Bowe Bergdahl release: US parties clash on Afghan deal

[Ulysses G.]

Obama ran on a campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Obama was elected by a majority of voters. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a majority of Americans wanted to see Gitmo closed.

Not according to polls at the time or now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2014/47_say_u_s_safer_today_because_of_guantanamo_prison

[ClutchClark]

For five years, soldiers have been forced to stay silent about the disappearance and search for Bergdahl. Now we can talk about what really happened.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/we-lost-soldiers-in-the-hunt-for-bergdahl-a-guy-who-walked-off-in-the-dead-of-night.html

Thanks for providing an unsubstantiated article describing the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance, or rather of the search after his disappearance.

The author, a fellow soldier feels that "sympathy and humanity" should be afforded Sgt Bergdahl.

Its interesting to note that Bergdahl was not on guard duty when he disappeared as some have suggested, if the article is to be believed.

It briefly references Bergdahl's fellow soldiers stating Bergdahl had earlier indicated he was going to walk from their post in Afghanistan to India. This sure sounds like an indication of an unstable mind. Any idea why they did not remove him from duty and keep him from wandering off to India?

[ClutchClark]

Bob Bergdahl now tweeting for more Guantanamo releases

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/01/bob-bergdahl-now-tweeting-for-more-guantanamo-releases/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Bob Bergdahl just had his only son held captive for 5 years without any form of trial. His son was not treated by the Geneva Conventions due all soldiers. Is it that surprising that he feels compassion for other families of Gitmo "detainees" treated in a similar fashion?

We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night

Yes, I think its what we do when an American service member is captured or missing. We send out a rescue mission to attempt locating the missing soldier. That is a standard practice.

So is sending out patrols from these forward operating camps I seem to recall, however, I am no expert on this and rely on what I have read just like you.

What I see right now is a soldier that cracked under the pressures of war, made it known to his fellow soldiers he was messed up and no one appears to have recognized the danger this soldier's mental instability meant for the troops.

[ClutchClark]

Obama ran on a campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Obama was elected by a majority of voters. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a majority of Americans wanted to see Gitmo closed.

Not according to polls at the time or now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2014/47_say_u_s_safer_today_because_of_guantanamo_prison

This is from the link you provide:

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH OBAMAS DECISION TO CLOSE THE GUANTANAMO PRISON CAMP FOR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS?

Agree -- 44%

Disagree -- 42%

Not Sure -- 14%

The definition of majority is "the greater number".

Based on the evidence you provide, I stand by my assertion.

Thanks for the link. ;-)

[ClutchClark]

The truly sad thing is that Bowe has now become a political football to be dragged through the ordeal of trial by agenda-driven media.

From what we are learning so far, I still feel that, if he was an unwilling captive, he has suffered enough and should not be prosecuted, However, I really have to wonder why the Obama administration would violate our rule against negotiating with terrorists and illegally trade 5 high-level terrorists for a deserter who left his post willingly.

I do not know the sources of this CNN report but would hazard a guess the bios of the 5 Gitmo detainees were assembled by US Intel:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/bergdahl-transferred-guantanamo-detainees/

It indicates they were not Al-Quesadilla, but were Taliban. This means they were soldiers, correct? And as soldiers, didn't the US have a legal responsibility to treat them under rules of the Geneva Convention?

Hey, I am not a supoorter of these guys, I am simply trying to understand why the War on terror allowed the US to break its own rules of engagement.

I want to understand.

[stander]

Bob Bergdahl now tweeting for more Guantanamo releases

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/01/bob-bergdahl-now-tweeting-for-more-guantanamo-releases/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Obama ran on a campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Obama was elected by a majority of voters. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a majority of Americans wanted to see Gitmo closed.

Isn't it strange how the fairy dust gradually fell off Obama. Now he looks like what he is; a community activist.

[ClutchClark]

Bob Bergdahl now tweeting for more Guantanamo releases

http://twitchy.com/2014/06/01/bob-bergdahl-now-tweeting-for-more-guantanamo-releases/?utm_source=autotweet&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=twitter

Obama ran on a campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Obama was elected by a majority of voters. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a majority of Americans wanted to see Gitmo closed.

Isn't it strange how the fairy dust gradually fell off Obama. Now he looks like what he is; a community activist.

Although its true the fairy dust has finally fallen off, as it does for all presidents by their second term, and although its true I can't stand the man any more than I could stand Cheney/Bush, I would probably choose words to describe him differently than a "community activist".

You have a kind soul.

[Ulysses G.]

Obama ran on a campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Obama was elected by a majority of voters. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a majority of Americans wanted to see Gitmo closed.

Not according to polls at the time or now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2014/47_say_u_s_safer_today_because_of_guantanamo_prison

This is from the link you provide:

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH OBAMAS DECISION TO CLOSE THE GUANTANAMO PRISON CAMP FOR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS?

Agree -- 44%

Disagree -- 42%

Not Sure -- 14%

The definition of majority is "the greater number".

Based on the evidence you provide, I stand by my assertion.

Thanks for the link. ;-)

Nope. You said a "majority wanted to see Gitmo closed" but 56% did not say that. Your numbers do not add up to a majority. 42% did not want it closed and 14% were not sure. Only 44% wanted it closed.

Today 54% say that it should NOT be closed. THAT is a majority.

[Ulysses G.]

It indicates they were not Al-Quesadilla, but were Taliban. This means they were soldiers, correct? And as soldiers, didn't the US have a legal responsibility to treat them under rules of the Geneva Convention?

No. Soldiers have to wear uniforms. They do not have the right to be treated like soldiers under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

[ClutchClark]

Obama ran on a campaign promise of closing Gitmo. Obama was elected by a majority of voters. Therefore, it is reasonable to suggest a majority of Americans wanted to see Gitmo closed.

Not according to polls at the time or now.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2014/47_say_u_s_safer_today_because_of_guantanamo_prison

This is from the link you provide:

DO YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH OBAMAS DECISION TO CLOSE THE GUANTANAMO PRISON CAMP FOR SUSPECTED TERRORISTS?

Agree -- 44%

Disagree -- 42%

Not Sure -- 14%

The definition of majority is "the greater number".

Based on the evidence you provide, I stand by my assertion.

Thanks for the link. ;-)

Nope. You said a "majority wanted to see Gitmo closed" but 56% did not say that. Your numbers do not add up to a majority. 42% did not want it closed and 14% were not sure. Only 44% wanted it closed.

Today 54% say that it should NOT be closed. THAT is a majority.

What?

Surely you are not that daft?

[ClutchClark]

It indicates they were not Al-Quesadilla, but were Taliban. This means they were soldiers, correct? And as soldiers, didn't the US have a legal responsibility to treat them under rules of the Geneva Convention?

No. Soldiers have to wear uniforms. They do not have the right to be treated like soldiers under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

I have read the 1949 Geneva Convention and I do not see any reference to soldiers being required to wear uniforms as you indicate.

Can you please supply supporting evidence for your claim.

And why all the hostility? Are you incapable of having a discussion without getting your panties twisted?

[Chicog]

The truly sad thing is that Bowe has now become a political football to be dragged through the ordeal of trial by agenda-driven media.

From what we are learning so far, I still feel that, if he was an unwilling captive, he has suffered enough and should not be prosecuted, However, I really have to wonder why the Obama administration would violate our rule against negotiating with terrorists and illegally trade 5 high-level terrorists for a deserter who left his post willingly.

Apparently they are trying to open a line of dialogue to the Taliban to try and ease the transition from an American occupation to a peaceful co-operation between the Afghan government and the talitubbies when the US pulls out.

Personally I think they are peeing to the wind, but I suppose it's worth a try.

[Ulysses G.]

It indicates they were not Al-Quesadilla, but were Taliban. This means they were soldiers, correct? And as soldiers, didn't the US have a legal responsibility to treat them under rules of the Geneva Convention?

No. Soldiers have to wear uniforms. They do not have the right to be treated like soldiers under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

I have read the 1949 Geneva Convention and I do not see any reference to soldiers being required to wear uniforms as you indicate.

Can you please supply supporting evidence for your claim.

And why all the hostility? Are you incapable of having a discussion without getting your panties twisted?

The Geneva Conventions make a distinction between civilians and combatants. There are different rules for different classes of people in conflicts:

Soldiers

Combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians, wearing uniforms and carrying weapons openly

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/geneva-conventions.html

[Ulysses G.]

Surely you are not that daft?

44% is not "the majority."

[ClutchClark]

It indicates they were not Al-Quesadilla, but were Taliban. This means they were soldiers, correct? And as soldiers, didn't the US have a legal responsibility to treat them under rules of the Geneva Convention?

No. Soldiers have to wear uniforms. They do not have the right to be treated like soldiers under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

I have read the 1949 Geneva Convention and I do not see any reference to soldiers being required to wear uniforms as you indicate.

Can you please supply supporting evidence for your claim.

And why all the hostility? Are you incapable of having a discussion without getting your panties twisted?

The Geneva Conventions make a distinction between civilians and combatants. There are different rules for different classes of people in conflicts:

Soldiers

Combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians, wearing uniforms and carrying weapons openly

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/geneva-conventions.html

There are more thorough interpretations of the Geneva Conventions as well as the actual wording of the Convention itself than this brief website.

Thank you for providing it though.

[Ulysses G.]

I have read the original Geneva Convention, but I have not found a copy that I can cut and paste from. This website explains that combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians, wearing uniforms and carrying weapons openly - neither of which the Taliban do consistently.

[Pattszero]

Haven't read the rest of the thread since my last post - so apologies if you've seen this already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10870318/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-deserter-who-cost-soldiers-lives-say-US-army-comrades.html

This deserter caused the death of six men who went out looking for him.

[Ulysses G.]

Haven't read the rest of the thread since my last post - so apologies if you've seen this already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10870318/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-deserter-who-cost-soldiers-lives-say-US-army-comrades.html

This deserter caused the death of six men who went out looking for him.

Thanks for that article. It is looking more and more like violating the rule against bargaining with terrorists and releasing five high level insurgents for this guy and was a really stupid move.

“He is safe, and now it is time to speak the truth,” said Nathan Bradley Bethea, an officer who served with Mr Berghdahl in the the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment. “The truth is: Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.”

[Pattszero]

Haven't read the rest of the thread since my last post - so apologies if you've seen this already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10870318/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-deserter-who-cost-soldiers-lives-say-US-army-comrades.html

This deserter caused the death of six men who went out looking for him.

Thanks for that article. It is looking more and more like violating the rule against bargaining with terrorists and releasing five high level insurgents for this guy and was a really stupid move.

“He is safe, and now it is time to speak the truth,” said Nathan Bradley Bethea, an officer who served with Mr Berghdahl in the the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment. “The truth is: Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.”

Let's see the reaction when the families of the men that died looking for him are identified. This is going to turn into a complete and utter disaster for Obama.

"No good deed goes unpunished."

[ClutchClark]

I have read the original Geneva Convention, but I have not found a copy that I can cut and paste from. This website explains that combatants must be clearly distinguishable from civilians, wearing uniforms and carrying weapons openly - neither of which the Taliban do consistently.

I have seen photos of our Special Forces and they do not wear uniforms either.

Does that make them Enemy Combatants?

I suppose the truth is the Geneva Convention is great when all the teams play by the rules but since the opposition doesn't then we don't either.

The problem with that philosophy is that then it becomes more of a grey area as to why we are better than them.

For instance, the US used to be able to say we play fair and we don't torture and that earned us the respect and admiration of other countries. Then, ofcourse , we lost that bragging right.

So I am still trying to figure this out but I understand Al-Quida are terrorists but not quite clear on why the Taliban are terrorists. I think their practices and ideologies are right out of the Stone Age but it is their country and they have the right to govern as they see fit, well, until we removed them from power and installed a scumbag Karzai. But to get back to the point, the Taliban are a fighting force defending their country from invaders (that would be the US).

So if the US is invaded and our military and our citizens tzke up arms against the people bombing and killing us on our own soil, will that make us terrorists, enemy combatants, lawful or unlawful, or soldiers as defined by the Geneva Convention?

Any clarity is appreciated.

[ClutchClark]

Haven't read the rest of the thread since my last post - so apologies if you've seen this already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10870318/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-deserter-who-cost-soldiers-lives-say-US-army-comrades.html

This deserter caused the death of six men who went out looking for him.

First of all, you cannot declare him a deserter. Only a military court can make that determination. Currently, he can only be rightfully identified as a soldier that was missing in action and reported to have been suffering from some type of stress disorder and talking crazily about walking from his post to India. It appears no action was taken to protect him from himself or to protect others in his unit by his superiors taking action on his mental condition.

It is the responsibility of the military to attempt rescue of their fellow soldiers and its a volunteer military and every one of those soldiers understood enlisting could place them in harms way. They also understood that if they were MIA that their fellow brothers-in-arms would risk their own lives to search and attempt rescue of them. Unfortunately, some of those brave soldiers lost their lives attempting to rescue one of their own.

That is the fact of the matter. All you are full of is conjecture and armchair QB'ing based on intel that you cannot even validate.

There are those who are lead through life by their emotions and then there are those who "lead" by using their intelligence. See where this is going? The US is a nation of laws and we don't just rely on them when it is convenient.

[ClutchClark]

Haven't read the rest of the thread since my last post - so apologies if you've seen this already.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/10870318/Bowe-Bergdahl-a-deserter-who-cost-soldiers-lives-say-US-army-comrades.html

This deserter caused the death of six men who went out looking for him.

From your article:

"The war was already absurd and quixotic", said one soldier serving with Bergdahl.

So how can one say with certainty who was responsible for the 6 soldiers' deaths?

Jose Baggett, who was in the same unit...told CNN: He walked off, He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or hes a traitor or he was kidnapped.

And there you really have it--his fellow soldiers attempted to locate their comrade because he was missing and no one knows why or how. That is something only a military court can decide. A judicial body that has all the evidence available to make their decision.

[klikster]

I fear this young man is going to have very rough sledding when he returns to America. His case is already being used as a political football both in the US and in Afghanistan. The Repubs will whip up another hysteria over this as they have done repeatedly with Syrian policy and Benghazi-Benghazi-BENGHAZI!

Your first sentence perhaps a bit of an understatement?

[stander]

Two of the five released Taliban are wanted by the UN for war crimes, will Qatar hand them over?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/five-most-dangerous-taliban-commanders-us-custody-released-pow-exchange_794017.html

[Ulysses G.]

I have seen photos of our Special Forces and they do not wear uniforms either.

Does that make them Enemy Combatants?

They usually DO wear uniforms, but on certain missions they don't. However, they expect to be tortured for information and shot as spies, if they are captured - which is exactly what we should be doing to Taliban terrorists, instead of spending millions of dollars keeping them alive and then sending them back to kill more Americans.

[abq2020]

He is a likely deserter. To my recollection, at least 5 soldiers were killed while trying to find and "rescue" him. The Taliban is listed by USA as a terrorist organization and, therefore, violated its own "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy. And, the probable deserter who directly/indirectly (pick one) caused the loss of 5 real hero's lives is now being given the treatment and presidential notoriety due only real heroes. Thank you, Mr.Obama.

[3R1C]

Tweets from a guy in his platoon give some firsthand observations on how Berghdal's disappearance went down. It looks like a desertion to me, and it looks pre-meditated. He deserves his day in court, where he can speak for himself. I reserve my judgements until then.

Some have said this was a negotiation with terrorists. Whether yes or no, it was a negotiated prisoner exchange under articles of war. That much is lawful, and it got our soldier home, to face the music for what happened. You fight a war against a terrorist organization, if they capture anyone, you do not just turn your back on the POW's because the enemy are terrorists. That would be absurd. What you don't do is try to negotiate to end their acts of terror. Which would also be absurd. And of course that is what Obama wants to do next - negotiate some peace deal with the Taliban. People in high office seem to believe it will be important to the future of the Afghan government to have a peace deal with the Taliban.

They are wrong on that one. Flat wrong. Taliban have gone back on every promise they have ever made. And they publicly refuse to negotiate with the US or Afghan governments, in any case. The US should call it done with the release of Berghdal. There is nothing left to talk about with the Taliban. More to the point, if there is a need to talk to the people in charge, they need to be talking with the Pakistani ISI anyhow. No point in pretending at this late stage. If we are pulling out as publicly announced, the Taliban can just wait us out, and then drive on Kabul after we exit. Taliban don't need a thing from negotiations. Just sitting pretty, waiting for their moment, yeah?

How long before the US has to re-invade? Really, how long will it be?.

[snarky66]

There was good reason to question the president's narrative on Syria and Benghazi. If, indeed, Bowe Bergdahl turns out to be a Taliban sympathizer and a deserter as some in the military are reported to be claiming, there would be no reason to accept the administration's spin on this either.

This is the opening salvo in obama's grand plan to empty out gitmo.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[ClutchClark]

I have seen photos of our Special Forces and they do not wear uniforms either.

Does that make them Enemy Combatants?

They usually DO wear uniforms, but on certain missions they don't. However, they expect to be tortured for information and shot as spies, if they are captured - which is exactly what we should be doing to Taliban terrorists, instead of spending millions of dollars keeping them alive and then sending them back to kill more Americans.

Yes, I think the decision from the Bush White House on this matter was illogical and very expensive in dollars and in respect lost from the global community. I suppose they wanted to gain intel and never gave further thought to what we would do with these prisoners...or "detainees" after they were no longer useful.

In previous wars, the US would release POW's at the end of the conflict, if memory serves me correctly.

[ClutchClark]

He is a likely deserter. To my recollection, at least 5 soldiers were killed while trying to find and "rescue" him. The Taliban is listed by USA as a terrorist organization and, therefore, violated its own "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy. And, the probable deserter who directly/indirectly (pick one) caused the loss of 5 real hero's lives is now being given the treatment and presidential notoriety due only real heroes. Thank you, Mr.Obama.

OK, so this event for you appears to be more partisan hatred than any real concern for a US soldier who was likely suffering PTSD. Fair enough.

Would you feel differently if Bergdahl had been a war hero like you have labeled the other soldiers? Would this trade have been more legitimate to you? Not trying to argue but rather understand your position since it seems to be popular amongst Obama haters, who, coincidentally, almost always consider all soldiers and veterans "heroes".

Although I can't stand Obama, I am very supportive of bringing every US service member home and not leaving them to rot or be tortured.

Its much easier to ridicule Obama for this action of saving a US soldier IF you can discredit the soldier and suggest he didn't deserve to be saved. Do you see how the narrative you and other Obama-haters have chosen might have been manipulated so that you can avoid giving Obama credit for saving a soldier's life?