Sen. King: Taliban at Gitmo Will Be Released Soon, Adding Pressure to Deal Now

Breitbart ^ | 06 Jun 2014 | John Sexton

[Hoodat]

According to a Senator who has been defending the administration's deal for Bowe Bergdahl, the 5 Taliban prisoners would have been freed sometime soon anyway, making this our last chance to get something for them. Senator Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said this at the end of his interview with CNN Thursday:

There's one other very important point that needs to get out there. There is a reasonable legal argument that these five guys would have had to be released any way within the next year under the law of war. They were being held in Guantanamo as enemy combatants. Under the law of war, when hostility cease, enemy combatants have to be released. Now, we could have argued we held them under other authority or civilian authority, but there's a reasonable argument this may have been the last chance to get Bergdahl where these guys had true value to us as a negotiating tool, because if they had to be released anyway, we'd be in the same situation without Bowe Bergdahl home.

There has been speculation that the deal for Bergdahl was actually part of a longer term goal to close Gitmo before the President leaves office. King's remarks may be the first time someone on the administration's side of the argument has suggested pressure to empty Gitmo played into the Bergdahl deal.

[Hoodat]

It always amazes me to see the abject idiocy that permeates our US Senate as well as the idiocy of the voter that elects these idiots.

There is nothing reasonable about his argument. Yet it is worth noting to see the lengths that some will go to in order to defend the indefensible. And obviously, King deems it worthwhile to expend his own political capital in doing so. To him, saving Obama's legacy must be worth it no matter how much he must lie to do so.

[BenLurkin]

Islam’s war against civilization is FAR from over.

[Blood of Tyrants]

“Under the law of war, when hostility cease, enemy combatants have to be released.”

Does he actually think that just because Obama is abandoning Afghanistan that the Taliban will stop trying to kill every non-Muslim on earth?

[Dilbert San Diego]

I will get flamed, but just want to make this point.

We have never actually declared war on anyone since World War II.

We never declared war on Iraq, or the Taliban, or Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda, or any other terror groups or individuals.

Legally speaking, I just wonder what the legal status of things are, considering that we are not officially at war, so wonder how the laws of warfare apply here.

Flame away. I’m just asking questions which I don’t know the answers to. I think we should have actually declared war, but, for whatever reasons, we never did.

[Will88]

So, this mental giant from Maine thinks the Taliban and such groups are following the “laws of war”, or the Geneva Conventions. I don’t think these five and their fellow travelers qualify for, let alone follow, the GC, which is one reason a special prison was set up for them outside the US.

[chris37]

So why did our blood and treasure waste their time and their lives to capture these illegal enemy combatants in the first place if our traitorous leaders were just going to turn them loose?

This country has turned to absolute poop ;/

[Hoodat]

. . . that the Taliban will stop trying to kill every non-Muslim on earth?

The Taliban doesn't have a problem killing muslims either. Two of the prisoners that Obama just set free were wanted by the UN for war crimes, specifically the mass slaughter of over a thousand Shiite muslims.

[Cheerio]

What will Linda Graham have to say about potential IMPEACHMENT? Or is a notification to Congress just going to give the clown approval? A pox on all of you up there in the District of Corruption. Gitmo is there for a very good reason - outside the USA.

[airborne]

Keep telling lies until you have enough for the media to use in your defense.

[blackdog]

They most likely were never part of the deal. As a matter of fact, we most likely had to pay someone to take them.

Think about it. We paid millions to get Bergdahl back, but really it was money laundering thru the whitehouse.

Islam knows Obama wants to close Gitmo in the worst way. The value of the detainees is inverse at this point.

[yield 2 the right]

Good questions, I don’t know either....

[DoughtyOne]

Sad thing is, Obama is only a sub-par chess player. He thinks a move or two ahead.

Trouble is, Congress thinks about three moves behind.

Obama comes off looking like a genius.

The release of these people in GitMo will cost tens of thousands of lives.

It’s war crime level abuse of power IMO.

[Cheerio]

You obviously don't consider The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, a declaration of war.

Where do you find the legal definition of a proper DECLARING WAR in the US Consultation?

Not flaming, just asking your opinion?

[nikos1121]

Jeez. We’re screwed. Totally and without question with these people in office.

Lesson, learned? In the future, kill all of them and take no prisoners.

[MeshugeMikey]

"Islam’s war against civilization is FAR from over."

and Barrys new best friend is on the front lines

[Gay State Conservative]

During apartheid the ANC had a battle cry “one settler,one bullet”.Our policy regarding Gitmo punks should be “one jihadi,one bullet”.And that should apply to Major Hassan too...and maybe even to Private First Class Birddog.

[WKUHilltopper]

“We never declared war on Iraq, or the Taliban, or Afghanistan, or Al Qaeda, or any other terror groups or individuals.”

Which I’ve been wondering—since it is not a declared war, do VA benefits transfer to the deceased vet’s surviving spouse? As far as I know, this doesn’t happen.

I know my grandmother never got a dime after my grandfather died (veteran fought against Poncho Villa and the Moros in the Philippines).

And I understand neither will my mother—Dad a combat vet of Korea.

[Will88]

Legally speaking, I just wonder what the legal status of things are, considering that we are not officially at war, so wonder how the laws of warfare apply here.

I think whatever rules or agreements there are that govern war and prisoners are between nations, and not terrorists or other non-governmental groups. And I think one requirement to be covered by those agreements is that the combatants wear the uniform of a specific nation.

Little if anything about these terrorists groups fall under any agreements between nations, and the terrorists groups sure aren't following any "laws of war".

[blackdog]

Think about this.

You are holding prisoners of war, who are not enemy combatants in a state on state war. You then announce your goal is to get them released and home. Now if that is the case, of what value would they be to their home state or organization? The answer is of none actually! The home state or organization is now in a position to demand a reverse ransom.

If Obama were genuine in his negotiations and really wanted something of value for Gitmo detainees, he would be publicly declaring they will never be allowed to see the light of day. As a matter of fact, we may be considering executing them, just to test their value.

My guess is that pretty soon any cargo ship headed to an Islamic nation will be required to have three free Gitmo detainees in exchange for docking rights to unload their goods.

[Dilbert San Diego]

In my understanding the authorization for use of military force did not use the words, indicating that it was a declaration of war. That was the basis for my wondering if these military conflicts actually are considered wars, legally speaking.

In my understanding, the votes in Congress for other wars, suc as World War I and World War II, did specifically use the words that we were declaring that a state of war existed between ourselves and other nations.

Anyone else who can shed light on this, please do so. Of course we know that troops fought and died in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. My questions had to do with whether these conflicts were officially considered states of war.