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

What it comes down to is that I trust what his battle buddies are saying about the situation, I believe those who were there down on the ground when it happened and you choose to hold out hope that this will end up being a better situation for a politician you support.

 

It does apply. Until he is found guilty, he is not only an American citizen, but a soldier. I applaud the efforts of the administration to return the only POW in the Afghanistan conflict, even if it is only to put him in jail as a deserter.

Until proven guilty, he is innocent in the eyes of the law. As someone who is legally innocent, it was the sworn DUTY of the President to get him returned. It isn't like the US has never done prisoner exchanges before, the only apparent difference is that some people seem to suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome and are desperate to find ANYTHING with which to tar him. Other Presidents have exchanged prisoners for hostages (illegally, even) with nary a peep, but this guy deserves outrage because he may have deserted his post and gotten captured?

 

I think that would fall under military rules of engagement and assessment of risk rather than an opinion of the man's guilt or innocence. I believe the rules of 'war' are somewhat different that US criminal law, but I don't know anything about it.

 

I am open to the possibility of a cover up because having been in the Army, I know how things like this sometimes work and what actually happened can get tossed out the window for political consideration. This could easily be one of those cases. It would take extraordinarily solid evidence to override what the guys in his squad have already said about the situation in my eyes. I have very little faith in the truth finding ability of official investigations, especially official investigations with potential political ramifications.

 

I didn't even vote for Obama, I'm not exactly his strongest supporter.

However, in this case, the CinC successfully negotiated the release of a Prisoner of War. The fact that the people who have opposed Obama since January 20th, 2009 are screaming about it is hardly convincing to those of us who believe in rule of law.

Assuming he engaged in wrongdoing, I believe he will see his day in court. Until then, Obama got an American POW freed and I just don't see that as a bad thing.

 

link?

 

Quoted above: (links posted a page or two back)

The Pentagon says Bergdahl is in a stable condition at the U.S. Army's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where doctors were assessing his condition after five years of captivity. Officials have indicated there is little desire to pursue any disciplinary action against him given what he has been through.

From what I know by hearsay, I think he should face charges. But there could of course be things I don't know.

 

Say what you want, but your comments come off as an Obama apologist on the issue. The facts is that the US traded 10 prisoners for one US soldier, which is a short sighted, dumb move. The fact that the soldier in question was a deserter just makes it worse.

The fact that you are writing off the people who have a problem with trading 10 terrorists for one traitor while legitimizing the Taliban government makes you seem even more like a partisan lapdog than an actual thinking person. Are there some partisan Republican lapdogs who fit that description? Sure, but those who were screaming first and screaming the loudest about this are the soldiers who were involved that know exactly what happened.

Assuming that it is all just some "vast right wing conspiracy" and this kid is completely innocent of desertion, the trading of 10 high level terrorists for one soldier was still a short sighted, dumb move.

 

Qatar Allowing Freed Taliban Commanders To Move Freely In Country…



And after one year they will be allowed to return to Afghanistan.

DOHA (Reuters) – Qatar has moved five Afghan Taliban prisoners freed in exchange for a U.S. soldier to a residential compound and will let them move freely in the country, a senior Gulf official said on Tuesday, a step likely to be scrutinized by Washington.

U.S. officials have referred to the release of the Islamist militants as a transfer and said they would be subject to certain restrictions in Qatar. One of the officials said that would include a minimum one-year ban on them traveling outside of Qatar as well as monitoring of their activities.

“All five men received medical checks and they now live with their families in an accommodation facility in Doha,” the Gulf source, who declined to be identified, told Reuters. “They can move around freely within the country.”

Following the deal under which freed the last American soldier held in Afghanistan was freed, concerns have been expressed by some U.S. intelligence officials and congressional advisers over the role of the Gulf Arab state as a bridge between Washington and the world of radical Islam.

The Gulf official said the Taliban men, who have been granted Qatari residency permits, will not be treated like prisoners while in Doha and no U.S. officials will be involved in monitoring their movement while in the country.

“Under the deal they have to stay in Qatar for a year and then they will be allowed to travel outside the country… They can go back to Afghanistan if they want to,” the official said.

-------------------------------------

Obama: Hey, You Know Those Taliban Prisoners I Released? Yeah, They Could “Absolutely” Pose a Threat To The U.S.

Via Mediaite:http://www.mediaite.com/tv/obama-released-taliban-prisoners-could-absolutely-pose-threat-to-u-s/

While in Poland on Tuesday, President Barack Obama was asked if the five Taliban prisoners released from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl could eventually return to the battlefield in Afghanistan and pose a threat to American personnel or interests. Obama said that, while his administration does not believe these individuals pose an imminent threat, there is always the risk of recidivism from released Guantanamo prisoners.

“In terms of potential threats, the release of the Taliban who were being held in Guantanamo was conditioned on the Qataris keeping eyes on them and creating a structure in which we can monitor their activities,” Obama said. “We will be keeping eyes on them.”

“Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely,” Obama continued. “That’s been true of all the prisoners that were released from Guantanamo Bay. There is a certain recidivism rate that takes place.”

---------------------------

Keep spinning Obama, keep spinning. Lawyer tricks

 

No, my comments paint me as a thinking, reasonable American.

We return American soldiers from the battlefield, no matter the cost to ourselves. That is laudable, not "short sighted" or "dumb."

Not a "fact," at least not a proven one. At this point, this is your assumption.

Forgive me for seeing this as yet one more instance of the people who have been gnashing their teeth about Obama since February 20th, 2009 doing so again. Perhaps if they hadn't howled "wolf" at the ACA, the DREAM Act, the IRS, Benghazi, and a myriad of other non-issues, this one might actually get some traction in the minds of actual thinking Americans. As it is, this looks to me like just one more instance where the usual suspects are just throwing **** against Obama, hoping something will stick.

And their concerns will be addressed by the military, I have absolutely no doubt.

I'm not making any such assumption. I am merely arguing for us to consider that until a court proves him guilty, he is innocent in the eyes of the law, no matter how many soldiers believe otherwise. They will have their chance to tell their story to military investigators, where I believe the truth will come out and any deserved justice will be meted out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/02/bergdahl-afghanistan-taliban/9884769/

I'm glad you're not the CinC, this kind of attitude is not what a commander needs to have. I'm glad we have someone who will do whatever is necessary to return our men in uniform to their homes, no matter the cost.

 

What is kinda interesting... some of the same people who were saying "don't rush to judgement" in the Trayvan Martin killing are now saying "the guy is a deserter, let him rot in a foreign prison, even without a trial". I would think that someone serving our country would get the same level of support as someone with a history of violence that just shot someone... but hey, maybe I just support the military more than others?

 

Fair enough, we'll agree to disagree on that.

That's simply not true and it's funny that a civilian would be telling that to a vet.....
Also,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...didnt-ris/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Again, you can choose to believe that everyone in his squad is lying, and that Rolling Stone is lying, and that others on the ground in Afghanistan when this went down are lying.....but by doing so all you are doing is calling your credibility into question.

You are seeing this as that because you choose to. You know it's indefensible, so you attack those who are trying to bring the truth to light. I'm sure in your mind, anyone who questions something the president does is lumped into one group, those who "have been gnashing their teeth about Obama since February 20th, 2009", but in believing that anyone who questions anything the president does is part of a "vast right wing conspiracy" you just out yourself as a non-thinking partisan.

Spoken like someone who has never been in the military.

Well first of all, you are. You even admit to it.
"Forgive me for seeing this as yet one more instance of the people who have been gnashing their teeth about Obama since February 20th, 2009 doing so again."

Secondly, it doesn't matter if he hasn't yet been proven guilty, this board isn't a court, we don't have to be blind, we are allowed to make up our minds based on the facts. Also, if he wasn't thought of as a deserter, they'd have sent people in to go get him. They didn't because they didn't think it was worth risking people for a deserter....at least according to news today.

Saying "no matter what the cost" is simply stupid. Sorry, not going to mince words about it. I would hope for a Commander in Chief to be smart enough to know what should be risked and what should not be risked in an effort to bring our guys home and to know that there are long term ramifications for his actions. By negotiating with the Taliban, you legitimize their government and you set a bounty on the head of every American soldier. Have some friends or family locked up? Kidnap a soldier and trade for them.

 

When you are done arguing with that straw man, you can feel free to re-join the rest of us.

None of us are arguing that they should "let him rot in a foreign prison, even without a trial" when we argue that they shouldn't have traded high ranking Taliban members for him.

It is funny how much civilians "support the troops" when it is convenient for them.

 

So, as it turns out, he left a note before he walked off the base. Yeah, totally innocent.

WASHINGTON — Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html?hp&_r=0

Of course, people often leave notes indicating they are deserting before being captured by the enemy on the battlefield, so nothing to see here, right?

 

truth is in the eye of the beholder

reality tunnel - look it up. Pretty cool. a few quotes from wiki on it below.

Sorry for the off-subject. I though it's fitting here somewhat.

There is much I don't know. What I know is my perception is unlikely exactly reality. What I also know is... none of us can read mind.

 

Damned if you do and damned if you don't Mr. Prez

 

I'm sure some in Minnesota said "Damned if you do and damned if you don't Mr. Kahn" when people criticized him trading Chandler Parsons to the Rockets for cash.

 

How Obama Convinced His Spies to Support the Taliban Prisoner Release

The Pentagon and the nation’s top intelligence official opposed releasing the Gitmo Five in 2012. This time around the White House got the answer it wanted when the Taliban was ready to deal.

Leaders of the U.S. intelligence community and military were opposed to freeing five senior Taliban commanders in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl when the White House first began exploring the prisoner swap in 2011 and 2012.

The U.S. military wanted to bring Bergdahl home, but releasing Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa, and Mohammed Nabi Omari was seen as too dangerous at the time.

James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, according to three U.S. intelligence officials flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, saying there was too high a risk these Taliban commanders would return to the battlefield and orchestrate attacks against Americans.

Clapper was not alone. Leon Panetta, who was then the Secretary of Defense, declined to certify that the United States could mitigate the risk to national interests of releasing the Taliban commanders.

A lot has changed since 2012. To start, President Obama won reelection. Panetta is gone, and in his place is Chuck Hagel, a Republican former senator who has been much more in sync with Obama’s views on the war on terror than his predecessors.

But current U.S. intelligence and defense officials who spoke to The Daily Beast on Monday say the process for exchanging Taliban for Bergdahl this time was rushed and closely held, in some instances leaving little room for any push back against a policy clearly favored by the White House.

“This was an example of forcing the consensus,” one U.S. military official said. “The White House knew the answer they wanted and they ended up getting it.”

Full Story:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/how-obama-convinced-his-spies-to-support-the-taliban-prisoner-release.html

 

Wrong message? We've been sending a wrong message to the ME for half a century.

 

There are now reports that Bergdahl's note included wording that he renounced his US citizenship. Developing now...