Americans split on prisoner swap of Taliban for U.S. soldier

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It is not partisan politics to understand that the President violated a law that he signed only last year. He may have not agreed with a part of it and acted on that, but that will soon enough end up in the Supreme Court, of that I have no doubt. You can rely on the GOP hammer on this for the next ... oh, six months (almost to the day).

To the average US serviceman and, for that matter, any Allied serviceman, the problems are twofold.

First, they want to know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether Sgt. Bergdahl is, in fact, a deserter. The non-disclosure agreements signed by his company, the relentless innuendo about their being "psychopaths" and lacking discipline, dripping out from those associated with this Administration, all contribute to lowering morale and eroding their confidence that this Administration supports its service personnel. Because, from what I hear, there is little doubt that his release is a political distraction. That and even if he is found not to have deserted, he has been tainted as such and his reputation is irreparably damaged. The handling of this whole affair has been shockingly awful.

Secondly, every serviceman in Afghanistan and everywhere else that the Taliban and Al Qaeda have a reach knows they have just become more of a target. Capture a soldier, trade them for 5, 10, or even 100 prisoners. The precedent set here is most dangerous. And the effect on morale is just the same as the first concern - not good.

The US knew where Sgt. Bergdahl was being held and had reliable on-the-ground intelligence about the situation. On a number of occasions, a rescue operation was considered and rejected. On what grounds is unconfirmed, but the suspicion is that he was considered a deserter and not worth the possible additional loss of life. An armed rescue mission would have been the way to retrieve Sgt. Bergdahl, in the eyes of the US Armed Forces. Servicemen know that they are putting their life on the line and are fully prepared to do so, especially if it means bringing one of their own home.

The trade off here will be to wait and see whether these 5 Taliban return to killing, terrorizing and kidnapping, or whether Afghanistan makes progress toward peace. If the latter comes to pass, this trade may come to be seen as worth it, deserter or not. On the other hand, if more people die as a result of this trade, if more US servicemen get captured for trading, this will be seen as a very, very bad deal.

Comparing President Obama's actions to those of President Reagan is a distraction. The "he did it, so why can't we?" line of reasoning misses one important fact. The scandal and subsequent fallout of the Iran-Contra affair seriously damaged the Reagan presidency. Do they think this President should get off without the same level of investigation and, if he or his Administration is found to have violated the law, consequence?

If the President is seen as not following the law, a law he signed, then why should anyone else?

It is not partisan politics ... You can rely on the GOP hammer on this for the next ... oh, six months (almost to the day).

A two line paragraph starting with a premise that the last sentence outright negates. Classic. This is all about partisan politics.

The questions around the serviceman's conduct should be investigated and answered. But we don't leave the man behind as a prisoner of war on a mere suspicion that he may have deserted or conducted himself less than honorably. Last I checked, in this country the presumption of innocence still prevails - desires of the far right to put away with that presumption of innocence for anyone not aligned with them notwithstanding.

Now, if you want to talk precedent, then you're decades too late. Prisoner swaps happened prior to 2014 and prior to Obama. In fact, there isn't an administration in recent memory that hasn't done them. And yes, these are always done with our enemies. No exception.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

A two line paragraph starting with a premise that the last sentence outright negates. Classic. This is all about partisan politics.

The questions around the serviceman's conduct should be investigated and answered. But we don't leave the man behind as a prisoner of war on a mere suspicion that he may have deserted or conducted himself less than honorably. Last I checked, in this country the presumption of innocence still prevails - desires of the far right to put away with that presumption of innocence for anyone not aligned with them notwithstanding.

Now, if you want to talk precedent, then you're decades too late. Prisoner swaps happened prior to 2014 and prior to Obama. In fact, there isn't an administration in recent memory that hasn't done them. And yes, these are always done with our enemies. No exception.

Once again all you got is-

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.

As for innocent until proven guilty--Are you not the same guy that was bragging about measuring GZ for an orange jumpsuit and crowing about how bad he would be treated in Prison, prior to his trial

Edited June 8, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Speculation -: ideas or guesses about something that is not known

We have a lot more than speculation

We know for a fact Obama broke the law

We know for a fact that these 5 Taliban leaders were high in the organization

We know for a act they had committed many atrocities and murdered 1000;s

We have the internal Army investigation that concluded Bergdahl left his post

We have countless testimony of his fellow soldiers

We have intercepted Radio traffic indicating he was looking for the Taliban

We do? I looked at the blurbs on each of them that were posted earlier and there, it sounds more like suspicion than actual knowledge.

• He is thought to have personally supervised the killing of thousands...
• He is also believed to have been present during Spann's death...

Is there more concrete information available that wasn't yet shared?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Once again all you got is-

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.

Lame. I did not even mention Bush. I was talking of every administration in recent memory. That would be everyone going back to Carter. In other words, the precedent was set no less than four decades ago. Obama was just a kid then. To suggest that he just now set that precedent is nothing but hyper-partisan bullshite.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

We do? I looked at the blurbs on each of them that were posted earlier and there, it sounds more like suspicion than actual knowledge.

• He is thought to have personally supervised the killing of thousands...
• He is also believed to have been present during Spann's death...

Is there more concrete information available that wasn't yet shared?

So in your mad foaming rush to defend anything that Obama does, blindly, you have succumbed to defending Terrorists

TSK TSK TSK

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

So in your mad foaming rush to defend anything that Obama does, blindly, you have succumbed to defending Terrorists

TSK TSK TSK

I'm not supporting anyone. I am simply asking how we know what you claim we know. I see you have no answer. You don't disappoint.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I'm not supporting anyone. I am simply asking how we know what you claim we know. I see you have no answer. You don't disappoint.

How do you know Hitler really did the stuff he did . Did you see it ?

You never fail to disappoint either.

The Cia, the Inelegance committee ad others in our Govt thought they had committed atrocities and were too dangerous to release.

I guess you know better ?

Edited June 8, 2014 by The Nature Boy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

How do you know Hitler really did the stuff he did . Did you see it ?

You never fail to disappoint either.

So you have no evidence to support your claim that "we know". You can just say that and move on.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So you have no evidence to support your claim that "we know". You can just say that and move on.

well know I was not there and did not see the 1000's the CIA says they are responsible for murdering, so by your standards I guess not

Do you have any proof Obama was born in the US, I mean I know it's absurd to argue otherwise but you can't really prove it right ?

[Pooky 3,843]

It is not partisan politics to understand that the President violated a law that he signed only last year. He may have not agreed with a part of it and acted on that, but that will soon enough end up in the Supreme Court, of that I have no doubt. You can rely on the GOP hammer on this for the next ... oh, six months (almost to the day).

A two line paragraph starting with a premise that the last sentence outright negates. Classic. This is all about partisan politics.

The questions around the serviceman's conduct should be investigated and answered. But we don't leave the man behind as a prisoner of war on a mere suspicion that he may have deserted or conducted himself less than honorably. Last I checked, in this country the presumption of innocence still prevails - desires of the far right to put away with that presumption of innocence for anyone not aligned with them notwithstanding.

Now, if you want to talk precedent, then you're decades too late. Prisoner swaps happened prior to 2014 and prior to Obama. In fact, there isn't an administration in recent memory that hasn't done them. And yes, these are always done with our enemies. No exception.

Once again, you read what you wanted to read and came up with the wrong answer.

The question of whether President Obama broke the law that he signed is most definitely not political. It is a question of law.

The predictable Republican response, on the other hand, is absolutely politics. Add in the six months I mentioned, until the mid-term elections, and I think we can safely say it's politics as usual.

I agree that we should never leave behind a POW. Only the US military did not view him as a POW, but as a probable deserter and possible collaborator and nixed the armed rescue scenario, which is how it should have been done. Now, we have one man returned, while they have five, and every subsequent death for which any of those five are responsible is on the President's head. It did not need to be so.

Prisoner swaps between governments have happened for decades. Not trades with terrorists. It really doesn't matter which President does it, we should not negotiate with terrorists, because it sets a precedent for the to do the same thing in the future, only more often and for bigger stakes. It is a dangerous route to take.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Once again, you read what you wanted to read and came up with the wrong answer.

The question of whether President Obama broke the law that he signed is most definitely not political. It is a question of law.

The predictable Republican response, on the other hand, is absolutely politics. Add in the six months I mentioned, until the mid-term elections, and I think we can safely say it's politics as usual.

I agree that we should never leave behind a POW. Only the US military did not view him as a POW, but as a probable deserter and possible collaborator and nixed the armed rescue scenario, which is how it should have been done. Now, we have one man returned, while they have five, and every subsequent death for which any of those five are responsible is on the President's head. It did not need to be so.

Prisoner swaps between governments have happened for decades. Not trades with terrorists. It really doesn't matter which President does it, we should not negotiate with terrorists, because it sets a precedent for the to do the same thing in the future, only more often and for bigger stakes. It is a dangerous route to take.

Another axiom gone to hell.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

+100.

I have been asking this same question all along. How would you feel if this soldier were your son, or brother?

I asked from a personal point of view. I wasn't suggesting that it should have influenced Obama's decision. I doubt many parents would expect the US to make this swap, but I also doubt many would turn it down if it was offered.

[Leatherneck 693]

A two line paragraph starting with a premise that the last sentence outright negates. Classic. This is all about partisan politics.

The questions around the serviceman's conduct should be investigated and answered. But we don't leave the man behind as a prisoner of war on a mere suspicion that he may have deserted or conducted himself less than honorably. Last I checked, in this country the presumption of innocence still prevails - desires of the far right to put away with that presumption of innocence for anyone not aligned with them notwithstanding.

Now, if you want to talk precedent, then you're decades too late. Prisoner swaps happened prior to 2014 and prior to Obama. In fact, there isn't an administration in recent memory that hasn't done them. And yes, these are always done with our enemies. No exception.

Of course they have, but negotiating prisoner swaps with terrorists, not exactly. The more serious question and the biggest problem rational folks have with this, why release those particular five terrorist? I agree with not leaving Bergdahl behind, if for no other reason, so he can answer why he left the outpost. Now, if only the far left could bring themselves to admit Obama broke the law and releasing those particular five was a bad idea.

Putting aside the issues regarding Bergdahl going AWOL, It's not that hard to see that releasing those five terrorists is problematic, for U.S. national security and for the people of Afghanistan. However, a lack of plain ole common sense, blind support of Obama and his actions, or both would cause some to see things differently or not see at all.

Edited June 8, 2014 by Leatherneck

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HiK8_NCRSTI

[spookyturtle 9,466]

IMO, a dangerous precedent has been set. And with the Taliban no less. Good thing we didn't take bin Laden alive, Obama probably would have included him in the deal too.