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

Actually, I'm starting to hear some really bad things about this Bergdahl character, I'm not sure I'm happy he's coming back if what I'm hearing is true.

 

Wrong.

Boumediene v. Bush

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boumediene_v._Bush

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld

Geneva Convention Common Article 3

 

I don't think you realize how asinine this question is.

 

Religious warriors exercising their second amendment rights to fight against godless, decadent invaders descending over their land?
Talibani Patriots?

Innocent until proven guilty?
traumatic stress or concussion issues?

We sent him there, we have a chain of command watching over our troops. He is our responsibility.

 

Geez...you know better than that. Obama's signing statement said nothing of how he was going to interpret and apply the law. He blanketly said that it was unconstitutional. This was a tip off that he was going to sign it into law and then ignore its existence.

Please point me to a signing statement that blanketly said that the law was unconstitutional. Your link pointed to statements indicating how a law would be construed and implemented...not that it was unconstitutional on its face.

 

Ok...don't limit it to troops. Include Americans working overseas in the Middle East. Better?

 

What would motivate an American overseas to be captured on purpose?

 

A foreign power invades America, bombs a wedding every once in a while, gives a half-apology (by the way it wasn't intentional, don't look at us).

You don't know about anything happening outside your borders, so it never occurs to you that 18,000 to 20,000 of your CIVILIAN compatriots have been killed for some degree of rational reason.

Blood for blood, and your blood is worth nothing. You're like ridiculously the David to Goliath---to the point where Goliath is sending robot drones to make sure if's always your blood that shines.

Yeah, people would be really civil and everything.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/RBQ-IoHfimQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

I do find it funny that certain people seem to think that the rights provided to US citizens under the US Constitution apply to everyone in the world. No non US citizen has "2nd amendment rights"....at least not the right under the amendment you think you are talking about.

From what I hear, the kid was a deserter, now that could be cover for special ops, but if it's not, he should face charges.

 

It is true. He did desert, and presented a juicy negotiating piece to the Haqqani ***. His desertion and capture also put A LOT of his fellow soldiers' lives at risk in the months and years that followed as they risked their lives searching for him. For months quite a few units abandoned their regional missions in a full blown effort to find and rescue him, and people died because of it. And those 5 POSs who just got released will go a long way towards replenishing AQ/Haqqani's depleted leadership ranks.

OTOH, deserter or not, I am always glad when any American is saved from those savages, and I am happy for his family. So I have mixed feelings about the affair.

I do agree that this sets a bad precedent, but I understand why it was done. We will be tucking tail and fleeing Afghanistan soon and we want everyone to come home. So I won't comment on the politics of it beyong that (although OP is a moron for thinking the House Republicans will impeach over this ).

 

He only said the part requiring him to notify congressional committees 30 days before making any transfers was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief... not the whole bill itself.

 

Did it? Or is that the one sentence summary of the signing statement from the original article? Do you have the text of the actual signing statement? Is it possible it sounds something like this?

"The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks."

 

How does giving back some of their commanders protect us from further attacks? Seems like the opposite would be true... or did the Taliban promise to stay home?

 

Well you see we needed to make sure we got this traitor PFC home to America to plan the next base shooting.

 

I love how its already confirmed he is a traitor PFC.

 

I don't recall the Taliban ever attacking the U.S.

By no means do I condone the Taliban. They almost severed my leg and killed 17 of my brothers, but I can acknowledge that was in a war and we were legal combatants. They pose little to no threat to American civilians in our soil.

 

Feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. He was a PFC when he deserted his unit in Afghanistan, for whatever reason, they chose to promote him to SGT while he was held captive by the Taliban he was hoping to join.

 

Liberal and glad he's a live but I'm not sure this was a good idea. It just means some one else will be captured and looked to be traded.

 

Can someone give me some information on the gitmo prisoners released?

 

Anyone else here interested in waiting on more facts, or is conjecture good enough?