The Taliban Trade for Bowe Bergdahl

[MorningStar]

This situation has felt like a slap in the face to me.  Maybe it's because my brother was serving in Afghanistan less than a year ago?  I think about what was sacrificed to put these Taliban commanders away in the first place.  How many were injured?  How many died?  I worried for a year and was so blessed that my brother was able to come home.  I'm sure there were families whose worst fears were realized.

 

Not only are these men extremely likely to return to their terrorist activities against us, this administration has taught them that abducting U.S. soldiers is a great idea.  If we're willing to trade 5 of theirs for one deserter, how many would we trade for a loyal soldier?  How many innocent Americans will suffer when they succesfully plan another attack?

 

I'm not heartless.  I wouldn't want Bergdahl to continue to suffer even though it was his own fault for leaving his post, but negotiating with terrorists is the wrong way. 

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/obama-bergdahl-somebodys-child-no-apologies-swap-n123501

[Just_A_Guy]

If we're willing to trade 5 of theirs for one deserter, how many would we trade for a loyal soldier?

That depends. Is he a registered democrat? If not, are he and/or his family at least willing to provide talking points and a photo op for the benefit of the CinC's moonbat base?

And of course, is the current CinC already looking for an excuse to release as many enemy combatants as possible on the delusional theory that releasing your enemy means people will think you're winning the war?

[Quin]

Do you know I was declared UA (what AWOL is in the first 3 days) TWICE in one month?

Once, my orders got messed up, so I had (paper) orders sending me from point A to point B.
Point B knew I was coming, Point A didn't know I was leaving.
Took WEEKS to sort out.

The other time, I was snagged for a field assignment (verbal orders).
Came home to being thrown in the brig.
Wheeeeeeee.
Thanks a lot, guys. Bite me.
That was sorted in hours.

There have been other times, but that month was über annoying.

Point is.... Being declared UA happens ALL THE TIME.
I don't know anyone (including my pentagon working GodFather) who hasn't been declared UA at least once.
ESP when you're at a "post" shift... Because if you leave for ANY reason, for ANY period of time (including a bomb going off, and if you don't get down 20 feet to your left, you're pink mist & pudding)...
- you've just disobeyed a direct order (all post positions are direct orders)
- you are UA from your post
If your CO really has it out for you, you can get sent up for living.
Seen that happen more than once.
Which is just gross.


HOWEVER, these situations usually get sorted out fairly quickly.
You present your paper orders, or track down the SOB you gave you the verbal orders.
Of course, if you've been captured by the enemy, that's not going to happen.

I can JUST SEE...
Dude gets captured.
Dude gets sent to Leavenworth for being UA/ AWOL.

Face. Palm.

Q

[Palerider]

Not crazy about the trade at all

[Quin]

Aside from whether or not he was actually UA...

I'm thrilled we're finally starting to do exchanges like were SOP in every other war in history.

I'm sure there are reasons why we don't want to adhere to the Geneva Convention....

But conversely, I'm glad to see that there may actually be a reason to keep our people alive, instead of shredding or beheading them, or selling them to one of the terrorist groups offering bounties on US soldiers.

We've got a military JAG officer (or civilian equiv) in here, don't we?

What's the current bounty on selling a service member?

Last I looked it was 2 million.

Q

[Guest]

Since this is kind of local to my area, it's all we're hearing about on the news. The town had to cancel their "welcome home" celebration because of security concerns. More people than not are livid about what has happened. 

 

I don't know the facts. I know there's a post going around that was supposedly written by one of his platoon members that's pretty incriminating. But who knows if it's authentic.

 

What bothers me the very most is our commander in chief (I can barely type it, I'm not going to honor the man with capital letters) breaking protocol and circumventing the way this should have been done (or not been done) and releasing 5 terrorist leaders for a possible deserter. 

 

Meanwhile, in Sudan, a mother and her two small children, who are fathered by a US citizen, are sitting in a prison waiting to see if the mother will be executed and the children farmed off to Muslim extremists. And our "commander in chief" won't do anything about it because Sudanese law says paternity has to be proven. So we are bound to a militant state's laws, but not our own?

[MorningStar]

One of the terrorists that was released - there is a picture going around where he is posing with five heads that he cut off himself.  Just awful.  These weren't just any prisoners.  They are the worst! 

 

It seems pretty evident that Bergdahl did desert his post based on the fact that he mailed his things home a week before and the email conversation where he expressed his disgust with America and his dad told him to follow his conscience.  I think he is possibly mental ill or extremely naive, thinking he could approach the Taliban as their buddy.  It's amazing they didn't behead him a long time ago based on what has happened to so many other people, but then he turned out to be very useful to them.

 

Still, that's not the big issue to me.  The big issue is that we negotiated with terrorists, which shouldn't happen.    

[jerome1232]

The only thing that I'm up in arms about is consulting congress. I understand by law he has to consult congress before an exchange and he did not do it.

What do you have when your executive branch sends the legislative branch an apology for not letting them [congress] pretend they still have any real power? Even my senator, Senator Feinstein, who I absolutely hate, is upset about this.

[Guest]

Isn't it blatantly obvious to y'all by now that the US govt will do anything to secure elections? And yet you still look to the govt to "solve" your problems?

[Palerider]

Isn't it blatantly obvious to y'all by now that the US govt will do anything to secure elections? And yet you still look to the govt to "solve" your problems?

I don't look to my Govt to solve my problems......there lots of citizens of this country that do believe what you said. Anytime the Govt gets involved it's gonna cost you.

[Palerider]

Isn't it blatantly obvious to y'all by now that the US govt will do anything to secure elections? And yet you still look to the govt to "solve" your problems?

Read the middle line in my signature.

[MorningStar]

Isn't it blatantly obvious to y'all by now that the US govt will do anything to secure elections? And yet you still look to the govt to "solve" your problems?

I don't look at government to solve my problems.  They make problems.

[jerome1232]

Isn't it blatantly obvious to y'all by now that the US govt will do anything to secure elections? And yet you still look to the govt to "solve" your problems?

You are preaching to the choir here Anatess.

[Mahone]

 

 

Still, that's not the big issue to me.  The big issue is that we negotiated with terrorists, which shouldn't happen.    

 

Yet the US has done so for many years. Some of these negotiations are documented, reputably sourced and publicly available. Others will have taken place behind closed doors. So there is nothing new about these negotiations with terrorists.

 

The phrase "we never negotiate with terrorists" hasn't applied in practice for a long time, it's just repeated by the general public in circumstances like this.

 

I haven't really followed the story in anger, so don't know much about it. But personally, I think there is more to it than is being officially stated. I suspect that this exchange relates to the anticipated closure of guantanamo bay, and partially answers the question of what to do with all the prisoners held there.

[Wingnut]

I think that there are only a handful of people in the world who have adequate information to make judgements on this topic, and I think that's mostly okay.  In the meantime, I'm not one of them, and I'm just glad that the Bergdahl family can have some peace and closure to this period in their lives.  If he stands court marshal, fine.  But his family knows that he's alive and again on American soil (well, soon to be, I think).  I can't help but be happy for them for that.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yeah, one of the most cogent comments I've seen was over on Althouse, where a commenter said "He may be an [epithet], but he's our [epithet]".  In general, I'm glad we have him back--even if we're just going to have him spend his golden years up at Leavenworth. 

 

But frankly, I don't think it was worth the cost.

[Bini]

I'm happy for the family, but I'm sure they'll be tested by the persecution they'll endure, indefinitely. I would agree with the thought process that the public does not know all the details pertaining to this event, which of course, is always a cash cow for the media.

[Guest]

But if you follow the line of foreign policy decisions that this administration has made in its almost 6 years in power, you kinda have to wonder which side the Americans are on... and if that's not clear to every American, then you can't just sit back and say, "Oh, we don't all know anything about it... it's beyond our paygrade."

 

No.  You are the voting public.  When any one of those 5 people rolls out another attack, it's not going to be the Administration nor Bergdahl that is going to pay for it.  It is going to be another 3,000 innocent civilians who thought it was above their paygrade to understand what the bojangles is going on...

 

[MorningStar]

Yeah, one of the most cogent comments I've seen was over on Althouse, where a commenter said "He may be an [epithet], but he's our [epithet]".  In general, I'm glad we have him back--even if we're just going to have him spend his golden years up at Leavenworth. 

 

But frankly, I don't think it was worth the cost.

A rescue mission would have been a much better option.  If a kidnapper has a hostage, police don't offer to let his 5 sleaziest friends out of jail who are likely to rape and murder again if he'll let the hostage go.  It seems like that's what the administration has basically done.  These aren't POW's to me.  They're terrorists who will kill innocent people again.

[Guest]

A rescue mission would have been a much better option.  If a kidnapper has a hostage, police don't offer to let his 5 sleaziest friends out of jail who are likely to rape and murder again if he'll let the hostage go.  It seems like that's what the administration has basically done.  These aren't POW's to me.  They're terrorists who will kill innocent people again.

 

They're not POW's period.  They are enemy combatants.  The US don't have POWs because they're not fighting a war against a nation.  The war on terrorism is not rooted on a head of state or a specific organization.  If your next-door neighbor wages a personal terrorism war against American citizens in the name of Leprechauns, he can be captured and locked up in Guantanamo as an enemy combatant.  He doesn't have to be a POW soldier of a war.