Afghan POW Freed After Five Years

[IrishLax]

So, the other side of this is that Bergdahl would be considered a high value person because the US was willing to trade five high value guys for him. Honestly, how many of us knew the name Bergdahl before today? I don't think that we can automatically assume that the five guys from GTMO were the worst of the worst we were holding based on this logic.

I don't completely disagree with your point about precident being set, but I also lean strongly toward Bogs' point about no man left behind. I'd like to learn the ground truth about the five guys being traded for Bergdahl before I call this a mistake. They could just as easily be nobodies who were held captive for no good reason and who who had some family connection or something that gave them additional value as trade bait. Or, just the number 5 made it a "win" for the Taliban in the court of world public opinion. I'm not ready to jump to any conclusions just yet.

According to a "terrorism expert" tweet in this article, they were important figures. I have no idea how much value you can put in this tweet, because I don't know the source:
BREAKING: America Negotiates With Terrorists to Have Last American Prisoner Released by Taliban | SOOPERMEXICAN

This whole situation is kind of crazy. The original cover story really doesn't pass the sniff test at all though, and I'm interested to see where this heads.

 

[GoIrish41]

I may be wrong but hasn't it been our own Justice Dept under Holder that have tried to bypass military tribunals in favor of federal court? Probably a good reason if many of the detainees at GITMO haven't been tried yet. But from all reports from every side, those that were left at GITMO have been deemed as high value and the main reason they are still there... besides the fact that no other country wants to take them in as detainees.

As far as importance to me... the detainees were guilty of wanting to harm Americans when they were taken off the field of battle or were detained by joint operations from other countries with our help due to their known terrorist activities.

I think there have been attempts to send many of the prisoners back to their countries of origin, and countries have not been willing to take them back. And while there were attempts to provide due process for detainees held in Guantanamo, most of those prisoners have been there for much longer than Holder has been attorney general with plenty of opportunities to try and convict them of their "crimes". Essentially, they were being held without any formal charges, so a blanket statement that they were "guilty of wanting to harm Americans" may or may not be true, just as any US POW or casualty was "guilty of wanting to harm the Taliban." I believe strongly that nobody is "guilty" until they are found guilty through due process. I think this is an important point to be considered that goes beyond their former positions or the value that the Taliban places upon them. If they haven't been tried and convicted, we shouldn't be holding them anyway.

 

[phgreek]

WoW...I opened this thread with an expectation as to the direction of this thread. Made my day to see some measured skepticism and concern for the long term message such "exchanges" send.

 

[Rhode Irish]

I know absolutely nothing about the specific details of this situation, so there isn't much for me to add. Other than: the idea that some of you guys think you understand this situation better than the U.S. government is insane to me. The President - be he democrat or republican, smart or dumb - is not just randomly making decisions like this by himself without full knowledge and careful consideration of all the facts. A decision like this works it's way up the entire national security apparatus, from DoD, State, the intelligence community, JCS, etc., etc.

Whether you like the President or not, it just makes you look silly to come with the "Obummer doesn't understand what he's doing!!1!!11!!!!" take. The people that were involved in the process that ended up making this decision (we are talking hundreds of really bright, really informed people, not just one Kenyan communist Muslim President) have access to literally 1000x more information about the circumstances of this guy's disappearance, the value of the Gitmo suspects involved in the "trade" and the policy considerations at play than the internet sleuths and commanders-in-chiefs that are complaining about it.

I think it is totally fair that some inside the national security apparatus may disagree with the ultimate decision to make the "trade," but the idea that it is as simple as it is being made to seem here is laughable.

 

[BobD]

It will be interesting to see how much comes out of what this really is.

I think we have an obligation to bring everybody home. No matter what.

This is separate and distinct from what we do with that individual when he/she is home.

It's a great intention "to bring everyone home", but it's never happened. The spirit of the idea is awesome.

We should NEVER under any circumstances, negotiate with terrorists. If that meant losing someone, it's sad, but necessary.

 

[BobD]

I know absolutely nothing about the specific details of this situation, so there isn't much for me to add. Other than: the idea that some of you guys think you understand this situation better than the U.S. government is insane to me. The President - be he democrat or republican, smart or dumb - is not just randomly making decisions like this by himself without full knowledge and careful consideration of all the facts. A decision like this works it's way up the entire national security apparatus, from DoD, State, the intelligence community, JCS, etc., etc.

Whether you like the President or not, it just makes you look silly to come with the "Obummer doesn't understand what he's doing!!1!!11!!!!" take. The people that were involved in the process that ended up making this decision (we are talking hundreds of really bright, really informed people, not just one Kenyan communist Muslim President) have access to literally 1000x more information about the circumstances of this guy's disappearance, the value of the Gitmo suspects involved in the "trade" and the policy considerations at play than the internet sleuths and commanders-in-chiefs that are complaining about it.

I think it is totally fair that some inside the national security apparatus may disagree with the ultimate decision to make the "trade," but the idea that it is as simple as it is being made to seem here is laughable.

What makes me very uncomfortable is what kind of situation might exist that would cause our government to think negotiating with the Taliban is necessary.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I think there have been attempts to send many of the prisoners back to their countries of origin, and countries have not been willing to take them back. And while there were attempts to provide due process for detainees held in Guantanamo, most of those prisoners have been there for much longer than Holder has been attorney general with plenty of opportunities to try and convict them of their "crimes". Essentially, they were being held without any formal charges, so a blanket statement that they were "guilty of wanting to harm Americans" may or may not be true, just as any US POW or casualty was "guilty of wanting to harm the Taliban." I believe strongly that nobody is "guilty" until they are found guilty through due process. I think this is an important point to be considered that goes beyond their former positions or the value that the Taliban places upon them. If they haven't been tried and convicted, we shouldn't be holding them anyway.

Disagree there GoIrish41. The US has always maintained a steadfastness to try enemy combatants as criminals under military tribunal. The Bush Admin - -like it or not - was going full force to do just that. Yes, time did elapse before the tribunals were started but I don't believe blame can be placed on the Bush Admin for not acting earlier. It was not until the current Admin came aboard and started talking about trying the detainees in federal court. That decision - based on no precedence whatsoever in times of war - pretty much stopped any military tribunals.

As far as innocent till poven guilty of a specific crime - I take it you have never had a shot ring out just over your head or see a buddy get blown up by someone. War is war... terrorism is terrorism...and it's played with a different set of rules. Somehow, even the people on the left know that the detainees left at GITMO are are the most dangerous of the dangerous and have the shown that they have tried to harm and/or kill Americans by their actions in the past - on a battle field or through terrorism. Military tribunals is where all enemy combatants, terrorists, and the like should be tried.

This particular story will play out. And the precedence it sets will play out. My hope is that it doesn't lead to other issues in the future. But with all things... we shall see.

 

[Rhode Irish]

What makes me very uncomfortable is what kind of situation might exist that would cause our government to think negotiating with the Taliban is necessary.

I think it is 100% fair to say that the situation makes you uncomfortable or that you don't understand what the administration is doing. I can even co-sign those statements to some degree.

On the other hand, being so sure about the fact that the President is such a pinko idiot that he is just whimsically freeing terrorists to bring home some random traitor/deserter is also troubling to me. Even thinking the President has the power to unilaterally do that if he wanted to shows a startling lack of understanding about the way this country conducts its foreign affairs.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Iran Contra Part 2

 

[Irish#1]

Here's my guess. The Gitmo detainees have probably run their course as far as usefulness (gathering intel). They have been out of touch with the Taliban for so long I can't see them being a lot good for them either. The US probably feels they can get more useful intel out of the this guy (what he taught them, our policies, etc.) than anything that might be left to harvest from the five.

I could also see the Taliban looking at their five buddies with a look of skepticism as well. They may think we brainwashed them to get more intel.

 

[phgreek]

I know absolutely nothing about the specific details of this situation, so there isn't much for me to add. Other than: the idea that some of you guys think you understand this situation better than the U.S. government is insane to me. The President - be he democrat or republican, smart or dumb - is not just randomly making decisions like this by himself without full knowledge and careful consideration of all the facts. A decision like this works it's way up the entire national security apparatus, from DoD, State, the intelligence community, JCS, etc., etc.

Whether you like the President or not, it just makes you look silly to come with the "Obummer doesn't understand what he's doing!!1!!11!!!!" take. The people that were involved in the process that ended up making this decision (we are talking hundreds of really bright, really informed people, not just one Kenyan communist Muslim President) have access to literally 1000x more information about the circumstances of this guy's disappearance, the value of the Gitmo suspects involved in the "trade" and the policy considerations at play than the internet sleuths and commanders-in-chiefs that are complaining about it.

I think it is totally fair that some inside the national security apparatus may disagree with the ultimate decision to make the "trade," but the idea that it is as simple as it is being made to seem here is laughable.

...There are always smart and informed folks around...seems like none of those with the power to kill the deal were included...so is the administration stupid, nah...decision simple, nah. Was this done in a manner that circumvents law and precedent YEA... When administrations circumvent law and precedent, is that cause for skepticism...YEA. Is it unreasonable to think such behavior has some short-sighted motives...Nope.

Gonna guess we'll get some congressional review on this...no guarantee we'll learn anything...but maybe.

 

[BobD]

I think it is 100% fair to say that the situation makes you uncomfortable or that you don't understand what the administration is doing. I can even co-sign those statements to some degree.

On the other hand, being so sure about the fact that the President is such a pinko idiot that he is just whimsically freeing terrorists to bring home some random traitor/deserter is also troubling to me. Even thinking the President has the power to unilaterally do that if he wanted to shows a startling lack of understanding about the way this country conducts its foreign affairs.

Small minded people think all presidential decisions are made according to party affiliation.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I think it is 100% fair to say that the situation makes you uncomfortable or that you don't understand what the administration is doing. I can even co-sign those statements to some degree.

On the other hand, being so sure about the fact that the President is such a pinko idiot that he is just whimsically freeing terrorists to bring home some random traitor/deserter is also troubling to me. Even thinking the President has the power to unilaterally do that if he wanted to shows a startling lack of understanding about the way this country conducts its foreign affairs.

But his own Def Sec has already stated that the President does indeed have that power through Article 2 of the Constitution.

 

[Rhode Irish]

You're talking about a separation of powers issue with respect to the three branches of government. Within the executive branch, the reality of how decisions get made is complicated. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people with a hand in policy making and who inform decisions like this as they work their way up through the national security apparatus. If you think the President just sits alone thinking until he comes up with what he wants to do then snaps his fingers and it is done, you're mistaken.

I'm not trying to get into a partisan argument here. This is true for all Presidents and all decisions of this nature. The decisions are largely made institutionally.

 

[GoIrish41]

The Gitmo detainees swapped for Bergdahl: Who are they? - CNN.com

this article has more information about the five who were traded for the American. It does talk about their alleged involvement with the Taliban and other extremists groups, but does not talk about any trial or findings of guilt. It also says that many of them were there since the rearly days of American sending detainees to Gitmo. I know that I won't get a lot of agreement on the subject, but I find it horrible that we held these guys for more than a decade and never gave them a trial. If, indeed, this turns out to be the case that they were held and not found guilty of anything, I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to trade them for the American. We should not have been holding them indefinately. I understand that some feel this may encourage the "enemy" to take hostages to have trade bait to get their own people back, but we should not have been holding people indefinately. It is unAmerican.

 

[IrishLax]

The Gitmo detainees swapped for Bergdahl: Who are they? - CNN.com

this article has more information about the five who were traded for the American. It does talk about their alleged involvement with the Taliban and other extremists groups, but does not talk about any trial or findings of guilt. It also says that many of them were there since the rearly days of American sending detainees to Gitmo. I know that I won't get a lot of agreement on the subject, but I find it horrible that we held these guys for more than a decade and never gave them a trial. If, indeed, this turns out to be the case that they were held and not found guilty of anything, I have absolutely zero problem with the decision to trade them for the American. We should not have been holding them indefinately. I understand that some feel this may encourage the "enemy" to take hostages to have trade bait to get their own people back, but we should not have been holding people indefinately. It is unAmerican.

Yeah, the interesting thing is that POW exchanges are quite commonplace. And if this is simply a POW exchange (and as such, we were holding these people indefinitely as POWs of an armed conflict rather than as "criminals awaiting trial") then I don't see the fuss.

But what I think really troubles so many is whether or not the "POW" we traded for is actually just a defector/traitor... and if the "POWs" we're releasing are more 'terrorist' than 'soldier.' I, personally, don't know how you really draw the line between 'terrorist' and 'soldier' in this kind of conflict.

 

[kmoose]

You're talking about a separation of powers issue with respect to the three branches of government. Within the executive branch, the reality of how decisions get made is complicated. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people with a hand in policy making and who inform decisions like this as they work their way up through the national security apparatus. If you think the President just sits alone thinking until he comes up with what he wants to do then snaps his fingers and it is done, you're mistaken.

I'm not trying to get into a partisan argument here. This is true for all Presidents and all decisions of this nature. The decisions are largely made institutionally.

So the law says that the President has to warn Congress about such POW exchanges, and he chose not to do so, but you want us to believe that he would never circumvent the normal channels, and involve only the barest minimum of sycophants in the decision making process?

 

[Rhode Irish]

Yes, I don't believe those things are related at all. One thing has to do with their interpretation of constitutional law; the other has to do with the realities of how the national security apparatus actually functions in practice.

I'm not defending anything. I readily admit that I don't have enough information to form an opinion. I'm just pointing out that from a functional, practical standpoint, the idea that this was something that was initiated and carried out solely within the confines of the west wing and without consideration of larger national security implications and objectives is naive and belies a lack of understanding of the processes in play.

 

[FDNYIrish1]

It seems to me everyone here has been pretty measured in their reaction to this news. Not sure why the whole partisan politics issues being brought up over and again.
I won't get into the whole GITMO situation and labels of whether they are prisoners or detainees. The reports are they were at least middle of the road leadership with direct ties to the Taliban.
Since when do we have inside knowledge of what the administration was thinking and what information we are not privy to? Without being political, it is absolutely fine for us to question and be skeptical of this trade and the way it was pulled off. Why was Congress not given the 30 day notice? Why the secrecy within the administration about the trade? Clearly there was plenty of suspicion that this kid abandoned his post and deserted, leaving his weapon and gear behind. I'm very eager to learn more about this situation as it progresses. Maybe I'm a little more sensitive than many about this, but it seems we ended up with the Minnesota Vikings end of the Herschel Walker trade here.

 

[NDFan4Life]

Pretty interesting read from one of the soldiers who served with Bergdahl. Of course, we're only hearing one side of the story.

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

 

[Irishbounty28]

I didn't want to touch this subject because there are too many variables that are assumed, rather than real concrete facts.

I have read many accounts by the soldiers that served with Bergdahl claiming that he is a traitor and that he was working with terrorists. This side of the story is being believed by many because of the way that terrrorist groups have treated captured Americans in the past. Most commonly there is a beheading of some sort that is utilized as propaganda in order to stir up controversy in a specific Arab region.

One question I ask is what made Bergdahl so important that his information would be considered important enough to keep him alive? He was not an officer, and therefore would not be obliged to information that would compromise future missions. So what did he have that other people in the past didn't that would make him worthy of being an accomplice?

I would state that it is very unlikely that he is the first soldier to be cooperative with providing information. As an individual who has been through direct training to deal with POW situations, it is certain that most people have a breaking point.

So to play devil's advocate here, why was he chosen by the Taliban to be kept alive above others? What information would he have that would be more important than propaganda that could potentially gain more recruits to their agenda?

 

[condoms SUCk]

This is very VERY fishy. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think the administration was working on this for a while then the VA scandal came about and the administration panics and decides to goes back to the Taliban and gave them whatever they wanted so the administration could make this announcement in hopes of deflecting attention from said scandal.
I just think the timing of this was very convenient, but it was rushed and now it's blowing up in Obama's face.

 

[connor_in]

Jeffrey Toobin: Obama ‘Clearly Broke the Law’ on Bergdahl | Mediaite

CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin declared on Monday that President Barack Obama “broke the law” when his administration failed to give Congress notice of at least 30 days before releasing five ranking Taliban members from Guantanamo Bay. Toobin said that a presidential signing statement did not absolve Obama from culpability for failing to abide by the law mandating congressional notification.

“I think he clearly broke the law,” Toobin said. “The law says 30-days’ notice. He didn’t give 30-days’ notice.” Toobin added that Obama’s opinion expressed in a signing statement “is not law.”

“The law is on the books, and he didn’t follow it,” Toobin added.

 

[Woneone]

Yes, I don't believe those things are related at all. One thing has to do with their interpretation of constitutional law; the other has to do with the realities of how the national security apparatus actually functions in practice.

I'm not defending anything. I readily admit that I don't have enough information to form an opinion. I'm just pointing out that from a functional, practical standpoint, the idea that this was something that was initiated and carried out solely within the confines of the west wing and without consideration of larger national security implications and objectives is naive and belies a lack of understanding of the processes in play.

I'm not usually one to wear a crown of tin foil, but me thinks you have a wee bit too much faith in the man behind the curtain.

Or maybe I'm just much more cynical about the political machine than I used to be.

Anyway, in my opinion, you have it backwards. One thing has to do with the realities of abiding by constitutional law, while the other has to do with someones interpretation of how the national security apparatus actually functions.

The reality seems to be that a law was broken. The interpretation is that it was done for all the right reasons and the "process" (trademark pending) was followed.

 

[condoms SUCk]

Jeffrey Toobin: Obama ‘Clearly Broke the Law’ on Bergdahl | Mediaite

I agree, but he knows he can get away w/ it, the GOP isn't going to impeach him.
I mean the media would absolutely slaughter the Repubs if they tried to, and Obama knows it.

 

[IrishLion]

This is very VERY fishy. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think the administration was working on this for a while then the VA scandal came about and the administration panics and decides to goes back to the Taliban and gave them whatever they wanted so the administration could make this announcement in hopes of deflecting attention from said scandal.
I just think the timing of this was very convenient, but it was rushed and now it's blowing up in Obama's face.

So you think that in order to deflect attention from one scandal, the POTUS would release 5 POW's in exchange for one American, knowing it would cause a shitstorm?

I'm not big into politics, but that sounds ridiculous lol.

 

[Wild Bill]

I like to think of the President like with giant eagles wings, and singin' lead vocals for Lynyrd Skynyrd with like an angel band and I'm in the front row and I'm hammered drunk!

And here I am, mistakenly believing I'm the only one.

 

[ab2cmiller]

This is very VERY fishy. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think the administration was working on this for a while then the VA scandal came about and the administration panics and decides to goes back to the Taliban and gave them whatever they wanted so the administration could make this announcement in hopes of deflecting attention from said scandal.
I just think the timing of this was very convenient, but it was rushed and now it's blowing up in Obama's face.

So you think that in order to deflect attention from one scandal, the POTUS would release 5 POW's in exchange for one American, knowing it would cause a shitstorm?

I'm not big into politics, but that sounds ridiculous lol.

It is one theory, who knows if it's true or not. What I am almost certain of is that they did not expect this guys unit to come out so vocally against him, calling him a deserter etc. That's what's causing the media firestorm.

Anytime you give up five "high level" POW's in exchange for one soldier, I'm sure there would be some criticism. The fact that they didn't give Congress 30 days notice, would also cause criticism. But to do the above for one guy who went AWOL, that's a whole different story. That's the reason that this is much more of a scandal than it would be otherwise.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is very VERY fishy. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I think the administration was working on this for a while then the VA scandal came about and the administration panics and decides to goes back to the Taliban and gave them whatever they wanted so the administration could make this announcement in hopes of deflecting attention from said scandal.
I just think the timing of this was very convenient, but it was rushed and now it's blowing up in Obama's face.

I agree, but he knows he can get away w/ it, the GOP isn't going to impeach him.
I mean the media would absolutely slaughter the Repubs if they tried to, and Obama knows it.

You are a few days into a story about a prisoner exchange that no doubt has been in the works for many months and you are -- without any real facts -- suggesting that the president did this to divert attention from the VA scandal. And you are already floating the impeachment balloon and thinking it thru to suggest the liberal media would circle the wagons around any suggestion of ousting the commander in chief. Good Lord, I wouldn't want to see what you would consider one who is for conspiracy theories. In an administration full of invented scandals your "something smells fishy" smells a little fishy. From birth certificates, to associations with radical preachers, to throwing the economy to the lions, to the Affordable Care Act, to Benghazi, all of which were accompanied by discussions of impeachment from the right, your thoughts are right on par with what I expected to hear -- and fully expect to hear for the rest of the Obama presidency. If there is a conspiracy at play here (and I'm not saying there is) it would be easier to believe it was coming from the right of the political spectrum than from the president trying to deflect attention from the VA. The war is winding up in Afghanistan and this was the last POW. What is so suspicious about trying to get him out ahead of the close of the war? Why can't those who disagree with the president ever give him the benefit of the doubt that he is trying to do the right thing? Why must it always be some plot to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public?

 

[IrishLion]

Anytime you give up five "high level" POW's in exchange for one soldier, I'm sure there would be some criticism. The fact that they didn't give Congress 30 days notice, would also cause criticism. But to do the above for one guy who went AWOL, that's a whole different story. That's the reason that this is much more of a scandal than it would be otherwise.

That's exactly my point. The exchange and ensuing controversy weren't intended just to cover up the VA controversy, as our friend above seems to think is possible.

Obama knew there would be a shitstorm over trading five POW's for an American deserter... I'm just curious as to what type of intel the government hopes to get out of him that will make the exchange worthwhile.