Bowe Bergdahl, Sole Afghan POW

[malchior]

Because he was obviously serious about doing that.

As usual the point has been missed. What Rand said is so far beyond the pale it doesn't deserve comparison with some dumb shit remarks that either Clinton or Obama said because I don't think I've ever heard either muse about trading political rivals to the enemy. Seriously, how can it be defended? I'll ask my usual question which will be ignored - how would Republicans react if it were the opposite? I think we all know the answer but somehow it is ok because sometimes Clinton or Obama said stupid things (like anyone else)? Again that is idiotic. That this type of hyperbole just flies without a blink of the eye reflects on how twisted and broken the rhetoric is out there. This is poisonous stuff and it only gets worse with time.

[Rip]

Because he was obviously serious about doing that.

As usual the point has been missed. What Rand said is so far beyond the pale it doesn't deserve comparison with some dumb shit remarks that either Clinton or Obama said because I don't think I've ever heard either muse about trading political rivals to the enemy. Seriously, how can it be defended? I'll ask my usual question which will be ignored - how would Republicans react if it were the opposite? I think we all know the answer but somehow it is ok because sometimes Clinton or Obama said stupid things (like anyone else)? Again that is idiotic. That this type of hyperbole just flies without a blink of the eye reflects on how twisted and broken the rhetoric is out there. This is poisonous stuff and it only gets worse with time.

Why would someone defend doing something said in a joke? Politicians spout tongue in cheek rhetoric like this all the time.

[Zarathud]

The question is whether you can tell the joke from their regular rhetoric or it's all the same.

[dbt1949]

I don't know but I think most of us don't have a problem with the soldier himself but the way he was freed.

I don't understand his family and hometown having such animosity shown towards them. Even when the soldier is free to go home they should put him in type of protective custody.

[GreenGoo]

Why would someone defend doing something said in a joke? Politicians spout tongue in cheek rhetoric like this all the time.

Because it's in poor taste, generates animosity for no reason and is in general, a shitty thing to say.

I know hating the other side is sort of a past time for you guys, but geezus. I might expect that sort of comment from an anonymous poster on a news article, not from someone who apparently has a shot at being the President of the US. I think it speaks to his character, or lack thereof.

[Rip]

Why would someone defend doing something said in a joke? Politicians spout tongue in cheek rhetoric like this all the time.

Because it's in poor taste, generates animosity for no reason and is in general, a shitty thing to say.

I know hating the other side is sort of a past time for you guys, but geezus. I might expect that sort of comment from an anonymous poster on a news article, not from someone who apparently has a shot at being the President of the US. I think it speaks to his character, or lack thereof.

Then I guess it won't change you not voting for him. None of the people that are potentially going to vote for him seem to have been bothered by it. Should be a nice thing to have in the bag when those five guys get implicated in some future terrorist acts. Not a matter of if but when.

[GreenGoo]

Then I guess it won't change you not voting for him. None of the people that are potentially going to vote for him seem to have been bothered by it.

Whatever. Be civilized or not. It's your choice.

edit to clarify: I meant the American Public, not Rip specifically.

[Canuck]

Why would someone defend doing something said in a joke? Politicians spout tongue in cheek rhetoric like this all the time.

Because it's in poor taste, generates animosity for no reason and is in general, a shitty thing to say.

I know hating the other side is sort of a past time for you guys, but geezus. I might expect that sort of comment from an anonymous poster on a news article, not from someone who apparently has a shot at being the President of the US. I think it speaks to his character, or lack thereof.

Then I guess it won't change you not voting for him. None of the people that are potentially going to vote for him seem to have been bothered by it. Should be a nice thing to have in the bag when those five guys get implicated in some future terrorist acts. Not a matter of if but when.

I still don't get the terrorist descriptor. Most of these guys were captured in 2001 which is long before the Taliban started engaging in what you could describe as terrorist acts. Does fighting in a civil war make you a terrorist?

[raydude]

Then I guess it won't change you not voting for him. None of the people that are potentially going to vote for him seem to have been bothered by it. Should be a nice thing to have in the bag when those five guys get implicated in some future terrorist acts. Not a matter of if but when.

I won't be holding my breath waiting for that. Just like I won't be holding my breath waiting for Russia to expand beyond the Crimea.

[LawBeefaroni]

Why would someone defend doing something said in a joke? Politicians spout tongue in cheek rhetoric like this all the time.

Because it's in poor taste, generates animosity for no reason and is in general, a shitty thing to say.

I know hating the other side is sort of a past time for you guys, but geezus. I might expect that sort of comment from an anonymous poster on a news article, not from someone who apparently has a shot at being the President of the US. I think it speaks to his character, or lack thereof.

Then I guess it won't change you not voting for him. None of the people that are potentially going to vote for him seem to have been bothered by it. Should be a nice thing to have in the bag when those five guys get implicated in some future terrorist acts. Not a matter of if but when.

I still don't get the terrorist descriptor. Most of these guys were captured in 2001 which is long before the Taliban started engaging in what you could describe as terrorist acts. Does fighting in a civil war make you a terrorist?

Retcon. Fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan was terrorism now.

[dbt1949]

I am glad he was released and as a soldier I do think the government was responsible for rescuing or negotiating for him, I just think Obama's people went about it wrong.

[malchior]

My only problem with judging how Obama's people did it is that we don't know all the circumstances and the information they were working off of. They apparently had conflicting reports about his well-being and wildly conflicting reports about the risk these guys pose. Despite the hyperbole they do not appear to be terrorist threats to the US - they are threats to Americans in Afghanistan if anything. Not that that is insignificant but anyone who thinks these guys are going to slink off into a lair and attack NYC is deluding themselves. Considering we are about to leave the country, the window on getting the players involved to cooperate was likely narrowing. In my mind, this is a classic risk/reward scenario - moderate risk with a high reward. The only thing I have a problem with is they perhaps should have called leadership in Congress and gave them the heads up *before* they did it. But considering how Congress acted my instincts are that the White House acted correctly. I don't think anyone would have intentionally scuttled the deal but it certainly could have leaked and I have to believe that is what they worried about.

[Canuck]

I am glad he was released and as a soldier I do think the government was responsible for rescuing or negotiating for him, I just think Obama's people went about it wrong.

Care to elaborate?

[Pyperkub]

I am glad he was released and as a soldier I do think the government was responsible for rescuing or negotiating for him, I just think Obama's people went about it wrong.

Care to elaborate?

He needed to make sure that republicans got the credit ( with credit to Fox news too), then there wouldn't be people hiring political consultants to make a big stink about it.

[dbt1949]

I am glad he was released and as a soldier I do think the government was responsible for rescuing or negotiating for him, I just think Obama's people went about it wrong.

Care to elaborate?

First of all having been a soldier I certainly believe in the no soldier left behind, At least the live ones. I have mixed feelings about dead ones, but then again I'm not a parent of a dead soldier.
Second, as part of the leaving no soldier behind I think the military or government is responsible for getting him/her back, mainly by rescuing them. However, if that's not possible then in the case of a recognized enemy country they should negotiate for a prisoner swap.
In the case of terrorist tho (and the Taliban are terrorists, just look at yesterdays attack on a Pakistani civilian airport) I don't believe in negotiating unless it's to end the war, not prisoner exchange unless the war is over. I believe you already know the thoughts behind not negotiating with terrorists in general.
President Obama has decided to swap 5 high ranking terrorists for one soldier setting up a precedent that will make the terrorists want to capture GI's to get something else the want.
Just because Reagan did it in the past doesn't make it right either. I thought it was pretty crappy of him too.

[Unagi]

I think this needs to be re-read :

Well...yeah. Not negotiating with terrorists means not discussing concessions under the threat of and to prevent violence.
In this case the fact that they are terrorists has nothing to do with the negotiations really.
..
The spirit behind "we don't negotiate with terrorists" is that you don't buckle under the threat of violence. i.e. Remove troops from Afghanistan or we blow up the Statue of Liberty. No thanks.

Care to push back or dispute that, dbt? or RIP, or MSD? Do you feel that what GreenGoo wrote is correct or incorrect?


I feel that we got our guy back from a group that does indeed pretty much represents that country.

I just think Obama's people went about it wrong.

Let's admit that we don't know what the details are - and it's likely all about the details. I'm fine with you giving them no benefit of the doubt... that's your call. But you also seem to come from this from the angle that Obama did it just to score points and look great - I think that's 100% wrong... I think he knew what he was going to do would make him a political target, but that he wanted to get this American home, none-the-less.

[Holman]

The way I see it:

No prisoner swap is ever going to feel like a Big Win. You have to give up something to get something, and that's what we did. The Israelis do it all the time; to them, three or four hundred prisoners with blood on their hands are considered a reasonable trade for one IDF soldier.

All the hot air over whether Bergdahl is worthless is just ugly domestic politics. He's an American soldier who was captured by the enemy. We get American soldiers back. That's part of our ethos, and we don't weigh the value of what the American is "worth" to us. Being an American is enough. I think it's pretty clear now that the talk about Bergdahl joining the Taliban and being truly anti-American, as opposed to someone stressed to the limit by a shitty deployment, is pure Fox News fantasy.

But how dangerous are the guys we released?

Yes, they were once Big Fish, but their day is past. Every one of them has been wrung dry of intelligence, and their value to the enemy is minimal as well: they've been out of the war for years, and everything has changed. Their networks are broken up, their old lieutenants are dead, their old peers are dead, Osama is dead. While years in prison may have made their hatred of the West more powerful, when has such motive ever been in short supply? These guys aren't geniuses whose supple minds are superweapons; they're just the top guys who got caught. Most of them are probably going to be mental wrecks anyway. I imagine Gitmo leaves significant scars.

Plus, now that they're out in the world, they're targets again. If they go active, how long do you think they will last? Alternately, we may learn more from tracking them now than we ever could from holding them in a cell.

[Rip]

He may not have told Congress but he sure told a lot of other people.

Members of Congress on Monday learned they were not among the top 90 people to be told of the deal President Obama cut with terrorists for the release of five top Taliban commanders at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a U.S. soldier.

And they now have a few questions about that.

Congress held a behind-closed-doors hearing on the deal for Bergdahl. Some of the details presented were classified, others not.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told WND: “Today my colleagues and I were informed that as many as 80 to 90 Obama administration officials were aware of the plan to exchange Sgt. Bergdahl for five dangerous terrorists before a single member of Congress was informed.”

Meadows said it is “wholly unacceptable that President Obama knowingly chose to completely bypass Congress.”

The congressman said his question for the White House now is: “How many Qatar officials knew about the deal before a single member of Congress was made aware?”

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/congress-not ... ahl-trade/

[LawBeefaroni]

He may not have told Congress but he sure told a lot of other people.

Members of Congress on Monday learned they were not among the top 90 people to be told of the deal President Obama cut with terrorists for the release of five top Taliban commanders at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a U.S. soldier.

And they now have a few questions about that.

Congress held a behind-closed-doors hearing on the deal for Bergdahl. Some of the details presented were classified, others not.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told WND: “Today my colleagues and I were informed that as many as 80 to 90 Obama administration officials were aware of the plan to exchange Sgt. Bergdahl for five dangerous terrorists before a single member of Congress was informed.”

Meadows said it is “wholly unacceptable that President Obama knowingly chose to completely bypass Congress.”

The congressman said his question for the White House now is: “How many Qatar officials knew about the deal before a single member of Congress was made aware?”

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/congress-not ... ahl-trade/

How many people does it take to pull of a deal like this? It's not outlandish to think that 90 people would need to be involved in brokering a deal. Which would have to be brokered before there was anything to report to congress.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms with the deal and how it was handled. "Oh, boo hoo, we weren't the very first to know" rings kind of...well...babyish.

Next they'll be complaining that some catapult officer knew about the launch of a bombing run before they did.

[Rip]

He may not have told Congress but he sure told a lot of other people.

Members of Congress on Monday learned they were not among the top 90 people to be told of the deal President Obama cut with terrorists for the release of five top Taliban commanders at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a U.S. soldier.

And they now have a few questions about that.

Congress held a behind-closed-doors hearing on the deal for Bergdahl. Some of the details presented were classified, others not.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., told WND: “Today my colleagues and I were informed that as many as 80 to 90 Obama administration officials were aware of the plan to exchange Sgt. Bergdahl for five dangerous terrorists before a single member of Congress was informed.”

Meadows said it is “wholly unacceptable that President Obama knowingly chose to completely bypass Congress.”

The congressman said his question for the White House now is: “How many Qatar officials knew about the deal before a single member of Congress was made aware?”

http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/congress-not ... ahl-trade/

How many people does it take to pull of a deal like this? It's not outlandish to think that 90 people would need to be involved in brokering a deal. Which would have to be brokered before there was anything to report to congress.

There are a lot of legitimate criticisms with the deal and how it was handled. "Oh, boo hoo, we weren't the very first to know" rings kind of...well...babyish.

Next they'll be complaining that some catapult officer knew about the launch of a bombing run before they did.

I doubt it would take anywhere near that. Guess we will see if they ever release the names of who was in the know. In the end none of them were required by law to have known about it while lots of people who WERE required by law to know, were not told.

[LawBeefaroni]

I doubt it would take anywhere near that. Guess we will see if they ever release the names of who was in the know. In the end none of them were required by law to have known about it while lots of people who WERE required by law to know, were not told.

Maybe 90 was high in terns of "need to know," I have no idea. But 90 people probably are informed whenever the President is going outside for a walk. No dobut there were more than we might think necessary who had to be involved in a deal like this one.

[GreenGoo]

Why the fuck would anyone care about a names list? Where are they planning on going with it? What could possibly be done with it?

This is insane, the amount of time, energy and money being spent because of butthurtedness. If it was illegal, then pursue whatever legal remedies exist. If it's not, fuck off. It's done. It can't be undone. If this is all to score a few points for an election that is 2 years away, then...good lord.

[Rip]

Why the fuck would anyone care about a names list? Where are they planning on going with it? What could possibly be done with it?

This is insane, the amount of time, energy and money being spent because of butthurtedness. If it was illegal, then pursue whatever legal remedies exist. If it's not, fuck off. It's done. It can't be undone. If this is all to score a few points for an election that is 2 years away, then...good lord.

They would care because of the excuse used to justify ignoring the law. Depending on who was told it would show that the excuse was just that an EXCUSE, and not really a justification.

I know you profess to not care now but I am pretty sure when a conservative regains the WH and picks up where Obama left off when it comes to disregarding the law the same people that say it doesn't matter now will be screaming bloody murder at the thought of someone they don't like or agree with disregarding Congress and any laws they enact.

[GreenGoo]

Why the fuck would anyone care about a names list? Where are they planning on going with it? What could possibly be done with it?

This is insane, the amount of time, energy and money being spent because of butthurtedness. If it was illegal, then pursue whatever legal remedies exist. If it's not, fuck off. It's done. It can't be undone. If this is all to score a few points for an election that is 2 years away, then...good lord.

They would care because of the excuse used to justify ignoring the law. Depending on who was told it would show that the excuse was just that an EXCUSE, and not really a justification.

Ok, now what?

[Isgrimnur]

They're trying to score points for the midterm elections in November, trying to cement their hold on the House and flip the Senate.

And I will again call attention to the fact that Obama pretty much stated in the signing statement that created that 30-day rule that he considered stuff like that to be a violation of the separation of powers.

Guantanamo prison is a Department of Defense installation, and the president is Commander in Chief. Also, if you read the appropriate part of the law, it was the SecDef's resposibility to notify them:

Sec. 1033.Requirements for certifications relating to the transfer of detainees at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to foreign countries and other foreign entities

(1)In general
Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense to transfer, during the period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 2014, any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.

Also, there's nothing in there about punishments. It's not listed as a misdemeanor or a felony. There's no teeth to the regulation.

If Congress is so concerned about the violation, where's the lawsuit to let the courts rule on the issue?

[LawBeefaroni]

I know you profess to not care now but I am pretty sure when a conservative regains the WH and picks up where Obama left off when it comes to disregarding the law the same people that say it doesn't matter now will be screaming bloody murder at the thought of someone they don't like or agree with disregarding Congress and any laws they enact.

Obama is just picking up where a conservative left off. Anyone taking a partisan side on this, either side, is flirting with hypocracy if they've been alive for more than 12 years or so.

[gbasden]

Signing statements are bipartisan bullshit. I think it's telling that neither party will try a lawsuit about them.

[GreenGoo]

I know you profess to not care

Actually I do care. What I don't care about is whether 90 people that weren't congresspeople knew about it, and I certainly don't care what their names are. The suggestion that they should be named was particularly irksome. If it was genuinely against the law then follow through on that. If they (politicians) just want to spout off repeatedly for the media, well then they can go to hell.

At least a soldier was brought home. It's true that I'd rather the prez do an end run to bring soldiers home than to have a prez do an end run to put them over there in the first place.

[Isgrimnur]

Signing statements are bipartisan bullshit. I think it's telling that neither party will try a lawsuit about them.

Indeed

This week, Obama criticized his predecessor, George W. Bush, for frequently issuing such statements upon signing bills into law. Bush attached the statements to legislation he viewed as placing unconstitutional limits on executive power.

[malchior]

I'm sure that in history of the United States there has been plenty of this babyish crying but I don't think you'd find it so easy to document the whip crack reversals that occurred around this one. There were the Republicans (and at least 1 democrat) who tweeted support for the move and then deleted them soon after they realized that they were supposed to be tearing out their hair and stamping their feet. You have John McCain pulling a nice reversal and frankly in general this shit is bordering on institutional insanity with both the White House and Congress constantly racheting up the crazy and both sides bases always ready to yell past each other with the inane talking points. Talk about going to hell in a handbasket.

Plus, when Obama wasn't getting the guy out he was wrong, when he got the guy back he was wrong, no matter what he does it is wrong. At this point why would he give a fuck what anyone thinks. The so-called "imperial presidency" has been developing for a reason.

[Rip]

I know you profess to not care

Actually I do care. What I don't care about is whether 90 people that weren't congresspeople knew about it, and I certainly don't care what their names are. The suggestion that they should be named was particularly irksome. If it was genuinely against the law then follow through on that. If they (politicians) just want to spout off repeatedly for the media, well then they can go to hell.

At least a soldier was brought home. It's true that I'd rather the prez do an end run to bring soldiers home than to have a prez do an end run to put them over there in the first place.

I don't mean specifically named, although a few I am sure we can name off the top of our head. Hagel for instance. Job titles will be fine. I am interested to hear what these 90 people did to need to be advised of the impending deal and it would seem needed to know it far more than the appropriate congressman who were not told as the law directed they should be. Mind you we aren't talking about "some catapult officer" These are 90 administration people. Not military and field people. It is 90 people inside the beltway.

[LawBeefaroni]

I know you profess to not care

Actually I do care. What I don't care about is whether 90 people that weren't congresspeople knew about it, and I certainly don't care what their names are. The suggestion that they should be named was particularly irksome. If it was genuinely against the law then follow through on that. If they (politicians) just want to spout off repeatedly for the media, well then they can go to hell.

At least a soldier was brought home. It's true that I'd rather the prez do an end run to bring soldiers home than to have a prez do an end run to put them over there in the first place.

I don't mean specifically named, although a few I am sure we can name off the top of our head. Hagel for instance. Job titles will be fine. I am interested to hear what these 90 people did to need to be advised of the impending deal and it would seem needed to know it far more than the appropriate congressman who were not told as the law directed they should be. Mind you we aren't talking about "some catapult officer" These are 90 administration people. Not military and field people. It is 90 people inside the beltway.

So like the person who sets up a phone call with Qatar? You want their name and title? Associate Staff Secretary somebody? Maybe the Assistant Executive Clerk or the Supervisor of Classification. Supervisor of Search and File?

It's an executive office. The President can't take a crap without 15 people knowing.

Now if it turns out he's calling college buddies to bounce ideas off them, that's different. But just the fact that the number is 90 doesn't really imply much, in and of itself.

[Kraken]

At this point why would he give a fuck what anyone thinks.

His mind is on the history books at this point. He will be remembered as the guy who ended two losing wars and brought home ALL of the troops -- no footnotes.

[Zarathud]

It's not like the Republicans stuck around for the briefing anyway. Instead, they were skipping the meeting for the FOX News cameras (Sen. Chambliss), not paying attention at all (Sen. Paul) or storming off in a fury after asking one question (Sen. McCain). See above post June 7.

Not that this insanity is new -- Republicans weren't even happy when Obama sent out the strike force to take down Bin Laden. Why should bringing any American soldier be less partisan?

[GreenGoo]

Plus, when Obama wasn't getting the guy out he was wrong, when he got the guy back he was wrong, no matter what he does it is wrong. At this point why would he give a fuck what anyone thinks. The so-called "imperial presidency" has been developing for a reason.

This has been my thought all along. When you know you are going to get stonewalled and villified during any attempt to be bipartisan (and lordy, did it take him a long time to realize it. How many attempts to meet in the middle did he make before he just gave up?) you just stop caring what the other side thinks. I'm sure he gave it some thought about putting it before congress, realized it would end badly (probably with an American still in Taliban hands) and just went for it instead. Whether it was the right thing to do legally, shrug, but I certainly understand why he might start to feel that congress is irrelevant to actually accomplishing anything.

[Isgrimnur]

I look forward to the days of the megacorps. As a programmer, I should have a comfortable place in the bureaucracy and a nice benefits package in the enclave, although I may need to relocate to a different habidome.

[msduncan]

I know you profess to not care

Actually I do care. What I don't care about is whether 90 people that weren't congresspeople knew about it, and I certainly don't care what their names are. The suggestion that they should be named was particularly irksome. If it was genuinely against the law then follow through on that. If they (politicians) just want to spout off repeatedly for the media, well then they can go to hell.

At least a soldier was brought home. It's true that I'd rather the prez do an end run to bring soldiers home than to have a prez do an end run to put them over there in the first place.

I don't mean specifically named, although a few I am sure we can name off the top of our head. Hagel for instance. Job titles will be fine. I am interested to hear what these 90 people did to need to be advised of the impending deal and it would seem needed to know it far more than the appropriate congressman who were not told as the law directed they should be. Mind you we aren't talking about "some catapult officer" These are 90 administration people. Not military and field people. It is 90 people inside the beltway.

They don't care that this administration ignores the laws on the books at their discretion. No amount of forum conversation is going to change that.

[LawBeefaroni]

They don't care that this administration ignores the laws on the books at their discretion. No amount of forum conversation is going to change that.

I care. And that's exactly why I think the whole "90 names" thing is a lame waste of time. It has nothing to do with the law. Not going through congress is the issue, not who knew before them. And as has been said, if there was a violation of the law, I would hope congress is following up their talk with real action, rather than just calling for a list of names. It makes for great soundbites but is essentially meaningless.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm going to guess that 89 of those names weren't the SecDef, the only person obligated under a law that has not been vetted by the courts.

[Moliere]

They don't care that this administration ignores the laws on the books at their discretion.

Isn't that the point of Executive Orders? The modern day President is all about ignoring laws.