US: Bergdahl charges stoke fresh criticism of prisoner swap

[webfact]

Bergdahl charges stoke fresh criticism of prisoner swap
By JULIE PACE

WASHINGTON (AP) — The tough military charges against Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl have revived the questions and controversy surrounding President Barack Obama's decision to swap five Taliban detainees to secure his release, as well as the wisdom of the White House fanfare that followed.

Bergdahl, who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was held captive by the Taliban, was charged Wednesday with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. The latter charge as it applies to Bergdahl carries a sentence of life in prison. If convicted on either charge, he could also be dishonorably discharged, reduced in rank and have to forfeit all pay.

Republicans cast the charges as validation of their fierce opposition to Obama's prisoner swap, which the GOP and some Democrats have long criticized as politically motivated and a flagrant violation of U.S. policy against negotiating with terrorists.

Raising the stakes, the Republican-led House Oversight panel sent a letter to the White House late Thursday requesting "all intelligence, reports and assessments" regarding Bergdahl's disappearance from his unit, his captivity and the exchange.

Lawmakers were furious that Obama authorized the detainees' release from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without consulting Congress, despite federal law requiring him to do so.

"Today's announcement is the exclamation point on the bad deal the Obama administration cut to free five terrorist killers in its rush to empty the prison at Guantanamo Bay," Rep. Ed Royce of California, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said Wednesday.

Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the charges were sure to "raise doubts in the mind of the average American" about the initial trade for Bergdahl.

Bergdahl's attorney, Eugene Fidell, did not respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press. He told MSNBC that an upcoming hearing would result in much more information about the sergeant's situation.

"I think at that hearing people will learn many things that they have not yet been privy to, about Sgt. Bergdahl's conduct, his motivation, his intentions, as well as the details of his captivity at the hands of the Taliban for nearly five years," Fidell said.

The White House had no comment on the charges against the 28-year-old from Idaho, announced as a result of an "impartial review" at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. The announcement upended speculation that the military might go easy on Bergdahl given his five years in Taliban captivity.

State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, speaking Wednesday on Fox News, defended the swap.

"I think the president's been clear that it's in our national security interest to close Gitmo but this was about bringing home an individual who served his country," Psaki said.

Bergdahl wandered away from his post on June 30, 2009, after expressing opposition to the war in general and misgivings about his own role in it. The Army sent several search-and-rescue teams after him. His former comrades said Bergdahl should be held responsible for several deaths that occurred during those rescue missions.

The Taliban released Bergdahl last May, five years after being captured and held by members of the affiliated Haqqani network that operates in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In exchange for his release, Obama swapped five men held at Guantanamo.

The so-called Taliban 5 were sent to Qatar, where they are being monitored by the government and U.S. intelligence agencies. But the terms of the swap only extend for one year, meaning they could be free to return to Afghanistan or elsewhere later this spring.

It's unclear whether the U.S. will ask the Qataris to extend the agreement to keep the Taliban 5 in Doha, nor is it certain the government in Qatar would agree to such a request. But Qatari officials have indicated they believe a request from the U.S. is possible.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has said that he received information that one of the five has been in touch with members of the Haqqani network, sparking fears that the freed detainees could seek to rejoin the fight against the U.S.

The White House was well aware of speculation that Bergdahl had deserted his unit and potentially put fellow service members at risk in missions to find him. Still, the president heralded his release in a jubilant Rose Garden ceremony, with Bergdhal's parents by his side. National security adviser Susan Rice also credited Bergdahl for serving his country "with honor and distinction," sparking criticism that the administration was trying to cover up the truth about the sergeant's capture.

The likely contenders for the 2016 presidential race were largely silent on the charges. One of the few that did weigh in was Wisconsin's Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who blamed the swap on Obama's lack of experience.

"The unfortunate reality is this is what happens when you put someone in office who's never led before," Walker said on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. "This president, unfortunately, having been a senator, a state senator, a community organizer, never led anything, and so he's never been in a position to make those sorts of judgments."

Bergdahl's case now goes to an Article 32 hearing, a procedure that is similar to a grand jury. No date has been set for the hearing, which will be held at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
___

Associated Press writers Greg Schreier in Atlanta and Donna Cassata and Charles Babington in Washington contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-27

[Ulysses G.]

Freeing five major terrorist killers in exchange for one deserter. That was another one of Obama's wonderful "deals".

[NeverSure]

"Lawmakers were furious that Obama authorized the detainees' release from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without consulting Congress, despite federal law requiring him to do so."

The laws simply don't seem to apply to this president. How he hasn't been charged with a crime by Congress is beyond me. Obeying the law isn't about a popularity contest nor is it partisan.

[JetsetBkk]

Oh, how the dems are trying to spin this. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sick.

Clinton (H): "It does not matter; we bring our people home. Even deserters."

(OK, she didn't actually say the last two words.)

When are the voters going to wake up?

[rotary]

One thing that they never pin on Obama is making a wise decision

[CMNightRider]

Remember when Obama held a ceremony in the White House Rose Garden with Bergdhal's parents, and Susan Rice said Bergdhal had "served the United States with honor and distinction." What?? Honor and distinction?? What was she thinking?

After Bergdahl deserted his post, eight soldiers died while out looking for this fool. If there were any ceremony held at the White House, it should have been for the eight solders who died while serving with honor and distinction looking for Bergdhal.

If Bergdhal is convicted of desertion which he will be, Obama should be tried for masquerading as a world leader, and share a prison cell with his low life friend Bergdahl.

[bobbin]

Jesus H., I've stumbled into a tea-party convention!

[ggold]

Is this really about Bergdahl or about Obama?

[wabothai]

soon to come in this theater "2nd civil war".

[MaxYakov]

Oh, how the dems are trying to spin this. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so sick.

Clinton (H): "It does not matter; we bring our people home. Even deserters."

(OK, she didn't actually say the last two words.)

When are the voters going to wake up?

When they wake up to the first female president in office (and it won't matter which one of the feasible contenders - assuming any of them are feasible).

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.

[atyclb]

Jesus H., I've stumbled into a tea-party convention!

not really, simply anyone capable of independent critical thinking and need not be a tea party member.

[up-country_sinclair]

Some of you seem to unaware that his young man is a member of the US military and he was being held hostage.

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely? It was quite clearly the right decision to make the deal and bring him home so that a complete investigation could be held, and now there will be a trial. If he is indeed found guilty of desertion, then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But you can't leave military personnel behind because you think he might have done something you don't agree with. You do whatever is necessary to bring them home and hold a thorough investigation.

This is just another in a long list of examples of right wing hyper-partisans looking for any excuse (no matter how ludicrous) to attack the president.

[NickJ]

That SOB needs to be sent of to Utah for a fine tuning of there up and comeing reaquaintence with reality.

[Ulysses G.]

Some of you seem

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely?

It is no secret that we claim not to negotiate with terrorists. There was no reason to violate that rule to trade a deserter for 5 level terrorists.

[JetsetBkk]

Some of you seem

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely?

It is no secret that we claim not to negotiate with terrorists. There was no reason to violate that rule to trade a deserter for 5 level terrorists.

And lose at least 5 more people killed while looking for him.

[up-country_sinclair]

Some of you seem

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely?

It is no secret that we claim not to negotiate with terrorists. There was no reason to violate that rule to trade a deserter for 5 level terrorists.

Every administration claims not to negotiate with terrorists, but nearly all of them do when it's the only alternative. Your hyper-partisanship and hatred for this president seems to given you a severe case of selective memory.

Just off the top of my head:

President George W. Bush negotiated with Abu Sayyaf to release a US citizen.

President Bill Clinton negotiated with Hamas which was listed as a terrorist organization.

President Ronald Reagan negotiated in the so-called "arms for hostages" scandal.

And by the way, you keep throwing around this word, "deserter". How do you know he was a deserter? The trial hasn't even begun, and not only have you found him guilty, you think he should have been left to be tortured by the Taliban. If it was your son, would that been acceptable to you? Would you just let him rot in a Taliban prison forever just because of what some other people said? Or would you want him to be able to give his side of the story in a thorough investigation?

Your loyalty to America is highly suspect.

[RKASA]

Bergdahl went to Coast Guard boot camp but was dismissed 26 days later on an "uncharacterized discharge," which means that he didn't serve long enough to have his performance judged or characterized. If it was a broken leg or something they would have said so - think about it.

The reasons for the dismissal are still unclear but it normally means they didn't want some sort of legal issue over his being let go and didn't want to record the real reason for that propose. This often happens when a person is under 180 days of service that is let out for being a wacko but it could have been failed piss tests too.

If he got a waver into the army 2 years later he learned to shut up and fly under the radar and get by until he could pull a stunt like he did. He wrote to his sister just before he took off that he was going to do something really big.

The problem for the government is they let him in and should not have - they stopped coding discharges years ago and this is what happens when you do that. His case will bring up the fact that he never belonged in the army in the first place. He will get off the hook and maybe even get a pension.

I don't agree with the trade but we did have a responsibility to get the guy back and his parents were making it clear they were not going to wait any longer and would start legal action. At this point it is almost a show trail - make it go away or should we say make them go away - make it all go away. Forget about him he is home it is over and we will only shoot ourselves in the foot - playing right into the arms of a legal trap.

Pat him on the head and send him home - do us all that favor before it grows into a new round of PC requirements and the tax payers get the bill - it is simple not worth the effort or the cost.

The army screwed up and hired him for the body count - you get what you pay for.

[up-country_sinclair]

we did have a responsibility to get the guy back

Absolutely. For the life of me I can't understand why others insist on denying this.

[BadBouy]

Some of you seem

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely?

It is no secret that we claim not to negotiate with terrorists. There was no reason to violate that rule to trade a deserter for 5 level terrorists.

Every administration claims not to negotiate with terrorists, but nearly all of them do when it's the only alternative. Your hyper-partisanship and hatred for this president seems to given you a severe case of selective memory.

Just off the top of my head:

President George W. Bush negotiated with Abu Sayyaf to release a US citizen.

President Bill Clinton negotiated with Hamas which was listed as a terrorist organization.

President Ronald Reagan negotiated in the so-called "arms for hostages" scandal.

And by the way, you keep throwing around this word, "deserter". How do you know he was a deserter? The trial hasn't even begun, and not only have you found him guilty, you think he should have been left to be tortured by the Taliban. If it was your son, would that been acceptable to you? Would you just let him rot in a Taliban prison forever just because of what some other people said? Or would you want him to be able to give his side of the story in a thorough investigation?

Your loyalty to America is highly suspect.

Just off the top of your head you sited cases 3 US citizens (non military)

Since you probably do not have any military experience (military personal do not have all the rights of citizens) this would be worth a read.

http://www.stripes.com/news/death-penalty-rarely-used-for-desertion-conviction-1.336659

Bergdahl was reported as a deserter by the men he was serving with. (who else would know) I will not argue getting him back, but why would would the president promote and parade him as a hero (garden speech complete with parents) a soldier that is known to be suspected of desertion? This is an insult to all who serve faithfully in the military. Could it be for political reasons? Military courts move much faster than civilian courts and the military has been dragging their feet on this case (most likely under political pressure), this will not be resolved until probably after the next election.

Your loyalty to all those who serve "you" in the military is suspect, you are a partisan who only wants to protect politicians, you are not interested in justice.

[up-country_sinclair]

Since you probably do not have any military experience (military personal do not have all the rights of citizens) this would be worth a read.

Since you definitely don't have any information whatsoever as to my military service, you would do well to keep your uninformed assumptions to yourself.

Bergdahl was reported as a deserter by the men he was serving with. (who else would know)

Again, if it was your son, would the word of others be enough for you? Even if it was the men he was serving with. Or would you want the US to do everything possible to get him back so that he could give his side of the story during a thorough investigation?

why would would the president promote and parade him as a hero (garden speech complete with parents) a soldier that is known to be suspected of desertion? Could it be for political reasons?

I have no idea, and haven't commented on it. You might consider following a similar course of action on topics you don't have any idea about.

Apparently you have cooked up some conspiracy theory about this.

Or is it just a "So, how long have you been beating your wife, Senator?" style of question?

Your loyalty to all those who serve "you" in the military is suspect, you are a partisan who only wants to protect politicians, you are not interested in justice.

I'm a partisan? I've voted for and made campaign donations to presidential candidates and candidates for congress in both major parties. This is not a partisan issue in any way, shape or form. Name one president who wouldn't have done everything possible to get this young man back on US soil. But if you look at the majority of the posts on this thread, they're all about attacking President Obama.

I only want to protect politicians? (No comment needed)

I'm not interested in justice? I'm one of the few posters on this thread who is defending this young man's right to defend himself and not abandon him solely based on the claims of others.

Edited March 27, 2015 by up-country_sinclair

[CMNightRider]

Some of you seem to unaware that his young man is a member of the US military and he was being held hostage.

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely? It was quite clearly the right decision to make the deal and bring him home so that a complete investigation could be held, and now there will be a trial. If he is indeed found guilty of desertion, then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But you can't leave military personnel behind because you think he might have done something you don't agree with. You do whatever is necessary to bring them home and hold a thorough investigation.

This is just another in a long list of examples of right wing hyper-partisans looking for any excuse (no matter how ludicrous) to attack the president.

"What was the alternative"?? Well gee, lets think about this a minute. Would a competent leader release five mid-level to high value terrorist for an Army deserter, whose actions lead to the death of eight soldiers, and then have a reception at the White House, for this fool like he was some sort of war hero?

As far as attacking Obama, this is just one of many naive and incompetent decisions this man has made since occupying the White House. Why would anyone expect a person who has never had any leadership experience to walk into the position of President of the United States, and be able to be an effective world leader? Even with six years of on-the-job-training, Obama has proven over and over again, this liberal social experiment of electing a person void of any leadership experience was a complete failure.

[Publicus]

Bergdahl went to Coast Guard boot camp but was dismissed 26 days later on an "uncharacterized discharge," which means that he didn't serve long enough to have his performance judged or characterized. If it was a broken leg or something they would have said so - think about it.

The reasons for the dismissal are still unclear but it normally means they didn't want some sort of legal issue over his being let go and didn't want to record the real reason for that propose. This often happens when a person is under 180 days of service that is let out for being a wacko but it could have been failed piss tests too.

If he got a waver into the army 2 years later he learned to shut up and fly under the radar and get by until he could pull a stunt like he did. He wrote to his sister just before he took off that he was going to do something really big.

The problem for the government is they let him in and should not have - they stopped coding discharges years ago and this is what happens when you do that. His case will bring up the fact that he never belonged in the army in the first place. He will get off the hook and maybe even get a pension.

I don't agree with the trade but we did have a responsibility to get the guy back and his parents were making it clear they were not going to wait any longer and would start legal action. At this point it is almost a show trail - make it go away or should we say make them go away - make it all go away. Forget about him he is home it is over and we will only shoot ourselves in the foot - playing right into the arms of a legal trap.

Pat him on the head and send him home - do us all that favor before it grows into a new round of PC requirements and the tax payers get the bill - it is simple not worth the effort or the cost.

The army screwed up and hired him for the body count - you get what you pay for.

An interesting post with several things going on in it.

The point that Bergdahl was allowed in to the Army was indeed due to the 'body count' which was the result of a certain president throwing the US into two major theaters of combat operations which turned out to extend over multiple years. We're still in both engagements in one way or the other, making armed services recruitment and retention a trawling operation beginning many years ago. The guy didn't belong yet he was welcomed and sent off to the fighting.

Bergdahl will not receive any back pay or POW compensation or anything else as the UCMJ will be applied to him in a court of military justice. This contrasts to guys like Sen John McCain who is howling about this exchange while receiving a small fortune in his military retirement, from Vietnam combat pay back then, and in POW benefits despite being notorious among his fellow POWs for his being the Songbird of Hanoi. Yet McCain is hailed as a war hero, which is something he's never run from.

I'd add that the US had made clear to the released Taliban during negotiations with the governments of Afghanistan and Qatar, and it's since been made clear in public statements by Sec Kerry, that if these guys get back into action they would be special targets to be vaporized via drone visitations. I'll shake on that.

[up-country_sinclair]

for an Army deserter

Oh, he's been found guilty of desertion already? I guess I missed that.

None of the people calling him a deserter, will answer the following questions:

If it was your son, would you want him to be able to give his side of the story in a thorough military investigation, or would you be satisfied with the word of other people? Would the word of the people be enough for you so that he be left to rot in a Taliban prison and tortured?

But let's be honest: for many this thread is a thinly veiled President Obama bashing thread. If it had been another president, the hyperpartisans wouldn't be making a squeak about this.

[Publicus]

Some of you seem

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely?

It is no secret that we claim not to negotiate with terrorists. There was no reason to violate that rule to trade a deserter for 5 level terrorists.

The agreement is a legal agreement by the laws of the United States and by international law.

The US Government negotiated with and signed an agreement with the governments of Afghanistan and Qatar.

The United States conducted further negotiations with the government of Pakistan to facilitate the handover of Bergdahl in the middle of a vast no-man's land combat zone where some Taliban produced Bergdahl to US Special Forces in all of a 30-second exchange. The United States spent 30 seconds in the presence of the Taliban and only to have SF troops physically get custody and possession of Bergdahl.

In fact, the Taliban at Guantanamo were released only after it was confirmed the US had custody and possession of Bergdahl.

The United States did not at any time or in any place or for any reason negotiate with terrorists, the Taliban especially and in particular. The governments that did any negotiating with the Taliban were the governments of Afghanistan, Qatar, Pakistan.

Recall that the Bush and his Dick Cheney administration declared Taliban to be "illegal combatants" and thus non-state actors. Accordingly, the US did not negotiate with terrorists in the instance of Bergdahl. International law requires that governments deal only with other governments, which is what the United States did in this hairy instance.

[Trouble]

Obviously there seems to be a great difference of opinion in whether the trade was justified or not. Negotiating with terrorists is publicly not the route the American government wants to take. Obviously behind the scenes preliminary negotiations can't hurt anything as there maybe some common ground reached. This deal however was just not right from the get go. In this case the military made every effort to find Bergdahl knowing at the time he basically walked off. Lives of decent soldiers were lost in that effort. The Administration turned loose five very bad guys in the trade. They will be back in a matter of months working to harm the USA, no doubt about that. Obama is the head of this Administration and it was a bad deal. The buck stops with him on this one. We know that no one made the decision for him. The fact that Obama made a big deal out the the trade and Bergdahl's parent's were invited to the White House only shows that the Administration did not, for whatever reason, take into account the whole story of his desertion. That was either bad leadership or bad decision making on Obama's part. We have not traded terrorists for civilians and have watched as they were beheaded. There is a lot more to this Bergdahl than has come out so far. Trading five terrorists for him was, in my opinion, not the thing to do.

Obama is a left leaning political ideologue and should have remained in the college environment where his ideas could be argued endlessly but cause no harm. The USA needs a leader who can deal in the real world as it exists, be that Democrat or Republican. In my lifetime I can think of no person more ill-equipped to be President nor more divisive than Obama. As the first black president, he squandered his chance to bring people together. His legacy is a divided people, economically, socially, and racially and after six years one can't keep blaming the previous administration. He had neither the leadership skills nor the administrative skills to run an administration. I had high hopes when he was first elected. So much for electing a young, naive, utopian.

[Publicus]

Some of you seem to unaware that his young man is a member of the US military and he was being held hostage.

What was the alternative? Leaving him to be held by the enemy and tortured indefinitely? It was quite clearly the right decision to make the deal and bring him home so that a complete investigation could be held, and now there will be a trial. If he is indeed found guilty of desertion, then he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. But you can't leave military personnel behind because you think he might have done something you don't agree with. You do whatever is necessary to bring them home and hold a thorough investigation.

This is just another in a long list of examples of right wing hyper-partisans looking for any excuse (no matter how ludicrous) to attack the president.

"What was the alternative"?? Well gee, lets think about this a minute. Would a competent leader release five mid-level to high value terrorist for an Army deserter, whose actions lead to the death of eight soldiers, and then have a reception at the White House, for this fool like he was some sort of war hero?

As far as attacking Obama, this is just one of many naive and incompetent decisions this man has made since occupying the White House. Why would anyone expect a person who has never had any leadership experience to walk into the position of President of the United States, and be able to be an effective world leader? Even with six years of on-the-job-training, Obama has proven over and over again, this liberal social experiment of electing a person void of any leadership experience was a complete failure.

an Army deserter, whose actions lead to the death of eight soldiers

I didn't see that in the findings of the military investigators and investigations or in the charges filed against him by the Department of the Army under the Pentagon's Uniform Code of Military Justice. So it's show and tell time for youse guyz. The charges please, as specified, plse thx. The charges.

As far as attacking Obama, this is just one of many naive and incompetent decisions this man has made since occupying the White House.

Prez Obama went in to his first year as prez under the illusion he and many other Americans were quickly shaken out of, which is that the Republican party was a responsible and prudent group that was serious about government and governing, and that the Republican party was committed to enacting considered legislation that was in the bipartisan interest of improving the quality of life in the United States.

Because the exact opposite proved to be true, the president was re-elected yet this only made the Republican party all the more partisan, racial, divisive, marginalized, from such radical stuff as welcoming the new Republican Senator from Israel to the Republican party alliance with the mullahs in Iran

So now the UCMJ is next to be trampled on and over in yet another convulsion from the Republican never never land. Still, it's curious to see that much of the bombastic Obama hating rhetoric from the fringe right has become reduced to a unified theme of trying to make Barack Obama some kind of their supposed failed "social" experiment of affirmative action, a corpus code that only puts the right sector back behind a familiar eight ball that has got them nowhere for the past 50 years of the pre-Obama presidency. The new Republican line is to go back to the future despite the historical proof their future has always been and continues to be the same old loser line.

The Bergdahl matter is tempest in a teapot which further shows the irrelevance of the Republican party and its farther right controllers of the long running socio-political overkill against Prez Obama. The period of time they seek to restore is in fact yet another period in the history of the United States that is in its turn gone with the wind also.

[ChiangMike]

Jesus H., I've stumbled into a tea-party convention!

not really, simply anyone capable of independent critical thinking and need not be a tea party member.

Ahhh yes, exactly why I perused this thread - I just knew it would be a gathering of independent critical thinkers having a detached and thoughtful conversation around the topic, certainly not using it as another justification to vilify Obama with tired cliches.

btw - Care for some scones with your tea?

[AZBill]

This one will be Obama's undoing.

[cookee68]

Take a closer look at Obama back ground, his fathers, his religion, his views, and there are many cracks, he is doing exactly the same as countries he condems for doing the same act. a case of the pot calling the kettle black, literally