There was a time when whatever it was hadn’t transpired yet, hmm? That’s the point, that it wasn’t the lie you say it was.
But *them *you believe. :rolleyes:
You’ve seen them yourself then, have you?
If the note states that he’s giving up his citizenship then I think there’s a question about the effort made to rescue him. he would still be guilty of desertion but no longer an American hostage. The dynamic changes based on the alleged note. I don’t see why we would be obligated to save non-citizens.
The bottom line is that the United States gave away 5 terrorists for this person. Supposedly we knew exactly where he was but decided it wasn’t worth the risk to attempt a forced rescue. It seems like a pretty big risk to release 5 of the worst members of the Taliban back to a country that says it will let them move about freely. they’ll be able to plan and communicate without interference.
what?
Doesn’t make much of a bargaining chip to put that out. I believe the picture they sent.
I posted it above. You couldn’t miss it unless you don’t click on anything that might alter your opinion.
Well, if what I hear about us having to release those particular prisoners pretty soon anyway is true, might as well get SOMETHING for 'em…
I didn’t think so.
Along with everything else you’ve quoted as fact, too. Your own President, not so much as the Taliban, though. :rolleyes:
You claim there are more coming, and they will somehow validate your trust in the Taliban story. That was the reference.
Meanwhile, it was just a few months ago that there were petitions going around for Obama to free Bergdahl “by any means necessary”. Apparently there were limitations.
As long as we’re speculating, if the note says he’s a secret Sith Lord we might want to start training some Jedi. And talking about giving up one’s citizenship is not the same as actually giving up one’s citizenship – there is an actual procedure, and it doesn’t involve leaving notes behind.
It may not have been a good trade, but that has nothing to do with this note or the accusations of desertion.
I disagree that an attempt to abandon one’s country carries no moral onus until after one fills out the proper forms.
It does have to do with these things.
If this person had served honorably, then it might be possible to make a case for the exchange. But if we send five terrorists back to their careers of torture and mass murder, and all we get back is this - then, not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
The President took it upon himself to give aid to the Taliban on behalf of bergdahl so what he did after he deserted pales in comparison.
I didn’t claim more pictures are coming. I said the picture that’s been available since 2010 will become mainstream when opinion changes.
There’s a petition out to build a death star. What’s your point? do you think the people who signed the petition knew about his desertion or dislike of his country?
Nothing in the statement by the Joint Chiefs mentioned giving aid to the enemy as part of the process of rescuing soldiers. It’s a disingenuous statement to make.
Disingenuous by the Chairman? You’ll have to take that up with him. And since you’re giving up the argument that the accusations of desertion should mean we should have valued him less, I take it you agree with General Dempsey that “the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity”.
Perhaps not, but just like General Dempsey, I hold that “the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity”. And this conduct includes any notes he allegedly left behind. And, like General Dempsey, I agree that his conduct should be investigated, and if warranted, he should be prosecuted.
I take it you disagree with General Dempsey, then, that “the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity”.
I’m thankful that he’s the Chairman, and not you (or someone with your views on the relative value of captured servicemembers).
I’m not giving up any argument. General Dempsey has to fling whatever bullshit his CIC tells him to fling. This exchange was Obama’s train wreck and his alone.
again, the families of those killed looking for a deserter would disagree as do many others.
So to be clear, you believe it is morally acceptable for the United States military to deliberately leave a captured soldier in the hands of the enemy for reasons that are solely derived from that soldier’s character and conduct, given that (s)he is alone, and given sufficiently “shady” character/conduct?
Again, see my post above (#105).
So you hold that, due solely to accusations that he has had no chance to respond to, he is less worth any other servicemember who had been captured by the enemy?
If so, I’m so so very glad you were never in any leadership position over me or my friends who served in the military. Very thankful that guys like General Dempsey are in charge, and not you.
If I had made it a career and became a high-ranking Naval officer, I would never have valued a sailor any less who had been captured just because he was accused of a crime, even a serious crime, and even if he had supposedly left a note critical of our country.
As the links in post #105 show, blaming Bergdahl for those deaths is from a settled claim.
Was there a trial and I missed it? Where do you get the idea that the accusations were correct? There has been no evidence presented by Sgt. Bergdahl to explain his actions. Do we have “guilty until proven innocent” now?
BTW, when Obama signed the law that every right wingnut is pointing to, he issued a signing statement that said that he thought that that provision of the law was unconstitutional, and he would not feel bound by it. Shall we discuss whether your signing statement is bigger than my signing statement?
To the contrary, he left a note explaining why he’d decided to leave.
There are several seperate issues involved with the Bergdahl release.
A) Should the U.S. do what it can to bring U.S. military personal home? (YES!)
B) Should the U.S. do anything/everything it can to bring U.S. military personal home? (No.)
C) Did the Obama administration violate the law stating that the WH must notify Congress 30 days in advance before moving GITMO prisoners? (YES.)
D) Did Bergdahl voluntary abandon his post, (the forward operations post, not his standing guard duty kind of post)? (It appears that he did.)
E) Will Bergdahl face charges for desertion or, possibly, treason for abandoning his post and possibly aiding the enemy? idk?
F) Wasn’t Susan Rice convincing when she claimed that Bergdahl had served with honor and distinction? (NO!)
Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the Chair of the Inteligence Committee, (the Congressional group that the Obama admin should have been keeping in the loop if the Obama admin intended to move Gitmo prisoners) says she and her committee had no communication from the WH. Hairy Reid (D-AZ) sez he was notified last Friday. (Which would be about 29 days too late.)
CBS/AP/February 23, 2014, 11:06 AM
*Taliban calls off talks over Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl
ISLAMABAD - Afghanistan’s Taliban said Sunday they had suspended “mediation” with the United States to exchange captive Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five senior Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, halting - at least temporarily - what was considered the best chance yet of securing the 27-year-old soldier’s freedom since his capture in 2009.
…The five Taliban detainees at the heart of the proposal are the most senior Afghans still held at the prison at the U.S. base in Cuba. Each has been held since 2002.
They include:
** Mohammad Fazl, whom Human Rights Watch says could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 as the Taliban sought to consolidate their control over the country.
** Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence and was in direct contact with supreme leader Mullah Omar as well as other senior Taliban figures, according to military documents. Under Wasiq, there were widespread accounts of killings, torture and mistreatment.
** Mullah Norullah Nori, who was a senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif when the Taliban fought U.S. forces in late 2001. He previously served as a Taliban governor in two northern provinces, where he has been accused of ordering the massacre of thousands of Shiites.
** Khairullah Khairkhwa, who served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and as a military commander and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, according to U.S. military documents. His U.S. lawyers have argued that his affiliation with the Taliban was a matter of circumstance, rather than ideology, and that he had backed away from them by the time of his capture. His lawyers also have argued that he was merely a civil servant and had no military role, though a judge said there was enough evidence to justify holding him at Guantanamo. His lawyers have appealed.
** Mohammed Nabi, who served as chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat, Afghanistan, and later worked as a radio operator for the Taliban’s communications office in Kabul and as an office manager in the border department, according to U.S. military documents. In the spring of 2002, he told interrogators that he received about $500 from a CIA operative as part of the unsuccessful effort to track down Mullah Omar. When that didn’t pan out, he says he ended up helping the agency locate al-Qaida members.*
The Obama WH was discussing this swap months ago. Suddenly - it became a rushed, last minute deal???