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

Who are you?

 

from that CMS article:

Since so much has been said of this POW (almost, if not, more then Obama breaking the law)... see the quote above from Hagel. They know well that he may be a deserter and their position seems very logical to me. He's an American soldier that was captured. Get him home and then we will dealt with whatever may come later.

Or do we assume he's a deserter and let him rot there?

Which one is the American way?

 

The American way would be to let the decision be made by our elected representatives which is the law. This is even more obvious when POW in question is a suspected deserter.

 

I understand. And I bet more people would lean more towards your point of view than mine.

 

That's not my political perspective, I'm not a Republican or Democrat. Simply put, even in this thread I had 2 different takes on the situation, one before I knew more about it, and one once I'd heard from a few friends who are still in about what really went on.

Initially I was a bit uneasy at the precedent that was being set, but I was glad that the soldier was coming home.....of course that all changed when I heard that he was a deserter. I trust my sources FAR more than any media report or any official line of BS from the government

The ONLY possibility that the kid isn't a traitor is that he's some kind of method acting SF guy who managed to fool his entire unit into buying his cover story before his op. I'll believe the more likely scenario until evidence to the contrary surfaces.

 

History said no to that.

I'm not sure that's the American way if those in power have a small window of opportunity to make this happen or not. Do we strictly follow the law (which is claimed to be unconstitutional) for the sake of following the law? We also have move on and and "forgive" past Presidents for going on their own ("breaking" the law) when it comes to getting our captured back home.

And, if it is so abusive and bad what the President (include past Presidents) did, we do have way to get rid of the b*stard.... impeachment.

 

Isn't the law's requirement merely notifying Congress, not "consulting" them?

 

I would say that U.S. doesn't negotiate with terrorists.. but it appears they do now.

the thread has a stupid title in hindsight. total fail in trying to deflect blame on the GOP.

 

They only negotiate with terrorists for the safe return of traitors so they can plan the next base shooting.

 

small window. smh. yeah taliban would never had made the deal tomorrow or the next day. Of course not. Obama had to break the law in order to get him back. window and what not.

yes we do. not sure what point you are making.

 

Short memory much?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

 

Ho here and read:

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2014/05/sgt_bowe_bergdahl_ex.php#

These were NOT low level guys, they were top leadership. VERY dangerous people.

This was not a Morey trade, to put it lightly.

 

It's not bull. Quite a few people from his old unit are coming out now. I am a member of another board whose members are exclusively verified military and LEOs and there is A LOT of anger there over this. There are people there who knew him and who were involved in the operations to recover him, and they have verified most of what we are hearing along this vein.

The dude was a mental case and he deserted, and people died looking for him. He deserves UCMJ, not a hero's welcome.

 

There is still check and balance. Law is broken (or not)... and the people, congress in this case, can exercise its power of impeachment if necessary. IOW, I'm not so worked up on Obama breaking the law (if the law is even constitutional) to get a POW home because, well, we have a history of breaking law to get our captured home and the consequences of that had played out. The consequences of this will get played out too. I suspect we are fine and ok.

 

After 10 years in Gitmo, subject to whatever techniques the CIA can dream up, from house arrest in Qatar?

If you were a Taliban would you trust them?

 

Our CIA would never do.... humm.

 

You just indicted your own assumption of guilt.

 

I don't want to be the guy that just says "This" in response to a post but this is perfect. The D&D is so full of instant outrage and scrutiny based exclusively on political stances that this is refreshing to see. The rabid eagerness of the overnight experts to paint this guy as a deserter is baffling, it is like they actually WANT this guy to be a deserter. If it turns out that he is a deserter then outrage away and I will hope he is dealt with appropriately. I work in a cubicle and will not potentially slander (which is all regurgitated from the chain email you read this morning) a potentially innocent soldier, he deserves some benefit of the doubt for now.

 

I believe that he is guilty because there are quite a few people who were there indicating he was. He was not plucked from his bed at the COB, he walked off post and everyone in the entire unit knew it. What boggles my mind is that the administration didn't seem to know this. Even Rolling Stone knew it years ago - they published an article about this case.

I want him to get his trial and be subject to UCMJ, that is all. Do you have a problem with that?

 

Just curious, do you assume that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent? He never got a trial so you'd have to right?