Tell that to Evil Economist then.
Yes, I am sure they would just toss a coin.
“Why does it matter?”… man, you’re always so damn hostile. The IDF is cool, and people are curious about it. Can’t we disagree agreeably? 
[quote=“Terr, post:451, topic:689840”]
Yes, Israel does ridiculous things like trading 1000 live terrorists who will go on to kill more Israelis for two soldiers’ bodies. I don’t approve of that either.
I live in the US and am a US citizen. And hell, even if I didn’t and wasn’t, that would not deter me from having an opinion or discussing it.[/]
You served in the IDF and that’s awesome.
We don’t play by those rules though. We bring you home. Why? Because that’s the agreement. If the IDF doesn’t have that bond it’s not our concern. We bring you home.
Have any doubts? Just look at our POW/MIA center.
You will come home.
Question for the people who don’t think those five Taliban should have been traded for Bergdahl:
AIUI, the five Taliban are set up in a nice hotel in Qatar. They are supposed to stay there for a year. What if the plan is, their phones are tapped, their rooms are bugged, CIA agents are living next door, there are five drones permanently parked in the sky above the hotel. We gather intel from them, monitor who they contact and what they say for a year, and if one of them takes off, the drone follows them to wherever they go and blows the meeting to kingdom come.
If that’s the plan, does that change your mind? Cause I gotta think that’s the plan, or something similar.
Really?
Ok - Charles Jenkins- why do you think it took 40 years to “bring him home”, and his three fellow deserters never made it “home”? Do you think there were real efforts to buy him from North Koreans?
Sure. Cuz we have free hand to do anything we want in Qatar, and the Taliban are stooooopid. Right?
Yes, you gotta think that because otherwise it is one of the most ridiculously stupid moves by the administration, right?
A very reasonable concern.
Who told Congress that the Tally-ban threatened to kill Bergdahl if information of this trade became public? Was it the White House?
Way back when the Bin Laden capture/kill mission took place, the WH shared the specifics of that mission with members of Congress before it took place. But then there were no concerns about vacating 5 beds at GITMO.
The Qatari negotiators. Read the link, will you please?
If you can think of this, do you suppose that the Taliban or Qatar might not also think of it?
We never had leverage with North Korea to induce them to do it. Only when Jenkins and his Japanese-hostage wife decided they wanted to live their final years in her old fishing village in Japan did NK agree to let them go.
They died.
Possibly, but NK was never willing to “sell” as long as he had propaganda value for them.
Sure. In which case, their former associates and potential future recruits aren’t going to get within a thousand yards of them, call them on the phone, send them a Christmas card, etc… So they will be effectively taken out of the fight, making all the doomsday predictions about them returning to the fight much less scary.
The fear seems to be that they are effective leaders, but if you are right, they will not be able to get anyone to follow them. I don’t think people are too worried that they are going to do a lot of damage by themselves, especially with how closely they are going to be watched.
(post shortened)
You forgot to mention that the storyline has changed. Many people were under the impression that Bergdalh had been captured when he fell behind on a patrol. That turned out to be far from the truth.
I’m sure the whole story would have been made public years ago but there was a (brigade-wide?) non-disclosure agreement that enforced silence. Once soldiers began talking, the publics opinion of Bergdahl began to change.
I wonder if his home town would have ever planned the first Bring Bowe Home gathering if they knew what had actually occurred at that forward OP?
Actually, I misread your question. *Nobody *told Congress, because that’s what would have constituted leaking and sentenced Bergdahl to death, per the WH’s understanding of what the Qataris told them they understood the Taliban threat to be.
No record of that in a quick Googling. Notification wasn’t required either, it being a military operation authorized by AUMF.
That’s what you have to resort to in order to find a way to condemn Obama, huh? Tell us, please, why he didn’t simply send all the rest of the prisoners (most of Cheney’s are, in fact, gone) to Qatar instead of just 5?
I read the link. It didn’t say anything about the Qatari negotiators notifying Congress.
According to your linked article -
*WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration has told senators it didn’t notify Congress about the pending swap of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban officials because the Taliban had threatened to kill him if the deal was made public, three congressional officials have told The Associated Press.
…Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the National Security Council, disputed the characterization of what the administration had told senators but did not provide details on what the briefing entailed.*
I wondered who had told Congress that the Tally-ban threatened to kill Bergdahl if information of this trade became public? Apparently it was the White House who told the Senators that Bergdahl would be killed if this swap became public.
When even White House allies are calling this “the latest” explanation of events that transpired a week or weeks ago, I think that it’s fair to call this political commentary and not a real factor in any decision.
Meta: I strongly support making an appropriate deal for Bergdahl’s release. I query whether the deal cut was the best deal available, but it was not my call. I believe that the President’s actions with respect to Congressional notification were illegal, but I also believe that the notification law is misguided and, in a similar situation, would not have honored the 30-day requirement.
Further meta: whether you want to blame Cheney for refining the unitary executive theory or Obama for carrying the theory further than W ever did, this is a nice reminder to everyone that so much of politics is about who you like, not what you “believe.”
I’m not sure how many times I have said it. It was public years ago. It just wasn’t widely publicized outside of military circles. Mostly due to lack of interest. But I remember hearing about it on military pages just a few months after it happened. The Rolling Stone article came out in 2012. I’ve seen it written that the White House was expecting blow back on the exchange and who was given back but were caught totally flatfooted about the reaction to Bergdahl. How the hell did I know more about the issue than the White House? I could have told them this would happen and I’m sure there were others closer to them who could too.
I agree with this.
I suspect that the WH did a poor job negotiating, perhaps in part because of its ambivalence about the military, Guantanemo and the war on terror generally. But ultimately these are judgment calls and, in a civil society, folks will disagree (sometimes loudly) on such things. My personal compass is set to getting Americans home and questioning, but ultimately deferring, to the executive to get it done.
But the White House gaffed the politics spectacularly. I am not sure that any reasonable person can disagree with that.
“Possibly”? Can you show me that there were efforts made? I don’t think there were any. He and his three fellow deserters could rot in North Korea for all US government cared.
(post shortened)
Did you search for Congress or for Intelligence Committee?
*Critics in both parties have blasted the deal made over the weekend, partly because they say the high-ranking Taliban leaders will return to the field of battle and partly because they say President Barack Obama broke the law by not giving Congress 30 days’ notice.
Chambliss said his criticism focused on the lack of notification. He said he could understand an emergency situation in which 30 days’ notice would not be possible, but the deal was in the works long enough that a few days’ notice would have been doable.
“It was like they didn’t trust Dianne [Feinstein] and me,” Chambliss said. Feinstein, a California Democrat, chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Both Feinstein and Chambliss were told of the raid that killed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden months in advance, he said, so the administration had no reason to fear a leak in this case.*
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Congress-Taliban-exchanging/2014/06/04/id/575244/
I’ve heard media reports that the Tally-ban had repeatedly asked for these 5 specific terrorists. I guess it’s a good thing that they didn’t ask for 12 or 24 GITMO terrorists.
Oh and another question about Charles Jenkins and the other three deserters that were with him in North Korea - can you look in your POW/MIA center and tell me whether those centers ever advocated getting him and his three fellows home? Can you show me that?