American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

Objection, speculation.

 

In 2001, mere months before 9/11, we gave the Taliban $43 million for their drug war efforts. It didn't just happen with "the like" of the Taliban, it happened directly with the Taliban.

 

Overruled, facts already in evidence.

 

I think this shows that Obamacare, and Benghazzi !!, the little scandal that couldn't, may be near dead. The VA scandal was promising, but it doesn't take much research to show how the conservatives kept defeating additional spending for VA health care personnel.

 

Yes, didn't we even arm them during their fight with the Russian? My guess is our Military and State dept is planning all kind contingencies as it exit Afghanistan and the exchange might just be a part of that.

 

You guys really should stop using the mistakes of the past in an attempt to justify the mistakes of the present. All this does is ensure that US soldiers will be kidnapped in Afghanistan as troop numbers dwindle in order to get prisoners released and all to secure the release of a deserter who ought to end up in prison for the rest of his life if he's not executed for his crime. It makes no sense and is awful policy no matter who is in the white house.

 

The cat is already out of the bag A LONG TIME ago. But I'm not that interested in the immediate short term of guess work. We'll see what this is all about in the months and years to come. I'm on board that it's not just simply getting a POW back... something much more.

 

Well of course you are, you want to make excuses for the administration and it would have to be "much more" than just getting a traitor back if you were going to find a reason why this actually wasn't a complete screw up. It's funny that you consider the things his squad leaders have to say about it "guess work", but you feel free to construct elaborate excuses for why this was really a good move based on nothing more than your faith in the administration.

 

You know who REALLY has to be angry about this? Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan. With one move the US legitimizes the Taliban government AND releases several leadership members of a rebel government that will be coming for his head.

 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden, defend the prisoner exchange.

Dempsey's statement:

"In response to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. Finally, I want to thank those who for almost five years worked to find him, prepared to rescue him, and ultimately put themselves at risk to recover him."

Hayden's statement:

"I’d like to explain why, given the credible reports regarding the risk of grave harm to Sergeant Bergdahl and the rapidly unfolding events surrounding his recovery, it was lawful for the Administration to proceed with the transfer notwithstanding the notice requirement in Section 1035(d) of the FY14 NDAA. First, there is no question that the Secretary made the determinations required to transfer the detainees under Section 1035(b) of the FY 2014 NDAA. Section 1035(b) states that the Secretary of Defense may transfer an individual detained at Guantanamo to a foreign country if the Secretary determines (1) that actions have or will be taken that substantially mitigate the risk that the individual will engage in activity that threatens the United States or U.S. persons or interests and (2) that the transfer is in the national security interest of the United States. The Secretary made those determinations. With respect to the separate 30-day notification requirement in Section 1035(d), the Administration determined that the notification requirement should be construed not to apply to this unique set of circumstances, in which the transfer would secure the release of a captive U.S. soldier and the Secretary of Defense, acting on behalf of the President, has determined that providing notice as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier’s life. In these circumstances, delaying the transfer in order to provide the 30-day notice would interfere with the Executive’s performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the President: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers. Because such interference would significantly alter the balance between Congress and the President, and could even raise constitutional concerns, we believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances.

The President also has repeatedly expressed concerns regarding this notice requirement. For example, the President’s FY14 NDAA signing statement indicated that “Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.” To the extent that the notice provision would apply in these unique circumstances, it would trigger the very separation of powers concerns that the President raised in his signing statement.

In these unique circumstances, in which the Secretary of Defense made the determinations required by Section 1035(b) and in light of the Secretary’s assessment that providing notice as specified in Section 1035(d) could endanger the soldier’s life, the Secretary of Defense’s failure to provide 30 days’ notice under Section 1035(d) was lawful.

 

For the record, what was your Benghazi stance? Send people to extricate the Ambassador or don't?

 

Good post. This is where I'm at. Let the process happen.

One thing about those guys we released: we did not release them. We turned them over to Qatar where they will be under arrest for a year. I'm betting we watch them and see who comes to see them and then take action. It is not unheard of for our government to kill guys after all.

And really, part of the reason this happened this way is because of the legal netherworld where Gitmo resides. If we had closed that place and tried all these guys, they would either be in prison serving terms or turned loose. There would be nobody for a President to simply negotiate with.

Also, all those guys are Taliban, not Al-Q. A fine distinction admittedly, but not one that is pointed out in many of the reports. Again, we are going to watch these guys and I seriously doubt we will let them do anything to further destabilize Afghanistan. We will see I guess.

 

For the record, I think that they should have increased security levels at the embassy like they were asking and yeah, they should have tried to send someone for him. Of course I don't know that it would have mattered because I don't know off the top of my head where that extraction team would have come from and how long it would have taken them to get there.

For the record, I wouldn't have been against sending in a team to extract the deserter either.

 

No, yours was complete speculation, devoid of facts in evidence. Try again.

 

Yes, the beginnings of the Taliban were in the mujahideen that we armed when the Russians were occupying Afghanistan. Rumor is that the CIA trained Osama Bin Laden.

 

Obama: Congress consulted on Bergdahl exchange
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-06-03/obama-congress-consulted-on-prisoner-exchange

"Regardless of the circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American soldier back if he's held in captivity," Obama said during a news conference in Poland as he opened a three-country European visit. "We don't condition that."


U.S. Army will not look away from any Bergdahl misconduct: Dempsey
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/03/us-usa-afghanistan-bergdahl-dempsey-idUSKBN0EE14720140603

"Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty," Dempsey said. "Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family."

 

Fair enough, I guess we just see things differently, I think the story as told by the people on the ground in his unit is solid, you think it's speculation. Then again, since the first hand accounts of the situation don't fit your narrative, I can see why you wouldn't like them.

 

It isn't my "narrative," you are speculating that he wanted to join the Taliban, you are speculating that he left his equipment for a head start (as opposed to his hubris, which he had as a result of living like he did in Idaho). You're welcome to believe your speculative nonsense if you like, I'll wait for a trial before I convict him.

 

Again, based on his own comments and the intelligence gathered while searching for him, it really paints a pretty clear picture. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to choose to see it. Feel free to bury your head in the sand on this, but it'll most likely only delay the inevitable.

 

No, it doesn't. His comments indicate he wasn't pleased with the American mission, not that he was in favor of extreme and oppressive Islamists. You've made a jump without any evidence for it.