Trump Threatens to Release Foreign Islamic State Captives

[left-of-center2012]

President Donald Trump threatened to release foreign Islamic State captives held by the U.S. on the borders of their home countries, including Germany, unless their governments accept their return.

“If they don’t take them back, we’re going to probably put them at the border and they’re going to have to capture them again,” Trump told reporters on Friday during a meeting with Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the White House. “They have to make their decision, otherwise we are releasing them at the border,” Trump added.

Administration officials have long pressed European allies to take back captured Islamic State terrorists of foreign nationality. Thousands of former fighters are held in make-shift prisons in Syria, many of which have been guarded by U.S.-allied Kurdish militias.

Most foreign governments have been reluctant to take custody of Islamic State fighters from their countries over fears that they could radicalize their fellow prison inmates or strain resources.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-20/trump-threatens-to-release-foreign-islamic-state-captives?srnd=politics-vp

[Freethinker65]

1. I actually can see both sides to this issue

Certainly not vindictively leaving them at the border, but who should be responsible both physically and financially for keeping them where they can do no harm?
I do not have the answer and have honestly never thought about it.

[world wide wally]

2. Thus spoke the Terrorist In Chief

[empedocles]

3. Thus spake the oral masturbator in chief

[Captain Stern]

4. trump's kind of right on this one.

I think their home countries should be responsible for them.

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

5. Always the asshole

[Igel]

6. There aren't many solutions.

1. Hold them indefinitely. Support that, and praise Gitmo.

That would also require moving them, say, to Gitmo. Or some other site under US control, because the Kurds don't want to be saddled with them.

2. Kill them.

3. Let them go where they are.

4. Let them go in some other location. If so, we have to decide where. Perhaps Los Angeles? Maybe DC? Hard to smuggle that much human flesh into a country unwilling to take them. "Near a gap on their borders" sounds like as good a place, and since they have a right to free movement, whose to say that they don't have a right to go to Paris or Interlaken or Helsinki or, well, Los Angeles? After all, it's not like they've been convicted of anything--or that the evidence against them would hold up in court.

That pretty much sums it up. (Actually, there's "hold them just for a while," but there's no good way to predict what "a while" means. Perhaps until we've brainwashed/re-indoctrinated/de-programmed them? To what? Moderate Islam, perhaps Buddhism? Whatever it is, it clearly wouldn't be their current faith. Is it really enough just to say that "it bears the name Islam, so it must be Islam"? Do we really think that identity of descriptor = identity of referent?)