Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, imprisoned by Taliban in Afghanistan since 2009, is freed

[The Mikado]

So...the war is ending soon, and we can't exactly hold Taliban people indefinitely after we are no longer at war with the Taliban.  It seems to me that this exchange is closer to "we might as well get something back for these guys, what are the Taliban offering" than "we'll give anything to get our guy back."

Unless people seriously think that we could indefinitely continue to hold representatives of a defeated in war government that haven't been tried for warcrimes after the war itself ended?

[The Mikado]

I'm legitimately shocked, and frankly scared, about the stunning cultural disconnect between the people here and the real world of the military. There was a gentleman on Fox who talked about this. Being a deserter is second only to actively betraying your country in terms of severity. As the guy on fox said, being a deserter isn't like being a little too hungover and skipping Gender 101.

if anyone is a traitor, it is the people who are literally supporting the continued imprisonment of an american citizen by the taliban. just saying.

Even assuming the GOPies are correct in their summarizing of Bergdahl, is a treacherous enemy sympathizer with an unpredictable mental state really the sort of person you want to simply forget about? Best case scenario, we traded a few runts to recover a POW. Worst case scenario, we traded the same runts to bring a deserter and potential Adam Gadahn sequel to the justice and due process we guarantee (kinda sorta hahah not really) to everybody. I see no downside either way.

I'm thankful that in this situation the shotcallers acted decisively and without consideration for the selectively namby pamby BS the Fox crowd ferments in their heads.

Well, the one thing with your best-case scenario is that the runts will likely return to terrorism. Nevertheless, even though Bergdahl was not the greatest soldier in my opinion, I still think it was worth it to get him back from the Taliban, at least for the sake of reuniting him with his family.

Anyhow, I will say this to everyone that I interacted with on this thread: I sincerely apologize for my abrasive attitude in my prior posts. I should not have carried myself in the manner that I did, as it was unbecoming for any topic of discussion.

These former prisoners aren't terrorists, they're members of the Taliban, which is the deposed former government of Afghanistan/current guerrilla anti-Kabul government rebel group that was aligned with a terrorist organization.

[The Mikado]

I'm legitimately shocked, and frankly scared, about the stunning cultural disconnect between the people here and the real world of the military. There was a gentleman on Fox who talked about this. Being a deserter is second only to actively betraying your country in terms of severity. As the guy on fox said, being a deserter isn't like being a little too hungover and skipping Gender 101.

if anyone is a traitor, it is the people who are literally supporting the continued imprisonment of an american citizen by the taliban. just saying.

Even assuming the GOPies are correct in their summarizing of Bergdahl, is a treacherous enemy sympathizer with an unpredictable mental state really the sort of person you want to simply forget about? Best case scenario, we traded a few runts to recover a POW. Worst case scenario, we traded the same runts to bring a deserter and potential Adam Gadahn sequel to the justice and due process we guarantee (kinda sorta hahah not really) to everybody. I see no downside either way.

I'm thankful that in this situation the shotcallers acted decisively and without consideration for the selectively namby pamby BS the Fox crowd ferments in their heads.

Well, the one thing with your best-case scenario is that the runts will likely return to terrorism. Nevertheless, even though Bergdahl was not the greatest soldier in my opinion, I still think it was worth it to get him back from the Taliban, at least for the sake of reuniting him with his family.

Anyhow, I will say this to everyone that I interacted with on this thread: I sincerely apologize for my abrasive attitude in my prior posts. I should not have carried myself in the manner that I did, as it was unbecoming for any topic of discussion.

These former prisoners aren't terrorists, they're members of the Taliban, which is the deposed former government of Afghanistan/current guerrilla anti-Kabul government rebel group that was aligned with a terrorist organization.

Okay, so I take it that we should refer to the former prisoners as probable supporters of terrorism?

I understand that the Taliban was the former government of Afghanistan, but since their disposal, not only have they aligned with terrorists, but its supporters have apparently committed terrorist acts themselves.

My point is more that, come a few months from now, we will no longer be at war with the Taliban, and continuing to hold prisoners of war after the war has ended is the behavior of rogue states and not becoming countries like the United States.  PoWs are supposed to be held until the end of hostilities so these Taliban folks would be going home soon anyway, might as well get something out of them.

EDIT: I'm not crazy here, right?  Letting PoWs go at the end of hostilities is still a thing, right?  We haven't charged these particular Taliban members with warcrimes, so we have no legal right to hold them after the cessation of the conflict.