PDA

View Full Version : So the United States is negotiating with terrorists now??



70gto
06-01-2014, 01:15 AM
Well we've negotiated with the Taliban to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl, good for him, bad for the future? Is this a good thing or have we opened a Pandora's Box? Will it be safe to travel anywhere as an American overseas? Thoughts?

sandsjames
06-01-2014, 01:36 AM
Well we've negotiated with the Taliban to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl, good for him, bad for the future? Is this a good thing or have we opened a Pandora's Box? Will it be safe to travel anywhere as an American overseas? Thoughts?

Not sure how I see a negotiation to release someone has anything to do with whether or not it's safe to travel overseas.

Do I think we should have negotiated? Well, nothing else has been working, so why not give it a try. Can't make them hate us more, can it?

Measure Man
06-01-2014, 02:00 AM
Glad to see this...made my day actually.

Badger
06-01-2014, 02:26 AM
Considering the price we paid for his freedom, I wonder if the government will allow him to be prosecuted if the rumors about his capture turn out to be true.

70gto
06-01-2014, 05:29 AM
Not sure how I see a negotiation to release someone has anything to do with whether or not it's safe to travel overseas.

Do I think we should have negotiated? Well, nothing else has been working, so why not give it a try. Can't make them hate us more, can it?

Every two-bit terrorist will be clamoring at the opportunity to kidnap an American in the hopes of exchanging for 5, 10, or even 20 scumbags at Gitmo. My advice, blend in..

garhkal
06-01-2014, 05:41 AM
Considering the price we paid for his freedom, I wonder if the government will allow him to be prosecuted if the rumors about his capture turn out to be true.

I've never understood the protocol of releasing 10-20+ people for one person, especially people who we have grabbed on the FIELD of battle who fought against us, to get one of our own back. 1 for 1 i can see. But 20 to one? WTF over.

sandsjames
06-01-2014, 12:54 PM
I've never understood the protocol of releasing 10-20+ people for one person, especially people who we have grabbed on the FIELD of battle who fought against us, to get one of our own back. 1 for 1 i can see. But 20 to one? WTF over.

Seems to me that it's a case of humanity over strategy and I'm ok with that.

sandsjames
06-01-2014, 12:55 PM
Every two-bit terrorist will be clamoring at the opportunity to kidnap an American in the hopes of exchanging for 5, 10, or even 20 scumbags at Gitmo. My advice, blend in..

Nothing they aren't already trying to do...

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-01-2014, 12:55 PM
Not sure this was the smartest idea. How many of these released prisoners will kill more Americans? Obama's plan is to 9,000+ advisors, etc in Afghanistan. Now that we're willing to trade prisoners (i.e., negotiate with terrorists) I see many of our advisors will be placed in greater danger.

sandsjames
06-01-2014, 01:05 PM
Not sure this was the smartest idea. How many of these released prisoners will kill more Americans? Obama's plan is to 9,000+ advisors, etc in Afghanistan. Now that we're willing to trade prisoners (i.e., negotiate with terrorists) I see many of our advisors will be placed in greater danger.

I'm sure the family of the released prisoner will disagree with you. And it was 5 prisoners. 5! For an American soldiers life, for a brothers, sons, etc life. I've never agreed with our blanket "We don't negotiate with terrorists". And I'm sure if it was your family member you would feel differently about it.

As far as what will happen in the future, let's be honest. It's not like they were just going to leave us alone if we didn't make this trade. They were still going to try to kidnap/kill us.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-01-2014, 01:57 PM
I'm sure the family of the released prisoner will disagree with you. And it was 5 prisoners. 5! For an American soldiers life, for a brothers, sons, etc life. I've never agreed with our blanket "We don't negotiate with terrorists". And I'm sure if it was your family member you would feel differently about it.

As far as what will happen in the future, let's be honest. It's not like they were just going to leave us alone if we didn't make this trade. They were still going to try to kidnap/kill us.

You're right. If it was my family then I would feel differently. However, it doesn't change the fact that it will encourage kidnappings in the future. I say we kill our enemies on the battlefield. This way we won't have to provide prisoners better health care than our own vets receive from the VA, then release them so they can kill more Americans.

sandsjames
06-01-2014, 03:01 PM
You're right. If it was my family then I would feel differently. However, it doesn't change the fact that it will encourage kidnappings in the future. I say we kill our enemies on the battlefield. This way we won't have to provide prisoners better health care than our own vets receive from the VA, then release them so they can kill more Americans.

You don't think they are already going to try to kidnap as many as possible? The only other option is that they kill them, if they have the opportunity.

I also don't doubt that we aren't just releasing them. I'd like to think that we will be tracking them pretty closely and possible use them to locate other cells.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-01-2014, 04:27 PM
You don't think they are already going to try to kidnap as many as possible? The only other option is that they kill them, if they have the opportunity.

I also don't doubt that we aren't just releasing them. I'd like to think that we will be tracking them pretty closely and possible use them to locate other cells.

There have already been cases where released GITMO prisoners have killed more Americans. What a shame

70gto
06-01-2014, 06:26 PM
In regards to hostages, terrorists had no bargaining power in the past against the U.S. This negotiation is a game changer and will forever alter Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any other extremist group's ROEs against us and our allies.

Capt Alfredo
06-01-2014, 06:58 PM
In regards to hostages, terrorists had no bargaining power in the past against the U.S. This negotiation is a game changer and will forever alter Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and any other extremist group's ROEs against us and our allies.

Right, because Reagan didn't trade arms for hostages. No terrorist group there, nothing to see. Not to mention, the Taliban isn't really a terrorist operation, but a government in exile. They'll be back, much like so many fundamentalist Arnold Schwartzeneggers.

garhkal
06-01-2014, 09:18 PM
Seems to me that it's a case of humanity over strategy and I'm ok with that.

Strange. So you are ok with dozens of more bombings and other such acts by those released, as long as one of ours is ok.
Then when is a line drawn? Is 100 being released to re-join the Taliban/AQ too much? 1000?


I'm sure the family of the released prisoner will disagree with you. And it was 5 prisoners. 5! For an American soldiers life, for a brothers, sons, etc life. I've never agreed with our blanket "We don't negotiate with terrorists". And I'm sure if it was your family member you would feel differently about it.

As far as what will happen in the future, let's be honest. It's not like they were just going to leave us alone if we didn't make this trade. They were still going to try to kidnap/kill us.

And if those 5 released make a few more bombs which kill dozens of US soldiers, is it a 'small comfort' to their families, knowing that their son or daughter's life was less valued than this one? What about to the hundreds of people who already lost someone from their bombings?

sandsjames
06-01-2014, 10:45 PM
Strange. So you are ok with dozens of more bombings and other such acts by those released, as long as one of ours is ok.
Then when is a line drawn? Is 100 being released to re-join the Taliban/AQ too much? 1000? If...if...if.




And if those 5 released make a few more bombs which kill dozens of US soldiers, is it a 'small comfort' to their families, knowing that their son or daughter's life was less valued than this one? What about to the hundreds of people who already lost someone from their bombings?Again, if ifs and buts...What I do know, for sure, without any hypotheticals, is that the member in question is now home with his family...or will be soon.

I say this sincerely...I sure hope you, or others who are upset about this, are never unfortunate enough to become POWs.

Max Power
06-01-2014, 11:00 PM
I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/143437-american-soldier-served-bowe-bergdahl-casts-doubt-official-story-fears-reprisal-obama-administration/

Capt Alfredo
06-02-2014, 12:21 AM
I'll just leave this here.

http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/143437-american-soldier-served-bowe-bergdahl-casts-doubt-official-story-fears-reprisal-obama-administration/

Where is the "official story" not acknowledging there are questions unanswered about Bergdahl's capture? I haven't seen anyone calling this guy a hero.

garhkal
06-02-2014, 06:28 AM
If...if...if.



Again, if ifs and buts...What I do know, for sure, without any hypotheticals, is that the member in question is now home with his family...or will be soon.

I say this sincerely...I sure hope you, or others who are upset about this, are never unfortunate enough to become POWs.

If i ever was a POW i certainly would not want miscreants released who will cause pain and suffering to dozens of others, just to get me free.

GeoDude
06-02-2014, 08:58 AM
So what makes this different than any other negotiation for prisoners - which has occurred in some form or another in almost every war in all of human history.

I marvel at the level of propaganda needed to convince so many Americans that this war is somehow different, and talking to our opponents across a table is somehow "weakness".

sandsjames
06-02-2014, 11:14 AM
If i ever was a POW i certainly would not want miscreants released who will cause pain and suffering to dozens of others, just to get me free.

Of course not.

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-02-2014, 01:51 PM
So what makes this different than any other negotiation for prisoners - which has occurred in some form or another in almost every war in all of human history.

I marvel at the level of propaganda needed to convince so many Americans that this war is somehow different,


Unlike many previous so-called POWs, we are dealing with individuals who, in the name of their God, welcome the opportunity to blow themselves up to kill as many non-combatants as possible.

My problem with this prisoner exchange is that they (released prisoners) will jump right back into their 'jihad.' Perhaps the proponents of their release would have a change of heart if their family members were the next victims of a suicide bombing or televised beheading.

The stated goal of these radicals is worldwide Sharia Law. You don't negotiate with them, you shoot them.

GeoDude
06-02-2014, 04:17 PM
Unlike many previous so-called POWs, we are dealing with individuals who, in the name of their God, welcome the opportunity to blow themselves up to kill as many non-combatants as possible.

Hmmm funny because I recall a certain country using nukes on their enemy's civilians. Remind me what country that was again...?



My problem with this prisoner exchange is that they (released prisoners) will jump right back into their 'jihad.' Perhaps the proponents of their release would have a change of heart if their family members were the next victims of a suicide bombing or televised beheading.

The Afghan proponents of the exchange might have had a change of heart if their relatives were the next victims of a CIA torture camp. See what I did there? Atrocities are a staple of every war, and have been committed by every nation state that participated.

I'm not saying that makes it all okay - but let's not be delusional.



The stated goal of these radicals is worldwide Sharia Law. You don't negotiate with them, you shoot them.

Great. And that gets our guys back how exactly?

Rusty Jones
06-02-2014, 04:19 PM
If i ever was a POW i certainly would not want miscreants released who will cause pain and suffering to dozens of others, just to get me free.

I think I may have just found a new signature line.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2014, 04:41 PM
I just did it at work... someone acts all suprised and angry about negotiating with terrorists, all you have to do is bring up the Iran Contra Affair, and they'll shut right up.

hustonj
06-02-2014, 05:19 PM
Great. And that gets our guys back how exactly?

I though sociologists (or whichever specialist it was) decided years ago that one of the primary reasons for going to war was to thin the supply of eligble males from the breeding pool.

Getting our guy back runs counter to that underlying motivation for having combat in the first place.

GeoDude
06-02-2014, 05:35 PM
I though sociologists (or whichever specialist it was) decided years ago that one of the primary reasons for going to war was to thin the supply of eligble males from the breeding pool.

Getting our guy back runs counter to that underlying motivation for having combat in the first place.

For small tribes living in eco-systems that can't support a growing population - that can be a factor. One factor out of many.

After the rise of capitalism - the primary reason for war is to seize control of and exploit weaker nations, and consume their natural resources. In fact, some people have even argued that a capitalist system cannot sustain itself without perpetual warfare to acquire more labor and capital.

Rusty Jones
06-02-2014, 05:46 PM
I though sociologists (or whichever specialist it was) decided years ago that one of the primary reasons for going to war was to thin the supply of eligble males from the breeding pool.

Getting our guy back runs counter to that underlying motivation for having combat in the first place.

That's one of the benefits of war, but not the reasons.

Anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years; but have only had the capacity to be civilized for most recent 50,000. Prior to that, anthropologists believe that humans travelled in packs... usually around five females (and any offspring) led by one male. The remaining four out of five males who weren't lucky enough to get women to follow them, in order to have sex, depended on finding a woman who got lost from her pack and raping her.

Organized war is something that we weren't even capable of for the 150,000 of our existence.

sandsjames
06-02-2014, 05:52 PM
That's one of the benefits of war, but not the reasons.

Anatomically modern humans have existed for 200,000 years; but have only had the capacity to be civilized for most recent 50,000. Prior to that, anthropologists believe that humans travelled in packs... usually around five females (and any offspring) led by one male. The remaining four out of five males who weren't lucky enough to get women to follow them, in order to have sex, depended on finding a woman who got lost from her pack and raping her.

Organized war is something that we weren't even capable of for the 150,000 of our existence.

Now I have to throw the BS flag. How can this be true when the Earth is only 6000 years old???!!!!

Rusty Jones
06-02-2014, 06:00 PM
Now I have to throw the BS flag. How can this be true when the Earth is only 6000 years old???!!!!

If you believe that, then you'd still have to reject what hustonj is saying, solely on the basis of it being on a scientific subject. Jus' sayin'!

sandsjames
06-02-2014, 06:04 PM
If you believe that, then you'd still have to reject what hustonj is saying, solely on the basis of it being on a scientific subject. Jus' sayin'!Haven't really been paying attention to what he's saying. He's only at 11 posts. That would be like Tom Brady paying attention to what Johnny Manziel has to say.

TJMAC77SP
06-02-2014, 06:46 PM
I just did it at work... someone acts all suprised and angry about negotiating with terrorists, all you have to do is bring up the Iran Contra Affair, and they'll shut right up.

The official line of the USG is that there was no negotiation with terrorists as Bergdahl was a POW. I assume you don't buy that official line?

BTW. I agree with your premise that there is a long standing precedent for negotiating with terrorists.

TJMAC77SP
06-02-2014, 06:47 PM
Hmmm funny because I recall a certain country using nukes on their enemy's civilians. Remind me what country that was again...?



The Afghan proponents of the exchange might have had a change of heart if their relatives were the next victims of a CIA torture camp. See what I did there? Atrocities are a staple of every war, and have been committed by every nation state that participated.

I'm not saying that makes it all okay - but let's not be delusional.



Great. And that gets our guys back how exactly?

So............are you equating the US Government with radical Islamic fundamentalists?

Rusty Jones
06-02-2014, 07:17 PM
The official line of the USG is that there was no negotiation with terrorists as Bergdahl was a POW. I assume you don't buy that official line?

I'm actually not sure, as I'm not up as up to speed on the incident as the rest of you are. All I know is what people are saying about it, but I have yet to read an article.

GeoDude
06-02-2014, 07:46 PM
So............are you equating the US Government with radical Islamic fundamentalists?

I'm equating the US government and Islamic fundamentalists with the vast majority of other state and non state actors that have fought a war.

I don't buy the line that Islamic fundamentalists are somehow different from Zionist fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, nationalists, communists, fascists, etc etc - at least on the premise that they can't be negotiated with.

And even ignoring Islam for the moment - many governments have dealt with some terrorist organization for a while. I might also raise the point that if the British had decided not to negotiate with terrorists, but to just "shoot them" like some other posters have suggested here - the state of Israel would not exist. To expand further on that point - were other terrorist movements encouraged by the success of the Israeli state?

To me - this whole discussion is moot - any and all warfare can be classified as terrorism - as by definition every war has some political or ideological end. Blowing up a bus is blowing up a bus - whether it was done by a suicide bomber or a hellfire missile.

garhkal
06-02-2014, 08:24 PM
So what makes this different than any other negotiation for prisoners - which has occurred in some form or another in almost every war in all of human history.

I marvel at the level of propaganda needed to convince so many Americans that this war is somehow different, and talking to our opponents across a table is somehow "weakness".

IMO several things.
1) other negotiations like i mentioned with the Kremlin etc, were done with established and recognized foreign powers, not terrorist groups.
2) Congress was informed on them while in this one the President went around them

GeoDude
06-03-2014, 01:11 AM
IMO several things.
1) other negotiations like i mentioned with the Kremlin etc, were done with established and recognized foreign powers, not terrorist groups.

So what makes the difference between a "recognized foreign power" and a "terrorist group"? Certainly not consideration for human rights.



2) Congress was informed on them while in this one the President went around them

Let's be brutally honest here - if Obama were a Republican - these same lawmakers would be hailing him as being "strong" and "decisive". If he took the time to go through Congress and the POW died, he would be "weak" and "spineless". These folks would squawk no matter what Obama decided to do.

70gto
06-03-2014, 02:03 AM
I just did it at work... someone acts all suprised and angry about negotiating with terrorists, all you have to do is bring up the Iran Contra Affair, and they'll shut right up.

Wasn't Iran Contra initially negotiated through Israel so the U.S. wouldn't have the poop stain on their hands? A program which then deteriorated to selling directly to Iran even though Reagan didn't authorize it? Therefore, the U.S. openly dealing with an organization which doesn't recognize the Geneva Convention (i.e. the Taliban)and openly touting it around the world can't be healthy moving forward.

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 03:52 AM
I'm equating the US government and Islamic fundamentalists with the vast majority of other state and non state actors that have fought a war.

I don't buy the line that Islamic fundamentalists are somehow different from Zionist fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, nationalists, communists, fascists, etc etc - at least on the premise that they can't be negotiated with.

And even ignoring Islam for the moment - many governments have dealt with some terrorist organization for a while. I might also raise the point that if the British had decided not to negotiate with terrorists, but to just "shoot them" like some other posters have suggested here - the state of Israel would not exist. To expand further on that point - were other terrorist movements encouraged by the success of the Israeli state?

To me - this whole discussion is moot - any and all warfare can be classified as terrorism - as by definition every war has some political or ideological end. Blowing up a bus is blowing up a bus - whether it was done by a suicide bomber or a hellfire missile.

If you are referring to the Stern Gang or Irgun of the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate, the Brits did not negotiate. They pursued and imprisoned (and executed) those Jewish 'terrorists' they captured. The only 'negotiation' was to abandon the Mandate and leave it up to a UN vote.

Your logic is a bit flawed in comparing the use of nuclear weapons on Japan during WWII and the actions of Islamic Fundamentalists. That seems to have been your original comparison. I am not sure how we were supposed to deduce the inclusion of "Zionist fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, nationalists, communists, fascists, etc etc..." from your comparison.

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 03:56 AM
I'm actually not sure, as I'm not up as up to speed on the incident as the rest of you are. All I know is what people are saying about it, but I have yet to read an article.

It was really a rhetorical question. It is ludicrous hair splitting to claim that no negotiations with terrorists took place because Bergdahl was a POW. It isn't his status that determines the status of the negotiating parties. If POW status was present all around both Bergdahl and the Gitmo captives would have been subject to the Geneva Conventions but of course the Taliban is not a signatory to those documents so it is all moot and bullshit.

Once again, political double talk rules the day. Just stand up and say yes we negotiated with terrorists to bring a US soldier home and we are prepared to accept the future consequences.

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 03:58 AM
So what makes the difference between a "recognized foreign power" and a "terrorist group"? Certainly not consideration for human rights.

Do you really not see the difference. I am puzzled by these hyperbolic utterings. They aren't helping make your point.


Let's be brutally honest here - if Obama were a Republican - these same lawmakers would be hailing him as being "strong" and "decisive". If he took the time to go through Congress and the POW died, he would be "weak" and "spineless". These folks would squawk no matter what Obama decided to do.

You are right and the Dems would be making the same arguments as the GOP is now making...............funny how that shit works isn't it? BTW: By no stretch of the imagination is five years 'decisive'.

Slyoldawg
06-03-2014, 06:13 AM
When I came home from my tour in Vietnam we were treated like garbage. We could not wear our uniform off base. Now, a deserter is being given a hero's welcome and the traitor Jane Fonda is invited to speak at a major university? This is no longer the America I served for 26 years

GeoDude
06-03-2014, 07:18 AM
If you are referring to the Stern Gang or Irgun of the pre-Israel Palestine Mandate, the Brits did not negotiate. They pursued and imprisoned (and executed) those Jewish 'terrorists' they captured. The only 'negotiation' was to abandon the Mandate and leave it up to a UN vote.

Alright fair enough - so "concession" would be a better word then. Would you say the same thing if Obama did something similar in one of our numerous war zones?


Your logic is a bit flawed in comparing the use of nuclear weapons on Japan during WWII and the actions of Islamic Fundamentalists. That seems to have been your original comparison.

How so? I see an organization - the US government - that has actively waged genocide against some group or another almost continuously since the Jackson administration. How is this deliberately exterminating an entire population of people better than what Jihadists do?


I am not sure how we were supposed to deduce the inclusion of "Zionist fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, nationalists, communists, fascists, etc etc..." from your comparison.

Well sure. My original statement mentioned the US Government - but could apply equally well to any of those other groups. I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here - if I didn't know better I would say you're playing a word game - get me to post enough different statements, then comb through them for supposed contradictions...(?)


It was really a rhetorical question. It is ludicrous hair splitting to claim that no negotiations with terrorists took place because Bergdahl was a POW. It isn't his status that determines the status of the negotiating parties. If POW status was present all around both Bergdahl and the Gitmo captives would have been subject to the Geneva Conventions but of course the Taliban is not a signatory to those documents so it is all moot and bullshit.

Once again, political double talk rules the day. Just stand up and say yes we negotiated with terrorists to bring a US soldier home and we are prepared to accept the future consequences.

So just to clarify - who is making this statement?

garhkal
06-03-2014, 07:42 AM
So what makes the difference between a "recognized foreign power" and a "terrorist group"? Certainly not consideration for human rights.

The fact one is (most often) properly elected to the role of being in power, and usually follows things like the geneva convention. Which by the videos of taliban and AQ people beheading our prisoners, and all their willful targetting of civilians shows they care not.




Let's be brutally honest here - if Obama were a Republican - these same lawmakers would be hailing him as being "strong" and "decisive". If he took the time to go through Congress and the POW died, he would be "weak" and "spineless". These folks would squawk no matter what Obama decided to do.

Maybe, maybe not.

Measure Man
06-03-2014, 05:02 PM
It was really a rhetorical question. It is ludicrous hair splitting to claim that no negotiations with terrorists took place because Bergdahl was a POW. It isn't his status that determines the status of the negotiating parties. If POW status was present all around both Bergdahl and the Gitmo captives would have been subject to the Geneva Conventions but of course the Taliban is not a signatory to those documents so it is all moot and bullshit.

Funny...so we woke up Sunday morning and heard the news, so the wife and I were talking about it. She said, "so, do you think Obama will be in good graces for a little while?"

I said, "Oh no, the Repubicans are just vetting their statements with their PR guys and will soon be saying how he negotiated with terrorists and it was the worst decision to ever happen in the history of the United States."

A couple hours later...sure enough. :-)


Once again, political double talk rules the day. Just stand up and say yes we negotiated with terrorists to bring a US soldier home and we are prepared to accept the future consequences.

Yep...I'm glad he's home and we'll deal with whatever happens as a result. Exactly what I said.

Does anyone really think Al Queda and Taliban or NOW going to try extra harder to capture US soldiers than what they've already been doing?

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 05:21 PM
Does anyone really think Al Queda and Taliban or NOW going to try extra harder to capture US soldiers than what they've already been doing?This is ABSOLUTELY right! They are going to try to get us as hard as they have been. It's not like they've had the chance in the past and so "Nah, we'll let him go, they aren't going to negotiate with us...we have nothing to gain."

As far as whether or not he's a deserter, it doesn't matter. He will be tried by the U.S. system as he is entitled to be.

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 05:38 PM
Alright fair enough - so "concession" would be a better word then. Would you say the same thing if Obama did something similar in one of our numerous war zones?

Did what, leave the war zone? Done and being done.


How so? I see an organization - the US government - that has actively waged genocide against some group or another almost continuously since the Jackson administration. How is this deliberately exterminating an entire population of people better than what Jihadists do?

Tone down the hyperbole you might actually make a point. Genocide? That is what we are doing? I take it you read Inspire?



Well sure. My original statement mentioned the US Government - but could apply equally well to any of those other groups. I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here - if I didn't know better I would say you're playing a word game - get me to post enough different statements, then comb through them for supposed contradictions...(?)

I am trying to prove anything nor playing any game. Your statements are logically flawed and I said so...pretty clearly.


So just to clarify - who is making this statement?

That Bergdahl was a POW? The SECDEF and White House Press Secretary to name two.

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 05:40 PM
Still won't let me delete a post

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 05:41 PM
Funny...so we woke up Sunday morning and heard the news, so the wife and I were talking about it. She said, "so, do you think Obama will be in good graces for a little while?"

I said, "Oh no, the Repubicans are just vetting their statements with their PR guys and will soon be saying how he negotiated with terrorists and it was the worst decision to ever happen in the history of the United States."

A couple hours later...sure enough. :-)



Yep...I'm glad he's home and we'll deal with whatever happens as a result. Exactly what I said.

Does anyone really think Al Queda and Taliban or NOW going to try extra harder to capture US soldiers than what they've already been doing?

Well, political maneuvering aside there are some legitimate concerns to be raised and discussed.

No, I don't believe this will be any more an impetus to capture American service members then there already is.

(my cumbersome sentence structure not withstanding..........)

RingLeader
06-03-2014, 07:11 PM
Sandsjames: I say this sincerely...I sure hope you, or others who are upset about this, are never unfortunate enough to become POWs.


HE WAS NOT a POW! He was a deserter who left on his own accord....

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 07:15 PM
Sandsjames: I say this sincerely...I sure hope you, or others who are upset about this, are never unfortunate enough to become POWs.


HE WAS NOT a POW! He was a deserter who left on his own accord....

And he's also an American citizen...

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 07:55 PM
Well we've negotiated with the Taliban to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl, good for him, bad for the future? Is this a good thing or have we opened a Pandora's Box? Will it be safe to travel anywhere as an American overseas? Thoughts?

I think we should negotiate with Mexico...we will give them back 30 million mexicans in exchange for 1 US marine being held in their prison. Sounds fair enough to me. Especially since the Marine isnt helping Mexico plant bombs, or teach them ambush tactics like the deserter did.

WILDJOKER5
06-03-2014, 07:57 PM
And he's also an American citizen...

So are you for the military trying him as a deserter or traitor for his actions while he was being "held captive"? He's already been promoted twice since walking out of the garison.

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 08:01 PM
So are you for the military trying him as a deserter or traitor for his actions while he was being "held captive"? He's already been promoted twice since walking out of the garison.

Well, I'd assume that is what will take place in a trial/courts martial. I can't speak as to whether he was either, both, or none.

What's a great thing is that the military fights for each citizen to be afforded certain rights and this is proof that what you've been doing actually works. The other option, I guess, is to only fight to protect the rights of those we agree with.

Sperry1989
06-03-2014, 08:04 PM
His parents just did a photo op with the President at the White House. I doubt very seriously any trial/courts martial will actually take place.

GeoDude
06-03-2014, 08:10 PM
I think we should negotiate with Mexico...we will give them back 30 million mexicans in exchange for 1 US marine being held in their prison. Sounds fair enough to me.

Rhetoric aside - that's a dicey situation in itself - as the Marine was dumb enough to try sneaking a firearm across the border - which in itself is pretty stupid (though not as stupid as wandering out of a FOB by yourself, Hurt Locker style.)



Especially since the Marine isnt helping Mexico plant bombs, or teach them ambush tactics like the deserter did.

Well why don't we just toss you into a Taliban compound and see how long it takes for you to start divulging information. ;)

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 08:13 PM
His parents just did a photo op with the President at the White House. I doubt very seriously any trial/courts martial will actually take place.

I'm sure if there is any evidence, other than "We saw him walk off base and don't know why" then there will be an investigation to determine what happened. I'm even willing to bet that there has already been, and still continuing, and investigation.

Either way, it's not up to me to decide his fate. It's up to the legal system that he falls under.

Our legal process is something that has been afforded to us through the protection of our military. We are not judge, jury, and executioner. If you've lost faith in the system then maybe it's time for a new job/career.

I think that's fair to say to everyone. If you don't feel that the orders you are following are in the best interest of the military and the country then maybe it's time to move on. Move on to some other position/office where you can make an impact to change things.

Sperry1989
06-03-2014, 08:18 PM
I'm sure if there is any evidence, other than "We saw him walk off base and don't know why" then there will be an investigation to determine what happened. I'm even willing to bet that there has already been, and still continuing, and investigation.

Either way, it's not up to me to decide his fate. It's up to the legal system that he falls under.

Our legal process is something that has been afforded to us through the protection of our military. We are not judge, jury, and executioner. If you've lost faith in the system then maybe it's time for a new job/career.

I think that's fair to say to everyone. If you don't feel that the orders you are following are in the best interest of the military and the country then maybe it's time to move on. Move on to some other position/office where you can make an impact to change things.

I agree with you 100%....

AJBIGJ
06-03-2014, 08:18 PM
Good on us for bringing him home for his sake and for his family's.

If special considerations exist where he is a "deserter" or anything of the like, I am grateful he is being tried in a US Military Court Martial and not some Sharia Law "Confess that American infidels are a blight on society" sort of thing.

If it took five mid-level detainees who allegedly had some ties or even at the head of terrorists or terrorist activities, maybe at the second or third degree, so be it. They are to be returned to a nation state under supervision, not the Taliban, which is not itself a "State". If Qatar wants to risk giving them free reign and potentially subject their cities and populaces to targeted drone strikes, well that's their decision.

I have seen first hand that our government does not leave a man behind, even if we're imperfect men.

That is good news indeed!

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 08:34 PM
Good on us for bringing him home for his sake and for his family's.

If special considerations exist where he is a "deserter" or anything of the like, I am grateful he is being tried in a US Military Court Martial and not some Sharia Law "Confess that American infidels are a blight on society" sort of thing.

If it took five mid-level detainees who allegedly had some ties or even at the head of terrorists or terrorist activities, maybe at the second or third degree, so be it. They are to be returned to a nation state under supervision, not the Taliban, which is not itself a "State". If Qatar wants to risk giving them free reign and potentially subject their cities and populaces to targeted drone strikes, well that's their decision.

I have seen first hand that our government does not leave a man behind, even if we're imperfect men.

That is good news indeed!

Not to disagree with the point that it is good news to get a US soldier held captive released these five are hardly midlevel and I think we can dispense with 'alleged'. We aren't in a court of law and facts are facts.

Mohammad Fazl: Taliban Deputy Minister of Defense during Operation Enduring Freedom and is an admitted senior commander who served as Chief of Staff of the Taliban Army and as a commander of the 22nd Division. Detainee is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites. Detainee was associated with terrorist groups currently opposing US and Coalition forces including al-Qaida, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), and an Anti-Coalition Militia group known as Harakat-i-Inqilab-i-Islami.1 Detainee wielded considerable influence throughout the northern region of Afghanistan and his influence continued after his capture. Detainee’s name and capture have been used, in recruiting campaigns by the Taliban, and $500,000 US was paid to ensure detainees safe passage. If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with ACM elements participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.

Norullah Nori: Senior Taliban military commander in Mazar-e-Sharif during hostilities against US and Coalition forces in late 2001. Detainee was also the Taliban governor for the Balkh and Laghman provinces and is wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims. Detainee is associated with Supreme Taliban Commander Mullah Muhammad Omar, other senior Taliban officials, senior al-Qaida members and other extremist organizations and has
remained a significant figure to Taliban supporters. Detainee’s brother is a Taliban commander directing operations against US and Coalition forces in Zabul Province where detainee resided.

Abdul Haq Wasiq: Taliban Deputy Minister of Intelligence. Detainee had direct access to Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG) leadership. He was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against US and Coalition forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks. Detainee utilized his office to support al-Qaida and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture. Detainee arranged for al-Qaida personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff in intelligence methods.

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa: Senior Taliban official serving as the Minister of Interior, Governor of Herat, and a military commander. Detainee was directly associated to Usama Bin Laden (UBL) and Taliban Supreme Commander Mullah Muhammad Omar, and was added to the UN financial freeze list. Following the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, detainee represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and Coalition forces. Detainee also attended a meeting at the direction of UBL, reportedly accompanied by members of HAMAS. Detainee and his deputy were probably associated with a militant training camp in Herat operated by deceased al-Qaida commander (in Iraq) Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Detainee was identified as a narcotics trafficker and probably used his position and influences to become one of the major opium drug lords in Western Afghanistan. Detainee probably used profits from drugs to promote Taliban interests in the area.

Mohammed Nabi: Senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles. Detainee had strong operational ties to Anti-Coalition Militia (ACM) groups including al-Qaida, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), some of whom remain active in ACM activities. Detainee was a member of a joint al-Qaida/Taliban ACM cell in Khowst and was involved in attacks against US and Coalition forces. Detainee maintained weapons caches and facilitated the smuggling of fighters and weapons.

garhkal
06-03-2014, 09:11 PM
As far as whether or not he's a deserter, it doesn't matter. He will be tried by the U.S. system as he is entitled to be.

As of today's CNN news (2pm) they will investigate, but several times, mentioned "Commanders discretion" in whether he gets charged with anything. And i can easily see them using that, cause to have him brought back and then jailed for his desertion would be a "Pie in the face" for Obama.

Also, if we did this "Cause we never leave a soldier behind" why do we STILL have MIA/POWs in Vietnam or Korea?

sandsjames
06-03-2014, 09:25 PM
As of today's CNN news (2pm) they will investigate, but several times, mentioned "Commanders discretion" in whether he gets charged with anything. And i can easily see them using that, cause to have him brought back and then jailed for his desertion would be a "Pie in the face" for Obama.

Also, if we did this "Cause we never leave a soldier behind" why do we STILL have MIA/POWs in Vietnam or Korea?

Don't know...

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 10:55 PM
I don't think there is a single case where definitive information regarding MIA/POW's from Vietnam (or Korea for that matter) was ignored. The DPMO is still active and working.

((well there was that case Chuck Norris was involved in))

OtisRNeedleman
06-03-2014, 11:01 PM
Don't believe an apparent deserter like Bergdahl was worth the men who died looking for him and the terrorists we traded to get him back. From the accounts I have seen Bergdahl deserted. And apparently some of his fellow troops had to sign non-disclosure statements regarding Bergdahl's desertion and the searches for him. Since when did such a thing ever happen in the case of a soldier legitimately captured?

Lots of questions here, few of which will ever receive public answers. The White House apparently hopes this issue will fade away. Most likely not any time soon.

GeoDude
06-03-2014, 11:05 PM
Good on us for bringing him home for his sake and for his family's.

If special considerations exist where he is a "deserter" or anything of the like, I am grateful he is being tried in a US Military Court Martial and not some Sharia Law "Confess that American infidels are a blight on society" sort of thing.

If it took five mid-level detainees who allegedly had some ties or even at the head of terrorists or terrorist activities, maybe at the second or third degree, so be it. They are to be returned to a nation state under supervision, not the Taliban, which is not itself a "State". If Qatar wants to risk giving them free reign and potentially subject their cities and populaces to targeted drone strikes, well that's their decision.

I have seen first hand that our government does not leave a man behind, even if we're imperfect men.

That is good news indeed!

I think some people here have watched too many action movies. Is the release of five detainees going to have any noticeable effect on the war? If the Taliban captured five American colonels, would their release turn the tide of the war?

GeoDude
06-03-2014, 11:22 PM
The fact one is (most often) properly elected to the role of being in power, and usually follows things like the geneva convention. Which by the videos of taliban and AQ people beheading our prisoners, and all their willful targetting of civilians shows they care not.

Maybe, maybe not.

Nation states follow the Geneva Convention when it is convenient - like for example when they are facing another nation state of roughly equivalent power and there is mutual interest in establishing boundaries.


Did what, leave the war zone? Done and being done.

What war zone have we left? If anything, Obama has just opened up new fronts.



Tone down the hyperbole you might actually make a point. Genocide? That is what we are doing? I take it you read Inspire?

So how high does a death toll need to be before you are willing to call it genocide? Or will you only call it genocide if it is done by one of our enemies? And aside from our current wars, the American government has unquestionably committed numerous genocides almost since its inception.


I am trying to prove anything nor playing any game. Your statements are logically flawed and I said so...pretty clearly.

You have yet to make a concrete point - your entire effort seems to be to root out supposed contradictions in my statements.



That Bergdahl was a POW? The SECDEF and White House Press Secretary to name two.

Since apparently you have forgotten what you just said, I'll repeat it for you:

"It is ludicrous hair splitting to claim that no negotiations with terrorists took place because Bergdahl was a POW"

To repeat my question...

Who said we haven't negotiated with terrorists?

TJMAC77SP
06-03-2014, 11:40 PM
What war zone have we left? If anything, Obama has just opened up new fronts.

Iraq………….soon to be Afghanistan. (BY THE WAY, THAT IS AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING ISSUES DETERMINING ANSWERS).

BTW: What “new fronts” has Obama opened?



So how high does a death toll need to be before you are willing to call it genocide? Or will you only call it genocide if it is done by one of our enemies? And aside from our current wars, the American government has unquestionably committed numerous genocides almost since its inception.

It isn’t me that defines genocide.

“the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

Other than native Americans can you tell me of another nation, racial, political or cultural group we has eliminated (or attempted to eliminate)?



You have yet to make a concrete point - your entire effort seems to be to root out supposed contradictions in my statements.

My point has been quite clear……..your hyperbole is lame and logically flawed. I think that will be the third time I have said that.


Since apparently you have forgotten what you just said, I'll repeat it for you:

"It is ludicrous hair splitting to claim that no negotiations with terrorists took place because Bergdahl was a POW"

To repeat my question...

Who said we haven't negotiated with terrorists?

And I will repeat my (very clear) answer to your question…….

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

"We didn't negotiate with terrorists," Hagel said, dismissing the suggestion that this swap could incentivize future kidnappings of American soldiers. "In war, things are always dangerous and there are vulnerabilities... but our record, the United States of America, in dealing with terrorists and hunting down and finding terrorists, is pretty good."


THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY.

Outgoing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney drew a distinction between “prisoner” and “hostage” in discussing the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Monday morning, echoing the sentiment of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel a day before in saying that the United States did not negotiate with terrorists.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo pressed Carney, asking, “Why not just call this what it was — that you negotiated with these terrorists because it was a prisoner of war and you have this pledge of leaving no man or women behind, and you arranged the deal?”

“The fact is he was held in an armed conflict by the Taliban — we were engaged in an armed conflict with the Taliban, and we have a history in this country of making sure that our prisoners of war are returned to us,” Carney responded. “We don’t leave them behind. He was not a hostage, he was a prisoner.”

GeoDude
06-04-2014, 12:09 AM
Iraq………….soon to be Afghanistan. (BY THE WAY, THAT IS AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, YOU SEEM TO BE HAVING ISSUES DETERMINING ANSWERS).

We're still involved in Iraq (despite all the grandstanding from the Obama Administration about "ending" the war).

Obama will allegedly pull out of Afghanistan by 2016... but only after Afghanistan refused our attempts to extend another 10 years. And even then - we'll probably maintain a CIA presence, along with drones, weapons, and $$$ - like we do to the present day in Iraq.

BTW: What “new fronts” has Obama opened?





It isn’t me that defines genocide.

“the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.”

Other than native Americans can you tell me of another nation, racial, political or cultural group we has eliminated (or attempted to eliminate)?

My point has been quite clear……..your hyperbole is lame and logically flawed. I think that will be the third time I have said that.

Off the top of my head - The Filipino War, Peking, and of course WWII. And yes, deliberately wiping out an entire city with conventional bombs or nukes qualifies as genocide.


And I will repeat my (very clear) answer to your question…….

THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

"We didn't negotiate with terrorists," Hagel said, dismissing the suggestion that this swap could incentivize future kidnappings of American soldiers. "In war, things are always dangerous and there are vulnerabilities... but our record, the United States of America, in dealing with terrorists and hunting down and finding terrorists, is pretty good."


THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY.

Outgoing White House Press Secretary Jay Carney drew a distinction between “prisoner” and “hostage” in discussing the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl Monday morning, echoing the sentiment of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel a day before in saying that the United States did not negotiate with terrorists.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo pressed Carney, asking, “Why not just call this what it was — that you negotiated with these terrorists because it was a prisoner of war and you have this pledge of leaving no man or women behind, and you arranged the deal?”

“The fact is he was held in an armed conflict by the Taliban — we were engaged in an armed conflict with the Taliban, and we have a history in this country of making sure that our prisoners of war are returned to us,” Carney responded. “We don’t leave them behind. He was not a hostage, he was a prisoner.”[/QUOTE]

Alright. I don't know why you couldn't have just said that in the first place, but thank you.

70gto
06-04-2014, 12:40 AM
This is ABSOLUTELY right! They are going to try to get us as hard as they have been. It's not like they've had the chance in the past and so "Nah, we'll let him go, they aren't going to negotiate with us...we have nothing to gain."

As far as whether or not he's a deserter, it doesn't matter. He will be tried by the U.S. system as he is entitled to be.

Battlefield tactics won't change, however, having been stationed in Europe, I disagree. I see a prime opportunity for splinter cells to lock-in on Americans driving their Ford Excursions plastered with Ranger stickers. I've always tried to blend in with the local population, but it seems there may be extra incentive to nab an easy target overseas.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 12:47 AM
We're still involved in Iraq (despite all the grandstanding from the Obama Administration about "ending" the war).

Obama will allegedly pull out of Afghanistan by 2016... but only after Afghanistan refused our attempts to extend another 10 years. And even then - we'll probably maintain a CIA presence, along with drones, weapons, and $$$ - like we do to the present day in Iraq.


There are about 100 soldiers in Iraq...all assigned to guard the US Embassy. If you are simply going to state what you believe will happen in contravention with what are facts and announced actions, there really isn't an argument is there.


BTW: You neglected to answer......... What “new fronts” has Obama opened?


Off the top of my head - The Filipino War, Peking, and of course WWII. And yes, deliberately wiping out an entire city with conventional bombs or nukes qualifies as genocide.

And you would be wrong. Much as you are about the other examples you cited. Filipinos and Chinese are hardly gone and as for WWII, well simply put again, you are wrong. We didn't even 'wipe out an entire city in either the case of Hiroshima or Nagasaki.


Alright. I don't know why you couldn't have just said that in the first place, but thank you.


I did ........


That Bergdahl was a POW? The SECDEF and White House Press Secretary to name two.

Chief_KO
06-04-2014, 01:55 AM
The swap was made for one and one reason only: So BHO can proclaim he was the only CINC to not leave any POW/MIA behind.
It's all about the legacy...

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 04:17 AM
Don't believe an apparent deserter like Bergdahl was worth the men who died looking for him and the terrorists we traded to get him back. From the accounts I have seen Bergdahl deserted. And apparently some of his fellow troops had to sign non-disclosure statements regarding Bergdahl's desertion and the searches for him. Since when did such a thing ever happen in the case of a soldier legitimately captured?

Lots of questions here, few of which will ever receive public answers. The White House apparently hopes this issue will fade away. Most likely not any time soon.

Actually, I believe they did this on purpose to get the VA debacle and the shrinking economy off of the front page. Too bad it has blown up in their faces.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/chuck-todd-white-house-expected-euphoria-over-bergdahls-release/

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 04:21 AM
Off the top of my head - The Filipino War, Peking, and of course WWII. And yes, deliberately wiping out an entire city with conventional bombs or nukes qualifies as genocide.

If those are your examples of what you think qualifies as "genocide", you obviously don't understand the definition. The reason for using nukes in WW2 was not to wipe out the Japanese people, but to force their surrender since an invasion of the Japanese mainland would most likely have resulted in more casualties than the bombs created.

Hitler gassing the Jews, with the specific intent on wiping Jews out of existence is considered genocide. It's puzzling that you cannot see the difference between the two.

waveshaper2
06-04-2014, 05:06 AM
Monica Crowley made a good point on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. President Obama had Bergdahl's parents at the White House for the announcement of his release. Why did he not also invite the parents of the soldiers, who died trying to find Bergdahl?

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 05:13 AM
Monica Crowley made a good point on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. President Obama had Bergdahl's parents at the White House for the announcement of his release. Why did he not also invite the parents of the soldiers, who died trying to find Bergdahl?

Because that doesn't fit the political narrative they are trying to paint. Anything that would distract from making Obama look like the hero, while at the same time making a Guantanamo a campaign issue again for the left is definitely a no-go.

garhkal
06-04-2014, 06:40 AM
Don't believe an apparent deserter like Bergdahl was worth the men who died looking for him and the terrorists we traded to get him back. From the accounts I have seen Bergdahl deserted. And apparently some of his fellow troops had to sign non-disclosure statements regarding Bergdahl's desertion and the searches for him. Since when did such a thing ever happen in the case of a soldier legitimately captured?

Lots of questions here, few of which will ever receive public answers. The White House apparently hopes this issue will fade away. Most likely not any time soon.

Hu?? they were forced to sign NDA's? How is that legal?


Monica Crowley made a good point on the O'Reilly Factor tonight. President Obama had Bergdahl's parents at the White House for the announcement of his release. Why did he not also invite the parents of the soldiers, who died trying to find Bergdahl?

Because that doesn't fit the political narrative they are trying to paint. Anything that would distract from making Obama look like the hero, while at the same time making a Guantanamo a campaign issue again for the left is definitely a no-go.


Exactly. It looks better for him (in his opinion) to be seen with the parents of the freed person.

But i would LOVE to see CNN or FOX do an interview with the surviving family members of those who Died trying to find this deserter. See what they feel about this.

Sergeant eNYgma
06-04-2014, 08:05 AM
This story has sounded suspect from day one...it seems like he is no hero at all imo but I'll wait for ALL the details to come out. Also I think waaaaay later down the line he will be tried and probably just discharged or something. I doubt he'll get the book thrown at him at all because it looks to me the opinion of the WH and others is "He's suffered enough, we don't need to impose anymore". I can't imagine them having him confined or something after he already was.

Looks like the detractors are taking an L on this one. I don't agree with it (I think based on what I've read he is guilty) so far but.....hey...

BOSS302
06-04-2014, 11:04 AM
I'm sure the family of the released prisoner will disagree with you. And it was 5 prisoners. 5! For an American soldiers life, for a brothers, sons, etc life. I've never agreed with our blanket "We don't negotiate with terrorists". And I'm sure if it was your family member you would feel differently about it.

As far as what will happen in the future, let's be honest. It's not like they were just going to leave us alone if we didn't make this trade. They were still going to try to kidnap/kill us.

Stop talking.

Stop talking now.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 11:16 AM
Stop talking.

Stop talking now.

Ummmmm...no?

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 01:11 PM
Not to disagree with the point that it is good news to get a US soldier held captive released these five are hardly midlevel and I think we can dispense with 'alleged'. We aren't in a court of law and facts are facts.

Nothing's impossible, but this information seems full of holes in the way it is presented. I'm not convinced, I submit some of the "soft" language used for your intellectual ponderings.

Titles: Deputy Minister of Defense, Deputy Minister of Intelligence, "Senior Taliban Official", these titles sound important, if we were referring to the nation of Belgium, I'm curious when we're going to turn over the Taliban Prime Minister, Parliament, and Undersecretary of Health and Human Services. I'm no expert on the inter-organizational relations of the Taliban but things sound a little bit contrived in my eyes. As if someone was trying to actively mislead the American public to score political points. But I must be imagining things, you'd never see that!

Soft terms, like "possible" and especially "Detainee". If we really have all of this overwhelming evidence about these people it is a wonder how they are even still breathing. We've fired TLAMs, Drone Strikes, and launched a few Seal Team insertions quite lethally after our more dangerous "enemies" with barely batting an eyelash. One would think if these individuals were dangerously influencial enough we'd find a way to at least work out some form of conviction by now.

Which leads me to the scariest implication, say you're right and these really are the Big Dogs of the Taliban? Is it common practice to utilize tools like the Indefinite Detention Clause of the NDAA to retain very dangerous men as detainees and avoid an actual conviction because we want to retain these individuals as "bargaining chips" later on? I'd never imagined hating that Indefinite Detention Clause more until now, but I put nothing past our intelligence functionaries, they've been known to play dirty for quite a long time!

TSgt"M"
06-04-2014, 01:19 PM
The swap was made for one and one reason only: So BHO can proclaim he was the only CINC to not leave any POW/MIA behind.
It's all about the legacy...

Agreed, this exchange could have been handled quietly and covertly. The White House was using it as a publicity item before they new the "ugly" details.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 01:48 PM
Agreed, this exchange could have been handled quietly and covertly. The White House was using it as a publicity item before they new the "ugly" details.

And if it would have been done "quietly and covertly" then sooner or later (I'd imagine sooner once the family posted on FB that their son was home) it would have come out and the President would have been accused of covering it up because of the circumstances surrounding it.

Doesn't matter. An American (deserter or not) is home. The process to determine what happened can be figured out and the proper action can be taken. Oh, and we can launch a Predator directly at the tracking devices that were implanted in the 5 released prisoners' colons.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 02:57 PM
Nothing's impossible, but this information seems full of holes in the way it is presented. I'm not convinced, I submit some of the "soft" language used for your intellectual ponderings.

Titles: Deputy Minister of Defense, Deputy Minister of Intelligence, "Senior Taliban Official", these titles sound important, if we were referring to the nation of Belgium, I'm curious when we're going to turn over the Taliban Prime Minister, Parliament, and Undersecretary of Health and Human Services. I'm no expert on the inter-organizational relations of the Taliban but things sound a little bit contrived in my eyes. As if someone was trying to actively mislead the American public to score political points. But I must be imagining things, you'd never see that!

Soft terms, like "possible" and especially "Detainee". If we really have all of this overwhelming evidence about these people it is a wonder how they are even still breathing. We've fired TLAMs, Drone Strikes, and launched a few Seal Team insertions quite lethally after our more dangerous "enemies" with barely batting an eyelash. One would think if these individuals were dangerously influencial enough we'd find a way to at least work out some form of conviction by now.

Which leads me to the scariest implication, say you're right and these really are the Big Dogs of the Taliban? Is it common practice to utilize tools like the Indefinite Detention Clause of the NDAA to retain very dangerous men as detainees and avoid an actual conviction because we want to retain these individuals as "bargaining chips" later on? I'd never imagined hating that Indefinite Detention Clause more until now, but I put nothing past our intelligence functionaries, they've been known to play dirty for quite a long time!

Where are the 'holes' you speak of? The language is pretty clear. Facts are stated as facts and suppositions as suppositions.

All of those descriptions were taken from previously classified detainee dossiers (GITMO files...ironically from Wikileaks). You seem to forget that the Taliban were for awhile the 'legitimate' government of Afghanistan and therefore it is not surprising that these men held positions with titles commensurate with other nation-states.

They have all been held for years (since 2001-2002) and therefore no drone strikes have been necessary.

As to their release, until very recently (like as in during the tenure of the last SECDEF and CJCS) the administration was strongly urged NOT to exchange these five. Not sure what, if anything, has changed to warrant the agreement of the current SECDEF and CJCS.

If people want to agree that releasing these five was worth getting a US Soldier returned, just state so and let's all stop waffling and changing facts to fit the narrative.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 03:23 PM
If people want to agree that releasing these five was worth getting a US Soldier returned, just state so and let's all stop waffling and changing facts to fit the narrative.

The problem is these "facts" as presented appear strongly misleading under scrutiny. I don't have an opinion on who is worth what in the discussion, I'm just happy an American soldier, deserter or otherwise is not being subjected to the Sharia Justice system and I have significant doubts about the impact these five will realistically have under the circumstances of the release.

I will rephrase my concern, why are these individuals simply in detention (by its own definition intended as a temporary situation) rather than brought to trial for permanent imprisonment or possibly more severe penalties? The "facts" here as presented don't support a loose end left untied, it would be pretty damn irresponsible to do so.

If I saw stronger language such as "Convicted of" associated with these individuals I would have some more confidence in your presented "facts". When I see documents, official government or elsewise, that farts around with language akin to "suspected of corroborating with potential terrorists" and that they are not even being brought to trial for the actions they are accused of. I will say it doesn't add a lot of confidence on my end that these individuals are really as bad as projected.

Again maybe you're right and they were being detained as some sort of perverse bargaining chips to make what could have been a purely political exchange to give the President another political feather under his cap. Nothing of such nature from officials in our government is really something beyond the types of activities I could imagine them being complicit in. It's just not what I consider to be the most likely scenario. I put more stock in the right-leaning portion of the media digging up things that support controversy outside of the original context of the documents and let our fears and imaginations fill in the holes.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 03:46 PM
It's kind of comical how the same people who rant about Obama not following the Constitution and consulting with Congress on this are the same ones who are upset that we released 5 prisoners who were being held without trial. I guess the Constitution is only a good thing when it benefits the people you like and hurts the people you don't.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 03:47 PM
All of those descriptions were taken from previously classified detainee dossiers (GITMO files...ironically from Wikileaks). You seem to forget that the Taliban were for awhile the 'legitimate' government of Afghanistan and therefore it is not surprising that these men held positions with titles commensurate with other nation-states.


Also, to address this point, then why not just label it "Afghanistan Deputy Minister of Defense"?

A rhetorical question of course, that gives these individuals both legitimacy and makes the claims of being tied to terrorism or at least a significant player in the Taliban less apparent. It's funny, although not in a "ha ha" sort of fashion, how simple twists in the language can be used to mislead the public.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 03:49 PM
The problem is these "facts" as presented appear strongly misleading under scrutiny. I don't have an opinion on who is worth what in the discussion, I'm just happy an American soldier, deserter or otherwise is not being subjected to the Sharia Justice system and I have significant doubts about the impact these five will realistically have under the circumstances of the release.

I will rephrase my concern, why are these individuals simply in detention (by its own definition intended as a temporary situation) rather than brought to trial for permanent imprisonment or possibly more severe penalties? The "facts" here as presented don't support a loose end left untied, it would be pretty damn irresponsible to do so.

If I saw stronger language such as "Convicted of" associated with these individuals I would have some more confidence in your presented "facts". When I see documents, official government or elsewise, that farts around with language akin to "suspected of corroborating with potential terrorists" and that they are not even being brought to trial for the actions they are accused of. I will say it doesn't add a lot of confidence on my end that these individuals are really as bad as projected.

Again maybe you're right and they were being detained as some sort of perverse bargaining chips to make what could have been a purely political exchange to give the President another political feather under his cap. Nothing of such nature from officials in our government is really something beyond the types of activities I could imagine them being complicit in. It's just not what I consider to be the most likely scenario. I put more stock in the right-leaning portion of the media digging up things that support outside of the original context and let our fears and imaginations fill in the holes.

Can you give me an example of anything which "appear(s) strongly misleading under scrutiny".

Exactly where did I state "they were being detained as some sort of perverse bargaining chips to make what could have been a purely political exchange to give the President another political feather under his cap..."

You are putting words in my mouth. I merely state that a decision was made. Those that made it and agree with it should stand by it and not talk out the side of their mouths about things that are irrelevant or patently false. I also object to minimizing the threat that these five present or perhaps more accurately once presented to the US. There may be an argument to be made about how relevant they will be in the Taliban organization after more than 10 years absence but that doesn't seem to be the gist of your comments or those of others.

This has nothing to do with the trails/tribunals at Gitmo. I believe all of these men were on the 'classified as indefinite detainees ineligible for release, transfer or prosecution' list. You want to argue the moral and/or legal aspects of that, fine, another topic completely.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 03:52 PM
Also, to address this point, then why not just label it "Afghanistan Deputy Minister of Defense"?

A rhetorical question of course, that gives these individuals both legitimacy and makes the claims of being tied to terrorism or at least a significant player in the Taliban less apparent. It's funny, although not in a "ha ha" sort of fashion, how simple twists in the language can be used to mislead the public.

So, you would be ok with them being labeled as a threat if merely their title was changed from Taliban to 'Afghanistan'?

The simple answer to your question, rhetorical or not is that the US didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. In fact only three countries in the world did offer such recognition.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 03:56 PM
Can you give me an example of anything which "appear(s) strongly misleading under scrutiny".


Pretty sure I just did, many of such, a couple times over already. It's not your words (at least I don't believe they were yours) but the "facts" you've presented to why you appear to believe these five were so significant in the Taliban which I was addressing. Bottom line is they do not have me at all convinced that these really were such "major players in the Taliban" as some might suggest. The "facts" you present are pretty wishy-washy in the types of language they use to describe the actions which they are accused of. My point is, if the actual evidence corroborates such a thing they should no longer hold a status of "detainee" but should be whatever the courts decide, prison, capital punishment, or otherwise.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 03:58 PM
So, you would be ok with them being labeled as a threat if merely their title was changed from Taliban to 'Afghanistan'?

The simple answer to your question, rhetorical or not is that the US didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan. In fact only three countries in the world did offer such recognition.

Well if they seem to recognized the supposed titles that Taliban "officials" have didn't they? So is it a legitimate government or isn't it? I'm not asking you specifically because I don't expect you to speak for the authors of this tripe. It just doesn't add up to me that on one hand we're not recognizing the legitimacy of the government and on the other we're recognizing the titles it supposedly does or does not use.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 04:02 PM
Pretty sure I just did, many of such, a couple times over already. It's not your words (at least I don't believe they were yours) but the "facts" you've presented to why you appear to believe these five were so significant in the Taliban which I was addressing. Bottom line is they do not have me at all convinced that these really were such "major players in the Taliban" as some might suggest. The "facts" you present are pretty wishy-washy in the types of language they use to describe the actions which they are accused of. My point is, if the actual evidence corroborates such a thing they should no longer hold a status of "detainee" but should be whatever the courts decide, prison, capital punishment, or otherwise.

The only concrete example I see is that they haven't been convicted of anything. What other specific language are you speaking of which is wishy-washy (keeping in mind that the reports are not evidence but intelligence documents)?

Carrying your objection a little further I imagine you are opposed to keeping anyone in jail (denying bail) because they face mere accusations and have not been convicted of anything.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 04:06 PM
Well if they seem to recognized the supposed titles that Taliban "officials" have didn't they? So is it a legitimate government or isn't it? I'm not asking you specifically because I don't expect you to speak for the authors of this tripe. It just doesn't add up to me that on one hand we're not recognizing the legitimacy of the government and on the other we're recognizing the titles it supposedly does or does not use.

Your logic is getting a bit circular (and more tenuous). These are titles the detainees themselves claimed. Are you seriously arguing the legitimacy or the reports (to the extent of calling them tripe) because of the titles? Should these titles not have been listed at all?

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 04:09 PM
The only concrete example I see is that they haven't been convicted of anything. What other specific language are you speaking of which is wishy-washy (keeping in mind that the reports are not evidence but intelligence documents)?

Carrying your objection a little further I imagine you are opposed to keeping anyone in jail (denying bail) because they face mere accusations and have not been convicted of anything.

Indefinite Detention? Absolutely I am opposed to that. If an individual, American Citizen or otherwise, is accused of criminal activities (and I hold no exception for terrorism) they should be brought to trial for these accusations as soon as is reasonably achievable. That's written unambiguously in the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights. What constraints we put on detention time limits are a bit arbitrary but a good rule of thumb is if insufficient evidence exists to bring them to trial in the short term, they should be released until a preponderance of evidence for prosecution can be achieved.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 04:09 PM
I would absolutely love to be able to compare these arguments to the arguments that would have been made if it was a Republican in office who had done the same thing.

Just a note of interest. Even Dianne Feinstein disagrees with Obama on this action. If that doesn't cement that he made the correct decision then I don't know what does.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 04:14 PM
Your logic is getting a bit circular (and more tenuous). These are titles the detainees themselves claimed. Are you seriously arguing the legitimacy or the reports (to the extent of calling them tripe) because of the titles? Should these titles not have been listed at all?

Tripe? Yes, because of the titles and the prolonged detention absent charges, yes, it is extremely misleading in the way it is presented.

Not listed at all? Sure, why not. I don't know what the individuals themselves claimed themselves to be, they've been under lock and key for quite some time and I haven't had the opportunity to ask them personally, on the off chance we have any language commonalities between one-another. The individuals who put together these documents made the claim, so unless it can be proven as fact in a court of law I have no confidence in it whatsoever.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 04:17 PM
Carrying your objection a little further I imagine you are opposed to keeping anyone in jail (denying bail) because they face mere accusations and have not been convicted of anything.

Of course, with a preponderance of evidence, bail should be denied? However, the situation with the GITMO detainies isn't comparable. They aren't just being held without bail, they are being held without a chance of a trial (speedy or otherwise).

Hopefully you are opposed to holding people indefinitely without any hope of a trial.

Should they get a trial? Well, that depends on how you define the prisoners. If we are going to classify them as POWs then, fine, hold them indefinitely. But the argument has been made against them being POWs because they are not part of a "legitimate" government which leaves only one other option...alleged criminals. If they are alleged criminals then there are two options. Try them or release them. We released them. Not only that, we recieved something in return.

waveshaper2
06-04-2014, 04:18 PM
I don't understand why people are calling Sgt Bergdahl a deserter. The President, once again, had to send out his star cleanup hitter, Susan Rice, on a Sunday talk show. We all know she has a track record of being this Administrations most credible source of information/facts. She sincerely articulated all the facts you will ever need to know about Sgt Bergdahl on ABC's, This Week, news show.

Per Susan Rice; Quote "Bergdhal wasn’t simply a hostage, he was an American Prisoner of War captured on the battlefield. He served the United States with Honor and Distinction.” end Quote

Sperry1989
06-04-2014, 05:13 PM
Of course, with a preponderance of evidence, bail should be denied? However, the situation with the GITMO detainies isn't comparable. They aren't just being held without bail, they are being held without a chance of a trial (speedy or otherwise).

Hopefully you are opposed to holding people indefinitely without any hope of a trial.

Should they get a trial? Well, that depends on how you define the prisoners. If we are going to classify them as POWs then, fine, hold them indefinitely. But the argument has been made against them being POWs because they are not part of a "legitimate" government which leaves only one other option...alleged criminals. If they are alleged criminals then there are two options. Try them or release them. We released them. Not only that, we recieved something in return.

Are the detainees at GITMO alleged criminals, suspected terrorists, or POWs? I do not think anyone knows.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 05:30 PM
Are the detainees at GITMO alleged criminals, suspected terrorists, or POWs? I do not think anyone knows.

I'm guessing his point and my point is that it should be treated as either the first or the third, the second should not be a viable excuse to maintain someone, American Citizen or otherwise, in indefinite limbo as some sort of transitory state into nothing. Shit or get off the pot, as it were.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 05:36 PM
I'm guessing his point and my point is that it should be treated as either the first or the third, the second should not be a viable excuse to maintain someone, American Citizen or otherwise, in indefinite limbo as some sort of transitory state into nothing. Shit or get off the pot, as it were.

And as I said that is all a separate discussion. To dismiss the status and threat of these five individuals because it is an inconvenient truth (Thanks again Al) in the overall narrative and damage control is disingenuous at best.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 05:42 PM
Of course, with a preponderance of evidence, bail should be denied? However, the situation with the GITMO detainies isn't comparable. They aren't just being held without bail, they are being held without a chance of a trial (speedy or otherwise).

Hopefully you are opposed to holding people indefinitely without any hope of a trial.

Should they get a trial? Well, that depends on how you define the prisoners. If we are going to classify them as POWs then, fine, hold them indefinitely. But the argument has been made against them being POWs because they are not part of a "legitimate" government which leaves only one other option...alleged criminals. If they are alleged criminals then there are two options. Try them or release them. We released them. Not only that, we recieved something in return.

Preponderance of evidence isn't necessary for denial of bail. Sometimes it is simply risk of flight.

Having said that you missed my point. I made no allusion to anything close to that but merely carried AJ's flawed logic to a more obvious conclusion. These men were held for viable reasons. Whether or not the should have been tried or not is another discussion entirely.

This debacle of defending the decision with the bullshit that is flowing in DC is preposterous. Both sides have again turned a situation into a political football and it is disgusting.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 05:43 PM
And as I said that is all a separate discussion. To dismiss the status and threat of these five individuals because it is an inconvenient truth (Thanks again Al) in the overall narrative and damage control is disingenuous at best.

I'm not dismissing any possibility here, only the probability. If the threat from these five individuals is really so profound, hasty effort should have been made towards getting them out of the status of "detainee" where they could be used as bartering tools and locked away with the key lost in the closet through the portal in the land of Narnia. In a way, unconstrained detention is even worse when overwhelming evidence exists that an individual is guilty of the crimes alleged. If they were actually convicted of SOMETHING in a court or a tribunal we probably wouldn't be having the discussion.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 05:46 PM
Preponderance of evidence isn't necessary for denial of bail. Sometimes it is simply risk of flight.

Having said that you missed my point. I made no allusion to anything close to that but merely carried AJ's flawed logic to a more obvious conclusion. These men were held for viable reasons. Whether or not the should have been tried or not is another discussion entirely.

This debacle of defending the decision with the bullshit that is flowing in DC is preposterous. Both sides have again turned a situation into a political football and it is disgusting.

Very true. Nothing is about the actual situation. It's all about political posturing. It's all a game to them. Gain the upper hand for the next election. 24 hour campaigning.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 05:47 PM
I'm not dismissing any possibility here, only the probability. If the threat from these five individuals is really so profound, hasty effort should have been made towards getting them out of the status of "detainee" where they could be used as bartering tools and locked away with the key lost in the closet through the portal in the land of Narnia. In a way, unconstrained detention is even worse when overwhelming evidence exists that an individual is guilty of the crimes alleged. If they were actually convicted of SOMETHING in a court or a tribunal we probably wouldn't be having the discussion.

You are dismissing the threat. And for the same reason the administration is doing so. I firmly believe that if these five had been convicted in a military tribunal your argument would be the same with an added caveat as to the illegality of such tribunals. Their status as detainees and how long they have been held is smoke.

The President made a decision. Fine, he should simply state so and live with (and be prepared to deal with) the aftermath.

BTW. The newest narrative is that Bergdahl is being 'Swiftboated'.

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 05:54 PM
You are dismissing the threat. And for the same reason the administration is doing so. I firmly believe that if these five had been convicted in a military tribunal your argument would be the same with an added caveat as to the illegality of such tribunals. Their status as detainees and how long they have been held is smoke.

The President made a decision. Fine, he should simply state so and live with (and be prepared to deal with) the aftermath.

BTW. The newest narrative is that Bergdahl is being 'Swiftboated'.

I guess maybe I am less concerned with the "threat" because I don't see a lot changing when these individuals get released to Qatar, I imagine our intelligence assets are probably chomping at the bits for them to try to rekindle old business if it exists because it would allow us to take down more than just one head of the Hydra beast.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, my concerns would be that they are being convicted as war criminals while not belonging officially to any nation state so yes I would have concerns about it, but I'm not ignorant to the realities of our current and I would prefer at least that to judiciary limbo.

As for the President, never his biggest fan but I am not quite certain what he "failed" to state in his public statements. Seems like he made his intentions well known at least for this issue.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 06:17 PM
I guess maybe I am less concerned with the "threat" because I don't see a lot changing when these individuals get released to Qatar, I imagine our intelligence assets are probably chomping at the bits for them to try to rekindle old business if it exists because it would allow us to take down more than just one head of the Hydra beast.

As far as the tribunal is concerned, my concerns would be that they are being convicted as war criminals while not belonging officially to any nation state so yes I would have concerns about it, but I'm not ignorant to the realities of our current and I would prefer at least that to judiciary limbo.

As for the President, never his biggest fan but I am not quite certain what he "failed" to state in his public statements. Seems like he made his intentions well known at least for this issue.

So now it isn't that there is an absence of a threat but an opportunity for an intelligence coup.

Ok,

Just to be more accurate perhaps I should say the President's representatives. Does that change the narrative?

AJBIGJ
06-04-2014, 06:31 PM
So now it isn't that there is an absence of a threat but an opportunity for an intelligence coup.

Ok,

Just to be more accurate perhaps I should say the President's representatives. Does that change the narrative?

I have no idea about the narrative, the current narrative interests me no more here than the narrative the current French President is using to demonize the affluent individuals migrating out of that country because they don't want to work 9 months a year for that government.

The only thing I am even relatively certain about is I don't trust any jackass who is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill from these five individuals being released to the government of Qatar, the remainder is speculation and heresay about the various possible outcomes based on the shoddy information we've been provided. The very worst possible outcome is Qatar lets them slip off their radar and they become exactly the threat they were (whatever precisely that was) when we caught them the first time. From the evidence presented, I personally rate that likelihood at less than the 2 percentile range.

garhkal
06-04-2014, 08:04 PM
It's kind of comical how the same people who rant about Obama not following the Constitution and consulting with Congress on this are the same ones who are upset that we released 5 prisoners who were being held without trial. I guess the Constitution is only a good thing when it benefits the people you like and hurts the people you don't.

Part of it for me, is cause those prisoners in Gitmo never swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Obama did, twice when he was sworn in.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 08:08 PM
Part of it for me, is cause those prisoners in Gitmo never swore an oath to uphold the constitution. Obama did, twice when he was sworn in.

There are several thousands of criminals in the U.S. who never swore to uphold the Constitution. Do they not deserve to be treated fairly?

So what should Obama do? Continue to hold them...unconstitutionally, or release them, in a trade for an American life, unconstitutionally?

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 08:18 PM
The dude wrote a letter renouncing his citizenship, IMO, he is no longer an American.

Measure Man
06-04-2014, 08:21 PM
It's kind of comical how the same people who rant about Obama not following the Constitution and consulting with Congress on this are the same ones who are upset that we released 5 prisoners who were being held without trial. I guess the Constitution is only a good thing when it benefits the people you like and hurts the people you don't.

Nice.

I've also noticed that the same people who stomp, "The Constitution does not grant rights, the Creator does. The Constitution only protects god-given rights."

are the same ones who say,

"We don't need to respect the rights of illegals, foreigners, etc. because they are not U.S. citizens"

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 08:29 PM
It's kind of comical how the same people who rant about Obama not following the Constitution and consulting with Congress on this are the same ones who are upset that we released 5 prisoners who were being held without trial. I guess the Constitution is only a good thing when it benefits the people you like and hurts the people you don't.

Not sure where the comedy fits in here, but the same clown Administration that has had over 5+ years to try these guys are the same people who bungled this. So the people "ranting" are entirely consistent in their position.

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 08:43 PM
The dude wrote a letter renouncing his citizenship, IMO, he is no longer an American.

Didn't see that...did he write it in the last few days? Or when he was being held captive?

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 08:53 PM
Didn't see that...did he write it in the last few days? Or when he was being held captive?

It was in the letter he left in camp right before he left.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/report-bowe-bergdahl-wrote-a-note-saying-he-wanted-to-renounce-his-american-citizenship/

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 09:01 PM
It was in the letter he left in camp right before he left.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/03/report-bowe-bergdahl-wrote-a-note-saying-he-wanted-to-renounce-his-american-citizenship/

I'll have to read it when I get home...can't open it here. Doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have been brought back.

grimreaper
06-04-2014, 09:18 PM
I'll have to read it when I get home...can't open it here. Doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have been brought back.

Should have or shouldn't have?

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 10:05 PM
Should have or shouldn't have?Sorry...doesn't change the fact that he should have been brought back.

And after reading that link, I'll say this...we don't know the intent or cause of that letter. There were many problems when I was a kid that I left notes saying I was going to run away. There were many instances I felt stressed during deployments and I was never in a combat situation. I have no idea what kind of emotions that could cause a person to express. It needs a trial. Maybe he was just blowing off steam. Maybe he was suicidal and was hoping he'd just get shot and killed. The reasons need to be found out before judgments are made.

RingLeader
06-04-2014, 10:27 PM
And he's also an American citizen...

Yes, he is my point was he was NOT a POW....

sandsjames
06-04-2014, 10:31 PM
Yes, he is my point was he was NOT a POW....

He was a member of the U.S. Army being held by an organization we have openly been at war with for more than a decade.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 10:47 PM
I have no idea about the narrative, the current narrative interests me no more here than the narrative the current French President is using to demonize the affluent individuals migrating out of that country because they don't want to work 9 months a year for that government.

The only thing I am even relatively certain about is I don't trust any jackass who is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill from these five individuals being released to the government of Qatar, the remainder is speculation and heresay about the various possible outcomes based on the shoddy information we've been provided. The very worst possible outcome is Qatar lets them slip off their radar and they become exactly the threat they were (whatever precisely that was) when we caught them the first time. From the evidence presented, I personally rate that likelihood at less than the 2 percentile range.

Mountain out a molehill.............absolutely agree.......too many unknowns.

Completely dismissing threat with same unknowns............equally bullshit.

How did you come to your 2 percent figure?

For the record I don't see anything in any of my posts exaggerating the threat these five pose. Making a mountain out of a molehill as you say.

Measure Man
06-04-2014, 10:51 PM
I'll have to read it when I get home...can't open it here. Doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have been brought back.

YOu won't be able to...the link does not have the letter. It is a Blaze writer saying he heard/saw a report from another reporter, who talked to some of his fellow soldiers...who said he wrote a letter that expressed a desire to renounce his citizeship.

There's a chance that a little bit of "Telephone" is going on here.

Although, many of the actual letters he wrote to his parents are pretty...uhm...what's the word? Consistent with the idea that he hates America and its Army.

TJMAC77SP
06-04-2014, 10:55 PM
YOu won't be able to...the link does not have the letter. It is a Blaze writer saying he heard/saw a report from another reporter, who talked to some of his fellow soldiers...who said he wrote a letter that expressed a desire to renounce his citizeship.

There's a chance that a little bit of "Telephone" is going on here.

Although, many of the actual letters he wrote to his parents are pretty...uhm...what's the word? Consistent with the idea that he hates America and its Army.

I agree, there seems to be some facts with other unsubstantiated 'facts' being added to the mix. The more I read of the communication (in fairness alleged communication) between him and his father there seems to have been a certain amount of mentoring him towards the action he took. If so, I can't help but wonder how that sits with the father. He seems a bit of an odd duck in any case. I saw one report last night of a campsite he has set up because he thinks that might be where his son wants to recover once he gets home. Maybe it is but I am not too sure the head docs would agree with that course of action.

Measure Man
06-04-2014, 11:07 PM
I agree, there seems to be some facts with other unsubstantiated 'facts' being added to the mix. The more I read of the communication (in fairness alleged communication) between him and his father there seems to have been a certain amount of mentoring him towards the action he took. If so, I can't help but wonder how that sits with the father. He seems a bit of an odd duck in any case. I saw one report last night of a campsite he has set up because he thinks that might be where his son wants to recover once he gets home. Maybe it is but I am not too sure the head docs would agree with that course of action.

His father does seem to be a bit of a nut-job.

Well, someone was saying that he was more or less "posing" as a sympathizer while his son was being detained in order to gain sympathy for him form his captors...but, I'm not so sure. He does seem to be carrying on, and some of the stuff was written before he was ever detained, so...

Measure Man
06-04-2014, 11:13 PM
I've never understood the protocol of releasing 10-20+ people for one person, especially people who we have grabbed on the FIELD of battle who fought against us, to get one of our own back. 1 for 1 i can see. But 20 to one? WTF over.

They released ALL of their captives...we only released like 2%

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 12:03 AM
They released ALL of their captives...we only released like 2%

Evidently the Taliban are holding a couple of other Americans (well one is also a Canadian...assuming he has dual citizenship). They aren't military though

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 12:04 AM
His father does seem to be a bit of a nut-job.

Well, someone was saying that he was more or less "posing" as a sympathizer while his son was being detained in order to gain sympathy for him form his captors...but, I'm not so sure. He does seem to be carrying on, and some of the stuff was written before he was ever detained, so...

Yeah, more to follow I imagine

grimreaper
06-05-2014, 12:43 AM
Sorry...doesn't change the fact that he should have been brought back.

And after reading that link, I'll say this...we don't know the intent or cause of that letter. There were many problems when I was a kid that I left notes saying I was going to run away. There were many instances I felt stressed during deployments and I was never in a combat situation. I have no idea what kind of emotions that could cause a person to express. It needs a trial. Maybe he was just blowing off steam. Maybe he was suicidal and was hoping he'd just get shot and killed. The reasons need to be found out before judgments are made.

On top of that, the Afghani interpreters with the U.S. heard chatter over the radios they were monitoring saying that they heard members of the Taliban saying they needed someone that could help them with English because they had an American soldier who wanted to join the Taliban. This is all documented on official forms according to members of his unit, so it they mysteriously go missing, the fix is in.

Yeah, so it's great that we brought him home. Can't say I'm going to be throwing a party for him, and since he is responsible for the deaths of the soldiers who were killed looking for him, I personally hope he spends the rest of his days in Leavenworth.

sandsjames
06-05-2014, 02:35 AM
On top of that, the Afghani interpreters with the U.S. heard chatter over the radios they were monitoring saying that they heard members of the Taliban saying they needed someone that could help them with English because they had an American soldier who wanted to join the Taliban. This is all documented on official forms according to members of his unit, so it they mysteriously go missing, the fix is in.

Yeah, so it's great that we brought him home. Can't say I'm going to be throwing a party for him, and since he is responsible for the deaths of the soldiers who were killed looking for him, I personally hope he spends the rest of his days in Leavenworth.

If that is the case then he absolutely should spend it at Leavenworth. We agree on that.

garhkal
06-05-2014, 06:41 AM
There are several thousands of criminals in the U.S. who never swore to uphold the Constitution. Do they not deserve to be treated fairly?

So what should Obama do? Continue to hold them...unconstitutionally, or release them, in a trade for an American life, unconstitutionally?

As far as those in jail go, they knew (or should have known) the laws that they broke existed. Same with obama, he knew the laws (have to alert congress 30 days prior and so on) but decided to ignore them.

As for Gitmo. I honestly don't know. We can try them in the states. We can release them, but many go back to being terrorists. We could execute them.


They released ALL of their captives...we only released like 2%
Care to prove that?

Slyoldawg
06-05-2014, 09:05 AM
I always thought that the word "Honor" meant the same thing to all Americans. The loud argument going on in the political world concerning whether this guy released by the Taliban is a "Hero" or a "Deserter" has been weighing on my mind and has me examining the word, "Honor"

Of course we won't know the facts until there is a court martial, if one is coming.

I have been reading the Air Force Times ever since I retired. Every week they list the KIA's The Wounded and The Missing. For the past five years they have listed this dude missing, as I understand, of his own accord. He simply walked off his post and according to the people he was serving with, to a man, they claimed he walked off of his own choice and every one of them that is brave enough to show their face on TV say the same thing, "He deserted" and he should be court-martialed!

I am not in a position to know the facts except what has been known about this guy for the past five years. He walked off his post in a combat zone during wartime. When I wore the uniform and during Vietnam that would have been "Desertion" and we'd do jail time. In WW II we'd have been shot by firing squad!

What really upsets me is that the soldiers who served with the man and know what he did are being vilified by some, while some are calling this man a hero who served his country well.

My point of is that I learned from this incident that "Honor" has different meanings to those of us who wore the uniform in defense of this country than it does to the people who never served a day. Today I watched a very young American UN spokesman poo poo the men who served with the absent soldier saying something like, "they don't have any idea about the subject!"

Believe me, if one of my squadron mates in Vietnam went across the wire looking for the other side and left word of what he was doing, I would have volunteered to be on his firing squad.

When I joined the Air Force very young, "Honor" was the last thing on my mind. Food, housing and clothing were the attractions of the military for me. Sometime during the 26 years I wore the uniform "Honor" started meaning something to me and slowly began to be the most important thing in my military and later civilian life. Nothing in this world brings tears to my eyes faster than watching our flag pass in a military parade for the "Honor" I had for serving that flag for 26 years. All the pay and allowances over the years do not match the honor I feel for having served that flag under conditions that lousy politicians created. What started off as duty and rewards in the beginning morphed into "Honor" for me during my service. I suppose serving in combat and under fire will do that to a person

When that "Honor" is blemished by a member of the military, for any reason, it should be a blow to the psyche of any member wearing the uniform of any branch, and only a clear investigation of what really occurred can ease the discomfort this man has caused by deserting his fellow soldiers and his post in a combat situation.

sandsjames
06-05-2014, 11:21 AM
As far as those in jail go, they knew (or should have known) the laws that they broke existed. Same with obama, he knew the laws (have to alert congress 30 days prior and so on) but decided to ignore them.

As for Gitmo. I honestly don't know. We can try them in the states. We can release them, but many go back to being terrorists. We could execute them. Execute them without trial? Not sure where that falls into any system we have, legal or military. The only thing that resembles is a war crime.

AJBIGJ
06-05-2014, 12:45 PM
For the record I don't see anything in any of my posts exaggerating the threat these five pose. Making a mountain out of a molehill as you say.

I was more referring to the Sean Hannity's of the world who seem to imply Armageddon is at our doorsteps, for the record. The 2% is a pure guesstimate based on the circumstances and the likelihood of five people who've been detained, some of whom for years. I'm sure via interrogations and other intelligence, we have a pretty good chance of keeping tabs on these guys even if Qatar grows complacent, deliberately or otherwise, in watching them after we've entrusted them into their custody (with potential repercussions for reneging on the agreement).

Not to even mention that I still don't trust that these guys are anywhere near as dangerous to the US and US interests as some would have us believe, and if they are it's criminally negligent that we didn't take them to trial right away.

People are free to speculate towards their own percentage, but if it's anywhere approaching or in excess of 50%, I'd say they're making mountains out of molehills.

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 03:37 PM
I was more referring to the Sean Hannity's of the world who seem to imply Armageddon is at our doorsteps, for the record. The 2% is a pure guesstimate based on the circumstances and the likelihood of five people who've been detained, some of whom for years. I'm sure via interrogations and other intelligence, we have a pretty good chance of keeping tabs on these guys even if Qatar grows complacent, deliberately or otherwise, in watching them after we've entrusted them into their custody (with potential repercussions for reneging on the agreement).

Not to even mention that I still don't trust that these guys are anywhere near as dangerous to the US and US interests as some would have us believe, and if they are it's criminally negligent that we didn't take them to trial right away.

People are free to speculate towards their own percentage, but if it's anywhere approaching or in excess of 50%, I'd say they're making mountains out of molehills.

I hadn't read any quotes from Hannity on this thread. I assumed since you didn't state so, that your remarks were aimed at posts, particularly since you quoted me when making that statement.

I understand your 2 percent was a completely fabricated number. I don’t understand how circumstances and the length of their incarceration are relevant though. Perhaps a better number would be 16-20 percent since that is the number of former detainees who are believed to have returned to the battlefield.


How exactly is it criminally negligent that they weren’t tried? What crime has been committed by not trying them? As to scheduling of any trials even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has yet to be fully tried and he has been formally charged.

AJBIGJ
06-05-2014, 04:01 PM
How exactly is it criminally negligent that they weren’t tried? What crime has been committed by not trying them? As to scheduling of any trials even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has yet to be fully tried and he has been formally charged.
You are a bit of an oversensitive narcissist sometimes, or at least you play one on the MTF. I won't hold that against you, I'm a fairly over-analytical narcissist myself.

Criminally negligent because if they are all that dangerous, those who fail to bring them to justice rapidly and use them as bargaining chips are almost as responsible as the individuals themselves for keeping them in a status of detention so they could barter them instead. I personally think any player in that decision has any blood that does get shed after the release is also on their hands. Essentially as an accessory to murder.

As far as the percentage numbers go, keep in mind, people seem to think these guys are somewhat dangerous in comparison to your average Jihad shouting, bomb strapped to the chest sort of terrorist. I don't imagine their post-release activities will be viewed with as much complacency from US Intelligence activties as your average detainee either. If they are just ignored post-release, we really do have a slew of incompetents in that organization.

sandsjames
06-05-2014, 04:14 PM
How exactly is it criminally negligent that they weren’t tried? What crime has been committed by not trying them? As to scheduling of any trials even Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has yet to be fully tried and he has been formally charged.There's a difference. Mohammed was charged. That means he can legally be held, pending trial. Once cannot, however, be held without being charged.

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 04:22 PM
You are a bit of an oversensitive narcissist sometimes, or at least you play one on the MTF. I won't hold that against you, I'm a fairly over-analytical narcissist myself.

Criminally negligent because if they are all that dangerous, those who fail to bring them to justice rapidly and use them as bargaining chips are almost as responsible as the individuals themselves for keeping them in a status of detention so they could barter them instead. I personally think any player in that decision has any blood that does get shed after the release is also on their hands. Essentially as an accessory to murder.

As far as the percentage numbers go, keep in mind, people seem to think these guys are somewhat dangerous in comparison to your average Jihad shouting, bomb strapped to the chest sort of terrorist. I don't imagine their post-release activities will be viewed with as much complacency from US Intelligence activties as your average detainee either. If they are just ignored post-release, we really do have a slew of incompetents in that organization.

Interesting assessment given the simple question which you quoted. Curious how you arrived at that assessment. Well, truthfully I am not. Oversensitive? Funny....there is an old smell creeping into your posts.

You are ignoring the incredible drama which has played out since GITMO was opened. Every single decision has been hammered by the left and the right. Everyone, including evidently you, has an idea of what should and shouldn't be done in a completely unprecedented situation. I still don't see what crime has been committed by the lack of trails.

The simple truth is that when all the bullshit discussed here is stripped away my original point stands. The administration chose to play words games with the world with regard to the trade for Bergdahl and is now paying the price. In fact Obama seems to have grasped that as his statement in Brussels today is the one that he and his officials should have stated on Saturday.

".....And as commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, I am responsible for those kids, and I get letters from parents who say, if you are, in fact, sending my child into war, make sure that that child is being taken care of. And I write too many letters to folks who, unfortunately, don’t see their children again after fighting a war. I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents and that the American people understand that this is somebody’s child and that we don’t condition whether or not we make the effort to try to get them back...."

Unfortunately his senior cabinet members and UN Ambassador didn't stick to that line. (The President ignored those statements in his remarks today).

Instead supporters have been forced to minimize any threat the five released pose in order to bolster and minimize blowback. Politics at its worst. Bullshit, pure bullshit.

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 04:24 PM
There's a difference. Mohammed was charged. That means he can legally be held, pending trial. Once cannot, however, be held without being charged.

Which is why GITMO was opened to begin with. If the detainees had been brought to the US they would have been subject to the US legal system. Granted there are plenty of arguments to be made for and against the DOJ opinions on that matter.

My point however was to simply point out that the trials of the detainees have been long delayed, even in the case of so obvious (and self admitted) a case as KSM.

CrustySMSgt
06-05-2014, 04:28 PM
I'll admit, I didn't read the 14 pages of responses lol

Been having a discussion about this on the CMSgt's FB page and I came up with a bit of a different angle on Bergdahl... there appears to be no doubt he walked off, but as far as his intent, that is still TBD. In that regard, he should be given access to the due process he's entitled to.

Most are calling him a deserter and saying he should have been left to rot. But most of us who have been in any amount of time have served with a few "special" folks who just ain't right in the head. They do and say things that make those they serve with scratch their head and wonder WTF is wrong with them. Given what has come out about his random statements about "going out walking" and all that, it sure sounds like he could be one of these oddballs. If that's the case and his intent wasn't to desert and join the Taliban (which doesn't seem likely as if this was the case they wouldn't have just kept him in captivity, they'd have exploited him and used him to carry out a high profile attack to highlight his defection) but just a hair brained scheme to go wander around Afghanistan on a vision quest, then, no matter how stupid an idea it was, it is our responsibility to recover him. If in the end, the investigation leads to him rotting in a cell in Kansas, so be it... to quote General McChrystal, "We Don’t Leave Americans Behind. That’s Unequivocal."

AJBIGJ
06-05-2014, 04:34 PM
The simple truth is that when all the bullshit discussed here is stripped away my original point stands. The administration chose to play words games with the world with regard to the trade for Bergdahl and is now paying the price. In fact Obama seems to have grasped that as his statement in Brussels today is the one that he and his officials should have stated on Saturday.


This was your original point? I don't dispute anything here with the politics involved. It is what it is, and I've certainly seen worse at the very least from this Administration as well as the opposition to it.

My point was this is a molehill, not a mountain, and I'm pretty sure it is also what we were discussing in the first place.

AJBIGJ
06-05-2014, 04:36 PM
Which is why GITMO was opened to begin with. If the detainees had been brought to the US they would have been subject to the US legal system. Granted there are plenty of arguments to be made for and against the DOJ opinions on that matter.

My point however was to simply point out that the trials of the detainees have been long delayed, even in the case of so obvious (and self admitted) a case as KSM.

To this in particular, yes, GITMO is a convenient excuse to do inexcusable things all in the name of war. GITMO is a blight on our history that we still tolerate for some reason I will never understand nor attempt to rationalize.

Measure Man
06-05-2014, 05:27 PM
Care to prove that?

1/1=100%

5/149= 3.3%

I was a little off...it was just an estimate.

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 06:39 PM
To this in particular, yes, GITMO is a convenient excuse to do inexcusable things all in the name of war. GITMO is a blight on our history that we still tolerate for some reason I will never understand nor attempt to rationalize.

No argument. In the interest of full disclosure though I cannot offer a viable alternative for the events as they occurred in 2001.

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 06:54 PM
This was your original point? I don't dispute anything here with the politics involved. It is what it is, and I've certainly seen worse at the very least from this Administration as well as the opposition to it.

My point was this is a molehill, not a mountain, and I'm pretty sure it is also what we were discussing in the first place.

The molehill – mountain analogy is your creation. With regard to my original post on this particular subject matter it was in response to your post………..


………………………If it took five mid-level detainees who allegedly had some ties or even at the head of terrorists or terrorist activities, maybe at the second or third degree, so be it. They are to be returned to a nation state under supervision, not the Taliban, which is not itself a "State". If Qatar wants to risk giving them free reign and potentially subject their cities and populaces to targeted drone strikes, well that's their decision……..

I take exception of your attempt to minimize the potential threat of the five released. Particularly since it seemed you haven’t read anything on their background and misstated their current conditions in Qatar (they are free to move about the country unhindered and there doesn’t seem to be any oversight about who they meet with at all).

This mindset is in line with the agenda which the administration attempted to foist upon the country over the weekend and early in the week. An agenda which now seems to have been abandoned (although not surprisingly not retracted)

In response to your post I answered……………..


Not to disagree with the point that it is good news to get a US soldier held captive released these five are hardly midlevel and I think we can dispense with 'alleged'. We aren't in a court of law and facts are facts.

Except for offhandedly dismissing the information in the files (which were never intended to be made public) outright as tripe and being produced by incompetents you offer no viable defense of your position that these men do not present a threat. Admittedly you walked back a little by offering that they will surely be under observation by US Intellligence. Bottom line is that it is disingenuous to attempt to minimize the potential threat. Particularly if it seems this is offered in support of some particular agenda. When you resort to insults, the discussion is pretty much over.

There is a lot of bullshit flowing out of DC this week. I am particularly disgusted with attempts to convict Berdahl (ahead of any formal charges) and vilify his father for “looking Muslim”. As bad as that is, the old adage ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ keep floating around in my oversensitive mind.

sandsjames
06-05-2014, 07:03 PM
As bad as that is, the old adage ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ keep floating around in my oversensitive mind.

Absolutely...which is exactly what leaving an American to die because he MAY have deserted would be. As would continuing to hold prisoners without charging them because they MAY hurt us later.

AJBIGJ
06-05-2014, 07:44 PM
There is a lot of bullshit flowing out of DC this week. I am particularly disgusted with attempts to convict Berdahl (ahead of any formal charges) and vilify his father for “looking Muslim”. As bad as that is, the old adage ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’ keep floating around in my oversensitive mind.

If that's the case it's purely coincidental if it sounds similar to my arguments and has very little to do with my own opinions on the matter. Yes I believed (and still do) that at worst these are probably mid-level cronies and probably scapegoats for the Taliban and its ills. It doesn't seem pragmatic to take someone you know to be dangerous, keep them detained for years without trial, then trade them off like they're insignificant for one US Soldier (latest gouge I'm hearing is the administration was about ready to release them anyways, without the tradeoff being taken into consideration).

The fact is, I'm pretty skeptical of a lot of the information that gets fed to us via the media and the government these days. I trust VERY little of it at first glance. Especially where detainees are taken into consideration. Because absolutely everything stated about them is alleged, nothing of which is considered "factual" until it gets drawn out in the court process. What you call "minimizing" I refer to as, "not getting overly emotional over the demagoguery and stepping back to analyze". This is because I do think there's way too much fear out there and the media goes right for the jugular every chance it gets.

On another note, if you want to consider the playfully applied classification of "oversensitive narcissist" to be an insult, especially when I apply a similar one towards myself in literally the same sentences, it is probably a good time for some retrospection to wonder if the shoe fits...

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 08:24 PM
If that's the case it's purely coincidental if it sounds similar to my arguments and has very little to do with my own opinions on the matter. Yes I believed (and still do) that at worst these are probably mid-level cronies and probably scapegoats for the Taliban and its ills. It doesn't seem pragmatic to take someone you know to be dangerous, keep them detained for years without trial, then trade them off like they're insignificant for one US Soldier (latest gouge I'm hearing is the administration was about ready to release them anyways, without the tradeoff being taken into consideration).

The fact is, I'm pretty skeptical of a lot of the information that gets fed to us via the media and the government these days. I trust VERY little of it at first glance. Especially where detainees are taken into consideration. Because absolutely everything stated about them is alleged, nothing of which is considered "factual" until it gets drawn out in the court process. What you call "minimizing" I refer to as, "not getting overly emotional over the demagoguery and stepping back to analyze". This is because I do think there's way too much fear out there and the media goes right for the jugular every chance it gets.

On another note, if you want to consider the playfully applied classification of "oversensitive narcissist" to be an insult, especially when I apply a similar one towards myself in literally the same sentences, it is probably a good time for some retrospection to wonder if the shoe fits...

But I noticed that you aren't over-sensitive but over-analytical. Not quite the same. I would label you transparent at this point.

And playfully. Sorry, bullshit flag thrown. It was intended as an insult. Perhaps a 'playful' insult (whatever that my be) but I simply saw it as an acknowledgement that your arguments are without much merit and you realized this.

It is intellectually specious to dismiss any information provided by the government merely because it has been provided by the government. You can say you are skeptical but in reality you dismiss outright the information on these particular detainees as 'tripe'.

My posts have hardly been 'overly emotional' and anything Hannity (or any other pundit) has nothing to do with our posts.......or this discussion. If your point was to refer to their words you should have said so prior to quoting my post and inserting those words (and emotions).

TJMAC77SP
06-05-2014, 08:30 PM
Absolutely...which is exactly what leaving an American to die because he MAY have deserted would be. As would continuing to hold prisoners without charging them because they MAY hurt us later.

I am a bit confused. Do you think we are on different sides of this question?

I think lumping the two situations together is over-simplifying the issue but I don't think we are disagreeing.

I do believe the GITMO situation and what led to its creation is very complex and without simple answers. I have noticed that no alternative solutions have ever been offered. What would we charge these detainees with.........waging armed conflict on the US? That isn't really a crime. Anyway, that is a completely separate discussion.

grimreaper
06-05-2014, 10:19 PM
http://www.westernjournalism.com/bergdahls-former-squad-leader-totally-deserted/

sandsjames
06-05-2014, 10:39 PM
I am a bit confused. Do you think we are on different sides of this question?



???? No...why?

TJMAC77SP
06-06-2014, 12:02 AM
???? No...why?

As I said, I was confused. Now I'm not. Perhaps I was being overly sensitive.

THAT was playful.............

sandsjames
06-06-2014, 12:20 AM
As I said, I was confused. Now I'm not. Perhaps I was being overly sensitive.

THAT was playful.............

Probably my fault. In a forum, all posts made in agreement should start with "I agree" because generally people only respond if they are arguing.

TJMAC77SP
06-06-2014, 12:46 AM
Probably my fault. In a forum, all posts made in agreement should start with "I agree" because generally people only respond if they are arguing.

Good point.........

garhkal
06-06-2014, 07:46 PM
I am a bit confused. Do you think we are on different sides of this question?

I think lumping the two situations together is over-simplifying the issue but I don't think we are disagreeing.

I do believe the GITMO situation and what led to its creation is very complex and without simple answers. I have noticed that no alternative solutions have ever been offered. What would we charge these detainees with.........waging armed conflict on the US? That isn't really a crime. Anyway, that is a completely separate discussion.

Exactly. Can we even charge them with armed conflict? What about committing acts of murder (troops and civilians they kill)?

TJMAC77SP
06-07-2014, 05:33 AM
Exactly. Can we even charge them with armed conflict? What about committing acts of murder (troops and civilians they kill)?

The fact (ignored by many for it is WAY to inconvenient) is that a unique situation presented itself with the conflict in Afghanistan and the capture of both Taliban and AQ fighters. Along with the certain bankruptcy of social security and Medicare (which NO BODY says won't happen) is the complete lack of alternative solutions to an real and ongoing problem.

sandsjames
06-07-2014, 12:36 PM
The fact (ignored by many for it is WAY to inconvenient) is that a unique situation presented itself with the conflict in Afghanistan and the capture of both Taliban and AQ fighters. Along with the certain bankruptcy of social security and Medicare (which NO BODY says won't happen) is the complete lack of alternative solutions to an real and ongoing problem.

The solution is that we try them...well...first we charge them, if we have something to charge them with, then try them...and go from there.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 02:22 PM
When wars end prisoners are typically sent home. Our fight with the Taliban is unconventional in many ways, but I don't have a problem sending them home if we are going to stop fighting.

I'm baffled as to why TJMAC77SP wants to give the Taliban social security and Medicare.

TJMAC77SP
06-07-2014, 08:23 PM
When wars end prisoners are typically sent home. Our fight with the Taliban is unconventional in many ways, but I don't have a problem sending them home if we are going to stop fighting.

I'm baffled as to why TJMAC77SP wants to give the Taliban social security and Medicare.

Sorry, I missed the joke there AA. Can you 'splain it to me.

TJMAC77SP
06-07-2014, 08:39 PM
The solution is that we try them...well...first we charge them, if we have something to charge them with, then try them...and go from there.

Here is the unique situation. We faced an organized armed group (the Taliban) who conducted (and continues to conduct) open warfare(and supported terrorist operations) against the US. Even though we did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan they nonetheless fit all the other attributes of an armed enemy of the US. We captured many of them and exploited them for intelligence. They have been assessed (perhaps due to their own declarations) as a continued threat to the US (as in they would likely take up arms against the US again). In any other conflict, declared war or not prisoners are held until the conflict is over and then repatriated. The conflict is not over and therefore it seems silly to release those who seem determined to return to the battlefield now.

They are POWs but they are not POWs. It is a unique situation that, as far as I can tell is unprecedented in our history. Mistakes were made, to be sure but obviously something (or many such things) has prevented President Obama from closing Gitmo as was his campaign promise and the first order he signed upon taking the oath of office.

retiredAFcivvy
06-07-2014, 09:21 PM
Sorry, I missed the joke there AA. Can you 'splain it to me.
I think he was trying to tie together your comment about both the capture of taliban and Social Security when you were actually showing that both are problems the Goverment doesn't have alternative solutions for.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-07-2014, 09:23 PM
Sorry, I missed the joke there AA. Can you 'splain it to me.

I thought it was odd that you used Social Security and Medicare to illustrate a point about the Taliban.

Of course I realize you were not suggesting giving it to the Taliban.

As far as releasing those five guys, they would have very likely been sent back in a year anyway. Why not use them as a bargaining chip while they still have some value?

The only aspect of the Bergdahl exchange that pisses me off was that ceremony in the Rose Garden, given the circumstances of Bergdahl's capture.

I have no problem with the Obama Administration cutting a deal to get him returned, but they shouldn't have had that affair in the Rose Garden as if Bergdahl was a returning hero.

Obama should have just met with the parents privately, given the circumstances.

There is an abundance of evidence that indicates that Bergdahl deserted and his return should not have been depicted as it was in that ceremony.

Even after six years in the White House it still seems like amateurs are running the show.

sandsjames
06-07-2014, 09:51 PM
Here is the unique situation. We faced an organized armed group (the Taliban) who conducted (and continues to conduct) open warfare(and supported terrorist operations) against the US. Even though we did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan they nonetheless fit all the other attributes of an armed enemy of the US. We captured many of them and exploited them for intelligence. They have been assessed (perhaps due to their own declarations) as a continued threat to the US (as in they would likely take up arms against the US again). In any other conflict, declared war or not prisoners are held until the conflict is over and then repatriated. The conflict is not over and therefore it seems silly to release those who seem determined to return to the battlefield now.

They are POWs but they are not POWs. It is a unique situation that, as far as I can tell is unprecedented in our history. Mistakes were made, to be sure but obviously something (or many such things) has prevented President Obama from closing Gitmo as was his campaign promise and the first order he signed upon taking the oath of office.

Either they are POWs and the switch made to get our soldier back is something that's all to common or they are not POWs, which means they are being held as criminals...without charges...without trial...so releasing them is the only option. We were smart enough to at least get something back out of releasing them. The fact that it's a unique situation doesn't all the sudden introduce a 3rd option.

grimreaper
06-07-2014, 11:16 PM
Either they are POWs and the switch made to get our soldier back is something that's all to common or they are not POWs, which means they are being held as criminals...without charges...without trial...so releasing them is the only option. We were smart enough to at least get something back out of releasing them. The fact that it's a unique situation doesn't all the sudden introduce a 3rd option.

Why is releasing them the only option? It really is quite easy. Declare them POWs and since we are still engaged in open conflict with the Taliban, they can be held until a ceasefire or some other agreement is reached. AND, given we know the background of these individuals, they could also be tried for war crimes, just as the Nazi's were.

And why did it necessarily have to be these 5? These 5 were considered to be more of the senior hardcore type who were talked about before, which both the Pentagon and Intel communities said we should not release. It wasn't until this time, where the White House overrode those recommendations that these 5 could all the sudden be released.

sandsjames
06-08-2014, 12:01 PM
Why is releasing them the only option? It really is quite easy. Declare them POWs and since we are still engaged in open conflict with the Taliban, they can be held until a ceasefire or some other agreement is reached. AND, given we know the background of these individuals, they could also be tried for war crimes, just as the Nazi's were.

And why did it necessarily have to be these 5? These 5 were considered to be more of the senior hardcore type who were talked about before, which both the Pentagon and Intel communities said we should not release. It wasn't until this time, where the White House overrode those recommendations that these 5 could all the sudden be released.


My point exactly. If they are POWs then there shouldn't be an issue with making a trade for our POW, which is what happened. The only issue should be, as you mentioned, the number of POWs we traded for ours. How many is too many? Pretty subjective question.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 01:00 PM
My point exactly. If they are POWs then there shouldn't be an issue with making a trade for our POW, which is what happened. The only issue should be, as you mentioned, the number of POWs we traded for ours. How many is too many? Pretty subjective question.

That is decided in the course of the negotiation and it depends upon which side is the better negotiator and more importantly, who has the most leverage.

There is no clear cut formula for such things.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 03:04 PM
Either they are POWs and the switch made to get our soldier back is something that's all to common or they are not POWs, which means they are being held as criminals...without charges...without trial...so releasing them is the only option. We were smart enough to at least get something back out of releasing them. The fact that it's a unique situation doesn't all the sudden introduce a 3rd option.

But as I already said some of the detainees have not committed a crime under US law so that means they are not being held as criminals.

A bit of circular discussion we have going here isn't it?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 03:20 PM
This is clearly one of those issues that the uninformed get upset over. They hear a sound bite on the AM radio or on MSNBC, take it out of context, and start clamoring for a politician's head.

Perhaps it isn't as bad as believing that there are multitudes of people getting rich from food stamps fraud, but it is in the same ball park.

It is exactly why the talking heads at MSNBC and FNC are able to manipulate the emotions of millions of people.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 04:17 PM
I thought it was odd that you used Social Security and Medicare to illustrate a point about the Taliban.

Of course I realize you were not suggesting giving it to the Taliban.

As far as releasing those five guys, they would have very likely been sent back in a year anyway. Why not use them as a bargaining chip while they still have some value?

The only aspect of the Bergdahl exchange that pisses me off was that ceremony in the Rose Garden, given the circumstances of Bergdahl's capture.

I have no problem with the Obama Administration cutting a deal to get him returned, but they shouldn't have had that affair in the Rose Garden as if Bergdahl was a returning hero.

Obama should have just met with the parents privately, given the circumstances.

There is an abundance of evidence that indicates that Bergdahl deserted and his return should not have been depicted as it was in that ceremony.

Even after six years in the White House it still seems like amateurs are running the show.

I don’t know why you think it odd. It isn’t as if I made a direct correlation between Social Security /Medicare and the Taliban (more specifically the five senior Taliban members traded) but rather provide them as two examples of people ignoring and/or minimizing a potential problem in furtherance of a political agenda. Not sure what was odd there.

(my post)..."The fact (ignored by many for it is WAY to inconvenient) is that a unique situation presented itself with the conflict in Afghanistan and the capture of both Taliban and AQ fighters. Along with the certain bankruptcy of social security and Medicare (which NO BODY says won't happen) is the complete lack of alternative solutions to an real and ongoing problem."

There also doesn’t seem to be any disagreement between what you are saying and what I am saying.
Good point about the Rose Garden event. Obama is probably already regretting it. Of course as I already have stated both sides have a lot to be regretful of in this debacle.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 04:22 PM
This is clearly one of those issues that the uninformed get upset over. They hear a sound bite on the AM radio or on MSNBC, take it out of context, and start clamoring for a politician's head.

Perhaps it isn't as bad as believing that there are multitudes of people getting rich from food stamps fraud, but it is in the same ball park.

It is exactly why the talking heads at MSNBC and FNC are able to manipulate the emotions of millions of people.

Good point. I always cringe when someone I care for parrots back some sound bite that is without factual backing. Just before the last election my mother was telling me that although she generally likes Mitt Romney (she lives in MA and thought he did a good job as Governor) she didn't think she could vote of him because he just didn't seem to "be able to relate to the average person" and that he "wanted to do away with Social Security as we know it". I just cringed and said ok.

sandsjames
06-08-2014, 04:37 PM
But as I already said some of the detainees have not committed a crime under US law so that means they are not being held as criminals.

A bit of circular discussion we have going here isn't it?

If they are not being held as criminals then they are being held as POWs...if it's not of the above then it's that they are being held illegally.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 06:18 PM
If they are not being held as criminals then they are being held as POWs...if it's not of the above then it's that they are being held illegally.

Well, the Bush DOJ issued a series of memos which stated.

1. They are not subject to POW status

2. Their incarceration is legal.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that US courts have jurisdiction (Rasul v. Bush) and the detainees have the right to habeas corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. Bush) Gitmo is still open and still holding detainees so it seems it is indeed a complicated issue.

I am not arguing whether it is moral one way or the other but I will say emphatically that from a purely practical standpoint their detention was a smart thing to do when it was done.

sandsjames
06-08-2014, 06:28 PM
Well, the Bush DOJ issued a series of memos which stated.

1. They are not subject to POW status

2. Their incarceration is legal.

While the Supreme Court has ruled that US courts have jurisdiction (Rasul v. Bush) and the detainees have the right to habeas corpus (Boumediene v. Bush and Al Odah v. Bush) Gitmo is still open and still holding detainees so it seems it is indeed a complicated issue.

I am not arguing whether it is moral one way or the other but I will say emphatically that from a purely practical standpoint their detention was a smart thing to do when it was done.

If illegal is smart then I suppose so...

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 06:57 PM
Their exact legal status is a bit hazy in my opinion, but the authority they are being held under stems from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a law passed within days of the 9/11 attacks.

Here is a Washington Post article that briefly talks about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/afghan-wars-approaching-end-throws-legal-status-of-guantanamo-detainees-into-doubt/2013/10/18/758be516-2d0a-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html

I don't think the swap was a bad idea, and as long as Bergdahl is held accountable for his actions under the UCMJ, I don't see what the fuss is about.

The politicians raising a fuss over the exchange are doing it primarily for political posturing for the next election.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 08:29 PM
Their exact legal status is a bit hazy in my opinion, but the authority they are being held under stems from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, a law passed within days of the 9/11 attacks.

Here is a Washington Post article that briefly talks about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/afghan-wars-approaching-end-throws-legal-status-of-guantanamo-detainees-into-doubt/2013/10/18/758be516-2d0a-11e3-97a3-ff2758228523_story.html

I don't think the swap was a bad idea, and as long as Bergdahl is held accountable for his actions under the UCMJ, I don't see what the fuss is about.

The politicians raising a fuss over the exchange are doing it primarily for political posturing for the next election.

Oh, you are absolutely right. They are as wrong as the SECDEF, WH Press Secretary and Amb Rice were in their statements.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 08:31 PM
the MTF is still messed up

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 08:32 PM
If illegal is smart then I suppose so...



What was the alternative to their capture (given the circumstances the existed when they were captured)?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 08:33 PM
Oh, you are absolutely right. They are as wrong as the SECDEF, WH Press Secretary and Amb Rice were in their statements.


Who is "they"?

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 08:36 PM
Who is "they"?

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

"The politicians raising a fuss over the exchange are doing it primarily for political posturing for the next election"

garhkal
06-08-2014, 08:38 PM
One of the things i would LOVE to see answered is Whom and Why told those soldiers in Bergdahl's unit to sign NDAs?

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 08:40 PM
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh

"The politicians raising a fuss over the exchange are doing it primarily for political posturing for the next election"

Sorry, I should have been able to follow that.

TJMAC77SP
06-08-2014, 09:31 PM
One of the things i would LOVE to see answered is Whom and Why told those soldiers in Bergdahl's unit to sign NDAs?

I don't have absolute facts but I did hear one account that it was to keep Bergdahl safer. If true, it is a reasonable action. Were he to be perceived as useless because he was 'tainted' he might have become another beheading on video.

Bottom line....at this point I don't think there was some cover up conspiracy.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 09:53 PM
I don't have absolute facts but I did hear one account that it was to keep Bergdahl safer. If true, it is a reasonable action. Were he to be perceived as useless because he was 'tainted' he might have become another beheading on video.

Bottom line....at this point I don't think there was some cover up conspiracy.

That's more than plausible...

sandsjames
06-08-2014, 11:16 PM
What was the alternative to their capture (given the circumstances the existed when they were captured)?There was no alternative...but there were alternatives after their capture.

1. Call the POWs
2. Call them criminals/terrorists, charge them, try them...

If they are POWs then quit bitching about making a POW trade for one of our own as has been done many times

If they are criminals and get convicted then put them in prison. If not then they must be released.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-08-2014, 11:31 PM
There was no alternative...but there were alternatives after their capture.

1. Call the POWs
2. Call them criminals/terrorists, charge them, try them...

If they are POWs then quit bitching about making a POW trade for one of our own as has been done many times

If they are criminals and get convicted then put them in prison. If not then they must be released.

I'm not sure what you guys mean that there was no alternative to their capture.

If you think they surrendered on the battlefield WWII style, that's not how the vast majority of the GITMO detainees were rounded up.

Most of the HVT's were nabbed in specifically targeted raids and most of the lower value guys were captured by Pakistani bounty hunters and turned over to the US.

So I'd say in the vast majority of cases there was ample opportunity not to take them into custody.

Very unlike WWII when the enemy troops surrendered and US troops were bound by LOAC to take them into custody.

In addition, you guys are aware that most of the detainees we had at GITMO have already been released with no charges.

grimreaper
06-09-2014, 01:01 AM
Yes, the detainees at Gitmo should be classified as POW's under Article 4, category 3 of the Geneva Conventions

"3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."

However, what went down here should not be considered a POW exchange as Bergdahl was never actually classified as a POW.

Referring to him as a POW diminishes the respect owed to those who actually were POW's and endured indescribable torture at the hands of their captors. Bergdahl left his post on his own accord and actively sought out the Taliban.

Is it good that we got him back, at least for his family's sake? Sure, but more so, it was good that he was brought back to answer for his actions that led to the deaths of his fellow soldiers.

Good to have him back? Sure, but POW he was not.

TJMAC77SP
06-09-2014, 02:01 AM
I'm not sure what you guys mean that there was no alternative to their capture.

If you think they surrendered on the battlefield WWII style, that's not how the vast majority of the GITMO detainees were rounded up.

Most of the HVT's were nabbed in specifically targeted raids and most of the lower value guys were captured by Pakistani bounty hunters and turned over to the US.

So I'd say in the vast majority of cases there was ample opportunity not to take them into custody.

Very unlike WWII when the enemy troops surrendered and US troops were bound by LOAC to take them into custody.

In addition, you guys are aware that most of the detainees we had at GITMO have already been released with no charges.

I assume by you guys you mean SJ and myself. I can't speak for SJ but I am aware of how they were captured. In fact four of the five released either arranged for their own surrender and the fifth was arrested by Pakistani Border Police after making overtures to Karzai and his newly forming government.

By 'no alternative to their capture' perhaps I would have been clearer saying no alternative to their detention.

garhkal
06-09-2014, 06:14 AM
I don't have absolute facts but I did hear one account that it was to keep Bergdahl safer. If true, it is a reasonable action. Were he to be perceived as useless because he was 'tainted' he might have become another beheading on video.

Bottom line....at this point I don't think there was some cover up conspiracy.

Why would their 'silence' about how he was captured etc be something that would keep him safer?

grimreaper
06-09-2014, 08:04 AM
Why would their 'silence' about how he was captured etc be something that would keep him safer?

That was just one of several different excuses we're now being fed about how we absolutely had to do this now, even though we've known his whereabouts for nearly the entire time he's been "missing".

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 11:21 AM
I'm not sure what you guys mean that there was no alternative to their capture.

If you think they surrendered on the battlefield WWII style, that's not how the vast majority of the GITMO detainees were rounded up.

Most of the HVT's were nabbed in specifically targeted raids and most of the lower value guys were captured by Pakistani bounty hunters and turned over to the US.

So I'd say in the vast majority of cases there was ample opportunity not to take them into custody.

Very unlike WWII when the enemy troops surrendered and US troops were bound by LOAC to take them into custody.

In addition, you guys are aware that most of the detainees we had at GITMO have already been released with no charges.

1. Yes, aware that there was alternative to capturing them, but am discussing the options after their capture.

B. Yes, aware that many have been released with no hoopla.

TJMAC77SP
06-09-2014, 02:09 PM
Why would their 'silence' about how he was captured etc be something that would keep him safer?

I can only guess but one possible answer was in my post. I am just not jumping to a conclusion that there was some cover up to protect Big Army.


...Were he to be perceived as useless because he was 'tainted' he might have become another beheading on video.....

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 02:48 PM
I can only guess but one possible answer was in my post. I am just not jumping to a conclusion that there was some cover up to protect Big Army.

I think you are basically right. Clamping down on what the members of his unit were saying to the press was the prudent thing to do. It was complicated enough, and the more information out there about his capture could only make things even that more difficult, for both Bergdahl and the Army.

I think that anyone who was in charge of the effort to get Bergdahl back would have demanded that those guys keep their mouths shut.

That Rolling Stone article a few years back had already put the gist of the story that he had deserted out there in the first place.

There was an embedded reporter from Rolling Stone in that unit at the time this happened, so the information was already out there.

Keeping his squad mates from making statements to the press, and giving interviews was reasonable. Why provide the Taliban with even more information?

garhkal
06-09-2014, 08:48 PM
That was just one of several different excuses we're now being fed about how we absolutely had to do this now, even though we've known his whereabouts for nearly the entire time he's been "missing".

Which to me IS indicative of some sort of cover up.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 08:59 PM
Which to me IS indicative of some sort of cover up.

Cover up of what? For what purpose?

garhkal
06-09-2014, 09:03 PM
Cover up that they KNEW he was a deserter. Who knows.

sandsjames
06-09-2014, 09:11 PM
Cover up that they KNEW he was a deserter. Who knows.

Even if he was a deserter, I'm not sure why they would feel the need to cover that up. Really should play no part in whether we wanted him back or not.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-09-2014, 09:39 PM
Which to me IS indicative of some sort of cover up.

If the Army was covering something up, then why were they allowing embedded reporters in his unit?

A reporter from Rolling Stone magazine wrote a lengthy article on Bergdahl based on his time with the unit.

The Army did clamp down on the soldiers talking to the press eventually, but the story that he willingly left his post got out a long time ago.

If you were being held captive by the Taliban, regardless of the circumstances of your capture, would you want details about you leaking out into the press for the Taliban to read?

If you were in charge of operations to recover a captured soldier, would you want soldiers from the captive's unit making unrestricted comments to the press?

Are you being obtuse on purpose?

If so, I am in great envy of your trolling abilities, you make me look like I'm running backwards.

grimreaper
06-10-2014, 12:15 AM
Cover up of what? For what purpose?

Don't know if it's a cover up or what purpose one would've served, but even Dianne Feinstein is saying the Admin's excuse is a bunch of BS. Again, it was a PR stunt that has blown up in O's face. Nothing to really cover up, but the reasons we were given look to have been made up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/dianne-feinstein-bergdahl-no-threat-107526.html

Max Power
06-10-2014, 03:38 AM
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/50439592.jpg

grimreaper
06-10-2014, 04:35 AM
"The administration is trying to find reasons to justify the exchange other than saying it made a bad deal but had an obligation 'to spring this last guy'. Kerry and the others should try telling the truth, you know, it’s easier to memorize.” -Charles Krauthammer

CORNELIUSSEON
06-13-2014, 10:36 PM
Well we've negotiated with the Taliban to secure the release of Bowe Bergdahl, good for him, bad for the future? Is this a good thing or have we opened a Pandora's Box? Will it be safe to travel anywhere as an American overseas? Thoughts?

In the first place, we have always negotiated with our adversaries from the start of the Union until today. After all, you cannot expect them to pay any attention to you when you don't even agree that they exist.

In the second place, it is much more important that we retrieve all of our MIA's than it is to show their captors our backside.

As to finding out just how this guy became an MIA, the time for that will come after we get him back, get him medically and psychically sound, reintegrate him into American society, and THEN find out what it is he did wrong (if anything).

I find it interesting that Senator mcCain himself is calling for people to shut up on accusing him until we find out all the facts. He is totally right when he says that Captives have NO control over what they write or say while they are in captivity.

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 12:17 AM
In the first place, we have always negotiated with our adversaries from the start of the Union until today. After all, you cannot expect them to pay any attention to you when you don't even agree that they exist.

In the second place, it is much more important that we retrieve all of our MIA's than it is to show their captors our backside.

As to finding out just how this guy became an MIA, the time for that will come after we get him back, get him medically and psychically sound, reintegrate him into American society, and THEN find out what it is he did wrong (if anything).

I find it interesting that Senator mcCain himself is calling for people to shut up on accusing him until we find out all the facts. He is totally right when he says that Captives have NO control over what they write or say while they are in captivity.

Why would you find those comments by McCain interesting? Not sure what you meant by 'interesting' but given his own history I would be surprised if he said anything but that.

What I did find interesting was the accusation that McCain had 'flip-flopped' on his position on the matter.

His earlier statement was that he did no oppose to the swapping of (unnamed) Taliban detainees for Bergdahl.

His statements after condemn the swap for the specified Taliban members.

How is that a flip flop.



i.e.

Statement one: I would not be opposed to paying a reasonable price for that 2009 Dodge Durango.

Statement two: I absolutely think that paying $50 thousand dollars for that 2009 Dodge Durango is not a good deal.

Is that a flip-flop?

CORNELIUSSEON
06-14-2014, 05:32 PM
My point is that - whereas McCain has been parroting "Teaspeak" on other occasions, I find it interesting that he finally spoke the truth when it came to the one subject he is almost uniquely qualified to speak on: "POW Captivity". McCain was shot down and incarcerated in the Hanoi Hilton three months before I arrived in Qui Nhon, Vietnam, and he wasn't repatriated until 1973. As I recall my SEER training, I was told to say whatever my captors wanted me to say, with the exception of data I knew was Classified (I was told to say "I have no knowledge of that area", or something to that effect.), and I was told that I would get to correct the record when I got back. So, I cheered mcCain on when he told the public to shut up on wanting to punish the Sergeant until he got the opportunity to clear the record upon his return to duty.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 05:34 PM
My point is that - whereas McCain has been parroting "Teaspeak" on other occasions, I find it interesting that he finally spoke the truth when it came to the one subject he is almost uniquely qualified to speak on: "POW Captivity".

So you don't believe he thinks he's speaking the truth on the other stuff? What you meant to say was "He finally said something I agree with".

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 05:56 PM
So you don't believe he thinks he's speaking the truth on the other stuff? What you meant to say was "He finally said something I agree with".

You absolutely nailed it!

I'd like to also point out that Cornelius' contention that John McCain speaks Tea-Speak" is inaccurate. Senator McCain is not liked by the Tea Party at all.

The Tea Party calls McCain part of the Republican establishment and they actually came up with the slogan, "Hold your nose and vote for McCain" during the 2008 elections.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 06:21 PM
You absolutely nailed it!

I'd like to also point out that Cornelius' contention that John McCain speaks Tea-Speak" is inaccurate. Senator McCain is not liked by the Tea Party at all.

The Tea Party calls McCain part of the Republican establishment and they actually came up with the slogan, "Hold your nose and vote for McCain" during the 2008 elections.

Indeed he is not. Most uneducated people relate the tea party to the GOP. You are astute to point out they are different entities.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 06:26 PM
Most uneducated people relate the tea party to the GOP.

You've gotta be joking....

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 06:30 PM
You've gotta be joking....

The Tea Party doesn't like McCain, they think he is too liberal.

And John McCain doesn't like the Tea Party either.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/john-mccain-tea-party/

CORNELIUSSEON
06-14-2014, 06:36 PM
I meant what I said, and said what I meant.

When I hear mcCain publicly say that he disagrees with the Tea Party, and that the Voters should vote for Republicans who also publicly disagree with the Tea Party, THEN I will agree that McCain has left the Tea Party.

In the meantime, I'm just happy that mcCain remembered that he is the authority on POW Captivity.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 06:37 PM
You've gotta be joking....

Not at all...the Republicans and the Tea Party are two different parties. They are both conservative but are not the same. We've become so used to interchanging Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative that we can't even comprehend that we could have two separate liberal or conservative parties.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 06:40 PM
I meant what I said, and said what I meant.

When I hear mcCain publicly say that he disagrees with the Tea Party, and that the Voters should vote for Republicans who also publicly disagree with the Tea Party, THEN I will agree that McCain has left the Tea Party.

In the meantime, I'm just happy that mcCain remembered that he is the authority on POW Captivity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/john-mccain-tea-party-hobbits_n_922348.html

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 06:40 PM
Not at all...the Republicans and the Tea Party are two different parties. They are both conservative but are not the same. We've become so used to interchanging Democrat/Liberal and Republican/Conservative that we can't even comprehend that we could have two separate liberal or conservative parties.

No one is saying that the Tea Party and the GOP is one and the same. However, the "Tea Party" is really less of a political party than it is a political ideology that's been largely adopted by the GOP.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 06:52 PM
No one is saying that the Tea Party and the GOP is one and the same. However, the "Tea Party" is really less of a political party than it is a political ideology that's been largely adopted by the GOP.

The point of contention was Corny's claim that McCain parrots "Tea-Speak."

That is simply an uninformed opinion. McCain is a rather harsh critic of the Tea Party, and they of he.

If you look at the debt ceiling debates, it is obvious that the Republican Party has not adopted the whole agenda of the Tea Party.

Plus, need I point you to Congressman Cantor's recent defeat in the primaries to a Tea Party candidate?

I think you owe Sandsjames an apology.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 06:58 PM
The point of contention was Corny's claim that McCain parrots "Tea-Speak."

That is simply an uninformed opinion. McCain is a rather harsh critic of the Tea Party, and they of he.

If you look at the debt ceiling debates, it is obvious that the Republican Party has not adopted the whole agenda of the Tea Party.

Key word here is "largely."


Plus, need I point you to Congressman Cantor's recent defeat in the primaries to a Tea Party candidate?

I think you owe Sandsjames an apology.

If that Tea Party candidate you're referring to does NOT caucus with the GOP, then you'd have a point. Unfortunately...

CORNELIUSSEON
06-14-2014, 07:00 PM
The reason why I say that the Tea Party is full of Republicans with NO Democrats, is the fact that we have a long-standing name for Conservative Democrats. They are BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS, and they consist, mostly, of the Conservative Democrats that didn't flee to the Republican Party during that party's "Southern Strategy" period. Now, I am sure that some of the Blue Dogs employ "Teaspeak" to remain politically viable, but the use of "Tea-Speak" by Democrats doesn't make one a member of the Tea Party. Being a Republican and employing "Tea-Speak" does for the time being.

Incidentally, where I live, if we find a person who is registered as a Democrat using "Tea-Speak", that is grounds for being banned from membership in our local Democrat organization.

Maybe if the Republican organizations practiced that same rule, the Tea Party folk would have to get off the dime and organize their own party as a real Political Party.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 07:02 PM
The point of contention was Corny's claim that McCain parrots "Tea-Speak."

That is simply an uninformed opinion. McCain is a rather harsh critic of the Tea Party, and they of he.

If you look at the debt ceiling debates, it is obvious that the Republican Party has not adopted the whole agenda of the Tea Party.

Plus, need I point you to Congressman Cantor's recent defeat in the primaries to a Tea Party candidate?I think you owe Sandsjames an apology.

This......

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 07:04 PM
I'd also like to point out that the reason why the Tea Party is so critical of McCain and other Republican lawmakers, is because they have a vested interest.

And it goes both ways. We saw it in 2012 - the only way a Republican candidate is going to win the primaries in 2016, is by winning over the Tea Party.

Sandsjames knows this.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 07:05 PM
This......

I've answered that. Look up.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 07:22 PM
Now you guys have changed the discussion.

My original admonishment of Corny stands firmly and uncontested.

I still think that Rusty should apologize to Sandsjames, he was right on target with his comment.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 07:26 PM
Now you guys have changed the discussion.

My original admonishment of Corny stands firmly and uncontested.

I still think that Rusty should apologize to Sandsjames, he was right on target with his comment.

Nope. His comment was misleading at best. Don't believe me? Let's see if he tries to rebut what I said in posts #213 and #216.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-14-2014, 07:28 PM
Incidentally, where I live, if we find a person who is registered as a Democrat using "Tea-Speak", that is grounds for being banned from membership in our local Democrat organization.



Tell us a little more about this, it sounds very interesting to me.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 07:28 PM
Nope. His comment was misleading at best. Don't believe me? Let's see if he tries to rebut what I said in posts #213 and #216.

My only rebuttal is to reiterate my point. They are two different parties.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 07:30 PM
My only rebuttal is to reiterate my point. They are two different parties.

With a symbiotic relationship. Face it, the GOP and the Tea Party are two different parties like Marvel's Venom is two different characters.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 07:38 PM
With a symbiotic relationship. Face it, the GOP and the Tea Party are two different parties like Marvel's Venom is two different characters.

This is why we will always have a 2 party system. Because even when we have more than two, they are all lumped together.

That would be like saying the Nazi party and the Republican party are the same, or Communists and Democrats.

Rusty Jones
06-14-2014, 07:40 PM
That would be like saying the Nazi party and the Republican party are the same, or Communists and Democrats.

The only difference being that the symbiotic relationship between the GOP and the Tea Party was VOLUNTARY. Well, at least it was on the Tea Party's end.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 08:01 PM
Tell us a little more about this, it sounds very interesting to me.

Ahh, so your organization, based on democracy and democratic values, bans anyone who disagrees. That's pretty sweet.

sandsjames
06-14-2014, 08:06 PM
And I need to apologize to AA for derailing his point about Corny's comments. My bad. Sorry.

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 08:23 PM
My point is that - whereas McCain has been parroting "Teaspeak" on other occasions, I find it interesting that he finally spoke the truth when it came to the one subject he is almost uniquely qualified to speak on: "POW Captivity". McCain was shot down and incarcerated in the Hanoi Hilton three months before I arrived in Qui Nhon, Vietnam, and he wasn't repatriated until 1973. As I recall my SEER training, I was told to say whatever my captors wanted me to say, with the exception of data I knew was Classified (I was told to say "I have no knowledge of that area", or something to that effect.), and I was told that I would get to correct the record when I got back. So, I cheered mcCain on when he told the public to shut up on wanting to punish the Sergeant until he got the opportunity to clear the record upon his return to duty.

Not sure what your arrival date in Vietnam had to do with anything and SERE training says no such thing.

As to McCain "parroting Teaspeak"...that is just ignorant nonsense on the face of it.

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 08:24 PM
I meant what I said, and said what I meant.

When I hear mcCain publicly say that he disagrees with the Tea Party, and that the Voters should vote for Republicans who also publicly disagree with the Tea Party, THEN I will agree that McCain has left the Tea Party.

In the meantime, I'm just happy that mcCain remembered that he is the authority on POW Captivity.

Meaning what you said doesn't make it any less wrong or ignorant but that really has never held you back before.

TJMAC77SP
06-14-2014, 08:27 PM
The reason why I say that the Tea Party is full of Republicans with NO Democrats, is the fact that we have a long-standing name for Conservative Democrats. They are BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS, and they consist, mostly, of the Conservative Democrats that didn't flee to the Republican Party during that party's "Southern Strategy" period. Now, I am sure that some of the Blue Dogs employ "Teaspeak" to remain politically viable, but the use of "Tea-Speak" by Democrats doesn't make one a member of the Tea Party. Being a Republican and employing "Tea-Speak" does for the time being.

Incidentally, where I live, if we find a person who is registered as a Democrat using "Tea-Speak", that is grounds for being banned from membership in our local Democrat organization.

Maybe if the Republican organizations practiced that same rule, the Tea Party folk would have to get off the dime and organize their own party as a real Political Party.

That has NOTHING to do with what you said. This post doesn't even mention McCain.

Here you are trying to foist an intellectually specious inference that all GOP members are Tea Party members and that is.......well I have already said what it is.......ignorantly incorrect.

garhkal
06-15-2014, 04:44 AM
As to finding out just how this guy became an MIA, the time for that will come after we get him back, get him medically and psychically sound, reintegrate him into American society, and THEN find out what it is he did wrong (if anything).

I find it interesting that Senator mcCain himself is calling for people to shut up on accusing him until we find out all the facts. He is totally right when he says that Captives have NO control over what they write or say while they are in captivity.

Do we wait for a rape victim to get physically and mentally sound before investigating the crime and going to trial? So why should we wait here?

grimreaper
06-15-2014, 08:44 PM
The reason why I say that the Tea Party is full of Republicans with NO Democrats, is the fact that we have a long-standing name for Conservative Democrats. They are BLUE DOG DEMOCRATS, and they consist, mostly, of the Conservative Democrats that didn't flee to the Republican Party during that party's "Southern Strategy" period. Now, I am sure that some of the Blue Dogs employ "Teaspeak" to remain politically viable, but the use of "Tea-Speak" by Democrats doesn't make one a member of the Tea Party. Being a Republican and employing "Tea-Speak" does for the time being.

Incidentally, where I live, if we find a person who is registered as a Democrat using "Tea-Speak", that is grounds for being banned from membership in our local Democrat organization.

Maybe if the Republican organizations practiced that same rule, the Tea Party folk would have to get off the dime and organize their own party as a real Political Party.

Blue Dog Democrats are nearly extinct. They don't get the support that liberal Democrats get from the national party in elections and have only been able to hang on as long as they have because a good portion of their constituency are conservatives. Blue Dogs would lose in the primaries if they ran in liberal districts, just as Cantor lost in his because his district became more conservative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/blue-dog-democrats-whittled-down-in-number-are-trying-to-regroup/2014/01/15/37d4e7e2-7dfd-11e3-95c6-0a7aa80874bc_story.html

grimreaper
06-15-2014, 08:47 PM
Hey, just say he's right. Bernie Sanders, and admitted Socialist, caucuses with the Democrats. I guess that makes them the same using that line of thinking.

grimreaper
06-15-2014, 08:59 PM
The point of contention was Corny's claim that McCain parrots "Tea-Speak."

That is simply an uninformed opinion. McCain is a rather harsh critic of the Tea Party, and they of he.

If you look at the debt ceiling debates, it is obvious that the Republican Party has not adopted the whole agenda of the Tea Party.

Plus, need I point you to Congressman Cantor's recent defeat in the primaries to a Tea Party candidate?

I think you owe Sandsjames an apology.

You are spot on. There hasn't been a more harsh critic of the Tea Party than McCain. McCain has said things about the Tea Party that Democrats have not even said. McCain is a main cog of the GOP establishment, who, by in large, likes to maintain the status quo. It is no secret that the GOP-E and the Tea Party aren't exactly reading from the same sheet of music. One has to look no further than the Republican primaries to see they do not like each other and the Tea Party's goal is to knock-off as many GOP-E'rs as they can.

Measure Man
06-15-2014, 09:10 PM
Not at all...the Republicans and the Tea Party are two different parties.

That hold primaries together.
That both get a "R" after their name.
That are both referred to as "Republicans"
That both attend the Republican Convention

CORNELIUSSEON
06-16-2014, 12:10 AM
Do we wait for a rape victim to get physically and mentally sound before investigating the crime and going to trial? So why should we wait here?
The comparison is not apt. in this case, we are deciding if he is a pure victim, or if he contributed to his victim status through criminal activity or negligence.