Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

Kehama wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Clever way of getting detainees out of Gitmo. Trade them for POWs. Two awesome birds with one stone.

That was actually an argument I heard on NPR this morning. A law had been put into place stating that the President had to consult with Congress 30 days before any prisoner transfers or exchanges were made, specifically they said, because they were afraid Obama would just try to trade them way in order to "secure his legacy of closing Gitmo". Republicans are now saying they will be looking into this exchange to see if what the President did was illegal because he didn't consult with them before making the swap. And of course they imply that the 5 for 1 swap was done just to empty out some cells.

Others, of course, said what the President did was fine because when he signed that particular law he issued a signing statement saying he could make prisoner exchanges without consulting Congress if it was something that had to be done quickly, etc. So naturally they are saying this is exactly what happened. That the opportunity presented itself and they had to act to save an American serviceman.

The Democratic spin machine/echo chamber is going full tilt in this thread. Classic "accuse the accuser" stuff.

The 30 day rule comes from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Introduced by a Democrat. Signed by the current Democratic president. Sailed through Congress on fast track with bipartisan support. (Limited amendments.)

Kehama wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Clever way of getting detainees out of Gitmo. Trade them for POWs. Two awesome birds with one stone.

That was actually an argument I heard on NPR this morning. A law had been put into place stating that the President had to consult with Congress 30 days before any prisoner transfers or exchanges were made, specifically they said, because they were afraid Obama would just try to trade them way in order to "secure his legacy of closing Gitmo". Republicans are now saying they will be looking into this exchange to see if what the President did was illegal because he didn't consult with them before making the swap. And of course they imply that the 5 for 1 swap was done just to empty out some cells.

Others, of course, said what the President did was fine because when he signed that particular law he issued a signing statement saying he could make prisoner exchanges without consulting Congress if it was something that had to be done quickly, etc. So naturally they are saying this is exactly what happened. That the opportunity presented itself and they had to act to save an American serviceman.

I think this is my biggest complaint about the whole deal - prisoner exchanges are nothing new and I don't see it as "negotiating with terrorists." But Obama still should have notified Congress.

Also, as a vet I think that his former platoon mates calling him a deserter is quite damning. Soldiers just don't turn on their comrades like that unless there's a very good reason. He's still entitled to a trial and there very well may be mitigating circumstances, but it's a serious charge for which I hope he has to answer. I am under no illusion though that things won't be swept under the rug in the same way a lot of higher ranking officers weren't punished for their misdeeds in Iraq.

jdzappa wrote:
Kehama wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Clever way of getting detainees out of Gitmo. Trade them for POWs. Two awesome birds with one stone.

That was actually an argument I heard on NPR this morning. A law had been put into place stating that the President had to consult with Congress 30 days before any prisoner transfers or exchanges were made, specifically they said, because they were afraid Obama would just try to trade them way in order to "secure his legacy of closing Gitmo". Republicans are now saying they will be looking into this exchange to see if what the President did was illegal because he didn't consult with them before making the swap. And of course they imply that the 5 for 1 swap was done just to empty out some cells.

Others, of course, said what the President did was fine because when he signed that particular law he issued a signing statement saying he could make prisoner exchanges without consulting Congress if it was something that had to be done quickly, etc. So naturally they are saying this is exactly what happened. That the opportunity presented itself and they had to act to save an American serviceman.

I think this is my biggest complaint about the whole deal - prisoner exchanges are nothing new and I don't see it as "negotiating with terrorists." But Obama still should have notified Congress.

Also, as a vet I think that his former platoon mates calling him a deserter is quite damning. Soldiers just don't turn on their comrades like that unless there's a very good reason. He's still entitled to a trial and there very well may be mitigating circumstances, but it's a serious charge for which I hope he has to answer. I am under no illusion though that things won't be swept under the rug in the same way a lot of higher ranking officers weren't punished for their misdeeds in Iraq.

+1

Follow up:

The Atlantic[/url]]What's alarming is the unlawful way that the Obama administration carried out the swap. The law requires 30 days' notice to Congress before a Gitmo detainee is transferred or released. The White House has now brazenly flouted that requirement. And the precedent being set by Team Obama is problematic in the same ways as the executive-branch power grabs that happened during the Bush Administration. In fact, Senator Obama was a critic of the logic he has now shamelessly adopted. He decried signing statements, for example, but cites a signing statement of his own as if it is a defense against violating the plain text of what he signed.

In this forum, I guess it's ok to bend the rule of law, as long as you're a Democrat.

Edit: And lest you think there was no opportunity to give thirty days notice.

DevilStick wrote:

In this forum, I guess it's ok to bend the rule of law, as long as you're a Democrat.

It's terribly hard to get outraged against the President potentially breaking a law* specifically written by Congress to force the continuation of something that is both immoral and unconstitutional: indefinite detention.

* I say potentially because the there are broad executive powers allowed by the Constitution and it would take a team of Constitutional lawyers and likely the Supreme Court to actually determine if what Obama did was actually illegal.

There are some weird things here. Bergdahl is the only POW from 2001, besides Lynch (and that was a completely different situation), to return alive that I know of (here's some info - also found a 2012 article that said Bergdahl was the only current POW). Most of them are killed fairly quickly. Consider the value of a POW - after a few weeks they no longer know any useful information that you haven't already extracted and then they become a burden. The US would constantly be looking for them, you have to feed them, all kinds of issues. This guy was kept alive for 5 years then traded? Why so long? Why now? All I'm saying is that the situation itself is abnormal, let alone all the accusations around Bergdahl. I'm not saying we should have left him there, I'm saying something's abnormal here and I'll be interested to see how this situation evolves.

DevilStick wrote:
Kehama wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Clever way of getting detainees out of Gitmo. Trade them for POWs. Two awesome birds with one stone.

That was actually an argument I heard on NPR this morning. A law had been put into place stating that the President had to consult with Congress 30 days before any prisoner transfers or exchanges were made, specifically they said, because they were afraid Obama would just try to trade them way in order to "secure his legacy of closing Gitmo". Republicans are now saying they will be looking into this exchange to see if what the President did was illegal because he didn't consult with them before making the swap. And of course they imply that the 5 for 1 swap was done just to empty out some cells.

Others, of course, said what the President did was fine because when he signed that particular law he issued a signing statement saying he could make prisoner exchanges without consulting Congress if it was something that had to be done quickly, etc. So naturally they are saying this is exactly what happened. That the opportunity presented itself and they had to act to save an American serviceman.

The Democratic spin machine/echo chamber is going full tilt in this thread. Classic "accuse the accuser" stuff.

The 30 day rule comes from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Introduced by a Democrat. Signed by the current Democratic president. Sailed through Congress on fast track with bipartisan support. (Limited amendments.)

Is it just me, or does the intensity of your response not match with what you are responding to?

To me it seems like Kehama is summarizing: "Law A exists, which some think was broken because of this. Others point to possible exception B."

To which you respond "Oh man, look at all the crazy attacks going on here! People are accusing the accusers! Democrats wrote Law A!" I only see one person trying to start a fight in this thread, and it's you...

another example of what the right wing was spouting before the return of Bergdahl.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/ob...

Isn't this an example of when changing your mind is just changing your mind, not rank hypocrisy? The weird and troublesome parts of Bergdahl's situation were not common knowledge until just recently. Isn't changing your mind after new information comes to light permitted?

Yonder wrote:

Isn't this an example of when changing your mind is just changing your mind, not rank hypocrisy? The weird and troublesome parts of Bergdahl's situation were not common knowledge until just recently. Isn't changing your mind after new information comes to light permitted?

No, if it was then they would admit the president was right in the beginning and they were wrong. Instead the president is always wrong and they are always right. That isn't changing your mind as new facts are brought about. Their opinion change based only on the presidents actions.

What were the reasons given for wanting the president to get him out?
He is an American, is he not an American now?
The war is winding down, did the war suddenly ramp up?
He defended this country, did deserting erase the time spent in the army?

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:

Have Carrie or Saul had a chance to interrogate him yet?

That was the important issue on my mind.

Wait, Saul had a beard. Can we trust him?

Yonder wrote:
DevilStick wrote:
Kehama wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:

Clever way of getting detainees out of Gitmo. Trade them for POWs. Two awesome birds with one stone.

That was actually an argument I heard on NPR this morning. A law had been put into place stating that the President had to consult with Congress 30 days before any prisoner transfers or exchanges were made, specifically they said, because they were afraid Obama would just try to trade them way in order to "secure his legacy of closing Gitmo". Republicans are now saying they will be looking into this exchange to see if what the President did was illegal because he didn't consult with them before making the swap. And of course they imply that the 5 for 1 swap was done just to empty out some cells.

Others, of course, said what the President did was fine because when he signed that particular law he issued a signing statement saying he could make prisoner exchanges without consulting Congress if it was something that had to be done quickly, etc. So naturally they are saying this is exactly what happened. That the opportunity presented itself and they had to act to save an American serviceman.

The Democratic spin machine/echo chamber is going full tilt in this thread. Classic "accuse the accuser" stuff.

The 30 day rule comes from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.

Introduced by a Democrat. Signed by the current Democratic president. Sailed through Congress on fast track with bipartisan support. (Limited amendments.)

Is it just me, or does the intensity of your response not match with what you are responding to?

To me it seems like Kehama is summarizing: "Law A exists, which some think was broken because of this. Others point to possible exception B."

To which you respond "Oh man, look at all the crazy attacks going on here! People are accusing the accusers! Democrats wrote Law A!" I only see one person trying to start a fight in this thread, and it's you...

Yeah that was a little weird. Though I did get a good chuckle out of the implication that Paleocon and Malor are part of the "Democratic spin machine/echo chamber".

Paleocon wrote:

another example of what the right wing was spouting before the return of Bergdahl.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/ob...

This is one of those occasions that I feel great shame for our country. Great shame. Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is our son, America. He deserves better than a politically correct quote form the Secretary of Defense motivate attack from Republicans. He sure as hell deserves more attention than President Obama and his press gave to Trayvon Martin.

As a non-military guy, one of the more enlightening things I've seen about all of this was a quick interview they did on CNN yesterday with a former JAG who clarified the difference between being AWOL and deserting. In this situation you have a soldier who leaves behind all of his equipment, except for a compass, and just walks off the base at night and is supposedly captured within 24 hours. He said if that's really what happened then he was just AWOL and the penalties for that can range from disciplinary action to discharge from the military. You could be away for a few days and only be considered AWOL. To be a deserter, however, you have to show that they had no intention of ever returning. The penalties for desertion are usually a lengthy imprisonment but can go up to death.

There's so much speculation at this stage simply because there are a lot of questionable actions that were taken by Bergdahl before his capture. For a good chunk of people, however, to jump straight to "How dare you trade dangerous terrorists for a deserter who has already cost the lives of a half dozen other American soldiers!" seems more than a bit extreme and actually confuses me. I definitely agree with fully investigating his actions leading up to and during his capture but seeing the vitriol being directed at him at this stage just doesn't jive with the general American attitude of soldier worship.

Kehama wrote:

There's so much speculation at this stage simply because there are a lot of questionable actions that were taken by Bergdahl before his capture. For a good chunk of people, however, to jump straight to "How dare you trade dangerous terrorists for a deserter who has already cost the lives of a half dozen other American soldiers!" seems more than a bit extreme and actually confuses me. I definitely agree with fully investigating his actions leading up to and during his capture but seeing the vitriol being directed at him at this stage just doesn't jive with the general American attitude of soldier worship.

I think it is fair to say that the white house bungled the messaging on this affair. The white house had all of the information and the initiative, but yet we are left with all of these questions. I am glad the soldier is home, but really do not think that the circumstances around his release are worthy of a national debate. It is a distraction from the very real problems that need to be addressed and will not be addressed until next year.

Kehama wrote:

seeing the vitriol being directed at him at this stage just doesn't jive with the general American attitude of soldier worship.

The lesson here is that the limit to a mob's capriciousness is very high, if it exists at all. It can turn on any group fairly quickly, and specific individuals within a group? They can be "no true Scottsmaned" out of that group and under the crosshairs pretty much instantaneously.

Edit:

Greg wrote:

I think it is fair to say that the white house bungled the messaging on this affair. The white house had all of the information and the initiative, but yet we are left with all of these questions.

Keep in mind that the White House should indeed be very close-lipped about details of a situation that is probably still under investigation (at the time he hadn't been debriefed yet) and may very well lead to charges. While the murkiness of this situation does lead to the strong possibility that the Administration dropped the ball (if half of what the talking heads are speculating is true, the President probably shouldn't have done a press conference with the parents, but I don't know if the talking heads have EVER been 50% accurate) but the murkiness itself is a good thing. It means that the White House is correctly taking the heat, withstanding to media demands for gossip so that any investigation and charges can be brought up correctly. The worst thing that the Administration could do right now is start answering these questions on the down low.

Yonder wrote:
Kehama wrote:

seeing the vitriol being directed at him at this stage just doesn't jive with the general American attitude of soldier worship.

The lesson here is that the limit to a mob's capriciousness is very high, if it exists at all. It can turn on any group fairly quickly, and specific individuals within a group? They can be "no true Scottsmaned" out of that group and under the crosshairs pretty much instantaneously.

I think the other lesson is that the culture of soldier worship is really cover. I have been dubious for quite some time about how much the right wing actually cares for the soldiers, for the people vs. how much they want to use the soldiers as human shields politically. This whole thing goes to show that they don't really care for the soldiers unless they're family or friends. They care about the soldiers as a political abstract. Between the VA system and sending them into war in the first place, I don't think they really care about the people as humans.

I just want to reiterate that abandoning your post in a war zone (thereby opening your entire unit to having their throats slit in a sneak attack) is one of the most serious actions you can take. The only things I can think are worse is fragging or raping a fellow soldier or abandoning your post to go murder civilians like Sgt Bale. While I'm sure his defense attorney will argue that technically it was being AWOL because he was captured within 24 hours, I think he deserves a much harsher charge if convicted. AWOL is for the guys like my squadmate who got epically drunk in Seoul on leave and missed his check-in time.

At any rate, I don't like how conservative politicians are using this as a bludgeon against Obama. But being very concerned over the charges does not make them soldier haters. As far as having feel good patriotism I think that's a much bigger problem than the Republican Party, but may be worth it's own thread.

It might feel good to say "we do anything it takes to bring our soldiers home", but that's not actually true - there is still an economic/political calculation that goes into arranging releases, and the fact is that some demands will be unacceptable and non starters. So, even completely discounting the AWOL thing, the 5-for-1 exchange is going to raise a few eyebrows. When you combine that with the giant middle finger to Congress, the fact that people (perhaps unfairly) conflate the Taliban and AQ, and the body of work that already exists calling into question the circumstances of his capture, it's not really unfair that this leaves a bad taste in people's mouths - which, by the way, is not the same as saying we shouldn't have tried to get him back, or we're not glad he's back.

Basically, whatever the merits, doing a very public victory lap on this was a huge political mistake. Obama now basically "owns" any future kidnappings as well as anything the released prisoners do.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Basically, whatever the merits, doing a very public victory lap on this was a huge political mistake. Obama now basically "owns" any future kidnappings as well as anything the released prisoners do.

He co-owns it with the Bush administration. I don't have the time to pull it up now, but in the heat of the initial days of the war in Afghanistan the Northern Alliance of tribes was rounding up anyone they disliked as prisoners of war. They were cramming them in the backs of trucks, sometimes shooting into those trucks indiscriminately and killing prisoners. There was very little distinction made between someone in the command structure of Mullah Omar and some random 20 year old who found his way to Afghanistan to engage in Jihad and the defense of Afghanistan and was there for a week. My understanding is that Gitmo is filled with relatively inconsequential prisoners that if they become more militant down the road will be largely because they were held captive in Gitmo.

DSGamer wrote:

My understanding is that Gitmo is filled with relatively inconsequential prisoners that if they become more militant down the road will be largely because they were held captive in Gitmo.

Except Obama's own taskforce identified about half the existing prisoners there as too dangerous to release, even though they cannot be tried.

At least one of that group was part of this release.

Setting aside all other issues, is the 5-1 trade actually that crazy? They had 1 POW, we have, how many, hundreds? From a percentage point of view they traded 100% of their hostages for like 2% of our hostages. That seems pretty fair.

From a casualty point of view we kill or injure (tens of?) thousands of individuals for every one of our own that is killed or injured, so from that perspective we got even more of a ridiculous bargain.

The "is an American Soldier really worth 5 Taliban?" argument seems to be the most ridiculous criticism you could make from this whole deal.

If there was a battle tomorrow and 1000 American soldiers died and 5000 insurgents died would we say "sweet, that was a pretty good victory!" or "WHAT THE f*ck JUST HAPPENED THIS IS THE MOST TERRIBLE THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE US ARMED FORCES IN DECADES!"

DSGamer wrote:

My understanding is that Gitmo is filled with relatively inconsequential prisoners that if they become more militant down the road will be largely because they were held captive in Gitmo.

That was true at one time, but I know that in first several years there were quite a few releases that were supposed to free those sorts of individuals.

It's hard to tell at this point what that ratio is, because we haven't had any... what do you call them? Rials? Miles? Tiles?

Yonder wrote:

It's hard to tell at this point what that ratio is, because we haven't had any... what do you call them? Rials? Miles? Tiles?

IMAGE(http://southparkstudios.mtvnimages.com/shared/characters/kids/kyle-broflovski.jpg)

Paleocon wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
Bloo Driver wrote:
“I mean, he says he was growing his beard because his son was in captivity. Well, your son’s out now. So if you really don’t — no longer look like a member of the Taliban, you don’t have to look like a member of the Taliban," Kilmeade said on Tuesday. "Are you out of razors?"

Classy!

So... Republicans love the Duck Dynasty guys and their beards... but not his? I need a detailed breakdown from them on why one beard is ok but a second is not.

Think the difference between Saddam Hussein and Magnum PI.

Theme song. Duh.

McCain called the 5 prisoners that were released as "the worst of the worst" and he's sure they're going straight back to fight in Afghanistan and that we haven't heard the last of them. If that's correct then it doesn't sound like they gave up 5 random fighters.

Obama has tried to brush the whole thing off as prisoners exchanges take place a the end of wars and this is the end of this war. If that truly is the case, why are we still holding any enemy combatants if they haven't formally been charged with some kind of war crime? Did I miss the memo that the nebulous "war on terror" was over?

Serious face: When a soldier puts down their gear and wanders off into the wilderness at night, that sounds to me like the soldier needs to speak with a therapist.

Kehama wrote:

McCain called the 5 prisoners that were released as "the worst of the worst" and he's sure they're going straight back to fight in Afghanistan and that we haven't heard the last of them. If that's correct then it doesn't sound like they gave up 5 random fighters.

I'd honestly like to see something backing up that "worst of the worst" claim, especially given how easily and quickly politicians pull out the hyperbole to slam their opponents. Was there anything concrete McCain based that statement on?

Yonder wrote:

If there was a battle tomorrow and 1000 American soldiers died and 5000 insurgents died would we say "sweet, that was a pretty good victory!" or "WHAT THE f*ck JUST HAPPENED THIS IS THE MOST TERRIBLE THING THAT HAS HAPPENED TO THE US ARMED FORCES IN DECADES!"

Probably the latter. Which were you thinking?

It is probably worth mentioning that those Tabbies are being "released" into Qatari custody where they will, presumably, be in detention until they determine that they are no longer a threat.

It isn't like they are getting flights back to Afghanistan where they will grab AK's and go all Bundy Ranch.