(post shortened)
The upside could be that Obama wants to close GITMO and now there are five fewer terrorists, in GITMO, for him to be concerned with.
I agree with this. At the very least, we know very little about the state these 5 people are in after years of captivity. They could have all been reduced to the state of Theon Greyjoy’s character in Game of Thrones, for all we know. Their state of physical/mental health could be no better than Sgt. Bergdahl’s. They could have been subjected to highly effective deprogramming. They could have GPS devices implanted in them. They could have been “turned.” We don’t know. People who are inclined to refuse President Obama the benefit of the doubt will fill in all these blanks as they see fit. My father in law compared it to releasing Goring and Eichmann and Goebels. (Oh, and for good measure compared Bergdahl to Charles Manson.) Personally, I see no reason not to assume that the administration was reasonably thoughtful about giving these guys up. What would be the political upside from releasing people who pose a likely threat? Isn’t Obama supposed to be this craven calculating political animal?
Moreover, the rate of recidivism among Guantanamo detainees is remarkably low, particularly under Obama. Maybe these guys are different. Who knows.
I don’t think there’s a catch.
Obama wants to get rid of the terrorists, preparatory to withdrawing from Afghanistan. This Bergdahl is pretty much the closest thing there is to a POW. You can’t possibly make him into a hero. Nor is there any way to make the release of the terrorists look good. Might as well bite the bullet and combine the two into one, add a dash of “fuck the law, I’m in a hurry to get this out of the news cycle”, swear everyone who knew about Bergdahl to silence, and make the deal happen. Sure, the Afghanis don’t like it, but at least now they know that we are done with them, and they are on their own.
And if/when the terrorists go back to terrorism, that will be some other President’s problem. Obama can always whitewash it in his books.
Regards,
Shodan
Wow, so much silliness in such a small space.
He wants to get rid of the terrorists? Five is a pretty piddling start. This isn’t going to reduce the demands on Gitmo’s kitchen in any significant way.
Closest thing to a POW? I guess BEING a POW is pretty close to being pretty close.
Swear everyone who knew about Bergdahl to silence? For an evil genius, Obama must be pretty incompetent. There has been no silence.
Afghans know we are done with them? Just on the release of five guys? If that’s all the Afghans had to worry about, we could have left years ago.
(post shortened and dots added)
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Vice Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) should have a pretty good idea of who these five terrorists are and they didn’t want these specific terrorists released.
The release of these specific terrorists has been under repeated discussion by the Obama WH and the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee wouldn’t agree to their release. So the Obama WH chose to ignored Congress and remove five terrorists from GITMO. That means there are five fewer terrorists, in GITMO, left for the Obama WH to transfer out.
Perhaps the senators should tell us what is so important about these 5 guys. What can they do that nobody else can?
But “My boorish behavior is okay because it’s a response to what I claim - but am reluctant to put myself to the trouble of demonstrating - is boorish behavior in those I disagree with” can well be seen as objectionable.
And incoherent.
I have no problem with getting him back to the US. I hope the choice of prisoners exchanged does not come back to haunt us and cause the deaths of others.
But here’s the thing, how the fuck could the administration be so tone deaf to the situation? It’s not like now we have to start an investigation. An extensive 15-6 has been ongoing since he went missing. The only thing that is not in the report is an interview with Bergdahl himself. On any official or unofficial military site that brought his name up the accusations flew for 5 years. There was the Rolling Stone article. There were his fellow soldiers who were pissed off enough that they didn’t care about the gag order. How could anyone with any political savvy think that this would be met with cheering crowds? The announcement and how it was handled stuck in the craw of many soldiers and former soldiers. Only a partisan political hack will dismiss it as simply posturing. The posturing happened at the podium with the Bergdahl’s. I could come up with a simple press statement that would have quieted most of the controversy. The questions still would have been asked about the exchange but they wouldn’t have to backtrack about treating it like the return of a hero.
Is anyone seriously disputing that he originated that note? Why should decisions not be based on the best evidence available?
Who the hell knows? Maybe it’s likely that there’s a note, but who knows if he wrote it? Maybe he wrote it, but who knows what it said? Maybe we know what it said, but who knows what he meant? Maybe we know what he meant, but who knows why he wrote it?
As to your second question, decisions about whether to recover a captive soldier should not be based at all on things like accusations and supposed notes. What if it turns out the note wasn’t his, or he had a breakdown, or who the hell knows what happened?
The constitution also gives to Congress the power to make rules for the regulation of the armed forces, however. That’s the power by which Congress has promulgated various other rules about the handling of Gitmo prisoners (the ban on the use of torture, the ban on transfer to the US, etc.). I don’t think the lines of constitutional authority are nearly as clear as you suggest.
On the other hand, I think the legality of the action is a moot point; the statutory 30-day rule did not provide for any sort of sanction for violation, and obviously the transfer cannot be revoked.
Presumably an inquiry of that sort could have been one of the goals of the thirty-day period, though.
On the other hand, as noted above, the WH has stated that there was no dissent over the trade within the administration, which means that the military and intelligence community had dropped their objections. It’s possible that Senate Democrats on the committee might similarly have been brought into agreement with at least some sort of advance briefing.
Like the navy guy said, it doesn’t matter if you jumped, fell, or were pushed overboard. The ship comes back to get you. So many people make a big fucking deal over how our troops are “fighting for our freedom” but apparently those freedoms don’t include the right to a fair trial if you’re one of the troops.
Those are good questions. I’m sure Feinstein and Chambliss will be glad to hear from you. They might even answer, if there are no national security issues involved.
If Feinstein and Chambliss are aware of any potential danger that these five specific terrorists might be capable of in the future, I assume that the Obama WH would also be aware of the same potential. Obama chose to overlook that potential. Maybe, just maybe, it’s because their release makes it a little bit easier to close GITMO. Step by step. Ever so slowly, the Obama crossed the room. One by one he released the GITMO inmates. Singing, “One little, two little, three little terrorists. Four little, five little, six little terrorists. Seven little, eight little, nine little terrorists. Ten little terrorist boys”.
Ok. Pres. Obama, Sen. Feinstein, and Sen. Chambliss all have information about these five individuals unavailable to the public at large. Obama supported releasing them, Feinstein and Chambliss did not.
Why do you assume that Feinstein and Chambliss’s position was the sounder one based on consideration of the facts available, while Obama’s was motivated by base ulterior motives? Isn’t it equally possible given what we know that Obama made the correct but politically unpopular decision, while Feinstein and Chambliss are ultimately less accountable than the president and meanwhile get lots of political upside from grandstanding, and/or are scared of getting Willie Hortonized? I don’t know which of these is closer to the truth, but I don’t think you do either.
Bergdahl should be brought home.
Should these five specific terrorists have been released?
With the information available to the public, there’s no way to answer this question.
The correct decision? People object to the releasing of these five specific terrorists. Obama wants to see five few beds being used in GITMO.
Feinstein and Chambliss are ultimately less accountable than the president. Obama is responsible for the release of these five terrorists.
Has anyone seriously said that Bergdahl should not receive a fair trial?
As for that “smear machine” you’ve cited - how does it happen that so many of his fellow soldiers are participating? IOW, are they contributing smears, or accurate views of Bergdahl?
iiandyiiii meet BobLibDem. BobLibDem meet iiandyiiii. BobLibDem can answer any question.