Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

With the recent swap of Sgt. Bergdahl for 5 Taliban terrorists, how safe are we in America against future terrorism?

In a piece that appeared at the American Thinker website yesterday, Louis Rene Beres argued that America is definitely less safe from terrorism now, citing legal issues that arose in Israel over similar cases and international law on the subject:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/06/the_bergdah...

While I think that in his piece, Mr. Beres clearly underestimates the significance of the fact that Bergdahl is apparently a deserter, his overall argument, I submit, would still be very valid indeed even if this wasn't true.

Your comments?

10 Answers

Relevance
  • L.T.M.
    Lv 7
    7 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    One thing is for sure. The people of Afghanistan will be less safe when we pull out and these 5 are back in positions of power within the Taliban Thugocracy.

    SHEYKHAN, Afghanistan—Taliban forces led by Mohammed Fazl swept through this village on the Shomali plain north of Kabul in 1999 in a scorched-earth offensive that prompted some 300,000 people to flee for their lives.

    Fifteen years later, local residents here are responding with fear and dismay to the U.S. release of the notorious commander, along with four other Taliban leaders in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American prisoner of war who was held by the Taliban. The group released a video on Wednesday showing the hurried handover a few days earlier of the American captive, looking gaunt and dazed.

    The villages of Shomali were once the orchard of central Afghanistan, and the plain's carefully tended vineyards were famous for their grapes.

    When the Taliban seized control of this area from their Northern Alliance rivals in 1999, they systematically demolished entire villages, blowing up houses, burning fields and seeding the land with mines, according to two comprehensive studies of war crimes and atrocities during wars in Afghanistan and human rights reports. Mr. Fazl played a major role in the destruction.

    "There was not a single undamaged house or garden," said Masjidi Fatehzada, a shopkeeper in Mir Bacha Kot, the district center. "My entire shop was burned to the ground. There was nothing left."

    Khwaja Mohammad, a farmer in the village of Sheykhan, remembered how Mr. Fazl's men took away his son, a civilian, and sent him to Kabul's Pul-e Charkhi prison.

  • 7 years ago

    Honestly I don't think this is any game changer.

    Throughout history hostages have been exchanged.

    I ain't no commie-lib and President Reagan is very high on my Hero list, but remember, he bought from Iran our embassy staff which for 444 days Carter couldn't figure out how to rescue. Reagan paid for those lives, to get them released with various kinds of money, the whole "Iran/Contra" gun-running deal.

    I am no supporter of Obama and will be glad when he leaves office but let's be real here. Every President has done such shady deals, so let's not think this latest changes anything.

  • justa
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    I think its surprising he can get so upset over this, when the five hundred released by Bush for no reason at all is overlooked and not even mentioned. Its like complaining about a splinter when you've burned the forest.

    Our initial legal problems with the men held at Gitmo, indeed the reason they needed to be held off shore, is that they weren't charged or tried with crimes. We 'knew', but we lacked actual evidence.

    These are not good men, they haven't been changed by holding them there into admirers of America.

    But the various terrorist groups they came from don't need them, may not even want them, their positions having long ago been filled by others who will not be willing to share power.

    And they certainly aren't going to make a difference in the men who have hated us, and will continue to hate us in years to come. Their particular brand of Islam calls for everyone in the entire world to be converted or die.

    That's irrational, and you can't say a fanatic will be more fanatical because of some one who is out of prison. That's something that is already there. I would imagine the idea of hostages isn't new, or perhaps the Iranian hostage situation is already forgotten.

  • 7 years ago

    Pretty safe. In spite of the dimissal by the author, Qatar will uphold its bargain and hold them for a year. US troops will be out of Afghanistan by then. The Taliban wants to regain control of Afghanistan. They have never been interested in any kind of attacks in the US. And I doubt they will do so now, since it will just bring the US back to Afghanistan.

    You know, these 5 Taliban "leaders" have been out of the loop for several years. They may not be welcomed back with open arms by current Taliban leaders. They certainly won't be trusted 100%.

    We didn't release convicted war criminals, since no trials were ever held.

    I also object to the constant use of terrorist since it is simply buzz wording.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • lare
    Lv 7
    7 years ago

    while you call the Taliban terrorists, the fact is they have never attacked America. you have confused them with Al Qaeda. we recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan at the point Bush declared war on them, thus granting them status. while this was for the purpose of ousting them, it none the less conferred all Geneva Convention rights to all prisoners taken. including prohibition of torture. terrorism continues to be a fact of the world we live in, this changed nothing. if terrorists change tactics from simply killing Americans to keeping them safe as hostages, i would say that is an improvement.

  • 7 years ago

    Reagan negotiated with terrorists, exchanging guns for hostages, and then the guns were used against American soldiers. Bush43 released 500 Gitmo detainees without receiving anything in return. Conservatives loved it. Obama released 5 Gitmo detainees, and received an American soldier in return. Conservatives hated it.

  • 7 years ago

    I usually don't read right wing slant but in this case to try to understand your argument I read this one.

    The author cites international law as being declared a part of US law (the "supreme law of the land") Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution (as treaty law) He also quotes from the Nuremberg Principles:

    According to Principle 1: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore, and liable to punishment."

    However he does not mention these so called terrorist were never tried or convicted of crimes against the US, so in this case they were being held without due process.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    I believe that now that the precedent has been set, any American whether military or private citizen is in danger of being held by terrorists. Taliban leaders have said that they will do as much in the future.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    The main terrorists in the USA are gun nuts running amok.

  • Anonymous
    7 years ago

    We are less safe thanks to Obama.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.