One of my friends that I went to AIT with was assigned to Bowe's unit. He's saying that the Taliban refer to Bowe as the "white Talib" and that he found this out when he was sent to look for him.
I am glad they got him back, leaving Congress and Karzai out of the loop made sense as they would have screwed the whole thing up, and now I'm good with beginning court martial procedings to determine what happened and what liability falls to him.
I am glad they got him back, leaving Congress and Karzai out of the loop made sense as they would have screwed the whole thing up, and now I'm good with beginning court martial procedings to determine what happened and what liability falls to him.
Only thing I'm worried about is next time. We set a precedent that we do negotiate, and I wonder what that will cost us.
Don't be. Terrorist/Enemy Combatants whatever, usually execute American soldiers post haste. I imagine after they try to beat out as much info as they can. American soldiers have always been a high value target and no more/no less now as a result of this exchange. Perhaps if anything this will keep captured American forces ALIVE, if the captors think they can negotiate . Giving our side time to locate, coordinate and extract our captured personnel. As the Special Forces member told Bergdahl they had been looking for him for a very long time. Good article by Daniel O'Shea, a reserve Navy SEAL. http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/opinion/oshea-bowe-bergdahl/
By: Guy Benson (TownHall)
I know, I know. You've been waiting with baited breath for America's sweetheart to weigh in on the Bergdahl/Taliban Five trade for days, wondering how he'd manage to defend the White House and blame the Koch brothers in one fell swoop. It appears that he decided to leave the Kochs out of it -- for now -- but if you were hoping for a tone deaf jaw-dropper, Gramps didn't disappoint:
He is aware that we didn't liquidate these guys, right? We "got rid of" them by freeing them in a Middle Eastern nation whose support for radicals is well-established and whose reliability as a security partner is dodgy at best. As I wrote earlier, Qatar has already released them RoR, and US intelligence officers are wringing their hands in the press about what happens after the year-long travel ban is lifted. If you haven't already, read their bios. Even MSNBC's terrorism expert is quivering a bit:
But Harry's most pleased because these guys are finally out of our hair. No longer will we be responsible for their incarceration. We're worry free, and they're literally free -- to welcome visitors to their new digs and offer tips on deathcraft to anyone who's interested. A year from now, they may well be fully liberated to again take up old habits such as slaughtering fellow Muslims, training Al Qaeda, and wreaking havoc on the few residual US forces remaining in the country of origin. Good news all around. And about those thorny questions about the legality of this prisoner/hostage exchange (click through for the reasons the administration is re-casting Bergdahl as the former), the White House is "apologizing" to some members of Congress for failing to alert them to the deal in advance, as mandated by law:
The White House has apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for failing to alert her in advance of a decision to release Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. Feinstein told reporters that she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday evening apologizing for what the administration is calling an “oversight.br>
Take the politics and the as yet unknown actions of Bergdahl out of the equation.
What you are left with is a president who rather than uphold the constitution of the United States of America, ignores it for a photo op. Pretty sad for America, actually.
Well, if you take the politics out of it (impossible in NCR, I know, but try to), what we have is an ethical debate. Do we negotiate with "terrorists" to possibly save an American life? If this soldier was captured during combat, would it be different? When is it okay to bend/break the law? Does it matter which law it is? Does it matter that this law was created last year and included in a defense budget bill (I won't bother debating why this was added to a yearly defense budget, but whatever) rather than something more sacred like a constitutional right?
Honestly, is this outrage simply another opportunity to attack Obama or are we actually upset over what happened? If he did get bipartisan Congressional support, would this be an issue? What if this happened a year or more ago before the law existed? Is there any chance someone will respond to these questions without political rhetoric?
To me...it comes down to the circumstances.If he was captured fighting (or just plain abducted), then trading for him is fine.If he deserted, then he can sleep in his own bed.Guess it would be a tough decision since we don't KNOW. I don't see why The President could not follow the rules and get approval either way, though. Law is law is law. "We were worried about his mental state." Yeah, FIVE YEARS in captivity can do that to you.I hate NCR...really makes you think about your ethics.
Well, I did do 8 over on the way to work today AND rolled through a stop sign. I "should" mail a check for the two tickets I "should" have gotten, but.......
You don't have to agree with the law...it's still the law. If you know the law and decide to break it, you've decided that the reward is greater than the penalty.But you're still breaking the law.Which is pretty much this situation to a T. Some people will complain for a while, but the next transgression will make us forget this. The President is not going to jail for this, he won't be fired...he knows the consequences and does not give an eff. His "penalty" is answering some questions.
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by enemy forces in Afghanistan for five years, will be charged with desertion, a senior defense officials tell NBC News. The officials say the charges could be referred within a week.
Comments
+100%!
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/opinion/oshea-bowe-bergdahl/
http://www.businessinsider.com/bowe-bergdahl-probably-wont-be-court-martialed-2014-6
By: Guy Benson (TownHall) I know, I know. You've been waiting with baited breath for America's sweetheart to weigh in on the Bergdahl/Taliban Five trade for days, wondering how he'd manage to defend the White House and blame the Koch brothers in one fell swoop. It appears that he decided to leave the Kochs out of it -- for now -- but if you were hoping for a tone deaf jaw-dropper, Gramps didn't disappoint: He is aware that we didn't liquidate these guys, right? We "got rid of" them by freeing them in a Middle Eastern nation whose support for radicals is well-established and whose reliability as a security partner is dodgy at best. As I wrote earlier, Qatar has already released them RoR, and US intelligence officers are wringing their hands in the press about what happens after the year-long travel ban is lifted. If you haven't already, read their bios. Even MSNBC's terrorism expert is quivering a bit: But Harry's most pleased because these guys are finally out of our hair. No longer will we be responsible for their incarceration. We're worry free, and they're literally free -- to welcome visitors to their new digs and offer tips on deathcraft to anyone who's interested. A year from now, they may well be fully liberated to again take up old habits such as slaughtering fellow Muslims, training Al Qaeda, and wreaking havoc on the few residual US forces remaining in the country of origin. Good news all around. And about those thorny questions about the legality of this prisoner/hostage exchange (click through for the reasons the administration is re-casting Bergdahl as the former), the White House is "apologizing" to some members of Congress for failing to alert them to the deal in advance, as mandated by law: The White House has apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for failing to alert her in advance of a decision to release Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. Feinstein told reporters that she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday evening apologizing for what the administration is calling an “oversight.br>
Barak Hussein Obama on the campaign trail in 2007
What you are left with is a president who rather than uphold the constitution of the United States of America, ignores it for a photo op. Pretty sad for America, actually.