The Bowe Bergdahl exchange was a good decision.

I. Bowe Bergdahl is a deserterThis point is irrelevant to any of the contentions I made. Who he was doesn't matter. And by the US military code of law, he is required to recieve a trial before he can be punished for being a deserter. He has yet to stand trial nor have you provided any evidence or sources that he was. This point should be disregarded for an absence of evidence and sources.If you're going to make a claim like this, provide infallible evidence and a non-partisian source confirming your claim.II. The "bad" guys You completely dropped my contention this round. I said that the US can't hold these prisoners, because we broke international law in detaining them.http://www.huffingtonpost.com...http://ccrjustice.org...-http://www.dailymail.co.uk...http://www.cbsnews.com...http://www.thenation.com...#My contention was dropped. Keeping gitmo prisoners violates international laws, and we can't turn them into the ICJ no matter how many crimes we commited, because then they will testify against us. Letting them go was better than being liable for war crimes.Not to mention that 3 out of the 5 people Con named weren't guilty of a single war crime. Drug running and weapons supplying is something the CIA does monday through sunday. These people are a liabillity to the US in our detention. The Afghan talliban aren't even labeled as terrorists by the US government. Nor are we officially at war with the Taliban, because if we were, the war statutes would be in effect. By international law, we are hosting civilian targets illegally. If someone were to interpret us as actually being in war with them, then we would be violating several war statutes.III. We're still at war with Afghanistan We were never at war with Afghanistan. We were at war with a civilian millitant group within the nation known as Afghanistan. The problem is we were already violating international law by bypassing the UN war statutes mandate. A set of requirements for the waging of war. By violating them, we were technically breaking international law. The only thing that saved us was a "loose" interpretation on the definition "War". The Taliban are still protected under international law. We have working diplomatic relations with the Taliban in Qatar, and they have not launched one attack against the US since 2011, in agreement with our peace talks.Which means there's not enough evidence or support to claim the Taliban are working against the US. Can my opponent name one terrorist attack that the Afghan Taliban have launched since 2011? The international community and the US identifies them as rebels. We could be sued and hurt greatly with economic fines if we had continued to host illegal POW's.The fact will always remain. The USFG is trading one war crime to cover another. The US can be interpreted to have "left" war by ICJ authorities following the withdraw, meaning we will be at extreme risk. At least we're manning up and taking responcibillity by releasing these people.Dropped points this round - Fighting the taliban doesn't solve the problem.- Violations of the Geneva Convention- The Afghan Taliban ( not the Tenrik-I-Taliban) have not launched an attack or funded an attack in the US for years. "Not our enemies".- The Taliban aren't listed as terrorists, but a civil millitant group- Keeping illegal POW's slows down peace talks (this exchange was as much diplomatic as symbolic)- Since we are no longer fighting with the Pashtuni congress, the Taliban have no reason to fight us^ All the above points are affirmed as they haven't been countered