Bowe Bergdahl

mickeyrat · June 2014

unsung said:
Does anyone here have an actual problem with caging these people forever without ever charging them with a crime or giving them a trial?

absolutely. Throw away the constitution at that point because it no longer applies at all.

Try them. Or release them. But to continue to hold them with no legal recourse only serves to perpetuate an already deep seated hatred of the US and its government. Maybe thats the point of it to begin with.

Cosmo · June 2014

unsung said:
Does anyone here have an actual problem with caging these people forever without ever charging them with a crime or giving them a trial?

...
If I were Vladimir Putin... no problem. But, since I'm not, I'm going with "It is not who we are... as Americans".
That is why I have always claimed that it is best to charge them with whatever crimes they commited to end up in Camp Delta and put them on trial in our courts of law. If they are found to be, 'Not Guilty'... ship them back to Afghanistan. If found guilty... send them to Pelican Bay to shack up with the guy who has swastikas tattooed on his face.
That way, we don't find ourselves in a never ending war, just so we can keep these guys under wrap.

Cosmo · June 2014

primussucks said:
@cosmo the media is getting their information from Bergdalhs fellow soldiers. How would staceb 10 feel if his/her son was one of the 6 that died looking for him?

...
Wouldn't it all depend on whether he was killed while trying to rescue a fellow soldier... or if he was killed looking for a deserter?
...
You don't know what the truth is... just like I don't know what the truth is. All we are getting right now is chatter. Remember Pat Tillman? He was a marketed as a clear justification of war... until the facts emerged and we learned he was killed by freidly fire. Jessica Lynch? Same thing.
It has nothing to do about the soldiers, Tillman and Lynch... and everything to do with the selling of a political vantage point.
...
How about we quit forming our opinions based upon our politiacal party affiliations and base it on the facts. Facts that have not made it to the light of day, yet. Facts and truth are often times, very tough to swallow. But, it is better to know the truth... right?

Cosmo · June 2014

mrussel1 said:

Cosmo said:

mrussel1 said:

Cosmo said:
Question: When the War in Afghanistan 'ends'... don't we have to release all of the 'Prisoners Of War' in our captivity?
Does that mean those guys being held at Camp Delta have to be released... including that Sheik Mohammad Belushi-Lokalike?
I mean, the call is to hold them in military tribunals, not U.S. Courts... which defines them as Prisoners Of War, right?
...
So, in order to keep them as P.O.W. in Cuba forever... doesn't that mean the War in Afghanistan has to go on... forever?
Someone should ask Sen. McCain about that.
This is a difficult question to wrestle. Technically, yes, you have to release all POWs once hostilities end. It's a basic tenant of the Geneva Convention. The problem is that the Taliban is not a nation and we are not at war with Afghanistan. Under normal rules of war, yes. But my guess is that the US would actually have no intention of releasing the most dangerous of these men, particularly considering that the Taliban now has zero American prisoners.
...
The bottom line is... We Are America. We are not Putin's Russia... we are not China... we are not the Taliban. If we allow our fears to make us more like Russia and less like America... who really won the War on Terror?
I'm pointing out the legal ramifications and technicalities, not the moral ones. I generally agree with you.

...
I know... sometimes I just go off on a weird tangent... don't mind me.
But, yes.. the legal ramifications. Does the case get tossed because we denied him of his due process? I don't know... I'm not a lawyer. But, i still think we need to decide... is he a criminal... that will walk because he was held for 11 years without being charged... or he's a P.O.W. and will be let loose at the end of the War... or whatever it is that we're doing in Afghanistan.
The third option is to never end the War in Afghanistan and accept the loss of lives of our military personnel... just so we can hang on to these guys as prisoners.

Cliffy6745 · June 2014

Jason P said:

Cliffy6745 said:

Yeah, you know, America may not be a country anymore after Obama. Are we going to be Canada? Mexico? Maybe Jamaica. I would like to be Jamaican.

I vote for the nationality that gets laid the most. Jamaica isn't too bad but I'm not sure I would be down with dreadlock hygiene for more than a few weeks. Is Italy too far away for consideration?

Or how about Australia? Learning the accent and how to throw a boomerang can't take more than a few months to master.

All solid points. Italy sounds pretty great, but if we gotta pick anything let's let the Spaniards take us over. Tapas, wine and siesta? Yes, please

Get on it Obama

Guitar92player · June 2014

Here's how I see it:

Yes, shame on Obama for negotiating with terrorists.

However, look at the situation. If he alerted Congress, then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did nothing, Bergdahl was going to become even worse, psychologically. I heard that he is already really psychologically messed up.

So, I am happy the guy is safe, but I am mad about how it was done. But, now that he is back he is also safe. Those 5 released will surely die in the near future. So we won, in a sense.

I don't want it to sound like I am backing Obama on this one, but I guarantee you if Bush or a Republican did this then there would not be much fuss over it.

I just hope we put trackers in those 5 terrorists so that a missile can greet them soon.

primussucks · June 2014

Cosmo said:

primussucks said:
@cosmo the media is getting their information from Bergdalhs fellow soldiers. How would staceb 10 feel if his/her son was one of the 6 that died looking for him?
...
Wouldn't it all depend on whether he was killed while trying to rescue a fellow soldier... or if he was killed looking for a deserter?
...
You don't know what the truth is... just like I don't know what the truth is. All we are getting right now is chatter. Remember Pat Tillman? He was a marketed as a clear justification of war... until the facts emerged and we learned he was killed by freidly fire. Jessica Lynch? Same thing.
It has nothing to do about the soldiers, Tillman and Lynch... and everything to do with the selling of a political vantage point.
...
How about we quit forming our opinions based upon our politiacal party affiliations and base it on the facts. Facts that have not made it to the light of day, yet. Facts and truth are often times, very tough to swallow. But, it is better to know the truth... right?

I guess I'm guilty of putting a lot of trust in his fellow soldiers that insist he's a deserter. Sorry but I believe them. They seem pretty upset about it for a reason.
I didn't realize you knew what party I'm associated with? You knew that I consider myself an independent and that I voted for Obama in 2008? I find it hilarious that in the same paragraph you make an assumption about me and then talk about getting our facts right!

unsung · June 2014

Cosmo said:

unsung said:
Does anyone here have an actual problem with caging these people forever without ever charging them with a crime or giving them a trial?
...
If I were Vladimir Putin... no problem. But, since I'm not, I'm going with "It is not who we are... as Americans".
That is why I have always claimed that it is best to charge them with whatever crimes they commited to end up in Camp Delta and put them on trial in our courts of law. If they are found to be, 'Not Guilty'... ship them back to Afghanistan. If found guilty... send them to Pelican Bay to shack up with the guy who has swastikas tattooed on his face.
That way, we don't find ourselves in a never ending war, just so we can keep these guys under wrap.

Just checking. Because, you know, it applies to all of us now thanks to Obama signing NDAA 2012.

We are all subject to being locked up and never charged.

Dirtie_Frank · June 2014

The President notified congress about Osama, why not this. I mean if he was told Bergdahl was getting worse whatever, don't you think he could of at least phoned Feinstein too? She is the head of the Intel committee and a Democrat. A courtesy call to her might of helped with that. What will be the next shiny object next week?

Guitar92player said:
Here's how I see it:

Yes, shame on Obama for negotiating with terrorists.

However, look at the situation. If he alerted Congress, then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did nothing, Bergdahl was going to become even worse, psychologically. I heard that he is already really psychologically messed up.

So, I am happy the guy is safe, but I am mad about how it was done. But, now that he is back he is also safe. Those 5 released will surely die in the near future. So we won, in a sense.

I don't want it to sound like I am backing Obama on this one, but I guarantee you if Bush or a Republican did this then there would not be much fuss over it.

I just hope we put trackers in those 5 terrorists so that a missile can greet them soon.

Guitar92player · June 2014

Dirtie_Frank said:
The President notified congress about Osama, why not this. I mean if he was told Bergdahl was getting worse whatever, don't you think he could of at least phoned Feinstein too? She is the head of the Intel committee and a Democrat. A courtesy call to her might of helped with that. What will be the next shiny object next week?

Guitar92player said:
Here's how I see it:

Yes, shame on Obama for negotiating with terrorists.

However, look at the situation. If he alerted Congress, then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did nothing, Bergdahl was going to become even worse, psychologically. I heard that he is already really psychologically messed up.

So, I am happy the guy is safe, but I am mad about how it was done. But, now that he is back he is also safe. Those 5 released will surely die in the near future. So we won, in a sense.

I don't want it to sound like I am backing Obama on this one, but I guarantee you if Bush or a Republican did this then there would not be much fuss over it.

I just hope we put trackers in those 5 terrorists so that a missile can greet them soon.

Because the Taliban said if he notified Congress then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did notify them, that info may or may not have been leaked to the public, and that is risky, and if it did then they would've killed Bergdahl.

Annafalk · June 2014

I heard he was tortured by the talibans, and that his family has received death threats because of him being saved. I think it's horrible..

callen · June 2014

Annafalk said:
I heard he was tortured by the talibans, and that his family has received death threats because of him being saved. I think it's horrible..

The mentality of Americans can be nuts at times. I don't get it either.

We send soldier to do battle. He see's child get run over by is truck, he see's horrible things that could cause any normal human to lose it yet we want to treat him as the enemy.

primussucks · June 2014

Guitar92player said:

Dirtie_Frank said:
The President notified congress about Osama, why not this. I mean if he was told Bergdahl was getting worse whatever, don't you think he could of at least phoned Feinstein too? She is the head of the Intel committee and a Democrat. A courtesy call to her might of helped with that. What will be the next shiny object next week?

Guitar92player said:
Here's how I see it:

Yes, shame on Obama for negotiating with terrorists.

However, look at the situation. If he alerted Congress, then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did nothing, Bergdahl was going to become even worse, psychologically. I heard that he is already really psychologically messed up.

So, I am happy the guy is safe, but I am mad about how it was done. But, now that he is back he is also safe. Those 5 released will surely die in the near future. So we won, in a sense.

I don't want it to sound like I am backing Obama on this one, but I guarantee you if Bush or a Republican did this then there would not be much fuss over it.

I just hope we put trackers in those 5 terrorists so that a missile can greet them soon.

Because the Taliban said if he notified Congress then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did notify them, that info may or may not have been leaked to the public, and that is risky, and if it did then they would've killed Bergdahl.

I'd like to know the source of this info. Why would telling Congress make the Taliban want to kill Bergdahl all of a sudden after 5 years?? Then the Taliban doesn't get their 5 guys back if they kill him. That info makes zero sense in every way!

Cosmo · June 2014

primussucks said:

Cosmo said:

primussucks said:
@cosmo the media is getting their information from Bergdalhs fellow soldiers. How would staceb 10 feel if his/her son was one of the 6 that died looking for him?
...
Wouldn't it all depend on whether he was killed while trying to rescue a fellow soldier... or if he was killed looking for a deserter?
...
You don't know what the truth is... just like I don't know what the truth is. All we are getting right now is chatter. Remember Pat Tillman? He was a marketed as a clear justification of war... until the facts emerged and we learned he was killed by freidly fire. Jessica Lynch? Same thing.
It has nothing to do about the soldiers, Tillman and Lynch... and everything to do with the selling of a political vantage point.
...
How about we quit forming our opinions based upon our politiacal party affiliations and base it on the facts. Facts that have not made it to the light of day, yet. Facts and truth are often times, very tough to swallow. But, it is better to know the truth... right?
I guess I'm guilty of putting a lot of trust in his fellow soldiers that insist he's a deserter. Sorry but I believe them. They seem pretty upset about it for a reason.
I didn't realize you knew what party I'm associated with? You knew that I consider myself an independent and that I voted for Obama in 2008? I find it hilarious that in the same paragraph you make an assumption about me and then talk about getting our facts right!

...
The point I was expressing in the last paragraph is that we (everyone in America) need to quit politicizing everything along the two political party lines. That is what is happening here... this prisoner swap is being politicized and people are buying into it.
...
I suppose I need to fully qualify my comments to some readers by stating that when I use the term, 'You' or 'We'... I am not speaking to one individual in particular, rather, I am addressing a broader audience in general terms. Such as, if you (posed to general readers) form all of your (refering to the same general audience) opinion based upon a politial party agenda... then, you (the person that does form their opinions soley based upon political partisanship) are a partisan lacky dog that the politicians love to have in their pocket.
It is a common practice used in general discussion within an open forum. I thought that most people understood this basic concept. I hope I don't have to explain this concept of expressing views in general terms to every person who believes themselves to be the only person involved in the discussion.
I hope this clarifies things.

Cosmo · June 2014

I have a question... If people believe Congress should be notifited of everything...
...
Why does Congress historically get approval ratings registering in the teens?
Isn't it like making sure the kid who never gets a grade higher than 12% (which means he needs to improve by an additional 48% just to achieve an 'F' on his Report Card) should be kept in the loop on everything?
I understand te whole 'Checks and Balances' thing... but, I also understand what a no good pile of shit our Congress is.

primussucks · June 2014

Isn't congress basically in place to "police" our president so to speak? To prevent a president from making bad knee jerk decisions in some cases?
Congress' approval ratings have for the most part only been poor during this administration. Which is likely the result of people of this country seeing the lack of communication and stubbornness on both sides. This country needs a 3rd party now more then ever because right now these 2 parties are an embarrassment. Voting over the last decade has been trying to pick the lesser of 2 evils. There needs to be a balance! Not far left and not far right but somewhere in between. Bill Clinton had that balance.

Cosmo · June 2014

primussucks said:
Isn't congress basically in place to "police" our president so to speak? To prevent a president from making bad knee jerk decisions in some cases?
Congress' approval ratings have for the most part only been poor during this administration. Which is likely the result of people of this country seeing the lack of communication and stubbornness on both sides. This country needs a 3rd party now more then ever because right now these 2 parties are an embarrassment. Voting over the last decade has been trying to pick the lesser of 2 evils. There needs to be a balance! Not far left and not far right but somewhere in between. Bill Clinton had that balance.

...
Actually... Congress has historically gotten poor approval ratings. They didn't just start being do-nothing pieces of shit on 20January2009. There were lobbyists buying our politicians before 2009... I'm pretty sure of that. They have been do nothing pieces of shit throughout our history.
And America doesn't need a Third Party... Americans just need to quit being partisan political puppets and quit voting for and supporting people and agendas based upon the letters, (D) and (R). Americans hold Term Limits in their hands, but are too dumb to use them. All Americans need to do is look at the ballots... look for the word, 'Incumbant' next to the person's name... and DON'T CHECK THAT BOX.
...
For example... how many times have you heard someone say, "Vote them all out"... then, express their support for Rand Paul? They will come up with all kinds of rationale and justification... but, in the end... it's just excuses. Because for every person willing to vote them all out, except Paul... there is a person who will say, 'except Pelosi' or 'except Reid' or 'except Chambliss'. People only want everyone else's guy voted out... not theirs. Politicians love how fucking stupid we are.
Politicians will hate us if we were collectively intelligent... something they know... we will never become.

Guitar92player · June 2014

primussucks said:

Guitar92player said:

Dirtie_Frank said:
The President notified congress about Osama, why not this. I mean if he was told Bergdahl was getting worse whatever, don't you think he could of at least phoned Feinstein too? She is the head of the Intel committee and a Democrat. A courtesy call to her might of helped with that. What will be the next shiny object next week?

Guitar92player said:
Here's how I see it:

Yes, shame on Obama for negotiating with terrorists.

However, look at the situation. If he alerted Congress, then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did nothing, Bergdahl was going to become even worse, psychologically. I heard that he is already really psychologically messed up.

So, I am happy the guy is safe, but I am mad about how it was done. But, now that he is back he is also safe. Those 5 released will surely die in the near future. So we won, in a sense.

I don't want it to sound like I am backing Obama on this one, but I guarantee you if Bush or a Republican did this then there would not be much fuss over it.

I just hope we put trackers in those 5 terrorists so that a missile can greet them soon.

Because the Taliban said if he notified Congress then they would've killed Bergdahl. If he did notify them, that info may or may not have been leaked to the public, and that is risky, and if it did then they would've killed Bergdahl.

I'd like to know the source of this info. Why would telling Congress make the Taliban want to kill Bergdahl all of a sudden after 5 years?? Then the Taliban doesn't get their 5 guys back if they kill him. That info makes zero sense in every way!

This is not where I had originally heard it, but this explains that they didn't want the info leaked because they believed he would have been killed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/05/angus-king-bergdahl_n_5452262.html

Yeah, it doesn't make sense why they'd kill him because then they indeed would not get their 5 guys back. That was my first thought when I first heard it, too. But that info I stated was announced around the time it happened, which we all know early reports are usually wrong. That info is stated in the last paragraph, but doesn't explain why.

Dirtie_Frank · June 2014

Like I said earlier he could of notified SEN Feinstein with a phone call to keep the top democratic senator on the intelligence committee in the loop of the swap. In my opinion he did not because the POTUS knew what the answer would be. As a former soldier he should have been brought home. Now he needs to answer some questions. That there is my other issue with this. Granted it was a positive story for the parents, but if he was suspected as a deserter maybe the POTUS should not have had the ceremony in the rose garden, again my opinion. Maybe the POTUS did not listen to his advisors or maybe his advisors failed to tell him that Berghdal might have left on his own will.

mattsl1983 · June 2014

Cosmo said:

primussucks said:
Isn't congress basically in place to "police" our president so to speak? To prevent a president from making bad knee jerk decisions in some cases?
Congress' approval ratings have for the most part only been poor during this administration. Which is likely the result of people of this country seeing the lack of communication and stubbornness on both sides. This country needs a 3rd party now more then ever because right now these 2 parties are an embarrassment. Voting over the last decade has been trying to pick the lesser of 2 evils. There needs to be a balance! Not far left and not far right but somewhere in between. Bill Clinton had that balance.
...
Actually... Congress has historically gotten poor approval ratings. They didn't just start being do-nothing pieces of shit on 20January2009. There were lobbyists buying our politicians before 2009... I'm pretty sure of that. They have been do nothing pieces of shit throughout our history.
And America doesn't need a Third Party... Americans just need to quit being partisan political puppets and quit voting for and supporting people and agendas based upon the letters, (D) and (R). Americans hold Term Limits in their hands, but are too dumb to use them. All Americans need to do is look at the ballots... look for the word, 'Incumbant' next to the person's name... and DON'T CHECK THAT BOX.
...
For example... how many times have you heard someone say, "Vote them all out"... then, express their support for Rand Paul? They will come up with all kinds of rationale and justification... but, in the end... it's just excuses. Because for every person willing to vote them all out, except Paul... there is a person who will say, 'except Pelosi' or 'except Reid' or 'except Chambliss'. People only want everyone else's guy voted out... not theirs. Politicians love how fucking stupid we are.
Politicians will hate us if we were collectively intelligent... something they know... we will never become.

I would tend to disagree. I don't think approval rating should mean we bypass congress and let one person make an "executive decision" outside of the laws of our land. The whole reason we have the electoral vote for president and districts for congress is to ensure the American people don't "drink the kook aide" and there is a checks and balances system. It's like parents, of course if they allowed you to do everything you wanted as a kid they would have been the most approved parents ever. But would that have been in your best interest? Probably not.

I don't like the President (regardless if I voted for him or not) being able to bypass congress and people saying that it's okay. That is a scary government to have. And that basic action, regardless if you think it was right or wrong, is completely wrong to do in our government. And if you think that's okay, America is becoming a scarier place than I thought it could ever be.

Bowe Bergdahl

Comments

Categories