The United States of America has had a historical policy that they do not "negotiate with terrorists".
How was brokering a trade of POWs between opposing sides of the War on Terror possible without deviating from this policy?
Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
Question assumes that:
1.) Not negotiating with terrorists is an actual policy the U.S. follows (it's not*)
2.) That the standard conventions of war should not be applied to the Taliban (who the U.S. declared war in in 2002), just because of an arbitrary political designation of "terrorist" is in play
I propose that "not negotiating with terrorists" is a political tool to attack opponents more than an actual standard to govern by, and as such isn't suitable to actually adhere to.
(Yeah, probably wrong area for this question. I already worked up my response so going to leave it.)