Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Obama admin. negotiates with terrorists (Page 8)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Obama admin. negotiates with terrorists
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't respond to it because I don't know whether Feinstein's assessment is correct, much less intentionally incorrect.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
When he is probably convicted will those of you who denied it finally admit this was a terrible trade, the way it was done violated the law and the Obama administration gave up several terrorists (who are already getting back into terrorism) for a gutless deserter?
Hell, no! [Mad]

We are Americans. We don't let the enemy punish our soldiers. If they desertered or did something else wrong, we punish them. Not Al Qeada, not the Viet Cong, not the North Koreans, not the Nazis.

Perhaps you are fine with letting American soldiers rot in foreign hands without a trial, without being able to defend themselves, but I have far more respect and compassion for our soldiers who put their lives on the line for our (yours and my) country. Even deserters have a right to defend themselves before being punished, rather than being summarily judged by a bunch of politcal hacks who are mainly concerned with making the opposing party look bad. And they have the right to be punished according to our laws, not according to the whims of enemy captors who may or may not follow the Geneva Convention or the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."

Conservatives always talk about how liberals hate our military. But apparently conservatives only love our troops so long as they are to their political advantage. If not, they'd rather let them rot in hell. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Try reading next time ok?
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Leaving him there was never a matter of "punishment" for his crimes so everyone needs to stop repeating that little straw man. The reason to leave him there based on the fact he was a deserter was that if he was there by his own free will then any rescue attempt would be too dangerous because of the likelihood of his participation in a trap in recovering him. How many died trying to find him? How many could have died in a botched rescue operation of fake trade that might have been a trap? This was the reason we needed to determine his status as a deserter before getting him back.

Also, we released at least one killer to get him back. That murderer should have stayed in jail for life. How is it fair that a murderer is released for this? Also, 3 out of the 5 terrorists, including the murderer, have already attempted to restart their terrorist activities that we KNOW of...

Pete, Bergdahl was a PFC. Given the Intel on how long he was there and his conversion and his training and helping the enemy they likely drained someone of his rank and access of all useful information within a matter of weeks. There is likely no more damage he could have done and recovering him was far too dangerous.

I also want an answer from Obama's defenders here. Is liberal Democrat Diane Feinstein lying when she said Obama broke one or two laws here?


Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're right, Seneca. I should have reviewed the conversation before making my post. [Embarrassed]

Nevertheless, your argument is still weak. He is still one of our soldiers; he was still being held captive by the enemy; and, remember, his status as a deserter still has not been determined (or is "innocent until proven guilty" something that you don't believe applies to U.S. soldiers).

Leaving him in enemy hands would still have been a summary judgement, based more on politics than anything else.

My post still stands. Conservatives still don't give a damn about our soldiers unless it suits their immediate political goals. [Mad]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It was too dangerous. What about those who died looking for him when he left of his own accord. Do you care about THEIR lives?

[Mad]

Soldiers from his outpost have testified that attacks against it intensified after his desertion and knowing of the reports of training he gave the enemy it is fair to determine why that was.

[ March 26, 2015, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
yossarian22c
Member
Member # 1779

 - posted      Profile for yossarian22c   Email yossarian22c       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
It was too dangerous. What about those who died looking for him when he left of his own accord. Do you care about THEIR lives?

[Mad]

Soldiers from his outpost have testified that attacks against it intensified after his desertion and knowing of the reports of training he gave the enemy it is fair to determine why that was.

I'm pretty sure we all do care about the lives lost in combat. Those lives that were lost looking for him are tragic and if it is true that the did desert then they should weigh heavily on his conscience. However the danger 5 years ago does not make the trade to get him back dangerous. Just because you were already convinced he had deserted and should be left to rot with the Taliban doesn't mean we should treat him as being guilty without a trial.
Posts: 1121 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What about those who died looking for him when he left of his own accord.
What about them (assuming they exist; there's actually a bit of confusion on that point)? How should that affect the decision to bring him back to this country?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Considering the voluntary nature of his presence with the enemy it was always too dangerous to consider trying to get him back and wasn't worth the risk. We got lucky that more didn't die for him. But getting lucky doesn't change that it was too dangerous and even members of Obama's own party state the law was broken.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Considering the voluntary nature of his presence with the enemy it was always too dangerous to consider trying to get him back and wasn't worth the risk.
Do you believe that his presence with the enemy was in fact voluntary? That if he had simply asked them nicely to allow him to leave, they would have permitted it?

Or are you saying that anyone who goes walkabout and is taken and held by the enemy should be considered too dangerous to retrieve at any cost, because they might at some point have complied with enemy requests and could have been "turned?"

If the latter, what are the odds that the terrorists we have sent back overseas in exchange for Bergdahl have been "turned?" Should Al Qaeda have considered them too dangerous to trade a useless American for?

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Given the note he left and the statements of his fellow soldiers we know it was his intent to meet up with the enemy and join them.

In fact, given his stated wish in the note to renounce his citizenship and his joining up with the enemy and existing laws which deal with these things, we have essentially traded 5 non-citizen terrorists for one.

[ March 26, 2015, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What about those who died looking for him when he left of his own accord. Do you care about THEIR lives?
I didn't say he shouldn't be punished if he committed a crime.

I said we should be the ones who punish him.

BTW, interesting summary article about the note and the casualties attributed to his search (from a link on Wikipedia). Doesn't seem so cut-and-dried as you seem to believe, Seneca. And I saw no mention of him wanting to "join up with the enemy."

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wrong. The reports I've seen say the note in conjunction with letters he wrote home showed clear intent to renounce citizenship. That coupled with his desertion and aiding the enemy removes his status as a citizen under current US law.

The exact text of the note is no doubt part of the investigation and will come out in the trial so you won't have long to wait to see it.

We had all this info before we sent people looking for him. Given that, it was too dangerous and look how many died and how many more could have died. This never should have happened.

[ March 26, 2015, 04:39 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Wrong on most counts. There is disagreement in the family over this and none of her other family members claimed minority status except for her prior to her.

The Boston Globe did a huge story on this you can find online and the specific ancestors that Warren herself named were investigated and not found to be in any tribe.

Seneca, when you get the chance, could you link to the Boston Globe article you cited, please? I was unable to find it.
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
but we don't go offering to trade over 5 top al Qaeda prisoners for them.
You've inflated the case here. We release 5 Taliban functionaries, two of whom were baseline strongmen, the others of which were essentially just middle-management bureaucrats. The one that Seneca points out as a killer was, in fact, a prison administrator that put down a riot in which some people were killed. Blood on his hands, for sure, but within what would be expected casualties of war.
If i have inflated anything, then please identify five higher ranked al qaeda members CURRENTLY in US CUSTODY. If you cant, then my statement that they were our top al qaeda captives is exactly accurate.

Both sides are spinning here; i'm trying to get at the truth.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/385979/feds-obama-broke-law-bergdahl-swap-joel-gehrke

Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap
By Joel Gehrke
August 21, 2014 2:57 PM

> President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

> “[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation.”

If that's what the law says then the law flagrantly encroaches on the Commander in Chief clause. i am shocked that conservatives could endorse the repugnant idea that Congress has constitutional power to regulate the CiC's exchange of prisoners of war for service members or defectors.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
please identify five higher ranked al qaeda members CURRENTLY in US CUSTODY
Just FYI: providing a list of named Al Qaeda members currently in US custody is actually a crime; the list of captives is classified, and only those whose names have been released are free to publish.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So these five names never appeared in the press until obama released them? I doubt it. not every captive is a matter of national security.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
not every captive is a matter of national security.
Very true. How many captives can you find the names of, BTW? Can you find out how many captives there are? [Smile]

We know how many people they claim are in Gitmo, of course. But that's just a portion of the total.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
not every captive is a matter of national security.
Very true. How many captives can you find the names of, BTW?.
Legally, i can find Five hundred fifty eight names.

" Can you find out how many captives there are?"

Not legally, therefore i will not, regardless of whether i "can". others were not constrained by having to keep a bar license, might be able to do more. I reckon there is more information that is obtainable.

"But that's just a portion of the total."

obviously, but I'm not sure why you implied that somehow contradicts anything that I said

[ March 26, 2015, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Technically, they were not members of AQ - they were Taliban... So, any AQ member would be of higher AQ rank. [Wink]
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't say higher AQ rank. I said higher rank aq members. aq, taliban, isis and boko haram are all part of the axis of islamo-necrophiilia. self described death lovers. And AQ was defined by osama to reference not just the aq organization but the whole w axis of related califate-restoring groups. A talibandit is by osama's own published definition a member of al qaeda.

[ March 27, 2015, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
quote:
When he is probably convicted will those of you who denied it finally admit this was a terrible trade, the way it was done violated the law and the Obama administration gave up several terrorists (who are already getting back into terrorism) for a gutless deserter?
Hell, no! [Mad]

We are Americans. We don't let the enemy punish our soldiers. If they desertered or did something else wrong, we punish them. Not Al Qeada, not the Viet Cong, not the North Koreans, not the Nazis.

We also don't negotiate with terrorists.

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Perhaps you are fine with letting American soldiers rot in foreign hands without a trial, without being able to defend themselves, but I have far more respect and compassion for our soldiers who put their lives on the line for our (yours and my) country. Even deserters have a right to defend themselves before being punished, rather than being summarily judged by a bunch of politcal hacks who are mainly concerned with making the opposing party look bad. And they have the right to be punished according to our laws, not according to the whims of enemy captors who may or may not follow the Geneva Convention or the prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishment."

Conservatives always talk about how liberals hate our military. But apparently conservatives only love our troops so long as they are to their political advantage. If not, they'd rather let them rot in hell. [Mad]

I find it hard to believe you actually think this. It's such a distorted view of reality, completely divorced from the facts of this case.
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Preliminary hearings are now being held to decide if Bergdahl should be court-marshaled. According to this article, some highlights (sorry for the length, but the article makes a lot of points):
quote:
The general who led the Army’s investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from his remote outpost in Afghanistan in 2009 said on Friday that sentencing the sergeant to prison would be “inappropriate.”
...
In his testimony, the first time he has spoken publicly about his investigation, General Dahl also impeached much of the news coverage of Sergeant Bergdahl since President Obama approved exchanging him for five Taliban detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, in May 2014.

For example, despite claims that a half-dozen soldiers died in the search for Sergeant Bergdahl, General Dahl testified that he had found no evidence that any soldiers had been killed while specifically engaged in the effort. And Sergeant Bergdahl did not intend to walk to China or India, as some other soldiers had suggested.
...
Nor, he said, did Sergeant Bergdahl ever intend to desert and join the Taliban.
...
General Dahl testified that Sergeant Bergdahl had grossly unrealistic and idealistic expectations of others, and even identified with John Galt, the hero in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
...
So, at the end of June 2009, Sergeant Bergdahl left his base between 10 p.m. and midnight, with the intention of walking about 18 miles to a larger American base, known as Forward Operating Base Sharana. There, he planned to tell a general about what he believed were serious leadership problems within his unit, General Dahl testified. He believed the “problems were so severe that his platoon was in danger,” General Dahl said.
...
“His conditions in captivity were as horrible as you could imagine,” Mr. Russell said, including beatings with rubber hoses and copper cables. He also said Sergeant Bergdahl suffered from uncontrollable diarrhea for more than three of the five years he was held captive.

Anyone who treated a dog the way Sergeant Bergdahl was treated, he said, “would be thrown in jail for pet abuse.”

Mr. Russell, whom prosecutors declined to cross-examine, also condemned much of the criticism of Sergeant Bergdahl since his release last year, saying “the level of wildly inaccurate speculation is outrageous.”

In captivity, “He did the best job he could do, and I respect him for it,” Mr. Russell added, pausing as he choked up.

It's interesting to skim back over this thread with this new information in hand. We seem to get ahead of ourselves sometimes a lot more than we think we do.

[ September 19, 2015, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1