Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Prisoner Swap

Prisoner Swap
Thread Tools
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 04:14 PM
 
Alright. Something seems amiss here.

-We let 5 top taliban commanders go back into the field.

-There is serious doubt as to the nature of our POW's status as a POW.

-We just negotiated with terrorists. We gave them a reason to take American prisoners/hostages where-ever they can.

-Congress was bypassed.

I don't even know where to begin on the negative implications for our foreign policy from this point forward. How do you all feel about it?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 07:22 PM
 
1. I think we as a country either believe in "Leave no soldier behind." or we don't. It's just that simple.

2. As for "negotiating with terrorists" the US does that all the time when it suits our interests. This notion that we don't is only for public consumption. Only the naive believe otherwise.

3. As for the circumstances behind this guy's capture ... that is whether he went AWOL, deserted, or just got caught slipping ... that's a matter for the military to resolve once he's back in country. See #1. That being said, given the legitimate questions surrounding this guy it was a pretty risky move for President Obama to make such a high profile Rose Garden announcement.

4. The White House says Congress was informed that this was in the works, just not the specifics of who was involved. That being said, if Congress were informed of the particulars we all know it would have been leaked and the deal scuttled. Which takes us back to #1. Furthermore, President Obama is still the Commander in Chief ... and when this language was included in the Defense Authorization bill that he signed into law ... he did include a signing statement indicating that he did not consider himself bound to that provision. So it's not like this can come as much of a shock. Congress can always impeach him if they feel that strongly about it. And try to explain why they are doing that to a POTUS for bringing a US serviceman home and winding down a war that remains highly unpopular. Good luck with that.

5. As for the 5 Taliban, they will not be able to leave Qatar for a year. By the time they can the US combat mission will be over. The entire US troop presence will be gone by the end of 2016. I suppose they might choose to make mischief if they return to Afghanistan during that year and a half from the time of their release till the last US troops leave. But the Taliban only has an issue with the US because of our presence in Afghanistan. They've never attacked us outside of that. So the smarter play would be to sit tight until the last US troops leave. But if they chose the less intelligent route anyway, I honestly can't imagine that the US military or CIA doesn't have a mechanism to track these guys via something they can't remove from their systems. I suspect a drone will be able to come visit them at any given time. Perhaps if they pay a visit to Mullah Omar or other senior Taliban leadership. Almost makes me wonder if this is part of a long-term "honeypot" operation?

OAW
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 08:50 PM
 
Well, you're both missing the whole "five guys died looking for him" thing.

Tell the parents of the five that this is a good trade.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 09:16 PM
 
This is real fishy.
Bergdahl's parents speak at White House - YouTube

At the end of brief event, the soldier’s father, Bob Bergdahl, recited the most frequent phrase in the Koran — “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” —which means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.”
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 3, 2014, 11:05 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
1. I think we as a country either believe in "Leave no soldier behind." or we don't. It's just that simple.
Of course we leave soldiers behind... and ambassadors, a marine in Mexico, etc.

Besides, we didn't leave him behind. He left his unit behind and told them so.

2. As for "negotiating with terrorists" the US does that all the time when it suits our interests. This notion that we don't is only for public consumption. Only the naive believe otherwise.
No, the notion that we don't has long been considered wise policy to ensure we don't encourage hostage-taking. That's why Obama assured us on the campaign trail that he wouldn't do this, particularly without consulting Congress. Otherwise, it's actually counterintuitive that a man who openly claimed he would not negotiate with Republicans would appear more willing to negotiate with terrorists.

3. As for the circumstances behind this guy's capture ... that is whether he went AWOL, deserted, or just got caught slipping ... that's a matter for the military to resolve once he's back in country. See #1. That being said, given the legitimate questions surrounding this guy it was a pretty risky move for President Obama to make such a high profile Rose Garden announcement.
See response to #1.

4. The White House says Congress was informed that this was in the works, just not the specifics of who was involved. That being said, if Congress were informed of the particulars we all know it would have been leaked and the deal scuttled. Which takes us back to #1.
Because the "particulars" take us back to my response to your #1.

Furthermore, President Obama is still the Commander in Chief ... and when this language was included in the Defense Authorization bill that he signed into law ... he did include a signing statement indicating that he did not consider himself bound to that provision. So it's not like this can come as much of a shock.
But he said he wouldn't use them. There are apparently many principles by which he does not consider himself bound. And you're right, I'm not shocked.

Congress can always impeach him if they feel that strongly about it. And try to explain why they are doing that to a POTUS for bringing a US serviceman home and winding down a war that remains highly unpopular. Good luck with that.
They've learned impeachment means virtually nothing and the media is no longer available to adequately present facts to the court of public opinion. Your confidence in the futility of such a move is telling.

Afghanistan was this President's good war, remember? I mean, he wound it up, as Commander in Chief witnessed 70% of our losses there, and is now winding it back down under degradation. His "Mission Accomplished" moment. Hence my complaint on a pervasive media absence. Notwithstanding the credibility of another Sunday interview with Rice only this time on Bergdahl's "honor", having been "captured" in the field.

Pure slop from the top-down.

5. As for the 5 Taliban, they will not be able to leave Qatar for a year. By the time they can the US combat mission will be over. The entire US troop presence will be gone by the end of 2016. I suppose they might choose to make mischief if they return to Afghanistan during that year and a half from the time of their release till the last US troops leave. But the Taliban only has an issue with the US because of our presence in Afghanistan. They've never attacked us outside of that. So the smarter play would be to sit tight until the last US troops leave. But if they chose the less intelligent route anyway, I honestly can't imagine that the US military or CIA doesn't have a mechanism to track these guys via something they can't remove from their systems. I suspect a drone will be able to come visit them at any given time. Perhaps if they pay a visit to Mullah Omar or other senior Taliban leadership. Almost makes me wonder if this is part of a long-term "honeypot" operation?

OAW
All I can say here is that I'm glad, for Obama's sake, that he didn't try the real estate or car sales biz. At best, this may have turned out only slightly better than his negotiations with Russia and Iran.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 08:38 AM
 
I feel like the fundamental discussion comes down to whether you believe a (possible) deserter should reap what he sows, or is still an American and should face judgment by Military court.

The rest is politics.
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 09:31 AM
 
Speaking as ex-military, this guy is a BF all the way. Reap what he sows. Deckplate justice.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Speaking as ex-military, this guy is a BF all the way. Reap what he sows. Deckplate justice.
Do you think the search (not the trade) had an overall positive or negative effect on morale.

I can see "why do I have to step on a land mine to find this douchebag?" having a negative effect.

I can see "they'll come get me, even if I'm a douchebag" having a positive effect.

Any insight as to whether it was his command who decided that was a good use of resources, or would that be from higher up on the chain?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Speaking as ex-military, this guy is a BF all the way. Reap what he sows. Deckplate justice.
No idea what BF stands for, and google returns less than a page of results for "Deckplate justice" but I infer its some variation of a blanket party.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 11:18 AM
 
Big ****up?
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 11:33 AM
 
"Deck plate justice" = "accidentally" falling out of the helicopter that picked him up.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 11:48 AM
 
I imagine Obama expressly asking he not be killed if at all possible.
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 01:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
No idea what BF stands for, and google returns less than a page of results for "Deckplate justice" but I infer its some variation of a blanket party.

BF = Buddy, uh, humper.

Deckplate Justice = the aforementioned "accidentally" falling out of the helicopter.

The Chain of Command somehow made this deal. The Chain of Command doesn't like to be wrong, AT ALL COSTS. So, any military tribunal scheduled already likely has marching orders. This is bad for troop morale.

Screwing up and getting nabbed by the bad guy, you expect your guys will come get you. Abandoning your post, LIKE THE MILITARY ALREADY DECIDED HE DID, and you should get what's coming to you. Had a bunch of guys with explosives attacked that day, while the watch was AWOL? How many heads would he have on him. How many does he have now?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 01:27 PM
 
Good point.

Doesn't falling asleep at your post equate to jail time?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 02:36 PM
 
There are also very valid questions of his actively collaborating with the enemy, whose attacks "mysteriously" became more effective and focused after he was taken - as if they had inside information.

The FACT that his Team Leader has stated he heard - HIMSELF - radio intercepts saying what village he was in and how he was actively seeking English speakers so he could speak with the Taliban.

His desertion was responsible for an attack that cost 14 of our military their lives, 22 permanently disfigured from wounds, and 2 - COUNT 'EM TWO - Medals of Honor awarded for valor to our troops for beating back the focused attack.
"That Others May Live"
On the ISG: "The nation's capital hasn't seen such concentrated wisdom in one place since Paris Hilton dined alone at the Hooters on Connecticut Avenue." - John Podhoretz
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 02:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
BF = Buddy, uh, humper.
Buddy****er doesn't make much more sense, unless its interchangeable with mother****er, asshole, etc.

Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Deckplate Justice = the aforementioned "accidentally" falling out of the helicopter.
So vigilante justice. How quaint.

I dunno, the various threads of speculation don't mesh well, unless he pretended to be a POW, in which case, holy crap. In which case, the only way he'll see justice is by us taking him back (and putting him on trial).
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Buddy****er doesn't make much more sense, unless its interchangeable with mother****er, asshole, etc.
A Buddy****er is a guy in the military who screws up, and the toll paid is on other members of the squad, crew, group, what have you. This guy pretty much fits the bill.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So vigilante justice. How quaint.
Yeah, but it happens. The Chain of Command often plays favorites for whatever the reason, and the favorite is often a BFer.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I dunno, the various threads of speculation don't mesh well, unless he pretended to be a POW, in which case, holy crap. In which case, the only way he'll see justice is by us taking him back (and putting him on trial).
Looks more and more like this is what's going to happen. It won't be pretty.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 07:20 PM
 
I'll just reiterate my #1 point above. And let this quote speak for itself ...

Rear Adm. John F. Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said that there was a larger matter at play: The American military does not leave soldiers behind. “When you’re in the Navy, and you go overboard, it doesn’t matter if you were pushed, fell or jumped,” he said. “We’re going to turn the ship around and pick you up.”
IOW ... if the fool JUMPED so what? You deal with that once you get him back on the boat! So again ... you either believe in that or you don't.

Bowe Bergdahl’s Vanishing Before Capture Angered His Unit | NYTimes.com

OAW
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 07:37 PM
 
Admiral or not, that's a very bad metaphor, and I'm a USN vet. Walking away from your post and likely providing intel to whatever enemy we're fighting at the moment? How is that equivalent to falling off a ship?

Regardless, this is going to get ugly before the Internet forgets.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 07:53 PM
 
^^^

I think the more apt metaphor would be "jumping" ... not "falling" off the ship. IOW ... something intentionally done that he had no business doing.

OAW
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 09:48 PM
 
If executed, he would be the second soldier since the Civil War to be executed for desertion. The last was during WWII.
Eddie Slovik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 4, 2014, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If executed, he would be the second soldier since the Civil War to be executed for desertion. The last was during WWII.
Eddie Slovik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really don't think we're going to execute him either way.

What is happening though, is five influential Taliban commanders being sent back to the Mid East to pick up where they left off, bolstered by the reality of a weak, incompetent US.

What about the guys that were killed because of these terrorists and what about the lives lost searching for the deserter? What about our vets here who're dying waiting for treatment while Obama's underlings line their pockets with bonus money while their families put them in the ground? Not a good enough media tagline for Obama?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 12:09 AM
 
So, we now acquiesce to terrorist demands? Awesome! That worthless sack of s*** can't leave office soon enough, I suppose we could hope for an aneurysm or heart attack to help us out.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I feel like the fundamental discussion comes down to whether you believe a (possible) deserter should reap what he sows, or is still an American and should face judgment by Military court.

The rest is politics.
It comes down to whether you feel it's good policy to reward terrorism and dereliction of duty. As a country we've become so weak and pathetic, why not terrorize us to get what you want? It's effective, even profitable.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 07:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
^^^

I think the more apt metaphor would be "jumping" ... not "falling" off the ship. IOW ... something intentionally done that he had no business doing.

OAW
No one said he should be drone-stricken as has been proposed by this Administration of other Americans seeking refuge amongst terrorists, we're asking why this deal should be regarded as a good thing or in keeping with the mantra; "never leave a soldier behind".
ebuddy
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 08:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No one said he should be drone-stricken as has been proposed by this Administration of other Americans seeking refuge amongst terrorists, we're asking why this deal should be regarded as a good thing or in keeping with the mantra; "never leave a soldier behind".
Well given the fact that as of yet Bergdahl has NOT been charged with desertion by the US military what would be your alternative course of action? Continue to let him wallow in captivity until the Taliban decided to release him for nothing (aka "leaving a soldier behind")? Or continuing fruitless rescue attempts and potentially incurring more casualties (aka "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result)? Because let's face it ... that's what it really boils down to.

OAW
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It comes down to whether you feel it's good policy to reward terrorism and dereliction of duty.
It's not a reward if you face trial on return.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 11:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well given the fact that as of yet Bergdahl has NOT been charged with desertion by the US military what would be your alternative course of action? Continue to let him wallow in captivity until the Taliban decided to release him for nothing (aka "leaving a soldier behind")? Or continuing fruitless rescue attempts and potentially incurring more casualties (aka "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result)? Because let's face it ... that's what it really boils down to.

OAW
So instead we freed 5 Taliban commanders straight back to the battlefield. You don't think that will incur more casualties?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 11:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
So instead we freed 5 Taliban commanders straight back to the battlefield. You don't think that will incur more casualties?
Honestly, what's to stop this administration from just drone striking the shit out of them for walking in the wrong direction? I find it suspect.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 11:51 AM
 
I keep wanting to call him "Bo Bice".
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Honestly, what's to stop this administration from just drone striking the shit out of them for walking in the wrong direction? I find it suspect.
I do too, Dakar. I find it very suspect that we'd release 5 Taliban commands then "drone strike the shit out of them" especially given our dismal track record with killing all sorts of people that happened to be in close proximity to our targets. I'm not sure it'd look real good from a media perspective so i really doubt we'll see that happen.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 12:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
A Buddy****er is a guy in the military who screws up, and the toll paid is on other members of the squad, crew, group, what have you. This guy pretty much fits the bill.
So bad team mate. I understand now.


Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
Yeah, but it happens.
Stupid response. It shouldn't be tolerated.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 12:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I'm not sure it'd look real good from a media perspective so i really doubt we'll see that happen.
It couldn't possibly look worse than if they were involved in a future terrorist event (from a media perspective).

Still, I find any problem I may have about releasing 5 bad guys into the wild instantly comes at odds with the fact that they weren't actually tried for anything (AFAIK).
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's not a reward if you face trial on return.
I'd rather spend 20 yrs Leavenworth than the rest of my much shorter life in a Taliban prison camp, wouldn't you? It's like being delivered to a 5-star resort, in comparison. I might actually kiss the warden once I arrived.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Stupid response. It shouldn't be tolerated.
Accurate response, regardless if you don't like it. It's not great, no.

And before you ask, I was neither involved in, nor the subject of deckplate justice.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 01:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by EstaNightshift View Post
And before you ask, I was neither involved in, nor the subject of deckplate justice.
Didn't even cross my mind.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'd rather spend 20 yrs Leavenworth than the rest of my much shorter life in a Taliban prison camp, wouldn't you? It's like being delivered to a 5-star resort, in comparison. I might actually kiss the warden once I arrived.
But wasn't he HELPING the Taliban? Face it, this guy is a traitor. This administration, showing its permanent horrid judgement helped a traitor, let 5 bad guys go and now those same bad guys are promising MORE kidnappings.
Bowe Bergdahl: Taliban Captors Speak to TIME - TIME
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'd rather spend 20 yrs Leavenworth than the rest of my much shorter life in a Taliban prison camp, wouldn't you? It's like being delivered to a 5-star resort, in comparison. I might actually kiss the warden once I arrived.
So we leave him with the Taliban without the benefit of a trial?

Edit: Is leaving someone a prisoner even a legal punishment? I doubt it.
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So we leave him with the Taliban without the benefit of a trial?

Edit: Is leaving someone a prisoner even a legal punishment? I doubt it.
Why not notify Congress and let the system work as it's supposed to? It seems the issue here is that the Administration felt subverting the process in the name of protecting a doctrine that seems to only matter when it's politically convenient was the best course of action. I say that subverting the process to protect another part of it amounts to dismantling the process altogether. The problem here is that, as usual, this Administration has ignored potentially serious implications to this deal that our entire process is designed to mitigate with no care, explanation or transparency. Regardless of the outcome of this, Obama has still failed in his job not only from a competence standpoint but from a standpoint of accountability to US citizens.

Obama hailed this as something it wasn't, like he's done many times before. It only took a matter of hours for the utter incompetence and failure to grasp the role of his office became apparent this time. I don't think the American people buy the dog and pony show anymore, and this time Obama was arrogant enough to think that this decision was his to make. Regardless of the legality of his actions, Obama has proven again that campaigning is not the same thing as governing, and now American soldiers deployed oversees as well as citizens here at home are at an increased risk as we just gave back 5 influential leaders of the group who seeks to kill us where we are.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 03:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I say that subverting the process to protect another part of it amounts to dismantling the process altogether.
YOu'll have to tell me what you're talking about here.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 07:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So we leave him with the Taliban without the benefit of a trial?

Edit: Is leaving someone a prisoner even a legal punishment? I doubt it.
Rather than barter with terrorists? Yes. I believe we should.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 07:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
YOu'll have to tell me what you're talking about here.
I think he's complaining about the Exec Order pen being whipped out again, and rightfully so. That shit has to stop, this ain't a monarchy or dictatorship (yet).
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Snow-i  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 5, 2014, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
YOu'll have to tell me what you're talking about here.
He materially aided a non-state terrorist organization without gaining the authorization of Congress. I'd love to see his legal justification without using the words "because I am the president."

EDIT: He also violated a law about moving gitmo detainees without 30 days of notice to Congress and threat mitigation reports. He released the 5 Terrorists and claimed exigent circumstances as his justification.
( Last edited by Snow-i; Jun 5, 2014 at 10:08 PM. )
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 07:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Well given the fact that as of yet Bergdahl has NOT been charged with desertion by the US military what would be your alternative course of action? Continue to let him wallow in captivity until the Taliban decided to release him for nothing (aka "leaving a soldier behind")?
I think there's enough evidence to indict him for desertion. There isn't a peer who served with him who feels otherwise. Bergdahl was very clear what he did and why. What's at question here is whether or not he's a defector and willfully gave the enemy material or strategic support.

Or continuing fruitless rescue attempts and potentially incurring more casualties (aka "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result)? Because let's face it ... that's what it really boils down to.

OAW
I think we'll come to find out that further plans to attempt rescuing Bergdahl were scrapped specifically because it wasn't worth the price. Again, there is more than sufficient evidence, even at the surface that this man deserted his post. I suppose it's remotely possible this man was a CIA operative who was commissioned to get in on the inside and report back, but so far as we know there was no "reporting-back" and I'm not sure one's parents are generally involved in the ruse.

It's really very simple and yes, patently political. Our President made a promise to close Gitmo and has very little else going for his legacy right now other than a VA scandal (remember that?) amongst a wealth of other scandals. i.e. he has absolutely zero political capital to work with. But he still has to empty Gitmo. The notion of bringing detainees to the States for trial has been poo-pooed by both sides of the aisle and no one else wants them. A couple of these Taliban leaders had already been proposed for release and were met with a resounding "hell to the NO!". What to do? Claim immediate urgency to act on a deteriorating Bergdahl's health as determined from video footage 6 months prior and give your enemy everything they wanted in a deal you know damn well would've been opposed, stage a rose garden ceremony, send your stooge Rice for more on-air folly, and begin to redirect attention from the incredibly bad news on __enter scandal here__.

Is this because Congress doesn't believe in the mantra; "leave no soldier behind" and this President is acting on the integrity of military code in spite of the military itself or the deliberative process in Congress? No, it's because the price of getting that particular soldier (a term that may well be used loosely in reference to Bergdahl) was deemed too high and this President gave away his shirt to empty Gitmo, timed shrewdly enough to get the heat off on any number of other matters dogging his approval ratings right now.
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 09:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
He materially aided a non-state terrorist organization without gaining the authorization of Congress. I'd love to see his legal justification without using the words "because I am the president."

EDIT: He also violated a law about moving gitmo detainees without 30 days of notice to Congress and threat mitigation reports. He released the 5 Terrorists and claimed exigent circumstances as his justification.
Oh. Like I said in my first post, I have no interest in the politics of this subject.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 11:13 AM
 
In regards to that, there seems to be an almost overwhelming consensus an American deserter isn't worth that many high-profile prisoners, not to mention he just made every American traveling abroad into a walking ATM for kidnappers.

You don't get the "overwhelming consensus" too often these days.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
In regards to that, there seems to be an almost overwhelming consensus an American deserter isn't worth that many high-profile prisoners, not to mention he just made every American traveling abroad into a walking ATM for kidnappers.

You don't get the "overwhelming consensus" too often these days.
To me that's core question that's worth discussion. Source?

I wonder how they feel about locking people up indefinitely with no charges. Or if he wasn't a deserter.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 03:20 PM
 
WRT a source, it's just the feeling I get.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2014, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think there's enough evidence to indict him for desertion. There isn't a peer who served with him who feels otherwise. Bergdahl was very clear what he did and why. What's at question here is whether or not he's a defector and willfully gave the enemy material or strategic support.

I think we'll come to find out that further plans to attempt rescuing Bergdahl were scrapped specifically because it wasn't worth the price. Again, there is more than sufficient evidence, even at the surface that this man deserted his post. I suppose it's remotely possible this man was a CIA operative who was commissioned to get in on the inside and report back, but so far as we know there was no "reporting-back" and I'm not sure one's parents are generally involved in the ruse.
Ok. No argument from me on that note. But you still didn't answer the QUESTION. Naturally you have every right to CRITICISM. But what is your ALTERNATIVE? And just for the sake of expediency my insistence is rooted in the observation I've been making about this so-called "controversy". A lot of people are quick to criticize but are loathe to keep it 100 and just say outright "The US government should have just abandoned Bergdahl!" Ostensibly because based on the commentary ... not "sworn testimony" ... of some of his peers he must have "deserted". Then again, perhaps he just left his post and wandered off like he had done previously even when training in California.

Bergdahl Is Said to Have History of Leaving Post | NYTimes.com

Or perhaps the "objection" is because this particular POTUS authorized a prisoner swap like others have in the past without incident ... but as we've seen in so many other scenarios it's suddenly an issue when he does it?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's really very simple and yes, patently political. Our President made a promise to close Gitmo and has very little else going for his legacy right now other than a VA scandal (remember that?) amongst a wealth of other scandals. i.e. he has absolutely zero political capital to work with. But he still has to empty Gitmo. The notion of bringing detainees to the States for trial has been poo-pooed by both sides of the aisle and no one else wants them. A couple of these Taliban leaders had already been proposed for release and were met with a resounding "hell to the NO!". What to do? Claim immediate urgency to act on a deteriorating Bergdahl's health as determined from video footage 6 months prior and give your enemy everything they wanted in a deal you know damn well would've been opposed, stage a rose garden ceremony, send your stooge Rice for more on-air folly, and begin to redirect attention from the incredibly bad news on __enter scandal here__.
I disagree my friend. The "patently political" thing to do would be to wash one's hands of the "Closing GITMO" promise entirely and hang the de facto "Indefinite Detention Without Trial" thing entirely around the neck of the Congress. Because let's face it ... that's exactly what the ALTERNATIVE is. And here's the deal. I can understand if that's how people really feel about it. I mean seriously ... I can. What I can't stand is the fact that these same people won't MAN UP and just come right out and SAY that!

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is this because Congress doesn't believe in the mantra; "leave no soldier behind" and this President is acting on the integrity of military code in spite of the military itself or the deliberative process in Congress? No, it's because the price of getting that particular soldier (a term that may well be used loosely in reference to Bergdahl) was deemed too high and this President gave away his shirt to empty Gitmo, timed shrewdly enough to get the heat off on any number of other matters dogging his approval ratings right now.
Well it would seem things aren't quite so "black and white". Let's review the facts ....

Obama critics have said the swap could endanger American lives, with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) calling the five Taliban members "the hardest and toughest of all."

A closer look at the former prisoners, however, indicates that not all were hard-core militants. Three held political positions in the Taliban government that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and were considered relative moderates. A fourth was a mid-level police official, experts say.

The fifth, however, has a darker past. Mohammed Fazl was chief of staff of the Taliban army and is accused of commanding forces that massacred hundreds of civilians in the final years of Taliban rule before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. He was arrested in November 2001 after surrendering to U.S.-allied warlords in northern Afghanistan.

"Fazl is the only one of the five to face accusations of explicit war crimes and they are, indeed, extremely serious," Kate Clark of the Afghanistan Analysts Network, a Kabul-based research group, wrote in a commentary published Wednesday.
Most of 5 freed Taliban prisoners have less than hard-core pasts | LATimes.com

So this notion that "this President gave away his shirt to empty Gitmo" ... even though 5 out of 149 prisoners is hyperbole for the sake of argumentation at best .... is just not belied by the facts WRT to the background of these particular individuals. Again ... 3 politicians, a cop, and 1 guy that could reasonably be considered a "hard-core militant" who is himself pushing 50 and has been out of the game for over a decade.

And since we are on the topic of "facts" ... I think this info-graphic speaks for itself. Just saying ....



Any questions?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jun 6, 2014 at 09:24 PM. )
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2014, 10:11 AM
 
Does anyone note the problem of saying "these aren't the hardcore ones" based on what they did before being held in an American gulag for more than a decade?

Whatever deficit of "hardcore" they had going in, we more than made up for it.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2014, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think we'll come to find out that further plans to attempt rescuing Bergdahl were scrapped specifically because it wasn't worth the price. Again, there is more than sufficient evidence, even at the surface that this man deserted his post. I suppose it's remotely possible this man was a CIA operative who was commissioned to get in on the inside and report back, but so far as we know there was no "reporting-back" and I'm not sure one's parents are generally involved in the ruse.

It's really very simple and yes, patently political. Our President made a promise to close Gitmo and has very little else going for his legacy right now other than a VA scandal (remember that?) amongst a wealth of other scandals. i.e. he has absolutely zero political capital to work with. But he still has to empty Gitmo. The notion of bringing detainees to the States for trial has been poo-pooed by both sides of the aisle and no one else wants them. A couple of these Taliban leaders had already been proposed for release and were met with a resounding "hell to the NO!". What to do? Claim immediate urgency to act on a deteriorating Bergdahl's health as determined from video footage 6 months prior and give your enemy everything they wanted in a deal you know damn well would've been opposed, stage a rose garden ceremony, send your stooge Rice for more on-air folly, and begin to redirect attention from the incredibly bad news on __the VA __.
"The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church" Saint Tertullian, 197 AD
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:31 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2