Yawn, America is becoming numb to the countless scandals.
http://www.caintv.com/uh-oh-bergdahls-father-was-in
Whats it going to be next week? The destruction of America continues, just as planned.
Yes I am sure America will soon be just a footnote in History. What are the conservatives going to do when Obama's term is over and America is still the greatest military force the world has ever known, the greatest economy the world has ever know, is still full of Christians going to church on Sunday, still leads the world in venture capitalists investing money in the best place to vest money and is still the shinning city on the hill. Won't they hate that.
Now if you what to give up the dumb America is on the path to destruct pablum we can discuss the merits of leaving soldiers behind.
Herman Cain is an expert on questionable trades:
Chicago Woman Claims Herman Cain Wanted Her to Trade Sex for Job
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fourth-woman-accuses-herman-cain-sexual-harassment/story?id=14896935
Without taking sides yet, I think before we jump on sides, we should await the entire story. I saw an interview on the news last night with a soldier who knew Bowe. He called Bowe a deserter. He said Bowe walked away from his post, leaving his gear and weapon behind.
I think there is more to the story, and before we go cheering one "side" or the other, we should know "The Rest of the Story." (With apologies to Paul Harvey.)
My side is taken. Getting the POW (hostage) home is the correct thing to do. One of our soldiers is easily worth 5 of those terrorists bastards. We will probably "drone" them as soon as possible once set free in Afghanistan. That said...
Our deserter soldier boy has some 'splainin to do. He deserted his post... in wartime. He was captured by the enemy. At least two soldiers were killed and more than a few wounded during the immediate search for him. I am glad he is free from the clutches of the Taliban... He now must face Military justice.
yup
Wouldnt these leaders that were released possibly lead us to some action some where? This kid may have left his station but defecting im not sure about. Time will do the telling. The conservatives will try to negatively capitalize on anything the president does so their words mean nothing to me.
Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2014, 12:08:04 PM
Quote from: RMHoward on June 03, 2014, 10:43:05 AM
Yawn, America is becoming numb to the countless scandals.
http://www.caintv.com/uh-oh-bergdahls-father-was-in
Whats it going to be next week? The destruction of America continues, just as planned.
Yeah, its terrible how badly the 'conservatives' hate our soldiers.
I guess we should have left our guy behind as a POW. That would have been the right thing to do according to the angry hateful old men who are feeling this so called 'outrage'..
That way there wouldn't be any health care costs for him, and the other side could provide for him RM Howard.
Don't you have any shame? Don't you think this attack on getting our man back is repulsive on your part? Or do you just not care about how bad this makes you sound?
Haha Stephey. I am far beyond caring what you think. While you were perfecting your world view in the comfort of the Avondale Starbucks and badmouthing Reagan, Bush, and every other Republican, I was one of them soldiers for 22 years. Not bragging, just saying. I know whats going on in the military. So spare me your attempt at assigning guilt and shame. Will the cool ade of this president ever become too sour for even you to stomach? Somehow I doubt it. BTW, as far as being an old man, I believe we are both in our mid 40s, no?
Quote from: Debbie Thompson on June 03, 2014, 12:24:46 PM
Without taking sides yet, I think before we jump on sides, we should await the entire story. I saw an interview on the news last night with a soldier who knew Bowe. He called Bowe a deserter. He said Bowe walked away from his post, leaving his gear and weapon behind.
I think there is more to the story, and before we go cheering one "side" or the other, we should know "The Rest of the Story." (With apologies to Paul Harvey.)
+1,000
We can never let the facts come out. It makes us look foolish in the progress and does unearned harm to many.
I also agree with Rob68, I read that he left his body armor at the camp. If he left with a compass and the clothes on his back, he was either mentally unstable or trying to commit suicide.
I don't know that this prisoner swap is a "scandal" yet. It is obvious that the President did not comply with the law (that he signed). He will not suffer any consequences for that action though. As for the status of the soldier and the logic of the swap, this appears to be another example of incompetence. The soldier appears to be headed for at least public controversy and possibly a court martial, while the released prisoners will go back to jihad.
Mr. Obama will not face another election. His actions in these last few years of power will define his Presidency.
Quote from: NotNow on June 03, 2014, 05:41:28 PM
It is obvious that the President did not comply with the law
What law are you referring to?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wh-violated-federal-law-prisoner-exchange/#!
The President has since stated the he was justified in violating this law because of the imperative nature of the deal and that he believes he has the Constitutional authority to make such a swap, despite the fact that he signed the law about a year ago.
Quote from: NotNow on June 03, 2014, 07:01:28 PM
http://www.westernjournalism.com/wh-violated-federal-law-prisoner-exchange/#!
The President has since stated the he was justified in violating this law because of the imperative nature of the deal and that he believes he has the Constitutional authority to make such a swap, despite the fact that he signed the law about a year ago.
I don't know what's so obvious about it. While Obama and his diplomats made the deal on their own (in line with his powers as commander-in-chief), it's not true that he left Congress out of the picture. He briefed a group of senators in January 2012, when a deal first seemed in the offing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/06/bowe_bergdahl_and_negotiating_with_the_taliban_why_the_deal_to_free_this.html
Some on the right call this illegal. Now it may well be, but there are all sorts of things that our President can, should and does do that could often be considered illegal...
The problem NOW is that we are arguing over whether or not this is illegal, and of course few of us are SCOTUS judges so our opinions mean little... and what we AREN'T arguing over is whether or not it is 'right' or 'smart'... and opinions there can have an impact.
The media and the left focuses on the easily defended argument that few are making that this is illegal, often restating arguments to reflect this unstated (and non-factual) position, and ignores the much more difficult to defend argument that this was 'right'.
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 09:29:56 AM
Some on the right call this illegal. Now it may well be, but there are all sorts of things that our President can, should and does do that could often be considered illegal...
The problem NOW is that we are arguing over whether or not this is illegal, and of course few of us are SCOTUS judges so our opinions mean little... and what we AREN'T arguing over is whether or not it is 'right' or 'smart'... and opinions there can have an impact.
The media and the left focuses on the easily defended argument that few are making that this is illegal, often restating arguments to reflect this unstated (and non-factual) position, and ignores the much more difficult to defend argument that this was 'right'.
There is no doubt that the law was broken. A law signed by the President last year. Personally, I think that the law encroaches upon the power of the Executive branch to wage war, and I would like to see it overturned. The correct way to handle this would be to take such a dilemma to the Supreme Court to decide the Constitutionality of the law, or to overturn the law in Congress. But I can understand the Presidents argument for the timing of the release and I would only argue that notification of certain members of Congress would have mitigated at least some of the opposing voices. As I have previously stated, President Obama will not suffer any legal consequences from this action.
I can't say that I agree with this statement "but there are all sorts of things that our President can, should and does do that could often be considered illegal... ", but I will assume that fsquid really meant "bending" the law, not breaking it.
Whether this decision was "right" or "smart" will be decided over the next year or so. The public is not privy to the options that were available for the return of this soldier, so it is impossible for us to make an intelligent judgement at this point.
Just my 2 cents...
The NDAA requires that the President provide Congress with 30 days notice for any transfer from the facility. Several legal types from both sides of the aisle have already stated that the law was broken, and the White House itself has admitted it by apologizing to members of Congress.
The five prisoners were not released, but were transferred to the custody of Qatar, which promises to "monitor" them for one year.
But really, all of this is moot. I suppose that the argument will continue so that one side or the other can get the right "spin". The real disaster for the administration will be when the terrorists cannot be located in a few months or when they plan or participate in an act of terror. Any Bergdahl court martial also holds some bad PR, but a terrorist act by any of those five would (and probably should) prove disastrous for the President. Risking the very legacy of his Presidency on these five individuals was a very poor choice, in my opinion.
All of this is why there should have never been a Gitmo to begin with.
What would your alternate have been? The Bush strategy was to obtain intelligence from captured fighters and terrorists. This is what led to the Gitmo prison and the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. But it could be argued (and is argued) that the intelligence gained is worth the trouble. The Obama administration has taken a different route, and has steadily disengaged whenever possible. When not possible, taking intel was deemphasized in favor of killing the principle (drone strikes). This method has also been criticized.
Since this seems to be "defending Obama" day, I wouldn't argue with the drone strike tactic if one is trying to disengage and minimize casualties. (Of course, other misguided policies by the Obama administration has actually led to greatly increased casualties by our Armed Forces).
I would be interested in hearing an alternative to the two strategies described above. I fully expect to hear "not being there or involved in the first place", and we can address that when it comes.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on June 03, 2014, 01:10:50 PM
My side is taken. Getting the POW (hostage) home is the correct thing to do. One of our soldiers is easily worth 5 of those terrorists bastards. We will probably "drone" them as soon as possible once set free in Afghanistan. That said...
Our deserter soldier boy has some 'splainin to do. He deserted his post... in wartime. He was captured by the enemy. At least two soldiers were killed and more than a few wounded during the immediate search for him. I am glad he is free from the clutches of the Taliban... He now must face Military justice.
This is about where I come down as well. Likely these guys would be released soon and droned anyway. I am not a fan of the Rose Garden show but it isn't the travesty that some would have us think.
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 11:32:13 AM
What would your alternate have been? The Bush strategy was to obtain intelligence from captured fighters and terrorists. This is what led to the Gitmo prison and the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. But it could be argued (and is argued) that the intelligence gained is worth the trouble. The Obama administration has taken a different route, and has steadily disengaged whenever possible. When not possible, taking intel was deemphasized in favor of killing the principle (drone strikes). This method has also been criticized.
Since this seems to be "defending Obama" day, I wouldn't argue with the drone strike tactic if one is trying to disengage and minimize casualties. (Of course, other misguided policies by the Obama administration has actually led to greatly increased casualties by our Armed Forces).
I would be interested in hearing an alternative to the two strategies described above. I fully expect to hear "not being there or involved in the first place", and we can address that when it comes.
nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 11:32:13 AM
What would your alternate have been? The Bush strategy was to obtain intelligence from captured fighters and terrorists. This is what led to the Gitmo prison and the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. But it could be argued (and is argued) that the intelligence gained is worth the trouble. The Obama administration has taken a different route, and has steadily disengaged whenever possible. When not possible, taking intel was deemphasized in favor of killing the principle (drone strikes). This method has also been criticized.
Since this seems to be "defending Obama" day, I wouldn't argue with the drone strike tactic if one is trying to disengage and minimize casualties. (Of course, other misguided policies by the Obama administration has actually led to greatly increased casualties by our Armed Forces).
I would be interested in hearing an alternative to the two strategies described above. I fully expect to hear "not being there or involved in the first place", and we can address that when it comes.
nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
So you agree with detaining the terrorists and extracting information from them, and then assigning the death penalty? You are certainly going to ruffle feathers today. And I agree with you.
You would need to give them a trial to issue a death sentence which is the whole point of calling them enemy combatants not terrorists.
Quote from: JeffreyS on June 04, 2014, 12:47:13 PM
You would need to give them a trial to issue a death sentence which is the whole point of calling them enemy combatants not terrorists.
Agreed. The point of Gitmo is to house those that are most dangerous to our country. A military trial should be required to show the actions that result in capital punishment.
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 12:11:25 PM
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 11:32:13 AM
What would your alternate have been? The Bush strategy was to obtain intelligence from captured fighters and terrorists. This is what led to the Gitmo prison and the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. But it could be argued (and is argued) that the intelligence gained is worth the trouble. The Obama administration has taken a different route, and has steadily disengaged whenever possible. When not possible, taking intel was deemphasized in favor of killing the principle (drone strikes). This method has also been criticized.
Since this seems to be "defending Obama" day, I wouldn't argue with the drone strike tactic if one is trying to disengage and minimize casualties. (Of course, other misguided policies by the Obama administration has actually led to greatly increased casualties by our Armed Forces).
I would be interested in hearing an alternative to the two strategies described above. I fully expect to hear "not being there or involved in the first place", and we can address that when it comes.
nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
So you agree with detaining the terrorists and extracting information from them, and then assigning the death penalty? You are certainly going to ruffle feathers today. And I agree with you.
no I would have killed them long before detaining them. War is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 12:11:25 PM
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 11:32:13 AM
What would your alternate have been? The Bush strategy was to obtain intelligence from captured fighters and terrorists. This is what led to the Gitmo prison and the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. But it could be argued (and is argued) that the intelligence gained is worth the trouble. The Obama administration has taken a different route, and has steadily disengaged whenever possible. When not possible, taking intel was deemphasized in favor of killing the principle (drone strikes). This method has also been criticized.
Since this seems to be "defending Obama" day, I wouldn't argue with the drone strike tactic if one is trying to disengage and minimize casualties. (Of course, other misguided policies by the Obama administration has actually led to greatly increased casualties by our Armed Forces).
I would be interested in hearing an alternative to the two strategies described above. I fully expect to hear "not being there or involved in the first place", and we can address that when it comes.
nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
So you agree with detaining the terrorists and extracting information from them, and then assigning the death penalty? You are certainly going to ruffle feathers today. And I agree with you.
no I would have killed them long before detaining them. War is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.
While I certainly understand the sentiment, it is my belief that to proceed in such a manner would be immoral. One can not ask soldiers to shoot surrendering enemies. They should be detained, sorted for possible intel gathering and culpability, and then either released upon cessation of hostilities or tried for culpability in crimes.
I agree with the idea of fighting to "attain the goal". Whether that be to conquer a certain area or totally defeat a particular enemy. The US has displayed a habit of deploying military forces and then abandoning the mission when faced with unplanned setbacks and/or bad press. This encourages our enemies to use both against us.
This was an attempt by the Obama Administration to get the focus off of the VA scandal (which recent polls show 80% of Americans holding him at least somewhat responsible) by showcasing a feelgood military story by getting Bergdahl home and the ensuing PR campaign that followed. Unfortunate for them, it has backfired because those in his unit are now speaking the truth about what happened, people are upset that soldiers died looking for a deserter, and some in the media are actually doing their jobs by questioning this administration instead of fawning over them and carrying the torch for their agenda.
And the amateurism of this administration is now on full display. Carney claims that Congress had been briefed on the swap. But in reality, there has been no Congressional hearing since 2011. Hagel claims that "we didn't negotiate with terrorists." But the Taliban are terrorists. In the same day, Carney said that the Taliban are not "terrorists" but instead "enemy combatants" after he called them terrorists that morning. Carney and Susan Rice claim that Bergdahl served with "honor and distinction." But the truth has come out that he is a deserter. Jen Psaki at the State Dept. claimed to the press that he was detained in combat. But again, the the truth has come out that he is a deserter. Hagel said he hoped the swap would help the peace process. Within hours, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid shot down Hagel by saying "It won't help the peace process in any way, because we don't believe in the peace process." Marie Harf at the State Dept. telling the media that the administration knows more about what happened the night Bergdahl deserted than the troops who served in his unit and discrediting them.
This Administration continues to embarrass itself.
"The horror that is America is disgusting."
"I am ashamed to be an American."
-Bowe Bergdahl to his father
Everyone who served with Bergdahl in his unit has said the same thing: He deserted. You don't ship your belongings home, neatly fold up your gear, leave your gun, and run off in the middle of the night if you were captured. There are also reports that he intended to renounce his citizenship. His fellow soldiers were forced to sign non-disclosure agreements about him and we know for a fact that at least 6 soldiers died while searching for him.
Many of those soldiers who served with Bergdahl believe he was feeding the Taliban info:
http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/03/team-leader-bowe-bergdahl-wanted-to-talk-to-taliban/
A Pentagon investigation in 2010 concluded that he deserted:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/debate-stirs-over-us-taliban-captive-swap/2014/06/02/cf276c70-ea25-11e3-b10e-5090cf3b5958_story.html
The Pentagon knew his whereabouts but did not want to risk more casualties for a deserter:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/2/pentagon-knew-berghdahls-whereabouts-but-didnt-ris/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 02:13:26 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 12:11:25 PM
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 12:00:53 PM
Quote from: NotNow on June 04, 2014, 11:32:13 AM
What would your alternate have been? The Bush strategy was to obtain intelligence from captured fighters and terrorists. This is what led to the Gitmo prison and the allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. But it could be argued (and is argued) that the intelligence gained is worth the trouble. The Obama administration has taken a different route, and has steadily disengaged whenever possible. When not possible, taking intel was deemphasized in favor of killing the principle (drone strikes). This method has also been criticized.
Since this seems to be "defending Obama" day, I wouldn't argue with the drone strike tactic if one is trying to disengage and minimize casualties. (Of course, other misguided policies by the Obama administration has actually led to greatly increased casualties by our Armed Forces).
I would be interested in hearing an alternative to the two strategies described above. I fully expect to hear "not being there or involved in the first place", and we can address that when it comes.
nobody who ended up in Gitmo should have been allowed to live long enough to require Gitmo to house them.
And yes, we would have been in full compliance with the Geneva Conventions had we handled it that way.
So you agree with detaining the terrorists and extracting information from them, and then assigning the death penalty? You are certainly going to ruffle feathers today. And I agree with you.
no I would have killed them long before detaining them. War is a nasty business. If we don't kill them, they're going to kill us. The only appropriate approach is to kill them until they get tired of dying. That's pretty nasty. That's why we should not go to war often, and only as a last resort. Once we approach one or at most two wars that way, we won't have to fight any more. Because nobody wants to take on the US functioning in that mode.
While I certainly understand the sentiment, it is my belief that to proceed in such a manner would be immoral. One can not ask soldiers to shoot surrendering enemies. They should be detained, sorted for possible intel gathering and culpability, and then either released upon cessation of hostilities or tried for culpability in crimes.
I agree with the idea of fighting to "attain the goal". Whether that be to conquer a certain area or totally defeat a particular enemy. The US has displayed a habit of deploying military forces and then abandoning the mission when faced with unplanned setbacks and/or bad press. This encourages our enemies to use both against us.
See there is the problem, we don't have the guts to do what I think we should do, but we still want to micromanage everything.
There are two and only two viable options:
1. Grow a pair; or
2. Forget micromanaging the world.
I actually favor both. Stay out of stuff that isn't ours, and if and when we do get dragged in despite that, make everybody sorry they brought us in. Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.
I don't think it is a question of "guts". It takes more "guts" (IMHO) to forcibly enter a house and NOT shoot everyone. Women, children, bad guys with their hands in the air or on their knees (non resistors) are not immediately threatening. Shooting such persons is not only immoral but is illegal. The men and women who are collecting these prisoners don't lack "guts" or courage of any sort, they are simply moral people. If the government gave such orders as you suggest (kill everyone), then soldiers would rightfully refuse to follow such orders (I hope).
As for "micromanaging" the world, I agree with you. If it is important enough to commit US lives, it should be an issue that is immediately dangerous to the US. We should avoid treaty obligations which require military response and renegotiate those that do. But...often it is better to fight the wolf at his liar rather than waiting for him to come to your door.
I understand your desire to only reluctantly enter into conflict (and I agree) and when we do, be ruthless. (I agree with "ruthless" as well but we must act morally.)
As for your options, I think "grow a pair" amounts to political courage. We must stay the course in the face of adversity. If we truly represent the forces of "good" then naysayers should be ignored when we fight the forces of "evil".
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 02:52:40 PM
Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.
The only problem is that, all too often, we're the ones who won't leave them alone first. It becomes a vicious circle.
Quote from: finehoe on June 04, 2014, 04:28:07 PM
Quote from: fsquid on June 04, 2014, 02:52:40 PM
Once or twice like that, and they'll leave us alone. They leave us alone, we leave them alone, sounds to me like a good deal.
The only problem is that, all too often, we're the ones who won't leave them alone first. It becomes a vicious circle.
I agree on that. Since WWII it's been us sticking our noses in other people's business, not the other way around. We've been fighting wars that we didn't intend to win, and they haven't ended well.
9/11 is arguably an exception. We were clearly attacked. But that was also arguably nothing more than a response to our attempts at micromanaging the Middle East.