US soldier freed from captivity in Afghanistan

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Now the Obama admin is apologizing to Fienstien .

He must know he has really stepped in it

I eagerly await the Bush or Reagan did something similar defense

Edited June 3, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[UncleBeer 244]

This from TIME magazine (a lefty rag if ever there was one);

White House Overrode Internal Objections To Taliban Prisoner Release Pentagon, Intelligence officials used Top Secret intelligence to prevent previous release of Taliban Five, officials tell TIME.To pull off the prisoner swap of five Taliban leaders for Sgt. Bowe

Bergdahl, the White House overrode an existing interagency process charged with debating the transfer of Guantanamo Bay prisoners and dismissed long-standing Pentagon and intelligence community concerns based on Top Secret intelligence about the dangers of releasing the five men, sources familiar with the debate tell TIME.

Experts? We don' need no steenkin' experts.

[GandD 5,966]

Now the Obama admin is apologizing to Fienstien .

He must know he has really stepped in it

I eagerly await the Bush or Reagan did something similar defense

ASK, AND YOU SHALL RECEIVE:

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-08-02/news/mn-571_1_hostage-crisis

[Darnell 8,479]

my local fox news affiliate [in Houston]

ran a big news story tonight

....

seems the fella released

was actually reported as a deserter

and a team went out to get him and several of the team died.

One of the dead team's moms was on the air tonight - giving over what the team members told her recently...

It's all sickening, IMO... All of it.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Darnell

[Leatherneck 693]

It was no secret the guy was considered a deserter. Members of his unit/platoon had to sign non-disclosure agreements that remained valid until the guy was recovered. Even Special Forces higher ups derailed several plans to rescue the guy, because he was considered a deserter.

Edited June 4, 2014 by Leatherneck

[lostinblue 1,989]

As I do not know very much about this guy, how do you know all this about him? From what I have read, most people go AWOL in combat zones not because they are cowards, or fed up, but because they have some kind of mental exhaustion/break down.

As for releasing terrorists in exchange, this is not new. I a not sure why you think prisoner exchanges is new, or bad, or unjustified. Perhaps you can explain that?

[GandD 5,966]

Well, unless you consider Nicaraguan Contras to be terrorists, which many of their victims did.

[sara..... 371]

Our brave women and men that follow the orders for this stupid war are doing their job ........many hate what we are doing but they still do their job many die hating what we have done but they still did their job ..........to trade known terrorist to bring home someone that deserted and refused to do his job is a slap in the face to each and everyone of our brave service men and women

just my opinion

sara

and yes this war is stupid

[lostinblue 1,989]

Our brave women and men that follow the orders for this stupid war are doing their job ........many hate what we are doing but they still do their job many die hating what we have done but they still did their job ..........to trade known terrorist to bring home someone that deserted and refused to do his job is a slap in the face to each and everyone of our brave service men and women

just my opinion

sara

and yes this war is stupid

We read 14 men died looking for this traitor. ... Perhaps many more because support was diverted from the theater of war,,,, support that could have saved lives in other battles.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

“The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind,” Obama told reporters in Warsaw, the first stop on his four-day European trip. Noting that Bergdahl had been in captivity for more than five years, the president explained that the released POW had not been “interrogated” regarding the specifics of his capture by the Taliban. “Regardless of circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American prisoner back,” he said. “Period. Full stop. We don’t condition that.” He also noted that the White House had been consulting with Congress “for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Sergeant Bergdahl.” In other words, he was suggesting that lawmakers like California Senator Dianne Feinstein should not be outraged that the White House took this opportunity to make the transfer.

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/no-obama-didnt-negotiate-with-terrorists-to-bring-bergdahl-home.html/?a=viewall#ixzz33grwW9Tl

Additionally, White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden told The New York Times that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had not only approved the exchange, but agreed that the 30-day notice should not apply in the case of Bergdahl. “The administration determined that the notification requirement should be construed not to apply to this unique set of circumstances,” she said, because Hagel had “determined that providing notice as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier’s life.” Hayden added that the notice requirement would have interfered “with the executive’s performance” of primary duties set out in the Constitution: protecting American lives abroad and protecting American soldiers. “We believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances,” she said.

So what is driving the outrage?

Given there are no other American prisoners of war held by the Taliban, meaning this trade was a one-time event, it may seem that the transfer of Bergdahl been drawn too much criticism.

Republicans have even labeled the president’s action as “negotiating with terrorists,” referring to a Bush-era political maxim. “It has long been America’s unwavering, bipartisan policy not to negotiate with terrorists, especially for the exchange of hostages,” argued George W. Bush’s former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. “By trading to release hostages, we are invariably putting a price on the heads of other Americans.” Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed, warning that the exchange could “encourage future terrorist kidnappings of Americans.”

Of course, there is the historical precedent to consider. Jimmy Carter’s administration conducted intricate negotiations with the Iranian government to secure the release of the dozens of Americans taken hostage in Tehran in 1979. At the time, Carter described the Iranians as terrorists. The hostages were eventually freed when the United States agreed to unfreeze about $11 billion in Iranian assets. Ronald Reagan made trades with the Iranians as well, secretly exchanging arms for for the release of Americans held in Lebanon. (Although, it should be noted that Bolton condemned that transaction, which is known as the Iran-Contra Affair.) Even Bill Clinton met with Gerry Adams, the leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army who was then on the State Department’s terror list, while George W. Bush made deals with Sunni insurgents during the Iraq War, insurgents that had been killing American soldiers.

[Karee 4,191]

“The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind,” Obama told reporters in Warsaw, the first stop on his four-day European trip. Noting that Bergdahl had been in captivity for more than five years, the president explained that the released POW had not been “interrogated” regarding the specifics of his capture by the Taliban. “Regardless of circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American prisoner back,” he said. “Period. Full stop. We don’t condition that.” He also noted that the White House had been consulting with Congress “for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Sergeant Bergdahl.” In other words, he was suggesting that lawmakers like California Senator Dianne Feinstein should not be outraged that the White House took this opportunity to make the transfer.

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/no-obama-didnt-negotiate-with-terrorists-to-bring-bergdahl-home.html/?a=viewall#ixzz33grwW9Tl

Additionally, White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden told The New York Times that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had not only approved the exchange, but agreed that the 30-day notice should not apply in the case of Bergdahl. “The administration determined that the notification requirement should be construed not to apply to this unique set of circumstances,” she said, because Hagel had “determined that providing notice as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier’s life.” Hayden added that the notice requirement would have interfered “with the executive’s performance” of primary duties set out in the Constitution: protecting American lives abroad and protecting American soldiers. “We believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances,” she said.

So what is driving the outrage?

Given there are no other American prisoners of war held by the Taliban, meaning this trade was a one-time event, it may seem that the transfer of Bergdahl been drawn too much criticism.

Republicans have even labeled the president’s action as “negotiating with terrorists,” referring to a Bush-era political maxim. “It has long been America’s unwavering, bipartisan policy not to negotiate with terrorists, especially for the exchange of hostages,” argued George W. Bush’s former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. “By trading to release hostages, we are invariably putting a price on the heads of other Americans.” Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed, warning that the exchange could “encourage future terrorist kidnappings of Americans.”

Of course, there is the historical precedent to consider. Jimmy Carter’s administration conducted intricate negotiations with the Iranian government to secure the release of the dozens of Americans taken hostage in Tehran in 1979. At the time, Carter described the Iranians as terrorists. The hostages were eventually freed when the United States agreed to unfreeze about $11 billion in Iranian assets. Ronald Reagan made trades with the Iranians as well, secretly exchanging arms for for the release of Americans held in Lebanon. (Although, it should be noted that Bolton condemned that transaction, which is known as the Iran-Contra Affair.) Even Bill Clinton met with Gerry Adams, the leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army who was then on the State Department’s terror list, while George W. Bush made deals with Sunni insurgents during the Iraq War, insurgents that had been killing American soldiers.

More of "Well someone else did it before me, so it must be ok" What a load if BS.

[Janelle2002 3,865]

More of "Well someone else did it before me, so it must be ok" What a load if BS.

Captured military personnel overseas is a threat to the U.S., no?

They are not civilians. These people have information. We don't want this in the wrong hands. I don't agree with the release of the Al Qaeda prisoners, but I do agree we needed this little snot back.

[Darnell 8,479]

I dunno - if he was clearly identified as a deserter [not opinion, not conjecture - but fact - clearly identified]

then

I say leave him where he is - not push forward with trading on the 5 to 1 bits at all.

[UncleBeer 244]

Hagel had “determined that providing notice as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier’s life.

How's that? He'd thrived for five years under their care. Absolutely no reason to fear for his health now.

It's clear this was a politically timed tactic to divert attention from the VA scandal, for which 79% of Americans hold the preznit personally responsible. This administration has no shame.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

“The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule, and that is: we don’t leave our men or women in uniform behind,” Obama told reporters in Warsaw, the first stop on his four-day European trip. Noting that Bergdahl had been in captivity for more than five years, the president explained that the released POW had not been “interrogated” regarding the specifics of his capture by the Taliban. “Regardless of circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an American prisoner back,” he said. “Period. Full stop. We don’t condition that.” He also noted that the White House had been consulting with Congress “for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Sergeant Bergdahl.” In other words, he was suggesting that lawmakers like California Senator Dianne Feinstein should not be outraged that the White House took this opportunity to make the transfer.

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/politics/no-obama-didnt-negotiate-with-terrorists-to-bring-bergdahl-home.html/?a=viewall#ixzz33grwW9Tl

Additionally, White House National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden told The New York Times that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel had not only approved the exchange, but agreed that the 30-day notice should not apply in the case of Bergdahl. “The administration determined that the notification requirement should be construed not to apply to this unique set of circumstances,” she said, because Hagel had “determined that providing notice as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier’s life.” Hayden added that the notice requirement would have interfered “with the executive’s performance” of primary duties set out in the Constitution: protecting American lives abroad and protecting American soldiers. “We believe it is fair to conclude that Congress did not intend that the administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances,” she said.

So what is driving the outrage?

Given there are no other American prisoners of war held by the Taliban, meaning this trade was a one-time event, it may seem that the transfer of Bergdahl been drawn too much criticism.

Republicans have even labeled the president’s action as “negotiating with terrorists,” referring to a Bush-era political maxim. “It has long been America’s unwavering, bipartisan policy not to negotiate with terrorists, especially for the exchange of hostages,” argued George W. Bush’s former U.N. Ambassador, John Bolton. “By trading to release hostages, we are invariably putting a price on the heads of other Americans.” Florida Senator Marco Rubio agreed, warning that the exchange could “encourage future terrorist kidnappings of Americans.”

Of course, there is the historical precedent to consider. Jimmy Carter’s administration conducted intricate negotiations with the Iranian government to secure the release of the dozens of Americans taken hostage in Tehran in 1979. At the time, Carter described the Iranians as terrorists. The hostages were eventually freed when the United States agreed to unfreeze about $11 billion in Iranian assets. Ronald Reagan made trades with the Iranians as well, secretly exchanging arms for for the release of Americans held in Lebanon. (Although, it should be noted that Bolton condemned that transaction, which is known as the Iran-Contra Affair.) Even Bill Clinton met with Gerry Adams, the leader of the political wing of the Irish Republican Army who was then on the State Department’s terror list, while George W. Bush made deals with Sunni insurgents during the Iraq War, insurgents that had been killing American soldiers.

A. Bush's fault . can also be "conjure up any conservative in history that even remotely did anything similar to what is going on today. It makes it ok.