US soldier Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban in Afghanistan

[Lite Beer]

US soldier Bowe Bergdahl freed by Taliban in Afghanistan

A US soldier who has been held by the Taliban in Afghanistan for nearly five years has been freed in deal that includes the release of five Afghan detainees, US officials say.

US Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, 28, was handed to US forces in good health.

The five Afghan detainees were released from the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and were handed over to Qatar, which mediated the deal.

President Barack Obama said the US "shared the joy" of the release.

Sgt Bergdahl was the only US soldier being held by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Officials said he was in good condition and undergoing medical tests at Bagram Air Field, the main US base in Afghanistan.

He would later be flown to a US military medical centre in Germany to "decompress" after his ordeal, American defence sources told the AFP news agency.

Read More: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27651690

-- BBC 2014-06-01

[Mango Bob]

Good news, Welcome home Sgt Bergdahl

[chooka]

tuck into those bacon and eggs soldier, I know it's been awhile.

[Ulysses G.]

It was probably not a very good idea trading him for terrorists, but I am still glad that the poor fellow is finally free and back with his family.

[Pattszero]

I wonder who will be the first to die at the hands of the terrorists freed.

A high price to pay.

[khwaibah]

Not all are welcoming him back..

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/05/31/military-online-reaction-mixed-to-bergdahl-release-/9819451/

[Morch]

Happy day for the soldier and his family.

Guess there's always a certain amount of ambivalence to these things when one is not directly involved.

Bringing a soldier home vs. releasing terrorists, not leaving a man behind vs. surrendering to ransom demands.

A tough call, and to some degree, political as well.

As far as I understand there is also some controversy regarding events leading to his capture.

Wonder what is the general opinion among soldiers who served there (or in active duty) about the trade.

Some similarity with Israel's case from a few years ago. Looks like the USA is better at bargaining.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilad_Shalit

[Chicog]

No doubt the GOP will be forming a special committee to investigate.

[chuckd]

Since Obama broke the law yet again, it would seem prudent for them to do so.

[Chicog]

What law was that?

Ah, this one:

When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Chuck is correct. Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility.

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited "unique and exigent circumstances" as justification.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-prisoner-swap-taliban-obama-2014-5#ixzz33MaLXG1X

Edited June 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

Chuck is correct. Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility.

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited "unique and exigent circumstances" as justification.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-prisoner-swap-taliban-obama-2014-5#ixzz33MaLXG1X

Yes I know, see above. I guess impeachment is the only solution.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Chicog

[chuckd]

What law was that?

Ah, this one:

When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

For the education of the British Empire...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What’s a presidential signing statement?

The Constitution doesn’t say anything about presidential signing statements. It neither permits nor prohibits them. Here’s what the Constitution does say about presidential power: the president has the power to veto any bill passed by Congress (Article 1, section 7) and the authority to confirm that the laws are faithfully executed (Article 2, section 3).

Some people have expressed concern that using a signing statement to declare an aspect of a particular bill unconstitutional is equivalent to initiating a line-item veto, which is unconstitutional (see Clinton v. City of New York). A panel of the American Bar Association has censured the use of signing statements for this purpose.

However, others argue that a signing statement has no legal effect, so it doesn’t really matter, constitutionally speaking, what the statement says. A federal district court held that no executive statement “denying efficacy to the legislation could have either validity or effect” (see DaCosta v. Nixon).

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/01/whats-a-presidential-signing-statement/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, a signing statement means nothing other than to provide the President's opinion on the bill he is signing into law. The law Obama signed called for a 30 day advance notification to Congress before any detainees at Guantanamo were released.

He chose not to follow the law, therefore he broke the law and his oath of office.

Impeachment??? Now there's a thought.

Edited June 1, 2014 by chuckd

[Ulysses G.]

Chuck is correct. Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility.

The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited "unique and exigent circumstances" as justification.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gop-prisoner-swap-taliban-obama-2014-5#ixzz33MaLXG1X

Yes I know, see above. I guess impeachment is the only solution.

One solution anyway. For this and a bunch of other times he has circumvented the law.

Edited June 1, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[arjunadawn]

It was probably not a very good idea trading him for terrorists, but I am still glad that the poor fellow is finally free and back with his family.

No, it was not a good idea to "trade him for terrorists." However, like you, I am so happy this man is finally free, regardless of the reasoning. Trading him for terrorists is not what sickens me; not monitoring and 'dispatching' these just released SOBs via clandestine ops (not subject to rules of war restraints) is the shame.

It is my position that from the very day this solider was kidnapped every available military (and other 'total war' asset) effort should have been employed to return him- including carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion. When the very structures of our liberties define the elements under which we are viciously and daily attacked these same institutions need be explored- this includes the archaic rules of war for which an asymmetrical enemy has no obligations. Further evidence or our own institutions becoming the battle area for these attacks can be easily gleaned from "Lawfare;" Jihad using the Wests own legal system to inflict paralysis. Therefore, the West puts soldiers in harm's way with hardly an ability to achieve a national objective, let alone survive with comrades in 'contact.' When America lost it's taste for actually winning a war it became a target for every ill intent.

It's simple: I don't support "fair" war. It's a stupid residual of a long dead chivalric code. War should only happen to achieve a national objective, subdue the will of the enemy to fight, savage the opposition, and quickly retreat to remain quiet, detached, and mostly out of the worlds daily business! Indeed, a much greater manhunt should have been taking place to find this soldier than Osama- again!

SF? Yes, SGT Bergdhal, SF!

Edited June 1, 2014 by arjunadawn

[godden]

The things we do for our sh*t governments

[Ulysses G.]

It's simple: I don't support "fair" war. It's a stupid residual of a long dead chivalric code. War should only happen to achieve a national objective, subdue the will of the enemy to fight, savage the opposition, and quickly retreat to remain quiet, detached, and mostly out of the worlds daily business!

I agree with all this, but there are allegations coming out that, in the beginning, he was a willing collaborator and that he should be charged with desertion. If this is true, I think that he has suffered enough, but it definitely would put a different spin on the story.

[wandasloan]

No, it was not a good idea to "trade him for terrorists." However, like you, I am so happy this man is finally free, regardless of the reasoning. Trading him for terrorists is not what sickens me; not monitoring and 'dispatching' these just released SOBs via clandestine ops (not subject to rules of war restraints) is the shame.

It is my position that from the very day this solider was kidnapped every available military (and other 'total war' asset) effort should have been employed to return him- including carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion. When the very structures of our liberties define the elements under which we are viciously and daily attacked these same institutions need be explored- this includes the archaic rules of war for which an asymmetrical enemy has no obligations. Further evidence or our own institutions becoming the battle area for these attacks can be easily gleaned from "Lawfare;" Jihad using the Wests own legal system to inflict paralysis. Therefore, the West puts soldiers in harm's way with hardly an ability to achieve a national objective, let alone survive with comrades in 'contact.' When America lost it's taste for actually winning a war it became a target for every ill intent.

You have accidentally stumbled onto one of the reasons this exchange was not just controversial, but overwhelmingly opposed by the members of the US military. And that is that he was almost (almost) certainly not kidnapped or captured, but walked up to the Taliban on purpose and handed himself over.

I am personally certain that every effort was made to retrieve him, including searches, negotiating with terrorists, surrendering to terrorists, etc. I don't think, although none of us can know for sure, that any other US person was harmed as a result of this man's poor decision-making, so that's something. And I hope no innocent Afghans have been either, certainly not in your odious fantasy of carpet-bombing.

You and I could probably agree on some points on how governments in the US and other countries have effectively abandoned their warriors and their veterans. But this particular case has, well, particular peculiarities it would be wiser to focus on.

I hope to learn quickly the exact circumstances and state of mind of this man, and since he is still in the armed forces I do so strongly hope that his full legal rights will be just barely granted until then.

I agree with all this, but there are allegations coming out that, in the beginning, he was a willing collaborator and that he should be charged with desertion. If this is true, I think that he has suffered enough, but it definitely would put a different spin on the story.

I disagree profoundly and completely. If this is true, I think he has definitely not suffered enough. If this is true, I strongly hope he will be pursued to the limit of US military law.

.

.

Edited June 1, 2014 by wandasloan

[Chicog]

It is my position that from the very day this solider was kidnapped every available military (and other 'total war' asset) effort should have been employed to return him- including carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion.

Yes, carpet bombing in Afghanistan is such a useful tool.

[chuckd]

The US government should NEVER negotiate with terrorists, particularly those that are inclined to kidnap our troops.

This administration is the only one in my lifetime that I can remember doing so. I feel empathy for the kidnap victim, if he was really a victim, but negotiating with the bad guys simply tells them you are weak and you cannot deal with Muslim terrorists from a position of weakness.

Let us hope and pray this doesn't open the door to more kidnappings.

But then, perhaps this is Obama's way to finally live up to his promise to close Gitmo. Just empty it in exchange for kidnapped US personnel..

[cookee68]

The US government should NEVER negotiate with terrorists, particularly those that are inclined to kidnap our troops.

This administration is the only one in my lifetime that I can remember doing so. I feel empathy for the kidnap victim, if he was really a victim, but negotiating with the bad guys simply tells them you are weak and you cannot deal with Muslim terrorists from a position of weakness.

Let us hope and pray this doesn't open the door to more kidnappings.

But then, perhaps this is Obama's way to finally live up to his promise to close Gitmo. Just empty it in exchange for kidnapped US personnel..

I just think that if i was a terrorist i would take this as a sign of weakness, And the terrorist that were freed will always be terrorist, and therefor more people will die at their hands, or even be captured at there hands and the cycle starts again,

[arjunadawn]

It's simple: I don't support "fair" war. It's a stupid residual of a long dead chivalric code. War should only happen to achieve a national objective, subdue the will of the enemy to fight, savage the opposition, and quickly retreat to remain quiet, detached, and mostly out of the worlds daily business!

I agree with all this, but there are allegations coming out that, in the beginning, he was a willing collaborator and that he should be charged with desertion. If this is true, I think that he has suffered enough, but it definitely would put a different spin on the story.

Does this information change anything? Does it change the conviction I hold?

Yes, I think if true, it does. I need more time to sit with this, though.

[arjunadawn]

No, it was not a good idea to "trade him for terrorists." However, like you, I am so happy this man is finally free, regardless of the reasoning. Trading him for terrorists is not what sickens me; not monitoring and 'dispatching' these just released SOBs via clandestine ops (not subject to rules of war restraints) is the shame.

It is my position that from the very day this solider was kidnapped every available military (and other 'total war' asset) effort should have been employed to return him- including carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion. When the very structures of our liberties define the elements under which we are viciously and daily attacked these same institutions need be explored- this includes the archaic rules of war for which an asymmetrical enemy has no obligations. Further evidence or our own institutions becoming the battle area for these attacks can be easily gleaned from "Lawfare;" Jihad using the Wests own legal system to inflict paralysis. Therefore, the West puts soldiers in harm's way with hardly an ability to achieve a national objective, let alone survive with comrades in 'contact.' When America lost it's taste for actually winning a war it became a target for every ill intent.

You have accidentally stumbled onto one of the reasons this exchange was not just controversial, but overwhelmingly opposed by the members of the US military. And that is that he was almost (almost) certainly not kidnapped or captured, but walked up to the Taliban on purpose and handed himself over.

I am personally certain that every effort was made to retrieve him, including searches, negotiating with terrorists, surrendering to terrorists, etc. I don't think, although none of us can know for sure, that any other US person was harmed as a result of this man's poor decision-making, so that's something. And I hope no innocent Afghans have been either, certainly not in your odious fantasy of carpet-bombing.

You and I could probably agree on some points on how governments in the US and other countries have effectively abandoned their warriors and their veterans. But this particular case has, well, particular peculiarities it would be wiser to focus on.

I hope to learn quickly the exact circumstances and state of mind of this man, and since he is still in the armed forces I do so strongly hope that his full legal rights will be just barely granted until then.

I agree with all this, but there are allegations coming out that, in the beginning, he was a willing collaborator and that he should be charged with desertion. If this is true, I think that he has suffered enough, but it definitely would put a different spin on the story.

I disagree profoundly and completely. If this is true, I think he has definitely not suffered enough. If this is true, I strongly hope he will be pursued to the limit of US military law.

.

.

Hello. Both of you guys addressed something I seem to have missed, or forgotten. I must have known it some where along the way because I did use the word "kidnapped," which no one ever used to describe POWs. I must have once had an inkling... Thanks to both of you for reminding me this story is far from over for me.

[arjunadawn]

It is my position that from the very day this solider was kidnapped every available military (and other 'total war' asset) effort should have been employed to return him- including carpet bombing the enemy into oblivion.

Yes, carpet bombing in Afghanistan is such a useful tool.

Taken out of context, your sarcasm is valid! Carpet bombing in Afghanistan is, by most accounts, worthless. I believe war should be avoided at all costs and if a reason for a nation state to go to war is significant enough that its people declare war, then war should be swift, decisive, violent, and unrelenting until the mission accomplished (and return home); anything less slowly degrades the concept of national defense fromits primary mission for millennia- homeland defense. Anything less than total destruction of an enemy insinuates all the BS Peacekeeping and Nation-building as secondary roles for a military; soldiers cannot be trained to kill/not-kill, peace/not-peace- we ask what is not possible or wise.

I don't advocate carpet bombing Afghanistan, per se. I rendered no specific comment on this point. I recommend the total, unrelenting destruction of any enemy is pursuit of our POWs (to include the carpet bombing option, yes. The choice of this phrase was linguistic utility). With a policy of war greater than war for the shenanigans of kidnapping soldiers for barter, enemies will yield to and fear such a power. The West has not projected such power in ages, however.

[tw25rw]

The US government should NEVER negotiate with terrorists, particularly those that are inclined to kidnap our troops.

This administration is the only one in my lifetime that I can remember doing so. I feel empathy for the kidnap victim, if he was really a victim, but negotiating with the bad guys simply tells them you are weak and you cannot deal with Muslim terrorists from a position of weakness.

Let us hope and pray this doesn't open the door to more kidnappings.

But then, perhaps this is Obama's way to finally live up to his promise to close Gitmo. Just empty it in exchange for kidnapped US personnel..

I just think that if i was a terrorist i would take this as a sign of weakness, And the terrorist that were freed will always be terrorist, and therefor more people will die at their hands, or even be captured at there hands and the cycle starts again,

The word terrorist gets thrown around too easily. These are people fighting for a cause the believe in and are mostly from that country. They took a POW and kept him alive. They aren't Al Qaeda who would more likely have sawn his head off and distributed the video.

As for the ones that were released, who knows what they believe in now. They've been away a long time and had plenty of time to think.

[Ulysses G.]

The word terrorist gets thrown around too easily.

Are you really serious? They have burned children alive, thrown acid in young girls faces for attending school, beaten and killed numerous civilians and many other hateful crimes. Just what do you call a terrorist?

[tw25rw]

The word terrorist gets thrown around too easily.

Are you really serious? They have burned children alive, thrown acid in young girls faces for attending school, beaten and killed numerous civilians and many other hateful crimes. Just what do you call a terrorist?

Maybe, but they aren't Al Qaeda, even if they did ally themselves to them. Al Qaeda you don't negotiate with. They are just psychopaths.

The soldier in question was taken as a POW and they wanted their own men released. That the opportunity for negotiation was there at all is a big difference.

[chuckd]

The US government should NEVER negotiate with terrorists, particularly those that are inclined to kidnap our troops.

This administration is the only one in my lifetime that I can remember doing so. I feel empathy for the kidnap victim, if he was really a victim, but negotiating with the bad guys simply tells them you are weak and you cannot deal with Muslim terrorists from a position of weakness.

Let us hope and pray this doesn't open the door to more kidnappings.

But then, perhaps this is Obama's way to finally live up to his promise to close Gitmo. Just empty it in exchange for kidnapped US personnel..

I just think that if i was a terrorist i would take this as a sign of weakness, And the terrorist that were freed will always be terrorist, and therefor more people will die at their hands, or even be captured at there hands and the cycle starts again,

The word terrorist gets thrown around too easily. These are people fighting for a cause the believe in and are mostly from that country. They took a POW and kept him alive. They aren't Al Qaeda who would more likely have sawn his head off and distributed the video.

As for the ones that were released, who knows what they believe in now. They've been away a long time and had plenty of time to think.

Unless the Taliban has signed the Geneva Convention in the past 24 hours, they do not have POWs. They have hostages, to use as long as they can find a need for them.

Let's take a quick look at the five detainees that were turned over to Qatar. They weren't exactly choir boys...but they were Al-Qaida operatives.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban army chief of staff): Fazl is “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites.

2. Mullah Norullah Noori (senior Taliban military commander): Like Fazl, Noori is “wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims.”

3. Abdul Haq Wasiq (Taliban deputy minister of intelligence): Wasiq arranged for al Qaeda members to provide crucial intelligence training prior to 9/11.

4. Khairullah Khairkhwa (Taliban governor of the Herat province and former interior minister): Khairkhwa was the governor of Afghanistan’s westernmost province prior to 9/11. In that capacity, he executed sensitive missions for Mullah Omar, including helping to broker a secret deal with the Iranians.

5. Mohammed Nabi (senior Taliban figure and security official): Nabi “was a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles.” Nabi “had strong operational ties to Anti-Coalition Militia (ACM) groups including al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG)

Nope! Nothing to see here, move along.

[Johpa]

This was a very good bargain with little cost to the US. The Taliban are many things, including very badly behaved, misogynist, and deluded monotheists. But they are also Pathan nationalists who want to have a political voice over their domain that is currently being occupied by foreign forces. Any discussions about the future of Afghanistan that has the goal of reduced violence will require the inclusion of the Taliban. Negotiating this prisoner swap was a good deal for all sides.

The five released from Guantanamo have been out of the picture for nearly a decade and although they will be bestowed a certain status by supporters of the Taliban, they are unlikely to assume the operational positions they once held. Most likely they will be sent out to pasture. Obama probably did break some law, but giving a 30 day notice to some members of congress would have surely broken the deal and soldier would have been left to rot in some hovel in Waziristan. I would recommend to Obama to look right into the TV camera and address the wacko Republican congressional members who are criticizing the deal on legal grounds and simply say "so sue me, but I did the right thing". And as noted in the linked USA today article, the doubts raised about Bergdahl are based solely on speculation. Bergdahl is still an American who deserves due process, deserves to tell his side of the story before anyone has the right to pass judgment.

This is one of those increasingly rare stories where an American can be proud of the government. The government acted quickly and decisively to bring back one of our own. Of course there was a cost. There is always a cost to obtain a prisoner's release. The hypocrite John McCain should be able to appreciate this better than anyone, but doesn't apart from a few of his most extremist colleagues. And special kudos to the extraction team that kept it cool and professional.

[Yahooka]

I wonder who will be the first to die at the hands of the terrorists freed.

A high price to pay.

Don`t worry............according to Western "experts" and media all detainees on Guantanamo are innocent,remember ?