Republican Party, Teabag Party and the Libertarian Party absolutely SUCK!

[me]

What have they said? I heard that they were commenting but haven't found where.

He walked away of his own accord and there were radio transmissions heard from him actively seeking to join the other side.  There were also men who lost their lives searching for him.

[Henry Hawk]

And what exactly would be a "fair" exchange rate for one American soldiers life?

The way I see it 5 to 1 places a fairly high value upon the life of a US Soldier.

What would the value be to you if it were your son or daughter?

We have allowed this man, and many other men and women. to rot in captivity for 5 years. How much is that worth?

POW's need to be a priority in any conflict. They are trained to escape if at all possible, and that so few of them do speaks volumes surrounding the conditions they are being held within. (And not well either).

A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter.

[The Troll]

  For all of you people who want to condemn Beregdahl, one question.     What if it was your son or daughter who had been held by the enemy for over 5 years?  Just let them die and just walk away.     I think not, you put the shoes of the parents on.   

  Nobody has said what the mental condition of Bergdahl was at this time.     Especially with all of the suicides we have in the military, just think about it.     You can't convict a person if they are or were mentally ill.   

  And just remember these terrorist were in prison for 12 years and all of their friend are dead or hiding.    And the Drones, CIA and the Speceil Forces haven't for got them, it ain't over yet for them.   

[Henry Hawk]

Okay, for arguments sake, if it was your son, who decided to LEAVE his post, because he no longer is proud to be an American.  Left on his own will, and other men DIED in the pursuit of looking for him....HOW would that make you feel?

[Purplelady1040]

U.S. has not ever negotiated with terrorist or ransom demands from terrorist. This goes all the way back to the Barbary Wars. The U.S. has now let itself open to have to negotiate and all service people who are over-seas will now be at more risk than ever to be taken as hostages.

[Henry Hawk]

U.S. has not ever negotiated with terrorist or ransom demands from terrorist. This goes all the way back to the Barbary Wars. The U.S. has now let itself open to have to negotiate and all service people who are over-seas will now be at more risk than ever to be taken as hostages.

Yep, that is exactly right.

[Henry Hawk]

The Washington Times reports that the Pentagon pretty much knew the whereabouts of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in recent years. So why didn't they rescue him?

Quoting a former intelligence official, the Times said: "Military commanders were loath to risk their people to save this guy. They were loath to pick him up and, because of that hesitancy, we wind up trading five Taliban guys for him. The mentality was, 'We're not going to lose more of our own guys on this.'"

The Times also quoted an anonymous "high-level congressional aide": "Joint Special Operations Command always had the
rescue mission on the table and it was entirely under their ownership, but the big question centered on whether Bergdahl was somebody you risk lives for when you still have time and space to maneuver diplomatically . ... The prisoner swap was being built up as the only option that was available. But there's been knowledge of the general vicinity of where Bergdahl was, down to how many guys were guarding him."

The congressional aide, wrote the Times, also said that military officials in  Afghanistan had been pushing for a stronger deal, but they were "superseded" by the State Department and the White House. The intelligence official said "the administration wanted to close the door on this no matter what the price was."

While Bergdahl was in captivity , the military barred soldiers from discussing him, possibly because of the questionable circumstances under which Bergdahl was captured, and also to avoid making him an even bigger ransom tool of political value. Now that he's been released, members of Bergdahl's unit who have spoken out call him a "deserter ."

One posted this comment in the  Army Times: "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. ... 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 come to realize that (Bergdahl) deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban ... to join them."

He then talks about the soldiers killed or wounded in the search for Bergdahl: "PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, SSG Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker , SSG Michael Murphy , 2L T Darryn  Andrews, were all KIA  from our unit who died 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."

Another soldier from Bergdahl's battalion, Nathan Bradley Bethea, writes it's "time to speak the truth." In a piece for "The Daily Beast" in which he, too, calls Bergdahl a "deserter ," Bethea says: "Bergdahl failed to show for the morning roll call. The soldiers in 2nd platoon Blackfoot Company discovered his rifle, helmet, body armor and web gear in a neat stack. He had, however , taken his compass. His fellow soldiers later mentioned his stated desire to walk from Afghanistan to India."

The five terrorists released from Guantanamo in exchange for Bergdahl are said to be "the worst of the worst." They were all high-level Taliban, and included two deputy ministers, two Taliban governors and a head of security -- with at least four involved in heroin trafficking and/or drug wars and/or mass murders.

How does the Bergdahl deal affect our enemies?  At the very least, they know we will negotiate with terrorists, despite what we say . Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel says, however , that we did not negotiate with terrorists. The country of Qatar negotiated. Cue the laugh track.

As for President Obama's Rose Garden celebration flanked by Bergdahl's parents, he may come to regret it. Many in the military believe that Bergdahl should face military justice, and may even end up getting court-martialed. Just days before Bergdahl's father tweeted the following message: "I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every  Afghan child, ameen (sic)!" Of even more interest, however , is a person to whom the tweet was directed. He is  Abdulqahar Balkhi, with the radical Muslim website Islamic Emirate Of
Afghanistan, Voice Of Jihad.

The site promotes Shariah law and features body parts of "infidels." Try pairing Bowe Bergdahl's alleged desertion and his anti-American comments with national security adviser Susan Rice's assertion that "he served the United States with honor and distinction." As a result of this deal, military and civilian personnel posted in dangerous places now have an even bigger price tag on their heads. Nations publicly say they will not negotiate with terrorists. But they do. The question, as always, is whether the benefit outweighs the costs.

This deal stinks.

---Larry Elder

[Exterminator]

Yep, that is exactly right.

No, that is exactly bullshit.  Putting aside for the time being the fact that according to the articles of war, these men are not terrorists but enemy combatants, the U.S. and our allies have a long history of negotiating with terrorists despite paying lip service to never doing so.  Teddy Roosevelt negotiated with terrorists in the Philippines as far back as the beginning of the last century.  In more recent memory, the U.S. negotiated with the Viet Cong over the release of prisoners held at Loc Ninh and the Reagan administration not only famously negotiated with Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini but actually stole T.O.W. anti-aircraft munitions from Pentagon warehouses and shipped them to Tehran while Khomeini and his government were listed as terrorists by the State Department.  Feel free to beat that drum all you'd like but it isn't true...not even close.

As far as these 5 guys being a threat to the U.S., well, we'll just have to wait and see but the previous administration let 520 Guantanamo detainees go, some of whom absolutely went back to fighting against U.S. interests so the neocon bashing of the current administration seems somewhat disingenuous.

At the end of the day, Troll is absolutely correct; we do not leave our service members behind if we can prevent doing so.  I'm sure that there will be a complete investigation into the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture and if he is found to have been in violation of the UCMJ and is competent to stand trial, he will be court-martialed.  We should quit second-guessing and let the process work.

[Henry Hawk]

No, that is exactly bullshit.  Putting aside for the time being the fact that according to the articles of war, these men are not terrorists but enemy combatants, the U.S. and our allies have a long history of negotiating with terrorists despite paying lip service to never doing so.  Teddy Roosevelt negotiated with terrorists in the Philippines as far back as the beginning of the last century.  In more recent memory, the U.S. negotiated with the Viet Cong over the release of prisoners held at Loc Ninh and the Reagan administration not only famously negotiated with Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini but actually stole T.O.W. anti-aircraft munitions from Pentagon warehouses and shipped them to Tehran while Khomeini and his government were listed as terrorists by the State Department.  Feel free to beat that drum all you'd like but it isn't true...not even close.

As far as these 5 guys being a threat to the U.S., well, we'll just have to wait and see but the previous administration let 520 Guantanamo detainees go, some of whom absolutely went back to fighting against U.S. interests so the neocon bashing of the current administration seems somewhat disingenuous.

At the end of the day, Troll is absolutely correct; we do not leave our service members behind if we can prevent doing so.  I'm sure that there will be a complete investigation into the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's capture and if he is found to have been in violation of the UCMJ and is competent to stand trial, he will be court-martialed.  We should quit second-guessing and let the process work.

I am not disputing if we HAVE EVER wheeled and dealed to free prisoners, the point I was claiming to be exactly right, is the fact that we have now set a precedence for a means of the Taliban to get prisoners released.  I cannot help myself but thinking there is more of a political motive by the WH....I will not dispute the right is jumping all over this, but it has/would be the same if the tables were turned.  Not that it makes it okay, but that is the nature of this BS in Washington.

BUT, with that said, I agree, we need to see how this plays out....that is why I posted the opinion piece by Larry Elder, I think he has an interesting view to think about.

[Exterminator]

Once we've removed all of our troops from Afghanistan, we have to let all of the Taliban we're holding in Guantanamo go anyway.

[Henry Hawk]

Once we've removed all of our troops from Afghanistan, we have to let all of the Taliban we're holding in Guantanamo go anyway.

I don't think that is a true statement...... some of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes, some are wanted as drug lords.  We may have to move them from GITMO, but setting them free, I disagree with.

[Exterminator]

I don't think that is a true statement...... some of them are wanted by the UN for war crimes, some are wanted as drug lords.  We may have to move them from GITMO, but setting them free, I disagree with.

Hide and watch.  There are warlords and previous drug lords guilty of much worse atrocities to the Afghan people during the 90's who currently hold senior positions in Karzai's government.  Heck, two of the five we just released are wanted by the UN...what'd that get them?

[Exterminator]

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/four-myths-about-the-bowe-bergdahl-swap-that-must-be-destroyed-20140605

[Henry Hawk]

Hide and watch.  There are warlords and previous drug lords guilty of much worse atrocities to the Afghan people during the 90's who currently hold senior positions in Karzai's government.  Heck, two of the five we just released are wanted by the UN...what'd that get them?

That is kind of my point.  Perhaps all the more the reason as to why Obama should have went to Congress first.  This could cause more implications with allies.  Again, I think there is much more to this story than we know.

[Palehorse]

Okay, for arguments sake, if it was your son, who decided to LEAVE his post, because he no longer is proud to be an American.  Left on his own will, and other men DIED in the pursuit of looking for him....HOW would that make you feel?

As a parent with a long-term, career-path, actively serving member of the military son, I would place my complete trust within that son; first and foremost. I would trust that he exercised the good judgement that his life, education, and training have served to provide him with. And if he had indeed done the things they are saying this man did, (and I in no way or at any level believe that), I would trust that something served to obscure that good judgement; physical, mental, chemical, or a combination of any or all of these.

I would want, and expect, this country to do everything within its power to recover my son by any means necessary; dead or absolutely preferably alive.

And I would expect his comrades in arms to reserve judgement of his action(s) until such time as those responsible for ensuring compliance with per the UCMJ are able to complete their investigation and execute the prescribed course of action. And I would expect the very same from every member of their family; for as a veteran and military family member I would surely do the same for their family member if the situation were reversed. (And as I am absolutely doing in the very case in question).

And to be quite honest about things, if that son had been held as a prisoner of war for 5 years with little to no progress being made, I'd be hard pressed to say what I would have done. But you can rest assured that using my contacts and personal capital to put together a mercenary team to attempt a private rescue mission would have been among those considerations; regardless of the scuttle-butt being bandied about. (The sad reality is though, that would never have happened because if I liquidated everything I own, it wouldn't scratch the surface of the funding an initiative like that would require. But you can bet your ass I'd have wanted to).

U.S. has not ever negotiated with terrorist or ransom demands from terrorist. This goes all the way back to the Barbary Wars. The U.S. has now let itself open to have to negotiate and all service people who are over-seas will now be at more risk than ever to be taken as hostages.

There is a HUGE difference between those things you state above and the negotiation for prisoner exchange; which as Ex and I have both stated, is clearly standard operational procedure in armed conflicts, and has been forever.

Yes, men and women die in the pursuit of prisoners of war. It is their duty, and each and every one of them knew it when they volunteered for service; no matter what branch of the military they serve within.

It doesn't say, "we'll only do everything within our power to free you if you have not been accused of dereliction of duty, (fill in your mob action accusations here)." It says, if you take the oath, wear the uniform, etc., and in the course of doing so you are wounded, captured, or taken prisoner of war, we will bring you back. And if you are dead, we will recover your remains and take you home. (All paraphrased). No man/woman is left behind. EVER.

Once we've removed all of our troops from Afghanistan, we have to let all of the Taliban we're holding in Guantanamo go anyway.

Absolutely!