The original was on June 3, 2014 As I noted there later I had misread a crucial word.
The Obama administration has just traded 5 midlevel
I am opposed to trading terrorists for hostages taken by
terrorists.
Three things:
A) 1st Obviously we have just encouraged the terrorists to take
more hostages.
2nd The Taliban is a much more "normal" military and therefore it would be more acceptable to trade prisoners with them.
B) Is this Obama's plan to close the Gitmo Prison Camp?
Once he has traded them all off it will be easy. This remains untouched.
C) It seems to me that I recall the left arguing that
terrorists should be treated like any other criminal. Soooo .... .
As is one this is modified, but not by as much. They weren't civilian prisoners true, but the Mafia parallel is still an interesting question for those who advocate treating terrorists like common criminals.
As is one this is modified, but not by as much. They weren't civilian prisoners true, but the Mafia parallel is still an interesting question for those who advocate treating terrorists like common criminals.
Although the Taliban and Terrorist are, at least in the US, both considered bad guys I think your distinction between the two groups is an important consideration in how we deal with them.
ReplyDeleteA. The trade might be more acceptable but I think your original (1st) observation is still true. We have encouraged a group to take more hostages, but that is an acceptable practice for legitimate militaries.
B. It might be his plan to close Gitmo. If not, it is certainly conveniently consistent if that were the plan. It would be interesting to hear arguments for closing the prison if it were indeed empty. i.e. being empty does not automatically close that part of the base.
C. ?