happened. I guess I was wrong. So you don't really know either. It was a simple question. I knew after they revised the policy to better fit the law, it was deemed legal. I thought they changed the law because the first was illegal. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 So you don't really know either. Which is why I said I have no idea. Once again, you brought it up as a diversion from the current issue. Next time you should bring up a subject you know something about. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted June 2, 2014 Obama negotiates with terrorists! In this particular case I don't see much evidence of negotiation. Why do I feel like we just got Herschel Walker? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 2, 2014 In this particular case I don't see much evidence of negotiation. Why do I feel like we just got Herschel Walker? It was part of a negotiation for overall peace...not just for the prisoner "swap" in which "our" guy is free...their 5 are under security restrictions in Qatar. Now, what those restrictions really are...or how confident anyone is in them not going "missing" is another story. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 It was part of a negotiation for overall peace. . Cool. So the Taliban agreed to stop attacking our troops? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TimmySmith 2,783 Posted June 2, 2014 It was part of a negotiation for overall peace...not just for the prisoner "swap" in which "our" guy is free...their 5 are under security restrictions in Qatar. Now, what those restrictions really are...or how confident anyone is in them not going "missing" is another story. The reality is that this exact deal has been on the table for years, why the trigger was pulled right now is anyone's guess. As far as restrictions go, see the Lockerbie bomber. Should have rotted in jail, but ended up living his last years as a hero. We have no allies in the Muslim world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 Cool. So the Taliban agreed to stop attacking our troops? Would you prefer he's still a prisoner of war? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mungwater 597 Posted June 2, 2014 His story reminds me of those guys who went to a sandwhich shop in Kosovo, only to find the hmmwv surrounded when they came out with their lunch. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 Would you prefer he's still a prisoner of war? I would prefer that Obama not announce to every terrorist that if you take one of our guys we will give you 5 of yours in exchange. Oh, and I would prefer Obama not ignore simple to follow laws. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
paulinstl 296 Posted June 2, 2014 It is H. R. 3304 which both House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Representative Howard McKeon of California and Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma refer to when they claim the release of the Taliban prisoners “clearly violated laws” governing the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay. At the signing of this resolution, Obama made clear that there are special circumstances where 30 day notification to Congress would be bypassed. “The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” To argue if this situation was one that needed to go outside the letter of that bill is debatable, I guess, but to claim it illegal, I'm not so sure. It takes a real strong cynicism or partisan position to believe that the administration would do this deal without assurances from the government of Qatar that the Taliban prisoners would never be allowed to pose us a threat again. As far as the people who will call this negotiating with terrorists and believe that now we have put a bounty on American lives, you will never see any benefit to what just happened. Believe it or not, some real good can come from this, including: The kid is safe. We now have an middle man in the region to use in future discussions with the Taliban. Precedent has already been set for this type of exchange, the only difference is that this time the Taliban is not an actual nation, but my question is what difference does that make, a trade of POWS was negotiated. and quite possibly an avenue of future peace negotiations opened. Having said all this, I know quite well that it won't change anyone's opinion here, but I see some real positives possibly coming from this action. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 I would prefer that Obama not announce to every terrorist that if you take one of our guys we will give you 5 of yours in exchange. Oh, and I would prefer Obama not ignore simple to follow laws. So??? Is that a yes or a no? Are you glad he's free or no? I don't like Obama bypassing the law, but I'm glad the guys free. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 To argue if this situation was one that needed to go outside the letter of that bill is debatable, I guess, but to claim it illegal, I'm not so sure. If Obama didn't like the law as written he vetoes it and sends it back to Congress. He doesn't get to sign a bill into law and at the same time say "I reserve the right to not follow this law". That isn't how our system works. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted June 2, 2014 Would you prefer he's still a prisoner of war?did he voluntarily leave the base? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 did he voluntarily leave the base? Yes. That happens tho. How do you know he wasn't right in the head from combat? Does that mean we just forget about him? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
drobeski 3,061 Posted June 2, 2014 Yes. That happens tho. How do you know he wasn't right in the head from combat? Does that mean we just forget about them?nope, but if he broke laws he should prosecuted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crackattack 520 Posted June 2, 2014 nope, but if he broke laws he should prosecuted. If he went AWOL then yes he should. Leaving your base doesn't mean AWOL or even breaking a law. If they were restricted to base or he was on duty, then yes he could be in trouble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sho Nuff 720 Posted June 2, 2014 It is H. R. 3304 which both House and Senate Armed Services Committees, Representative Howard McKeon of California and Senator James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma refer to when they claim the release of the Taliban prisoners “clearly violated laws” governing the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay. At the signing of this resolution, Obama made clear that there are special circumstances where 30 day notification to Congress would be bypassed. To argue if this situation was one that needed to go outside the letter of that bill is debatable, I guess, but to claim it illegal, I'm not so sure. It takes a real strong cynicism or partisan position to believe that the administration would do this deal without assurances from the government of Qatar that the Taliban prisoners would never be allowed to pose us a threat again. As far as the people who will call this negotiating with terrorists and believe that now we have put a bounty on American lives, you will never see any benefit to what just happened. Believe it or not, some real good can come from this, including: The kid is safe. We now have an middle man in the region to use in future discussions with the Taliban. Precedent has already been set for this type of exchange, the only difference is that this time the Taliban is not an actual nation, but my question is what difference does that make, a trade of POWS was negotiated. and quite possibly an avenue of future peace negotiations opened. Having said all this, I know quite well that it won't change anyone's opinion here, but I see some real positives possibly coming from this action. Agreed on the ambiguity there leaving room for argument of the law. Anyone who opposes Obama will claim it was illegal. I also can see the positives...but am wary of negotiating with a group like the Taliban who has aligned themselves with terrorists out to harm us and won't break that alignment. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Googballz 39 Posted June 2, 2014 Agreed on the ambiguity there leaving room for argument of the law. Anyone who opposes Obama will claim it was illegal. Where was the ambiguity in the law? The requirement to give Congress 30 days notice is straightforward. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
