0
jclalor

American POW freed

Recommended Posts

Quote

Rescue our citizens (send in tactical and rescue them, but don't negotiate with hostages - bad long term decision, citizens on vacation are even more at risk - we'll need quite an increase in tactical and special forces types)



It may have been impossible to do that if they didn't know where he was being hidden. It took us ten years to find bin Laden. Any we never found some POWs from Vietnam.

I also take issue with labeling anyone we don't like as terrorists. As far as the Taliban are concerned, I don't see them as terrorists. They are the remnants of an ousted government. They certainly aligned themselves with terrorists (AQ, Haqqani, Hamas) but the Taliban organization was a national government that we removed from power. Just read the bios provided above for the five men we traded. They were high government officials of another nation, not unaligned individual actors.

(flame suit donned)

Edited to don flame suit

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would that not risk our administration to war crimes trials?

I thought that was the reason such much effort was put into legally defining them as illegal combatants (or unlawful, whichever word was used).

If they truly are POW's of a national entity, we could very easily have a whole new set of problems to deal with internationally.
We did torture a number of them, did we not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>The Obama administration fell on its ass and screwed the pooch big time on this one.

They should have let him remain captive. All the right wingers would have surely supported abandoning a US soldier to the enemy and given kudos to Obama for that.



Why not just make the trade and keep it at that? Obama could have simply said that the family wants privacy at this time and when he's in better condition there will be a statement. Having Susan Rice saying he served with "Honor and distinction" is one of the biggest face palms of the year.

Parading the family around the WH was the worst PR mistake of his presidency. Having the pops speaking Pashtun with his ZZ Top beard in the Rose Garden looked like hell, that's guaranteed to be in some 2016 campaign commercials.

The question is how will the GOP handle a real opportunity too seriously hurt this presidency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Would that not risk our administration to war crimes trials?

I thought that was the reason such much effort was put into legally defining them as illegal combatants (or unlawful, whichever word was used).

If they truly are POW's of a national entity, we could very easily have a whole new set of problems to deal with internationally.
We did torture a number of them, did we not?



That was "Enhanced interrogation" not torture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I thought that was the reason such much effort was put into legally defining them as illegal combatants (or unlawful, whichever word was used).



The reason in defining them that way was so we didn't have to treat them like POWs, which they are (IMHO).

It was bullshit when Bush did it, and it was bullshit when Obama continued it.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

I thought that was the reason such much effort was put into legally defining them as illegal combatants (or unlawful, whichever word was used).



The reason in defining them that way was so we didn't have to treat them like POWs, which they are (IMHO).

It was bullshit when Bush did it, and it was bullshit when Obama continued it.



Word.

To summarize my several previous posts on this: They're either POWs, in which case they're entitled to Geneva Convention protections, or they're criminal defendants, in which case if they're in US custody they're entitled to US Constitutional and statutory protections. There is no third category of "unlawful combatant, or what-have-you; that's a fiction created to rationalize torture, indefinite detention without formal charges, and informal extradition (see "extraordinary rendition") in violation of US laws and treaties. Utterly shameful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think he wants impeachment procedings

I hope the GOP walks away from this one

Either way. Obama is a lawless SOB
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

To summarize my several previous posts on this: They're either POWs, in which case they're entitled to Geneva Convention protections, or they're criminal defendants, in which case if they're in US custody they're entitled to US Constitutional and statutory protections. There is no third category of "unlawful combatant, or what-have-you; that's a fiction created to rationalize torture, indefinite detention without formal charges, and informal extradition (see "extraordinary rendition") in violation of US laws and treaties. Utterly shameful.



Agree 100%.

I love you, man.;)

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>"Pussy traitors who leave their post in violation of the UCMJ and their general orders left behind or dead"

Yep, that works. Who else is on the list of soldiers right wingers would leave behind?

Brain-dead traitors who support Obama?
Gay soldiers who bring disrespect to the entire institution?
Criminal tax evaders who don't belong in the military to begin with?
Sloppy morons who don't even follow the rules of military decorum?

Once you decide that there are US soldiers worth saving and others who aren't, you can have all kinds of lists, and can abandon a wide variety of soldiers who you dislike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, you started the game.
:D


On a serious note, I do actually support his return.
It IS what we do for our service members.
Now start the process. The five years he spent with the enemy he seems to have wanted to be with should not be considered gain time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

What about the men that died trying to retrieve him?

Seems a pretty light sentence for someone that indirectly caused the death of so many.





And do you want the real story or will the Blaze and FAUX versions work for you?



http://freakoutnation.com/2014/06/04/report-the-deaths-of-8-soldiers-attributed-to-pow-bergdahl-is-false/

After CNN reported as a fact that “at least six soldiers died” looking for Sergeant Bergdahl after senior American military officials say he wandered off his base, others followed the lead. The narrative is out there, and it’s being echoed throughout the Internet. The New York Times looked into the matter and found that claim to be ‘murky.’

The Times reviewed casualty reports and contemporaneous military logs from the Afghanistan war which shows that the facts surrounding the eight deaths are far murkier than definitive — even as critics of Sergeant Bergdahl contend that every American combat death in Paktika Province in the months after he disappeared, from July to September 2009, was his fault.

During the most intense period of the search after Bergdahl was released, two soldiers died.. Both of the now deceased soldiers were inside an outpost that came under attack. They were not out patrolling and running checkpoints looking for him. As for the other six soldiers,, they died in late August and early September.


It would be more productive as well as patriotic to welcome the newly freed POW home.

The facts will come later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

>The Obama administration fell on its ass and screwed the pooch big time on this one.

They should have let him remain captive. All the right wingers would have surely supported abandoning a US soldier to the enemy and given kudos to Obama for that.



Much would had been the same if Anwar Al-awlaki had not been killed in the drone strike and had killed Americans. The conservatives would had claimed that Obama was at fault for not getting the terrorist. Instead, they sniveled that he killed an American (so much hypocrisy.) Hell, they were pissed off that Bin Laden was taken out under Obama's watch. Obama just can't win with the GOP.
Hell, the guy could cure cancer and they would find reason to complain.

All of this bullshit talk that we are now less safe abroad. No different now than it was after Bush invaded a country that did not poise any threat. Said it would be a cake walk and we will be much safer! Freaking funny!!!! Bush gave them a training ground to hone there skills.

If or when the five dirtbags return to their dirt hole country, I suspect they will be visited by a drone with a special delivery. Of course, the republicans will balk at that also.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They certainly aligned themselves with terrorists (AQ, Haqqani, Hamas) but the Taliban organization was a national government that we removed from power.



And so did the U.S. under Ronald Reagan. Reagan supplied the Taliban with cash and weapons. Only he loved to call them "Freedom Fighters." Much as he did with the drug running Contras http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm Old Ronnie Brain Dead went as far as to sell arms to Iran! The sea of hypocrisy is deep.
"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

Even after googling that, I'm clueless.
:D



Game of thrones . . . Its what his friends toldim as he was trying to desert.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend


Before our friends with ODS get up in arms about Obama's signing statement, they should consider that Obama is a mere piker when compared with Reagan's and G.W.B's use of signing statements.

millercenter.org/blog/obama-administration-signing-statements-evans



So its your opinion that Barry is no better than Reagan or W? The old recess 'he started it' excuse I guess. :S
Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
airdvr

***
Before our friends with ODS get up in arms about Obama's signing statement, they should consider that Obama is a mere piker when compared with Reagan's and G.W.B's use of signing statements.

millercenter.org/blog/obama-administration-signing-statements-evans



So its your opinion that Barry is no better than Reagan or W? The old recess 'he started it' excuse I guess. :S

No it is an OFT used presidential right.... for a VERY long time. History does matter.. those who do not learn from it... you know the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0