US swaps 5 Gitmo prisoners for US soldiers release, but many questions remain

[Vylo]

See my sig....

Obama has capitulated to the terrorist and they will return to their own habits. However that isn't the only issue here. This release is, I believe, part of a greater overall plan to move all of the Gitmo detainees out before the coming elections, something to offer the base. In other words, another political move meant to benefit the administration and those liberal Democrats attempting to gain re-election. And with complete disdain and disregard for any question of harming the national security of the United States or placing US Troops at risk or violating the long standing policy of not negotiating with terrorist, the base will fall right into line...

The only reason this wasn't done months before was due to security concerns. If he really just wanted to do it with complete disregard for security, why would he wait until now and bypass congress?

The US has always negotiated with terrorists, just one president like to say we didn't.

These are the five guys the Obama administration traded for a soldier who not only deserted his post but wrote anti-US military and anti-American screeds full of typical leftist lies,

I will agree he is a deserter, and his rhetoric seems extreme, but we can't be sure he's lying. It wouldn't be the first time US soldiers have been guilty of misconduct.

 

[Sistrin]

So, in your opinion, in negotiations to free a US POW should we factor in their political and religious beliefs?

Negotiating with another government for the release of US servicemen held in captivity is not the same as negotiating with terrorist. The administration should have upheld the long standing policy, as articulated by their own members, of not negotiating with terrorist for the release of hostages.

State Dept: ‘The U.S. Does Not Negotiate with Terrorists

“The United States does not negotiate with terrorists,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

Nuland, pressed by a reporter who asked -- “The terrorists are asking for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman and Aafia Siddiqui from the US prisons. Do you have any reaction to that?” – simply repeated her stand.

“I’ll say it again -- the United States does not negotiate with terrorists,” she said.

Source: State Dept: ‘The U.S. Does Not Negotiate with Terrorists' | CNS News

Nuland was appointed to the State Department in 2011. For those not keeping score Obama was President in 2011.

Also, it's not accurate to call him a deserter.

It most certainly is, and if you had ever stood a post you would understand that.

Yes, he walked from his post (which is a serious crime), but for him to be a deserter means he did not intend to come back.

The evidence to date indicates he has no intention of returning. Also this from his father:

If he really just wanted to do it with complete disregard for security, why would he wait until now and bypass congress?

Because as with most of the rest of his agenda he couldn't get this through Congress, thus another executive order.

I will agree he is a deserter, and his rhetoric seems extreme, but we can't be sure he's lying. It wouldn't be the first time US soldiers have been guilty of misconduct.

Ask John Murtha about that...

 

[Vylo]

Because as with most of the rest of his agenda he couldn't get this through Congress, thus another executive order.

As I understand it, he doesn't need to ask congress, he just normally has to notify them in advance. I wonder why things went from stalled to hyperspeed so quickly. they cite his health, but considering the Taliban threatened to kill him prior, that doesn't seem to jive.

 

[cow451]

As I understand it, he doesn't need to ask congress, he just normally has to notify them in advance. I wonder why things went from stalled to hyperspeed so quickly. they cite his health, but considering the Taliban threatened to kill him prior, that doesn't seem to jive.

There are likely issues that involve the downsizing of US involvement and Afghanistan-Taliban relations.

 

[kermit]

Negotiating with another government for the release of US servicemen held in captivity is not the same as negotiating with terrorist. The administration should have upheld the long standing policy, as articulated by their own members, of not negotiating with terrorist for the release of hostages.

State Dept: ‘The U.S. Does Not Negotiate with Terrorists

“The United States does not negotiate with terrorists,” State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said.

Nuland, pressed by a reporter who asked -- “The terrorists are asking for the release of Omar Abdel-Rahman and Aafia Siddiqui from the US prisons. Do you have any reaction to that?” – simply repeated her stand.

“I’ll say it again -- the United States does not negotiate with terrorists,” she said.

Source: State Dept: ‘The U.S. Does Not Negotiate with Terrorists' | CNS News

Nuland was appointed to the State Department in 2011. For those not keeping score Obama was President in 2011.

Long standing is a stretch to say the least. It's far more accurate to say the US has a long standing history of negotiating with terrorist for the release of hostage regardless of what the official policy is.

It most certainly is, and if you had ever stood a post you would understand that.

Going AWOL and deserting are two very different things and carry very different punishments. All we know is that he went AWOL.

The evidence to date indicates he has no intention of returning. Also this from his father:

We don't know if he planned on returning that night and to say otherwise is pure speculation.

 

[MikeCarra]

Do we think these 5 terrorists are any less dangerous now? Having been tortured at Gitmo all these years on an indefinite detention order?

Kinda makes you wonder about a nation that will hold prisoners indefinitely and occasionally torture them.

Maybe we should have thought twice about this whole "indefinite detention" and "torture" or "rendition" stuff before we made it part of our modus operandi. I wonder if there's ANY way this could backfire on us...

If only there had been some way to NOT do this.

I guess we've lived by the sword and we all know what comes next...

 

[Sistrin]

Long standing is a stretch to say the least. It's far more accurate to say the US has a long standing history of negotiating with terrorist for the release of hostage regardless of what the official policy is.

Any example of what you think you know you are talking about?

Going AWOL and deserting are two very different things and carry very different punishments. All we know is that he went AWOL.

He deserted his post in a time of war while deployed in a combat zone. That isn't the same as missing formation on a Saturday morning down at Fort Stewart. All you want to know is the notion he went AWOL. But again, from others who have been there:

Fellow soldiers call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter, not a hero

The sense of pride expressed by officials of the Obama administration at the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is not shared by many of those who served with him, veterans and soldiers who call him a deserter whose "selfish act" ended up costing the lives of better men.

"I was (angry) then, and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."

According to firsthand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera and a diary.

Source: Fellow soldiers call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter, not a hero - CNN.com

We don't know if he planned on returning that night and to say otherwise is pure speculation.

Oh I am sure he only meant to do a bit of sight-seeing, maybe take a couple of pictures.

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Army Times Mobile - Military community reaction mixed to Bergdahl release

of note would be a reply by Dan Whitmer:

You want it from the horses mouth?? Here ya go..We were at OP Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan. It was a small outpost where B Co 1-501st INF (Airbone) ran operations out of, just an Infantry platoon and ANA counterparts there. The place was an Afghan graveyard. Bergdahl had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to "walk the earth" and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things. No one thought anything about it. He was a little “out there”. Next morning he's gone. We search everywhere, and can't find him. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife. We find some afghan kids shortly after who saw an american walking north asking about where the taliban are. We get hits on our voice intercepter that Taliban has him, and we were close. We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban… to join them. We were in a defensive position at OP Mest, where your focus is to keep people out. He knew where the blind spots were to slip out and that's what he did. It was supposed to be a 4-day mission but turned into several months of active searching. Everyone was spun up to find this guy. News outlets all over the country were putting out false information. It was hard to see, especially when we knew the truth about what happened and we lost good men trying to find him. PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl. Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl. Fighting Increased. IEDs and enemy ambushes increased. The Taliban knew that we were looking for him in high numbers and our movements were predictable. Because of Bergdahl, more men were out in danger, and more attacks on friendly camps and positions were conducted while we were out looking for him. His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities. The Government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it. Hell they even promoted him to Sergeant which makes me sick. I feel for his family who only want their son/brother back. They don’t know the truth, or refuse to acknowledge it as well. What he did affected his family and his whole town back home, who don’t know the truth. Either way what matters is that good men died because of him. He has been lying on all those Taliban videos about everything since his “capture”. If he ever returns, he should be tried under the UCMJ for being a deserter and judged for what he did. Bergdahl is not a hero, he is not a soldier or an Infantryman. He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday."
​

 

[Sistrin]

In addition, quote:

They are convinced that on June 30, 2009, just a few months after he arrived in Afghanistan, Bergdahl willingly walked away from his unit, which was deployed in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan, adjacent to the border with Pakistan. While they do want Bergdahl home, they think he should have to answer allegations that he deserted his unit.

Bergdahl was last seen in a video the Taliban released in December.

Rolling Stone magazine quoted emails Bergdahl is said to have sent to his parents that suggest he was disillusioned with America's mission in Afghanistan, had lost faith in the U.S. Army's mission there and was considering desertion.

Bergdahl told his parents he was "ashamed to even be American." Bergdahl, who mailed home boxes containing his uniform and books, also wrote: "The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong."

The Associated Press could not independently authenticate the emails published by the magazine in 2012.

A senior Defense Department official said that if Bergdahl is released, it could be determined that he has more than paid for leaving his unit - if that's what really happened - "and there's every indicator that he did."

Still, it's a conundrum for commanders under the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the equal application of the law, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the Bergdahl case.

Eugene R. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, said if there is evidence that Bergdahl left his unit without permission, he could be charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) or desertion.

Source: Is Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl a hero or a deserter? - CBS News

 

[Vylo]

Yeah, even if he was going to come back and had a moment of doubt, he still deserted, with dire consequences to many of his fellow soldiers.

 

[Vylo]

Negotiating with another government for the release of US servicemen held in captivity is not the same as negotiating with terrorist.

Governments can be terrorist. See Iran for example.

The US has negotiated with terrorists from the very beginning of its history.

 

[Sistrin]

Yeah, even if he was going to come back and had a moment of doubt, he still deserted, with dire consequences to many of his fellow soldiers.

These soldiers lost their lives in the search for Bergdahl:

"PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl."

This is the guy the administration has just traded the Taliban Dream Team for:

This is disgusting.

Source for quote: Bergdahl Snuck Off Post to Join Taliban – At Least Six Americans Were Killed Trying to Find Him | The Gateway Pundit

 

[revanneosl]

I'm sure the Judge Advocate General's office will get it all sorted out eventually.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

The only reason this wasn't done months before was due to security concerns. If he really just wanted to do it with complete disregard for security, why would he wait until now and bypass congress?

Most likely, he wanted to get things set up so that the five wouldn't be a security risk on release. We don't know all of the details of their release to the Taliban diplomatic outpost in Qatar, but it's fair to say that we sent them to a long-term allied country with the resources and experience to deal with them so that they couldn't hit us back. There's a reason why they're not in the mountains of Afghanistan right now. It's okay to dislike Obama, but the man isn't a fool.

The US has always negotiated with terrorists, just one president like to say we didn't.

I'll correct that. Everyone has always negotiated with terrorists. Bush set up a policy that the U.S. wouldn't do it and Obama has tried to follow it on most occasions, but it's pretty much impossible to get around in practice. No country wants its leaders to negotiate with terrorists when there are other options, and a theoretically strict policy of not negotiating is always going to boil down to postponing diplomatic options until there's nothing else on the table. That's a good plan, but it's disingenuous to claim that it always means never negotiating. That's just political rhetoric that will come back to hit you or whoever takes over in your place when you or they have to turn it around.

I can pretty much guarantee that, if this guy had died horribly in a Taliban prison camp, everyone would be going at Obama for letting that happen. Trying to deal with a "no negotiating ever" policy, whether you implement it or someone else did before you, is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded revolver. Whoever comes after Obama is probably going to be happy that he ended that policy and took the fall so that they won't have to.

 

[cow451]

I can pretty much guarantee that, if this guy had died horribly in a Taliban prison camp, everyone would be going at Obama for letting that happen.

Bingo.

 

[revanneosl]

Thomas Jefferson paid ransom to the Barbary Pirates to get back the American citizens they had kidnapped.

Ronald Reagan negotiated with the mullah's in Iran to get them to first hang on to the hostages long enough for him to win the election, and then later negotiated secret illegal arms sales so that he could carry the money off the books & use it to finance the Somosistas.

 

[Vylo]

These soldiers lost their lives in the search for Bergdahl:

"PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl."

This is the guy the administration has just traded the Taliban Dream Team for:

This is disgusting.

Source for quote: Bergdahl Snuck Off Post to Join Taliban – At Least Six Americans Were Killed Trying to Find Him | The Gateway Pundit

Yeah, while not entirely impossible, I'm going to wait for more credible sources on that.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

If he's a deserter and people died trying to find him, that's for the military to deal with. We have policies and procedures in place for punishing people who go AWOL or who desert. His potential status as a criminal doesn't take precedence over making certain that soldiers or civilians who are taken hostage in the future know that they will not be left to rot.

 

[com7fy8]

According to firsthand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera and a diary.

If this is true, this can mean he left a guard place where he was supposed to watch to make sure enemy people did not attack with bombs or whatever. So, if he left such a place of responsibility, in a way so no one at the time knew he was leaving, he may have left an opening for enemy attack. This would not only be going AWOL or only deserting, but betraying the safety and lives and security of the soldiers there.

If he got away without anyone else seeing him, this could mean his area of observation and departure was dependent on him to guard, and enemy operatives could have come in the same way.

But I would think guarding would not leave some one spot overseen by only one person. So, how come he could get out without being seen? I would think you would be watching each other's back so no one could be attacked in the dark without it being known by others.

 

[Sistrin]

I'm sure the Judge Advocate General's office will get it all sorted out eventually.

It calls for an Article 32 investigation at the very least.

Most likely, he wanted to get things set up so that the five wouldn't be a security risk on release. We don't know all of the details of their release to the Taliban diplomatic outpost in Qatar, but it's fair to say that we sent them to a long-term allied country with the resources and experience to deal with them so that they couldn't hit us back.

According to the agreement these five will be held in Qatar for one year. Even if this occurs subsequent to that year they will be free to go where they will and do what they will.

There's a reason why they're not in the mountains of Afghanistan right now. It's okay to dislike Obama, but the man isn't a fool.

The 2014 elections will be over before that year passes.

I can pretty much guarantee that, if this guy had died horribly in a Taliban prison camp, everyone would be going at Obama for letting that happen.

You don't know that. Bergdahl wasn't captured while conducting combat operations against the enemy. He was a PFC when he dropped his weapon, abandoned his post and went looking for the Taliban.

Ronald Reagan negotiated with the mullah's in Iran to get them to first hang on to the hostages long enough for him to win the election...

The myth of the October Surprise.