Bowe Bergdahl

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Methinks this thread should have stopped after Oberon's post.
This was a good one

Methinks this is one of the nicer threads I have seen on the net on the subject of Bergdahl/five Taliban prisoner exchange.

I'm shocked it took 8 days to wind up here, but I'm glad it did take that long. I've been up and I've been down about this exchange.

A man's life was involved, Bergdahl's life that is. I was mad and I was angry, but after seeing the filmed release by the Taliban my heart melted for him, no matter what the rest of the story may yield ...

President Obama did the right thing ... Congress is Washington and Congress would've spoiled the deal ... the same deal that has been discussed for over four years.

True President Obama's desire is to empty and close Guantanamo Bay, but these same five men were going to be released next year anyway as the war in Afghanistan winds down this is what they do ... release prisoners.

Better to get something now than nothing later.

This was a good deal and most important it is a done deal.

Sure those five men are still dangerous and they will return to fighting the war in Afghanistan, but only a few American soldiers will be left by then for training the Afghanistan army.

Get over it ... America did the right thing.

[Stealhead]

Israel has traded hundreds of prisoners for one single IDF solider and for them that is a much larger risk(to release direct combatants)seeing as they are literally surrounded by enemies.

There currently no solid proof that Bergdahl deserted.

What was that thing back in the day? Oh yeah Iran-Contra oops.

[Armistead]

The men that served with him are all clear and together that he deserted his post. Six men lost their lives searching for him. My fear is we'll never get the full truth because it's now so political. My issue is Obama ignored congress once again.

These 5 aren't your average fighters, two are wanted by the UN for possible war crimes and that route should've been taken to try them, instead of free them to do it again. All of them are top leaders and it won't be long these guys will be back in charge killing innocent people in Afghanistan.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...asnt-time.html

[mapuc]

From an Danish article about the American standpoint on this issue

Have used Google translate

"exchange with the Taliban are dividing the U.S.
Americans are divided on the issue
whether President Barack Obama
did the right thing by swapping five
Members of the Taliban for the U.S.
happen POW Bowe Bergdahl

According to a poll conducted by
Reuters.

44 percent of those surveyed responded that the prisoner exchange should never have taken place, while 29 percent believe that Obama did the right thing. The remaining 27 percent are unsure.#

78 percent also said that the United States must
do everything they can to liberate
POWs as Bergdahl."

Markus

[Platapus]

It should also be remembered that when President Obama signed this law, he also issued what is called a "signing statement" where he informed congress that he felt the law was unconstitutional and was an infringement on the powers of the Executive Branch.

In effect, he was saying that "yes it is a law, but I am not bound by it due to separation of powers". Unfortunately, signing statements have become common (too common) in the past 40 years.

[Oberon]

So, essentially this is yet another 'whatever Obama does we're going to bash him for it' thread?

If he hadn't have got Bergdahl released it would be all "Obama get our man back" "Obama doesn't like our troops" "Get our man back, what is taking you so long" and since he's got him back it's "That man was a traitor" "Obama is negotiating with terrorists".

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Oberon

So, essentially this is yet another 'whatever Obama does we're going to bash him for it' thread?

If he hadn't released Bergdahl it would be all "Obama get our man back" "Obama doesn't like our troops" "Get our man back, what is taking you so long" and since he's got him back it's "That man was a traitor" "Obama is negotiating with terrorists".

This has been going on for years...Obama refused several times before. It may be he is a deserter, but as liberal Feinstein pointed out...he didn't follow the law in getting him out. In not doing so, he can forget getting Gitmo closed. My bigger issue is two are wanted by the UN for war crimes...and that should've happened, not traded where they will go back killing again.

We have plenty evidence that it's clear he willingly left his post.....

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It should also be remembered that when President Obama signed this law, he also issued what is called a "signing statement" where he informed congress that he felt the law was unconstitutional and was an infringement on the powers of the Executive Branch.

In effect, he was saying that "yes it is a law, but I am not bound by it due to separation of powers". Unfortunately, signing statements have become common (too common) in the past 40 years.

On that, the President is on fairly solid legal grounds. The 30 day notification period is almost certainly an unconstitutional infringement of the President's power as commander-in-chief of all U.S. forces and his power to grant pardons.

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by Biige Rat

I think GOP strategist Frank Luntz put it best:


Quote:
Pro Tip: Attacking the actions that led to the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is a surefire way to lose in 2014.

OT: This would make a good thread on it's own merit ... I hope someone starts one. Not me ... I have work to do

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Armistead

The men that served with him are all clear and together that he deserted his post.

So because a handful of former Army soldiers say he was a deserter he was.

Yeah I do not trust any media outlet when they say they found a bunch of guys that served with him unless you show me their DD-214 and detailed service record that shows that they did in fact serve in the same exact unit (and it would have to very exact as in some platoon) it is nothing more than hearsay and even then it could still be hearsay.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

So because a handful of former Army soldiers say he was a deserter he was.

Yeah I do not trust any media outlet when they say they found a bunch of guys that served with him unless you show me their DD-214 and detailed service record that shows that they did in fact serve in the same exact unit (and it would have to very exact as in some platoon) it is nothing more than hearsay and even then it could still be hearsay.

6 were exact same platoon and all say he deserted. We have numerous other facts now that he had issues.

your facts please?

Wow...just wow

Are you not familiar with the 3rd and 4th?
More particularly the breaches which go beyond normal war crimes and become grave breaches

I suppose if you get confused you could ask the bloke that dealt with war criminals in places like Darfur Uganda Libya Congo CAR Mali Ivory Coast and Columbia. One would assume that he is a bit of an expert on stuff like war crimes as its his job.

Or are you one of those strange people who said the Geneva and Hague conventions don't apply and also said that torture isn't really torture.
Perhaps the shock of the US courts saying its commanders were not only breaking international laws of war but also breaking US military law was so shocking that you blanked it from your memory.