Bergdahl story

[One Brow]

G... I wouldn't be surprised to see more of these types of things.

You mean, you think this will cause more Americans to wander off from their unit?

 

[Surely]

With all those bold statements, perhaps you can tell us their names and backgrounds. You know, actual details.

Well, there was this little bit about one of the terrori... um, detainees in the Wall Street Journal:

When the Taliban seized control of this area from their Northern Alliance rivals in 1999, they systematically demolished entire villages, blowing up houses, burning fields and seeding the land with mines, according to two comprehensive studies of war crimes and atrocities during wars in Afghanistan and human rights reports. Mr. Fazl played a major role in the destruction.

But hey, I'm sure he's a changed man now.

 

[♪alt13]

You're putting yourself in a situation that didn't exist.

Look at the position we are in:
It's a matter of time before Gitmo gets shut down. Eventually, they were going to have to do something else with these prisoners, and I doubt the American people will want them on US Soil, and we'd be sending an "improper message" if we execute them(although this would have been my choice). Why not get something back in return?

Look at the position it puts us in externally and historically:
They no longer have a "hostage". We now have the one POW situation from this conflict resolved, and we don't need to have the media drum up horror stories.

It's not like we gave them money, weapons, nukes, gasoline, food, medical supplies, or a free pass to invade wherever the hell they want. We gave them 5 members that have long since been replaced. 5 members that are forever changed from the tortu--.. er... "enhanced interrogation techniques" and neglect provided them at an American POW camp. 3 of those members have been in custody for more than 10 years.

We gained more than we lost. That's all there is to it.

bold 1
Let's not be naive. Just because a politician made a pledge on a then hot button issue in 2008 doesn't mean it will happen. If they do eventually shut Guantanamo down there are lovely facilities in other countries that these men will be sent to. The US will probably never again make the mistake of acknowledging the prisoners we hold.

bold 2
We have given an incentive not only to the Taliban but to every other nut job to ransom westerners and Americans in particular. I'm not going to say that I would have left the poor kid because I've never actually had to make a decision like that but this will lead to more hostage taking.

 

[Stoked]

bold 1
Let's not be naive. Just because a politician made a pledge on a then hot button issue in 2008 doesn't mean it will happen. If they do eventually shut Guantanamo down there are lovely facilities in other countries that these men will be sent to. The US will probably never again make the mistake of acknowledging the prisoners we hold.

bold 2
We have given an incentive not only to the Taliban but to every other nut job to ransom westerners and Americans in particular. I'm not going to say that I would have left the poor kid because I've never actually had to make a decision like that but this will lead to more hostage taking.

So do you agree that America should have gotten him back? You just dislike how they did so?

 

[♪alt13]

So do you agree that America should have gotten him back? You just dislike how they did so?

I am not being critical I am rather thinking critically. I am not going to condemn the President for bringing this kid home but I won't disregard the arguments against it. If made to answer I'd say that no I probably would not have gone through with the prisoner swap. For me it is a hypothetical and I'm sure it is easier to hold that opinion so long as it remains a hypothetical.

 

[Stoked]

I am not being critical I am rather thinking critically. I am not going to condemn the President for bringing this kid home but I won't disregard the arguments against it. If made to answer I'd say that no I probably would not have gone through with the prisoner swap. For me it is a hypothetical and I'm sure it is easier to hold that opinion so long as it remains a hypothetical.

Many positions are. This was not a trap question. Just wondered how you felt about getting him back and then how you felt about how it was done.

 

[fishonjazz]

We have given an incentive not only to the Taliban but to every other nut job to ransom westerners and Americans in particular.

This has already happened before i believe.

Do peole think this is the first time an enemy of the U.S. has tried to capture americans and hold them hostage?

I think this type of thing has been going on for a long time

 

[framer]

This is a problem on multiple levels.

1. The president broke the law to do this. I can't see how this is even arguable.

2. The president had a glorious WELCOME HOME!!! ceremony in the freakin' Rose Garden. For those accusing anyone else of playing politics, right there is where the game started.

3. To what extent Congress was involved in this discussion in years past, information about the deserter's situation was withheld. Senators just found about Bergdahl's "goodbye" note when the NYT ran the story a couple of days ago. Also, members of Bergdahl's platoon were told to hide the truth about what happened.

4. The people that got sent back are more important and dangerous NOW than when they were captured. And they were plenty bad then.

5. A precedent has been sent that we will give back prisoners for any fool American you can find floating around.

6. There is no chance that Bergdahl will be investigated completely and thoroughly because he was honored by Obama in a freakin' Rose Garden Ceremony.

7. People like OneBrow will jump in and have strong opinions about this case while showing they have absolutely no knowledge about the factors and details of said case. Will somehow try to accuse those pissed off about what happened as "racist!!!!"

8. During said Rose Garden ceremony, no mention was made of the soldiers who sacrificed and died working to free Bergdahl, and to cut the terrorists off from moving Bergdahl to Pakistan where he would have been separated from his head.

9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

 

[Harambe]

This is a problem on multiple levels.

1. The president broke the law to do this. I can't see how this is even arguable.

2. The president had a glorious WELCOME HOME!!! ceremony in the freakin' Rose Garden. For those accusing anyone else of playing politics, right there is where the game started.

3. To what extent Congress was involved in this discussion in years past, information about the deserter's situation was withheld. Senators just found about Bergdahl's "goodbye" note when the NYT ran the story a couple of days ago. Also, members of Bergdahl's platoon were told to hide the truth about what happened.

4. The people that got sent back are more important and dangerous NOW than when they were captured. And they were plenty bad then.

5. A precedent has been sent that we will give back prisoners for any fool American you can find floating around.

6. There is no chance that Bergdahl will be investigated completely and thoroughly because he was honored by Obama in a freakin' Rose Garden Ceremony.

7. People like OneBrow will jump in and have strong opinions about this case while showing they have absolutely no knowledge about the factors and details of said case. Will somehow try to accuse those pissed off about what happened as "racist!!!!"

8. During said Rose Garden ceremony, no mention was made of the soldiers who sacrificed and died working to free Bergdahl, and to cut the terrorists off from moving Bergdahl to Pakistan where he would have been separated from his head.

9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

lol

 

[Stoked]

This is a problem on multiple levels.

1. The president broke the law to do this. I can't see how this is even arguable.

2. The president had a glorious WELCOME HOME!!! ceremony in the freakin' Rose Garden. For those accusing anyone else of playing politics, right there is where the game started.

3. To what extent Congress was involved in this discussion in years past, information about the deserter's situation was withheld. Senators just found about Bergdahl's "goodbye" note when the NYT ran the story a couple of days ago. Also, members of Bergdahl's platoon were told to hide the truth about what happened.

4. The people that got sent back are more important and dangerous NOW than when they were captured. And they were plenty bad then.

5. A precedent has been sent that we will give back prisoners for any fool American you can find floating around.

6. There is no chance that Bergdahl will be investigated completely and thoroughly because he was honored by Obama in a freakin' Rose Garden Ceremony.

7. People like OneBrow will jump in and have strong opinions about this case while showing they have absolutely no knowledge about the factors and details of said case. Will somehow try to accuse those pissed off about what happened as "racist!!!!"

8. During said Rose Garden ceremony, no mention was made of the soldiers who sacrificed and died working to free Bergdahl, and to cut the terrorists off from moving Bergdahl to Pakistan where he would have been separated from his head.

9. The entire purpose of this escapade was to remove the VA scandal from the front pages. Mission Accomplished.

1. I will need to look into this as I have heard it before but not looked at it.

2. So? Is one persons foolish action justification for more? If that is your argument than it is an extremely poor one.

3. Again, Bergdahl's alleged desertion (not proven in court yet) is irrelevant to him being an American and us not leaving Americans behind.

4. Pure speculation. They might be. But after anywhere from 5-10 years they may be broken men. You, and no one else on here, has any idea on this. All speculation.

5. Isreal did a swap for 1,000 to 1 to get a soldier back. There have not been a rash of kidnappping of Isrealis. not to mention that in the entire time that our soldiers were over there Berghdahl is the first oen they captured. And thru claimed idiocy on his part no less.

6. If he deserted, or is even a traitor as some claim, then he should be. If the facts are there, and no I don't count MSNBC and Fox as sources, and he isn't then that is wrong. B ut has no bearing on the fact that he should have been recovered.

7. One Brow does that but so does everyone else. You and I included.

8. So a politician played politics...are you surprised. Both sides play these foolish games. Doesn't make it right though.

9. You may very well be right.


As for my stance. Getting him back was the right and American thing to do. One could argue the way he was recovered as being the right or wrong way. But getting him back was right. There should not be conditions on Americans protectign our own. If he coimmited crimes under American law then we should handle that once back.

 

[trigg3r]

1. I will need to look into this as I have heard it before but not looked at it.

2. So? Is one persons foolish action justification for more? If that is your argument than it is an extremely poor one.

3. Again, Bergdahl's alleged desertion (not proven in court yet) is irrelevant to him being an American and us not leaving Americans behind.

4. Pure speculation. They might be. But after anywhere from 5-10 years they may be broken men. You, and no one else on here, has any idea on this. All speculation.

5. Isreal did a swap for 1,000 to 1 to get a soldier back. There have not been a rash of kidnappping of Isrealis. not to mention that in the entire time that our soldiers were over there Berghdahl is the first oen they captured. And thru claimed idiocy on his part no less.

6. If he deserted, or is even a traitor as some claim, then he should be. If the facts are there, and no I don't count MSNBC and Fox as sources, and he isn't then that is wrong. B ut has no bearing on the fact that he should have been recovered.

7. One Brow does that but so does everyone else. You and I included.

8. So a politician played politics...are you surprised. Both sides play these foolish games. Doesn't make it right though.

9. You may very well be right.


As for my stance. Getting him back was the right and American thing to do. One could argue the way he was recovered as being the right or wrong way. But getting him back was right. There should not be conditions on Americans protectign our own. If he coimmited crimes under American law then we should handle that once back.

We both know he won't face any prosecution. Just a public shaming. As pointed out, it looks bad politically to bring this guy back and then court martial him. If it's true that he deserted and even possibly collaborated then I wish this deal would not have been made. JMO, you have yours.

 

[Stoked]

We both know he won't face any prosecution. Just a public shaming. As pointed out, it looks bad politically to bring this guy back and then court martial him. If it's true that he deserted and even possibly collaborated then I wish this deal would not have been made. JMO, you have yours.

I am open to the idea that a trade was a bad way of getting him back. There may have been better options. I am just saying that getting him back was the right thing to do.

As for legal reprecussions for him I agree that I doubt he sees the inside of a court room over this. But if it did happen then he should, how it looks be damned.

You are correct that we all have our opinions and your is no less valid than mine.