Questions for discussion:

1)Was it an equitable trade? Many of Bergdalh's fellow soldiers claim he was a deserter(apparently, while on guard duty, he abandoned his weapons and simply walked off). Some are bitter that Americans were killed in search missions conducted to find him. Should we have traded 5 Taliban commanders for Bergdalh?

2)Did Obama violate the law? Apparently Obama signed a law stating Congress had to be notified 30 days in advance of a Gitmo prisoner release/transfer. The administration claims the law is unconstitutional(you would think someone who taught constitutional law would and took an oath to uphold the constitution would veto such a law). They also claim they needed to act quickly because of Bergdalh's health(which is reported to be very good following medical examinations).

3)If Obama did violate the law how should he be held accountable?

(June 2, 2014 at 10:24 am)Heywood Wrote: Questions for discussion:

1)Was it an equitable trade? Many of Bergdalh's fellow soldiers claim he was a deserter(apparently, while on guard duty, he abandoned his weapons and simply walked off). Some are bitter that Americans were killed in search missions conducted to find him. Should we have traded 5 Taliban commanders for Bergdalh?

2)Did Obama violate the law? Apparently Obama signed a law stating Congress had to be notified 30 days in advance of a Gitmo prisoner release/transfer. The administration claims the law is unconstitutional(you would think someone who taught constitutional law would and took an oath to uphold the constitution would veto such a law). They also claim they needed to act quickly because of Bergdalh's health(which is reported to be very good following medical examinations).

3)If Obama did violate the law how should he be held accountable?

1. Equitable trade??? Hardly. Five proven killers with a religious vendetta against the US freed for a single US soldier of questionable intent....equitable??

2. Whether the law is unconstitutional or not is - believe it or not - beside the point. If the law is on the books, and the law is violated, then the violation is - by definition - against the law.

3. Those who break the law are susceptible to the penalties prescribed by law. Ask Nixon!

(June 2, 2014 at 10:41 am)RaisdCath Wrote: 3. Those who break the law are susceptible to the penalties prescribed by law. Ask Nixon!

No chance of an impeachment....unless the republicans take the senate in nov.

It would also depend on how public opinion falls regarding this exchange. The Head line on cnn.com right now is suggesting Bergdalh is a deserter. The type is huge and it reads, "Fellow Soldiers: Bergdalh a deserter, not a hero". I don't think the public is going to approve of this exchange.

The News Station really does not know what or how it went down.

I recommend not to follow the analysis of the event. Nor, the rumors of how he was captured.

I will say, most of it is a mystery even to the military.

Woodie jumps to whatever conclusions his right-wing leash holders tell him to.

Lets just say, I was watching some TV. It was a crazy event in the office, and not many people knew what was going on.

(June 2, 2014 at 1:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Woodie jumps to whatever conclusions his right-wing leash holders tell him to.

CNN is hardly right wing.

But maybe you can see a difference between my posts and yours. If you were posting the title would be, "Damned.....". And then the content would consist of a triad of comments like "Fucking miserable cocksuckers....." and so on. I on the other hand ask questions and ask for discussion....so that I may hear different people's point of view before I ultimately take a position.

I'd like to know if Obama really broke this law. I'm not sure if a prisoner swap is the same thing as a prisoner transfer or release.

---

(June 2, 2014 at 1:04 pm)Dragonetti Wrote: The News Station really does not know what or how it went down.

I recommend not to follow the analysis of the event. Nor, the rumors of how he was captured.

I will say, most of it is a mystery even to the military.

The news stations have been reporting what his fellow soldiers are saying. Also even before this release, the official story(from the Administration and others) was that Bergdalh was captured after he wandered off the base. I always wonder what was meant by "wandered", its not like he was a two year old child or an Alzheimer's patient. Was the guy sneeking off base to find a hooker or something? Well is fellow soldiers basically say he abandoned his post and deserted.

1. Yes.

- We shouldn't leave anyone behind.

- Besides that, Congress won't try the detainees under the law, so they never were going anywhere useful to begin with.

- We will be tracking them in hopes of catching the next Al Qaeda cell

- One less family is indefinitely fractured

- Whatever stupid/unsanctioned thing the soldier did, I think he's suffered enough

2. I don't care - Obama got one of our troops back for some go-nowhere useless detainees who will be nothing but bad news for terrorist cells. They know if they try to recruit the ex-detainees, the US intelligence network will be alerted. Maybe they will be stupid enough.

3. I only think you're doing this to play politics so fuck you.

We should instead have traded Heywood for Bergdalh, and thus have stuck the taliban with something even dumber and more worthless than a deserter stupid enough to think he has somewhere to desert to in afghanistan.

(June 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 1. Yes.

- We shouldn't leave anyone behind.

- Besides that, Congress won't try the detainees under the law, so they never were going anywhere useful to begin with.

- We will be tracking them in hopes of catching the next Al Qaeda cell

- One less family is indefinitely fractured

- Whatever stupid/unsanctioned thing the soldier did, I think he's suffered enough

Your opinion regarding the "he's suffered enough". Are you taking into consideration that US soldiers died looking for this wandering/deserting soldier? If your loved one died looking for this alleged deserter would you still think he suffered enough?

(June 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 2. I don't care - Obama got one of our troops back for some go-nowhere useless detainees who will be nothing but bad news for terrorist cells. They know if they try to recruit the ex-detainees, the US intelligence network will be alerted. Maybe they will be stupid enough.

In your mind the law is nullified because in your opinion the end justified breaking it. Not everyone thinks the way you do. Would it bother you if people called for a criminal investigation?

(June 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: 3. I only think you're doing this to play politics so fuck you.

Fuck you too, but in all honesty, I haven't made up my mind. I do think we have an obligation to try to free prisoners even if they are deserters. I'm just not convinced it was worth trading 5 Taliban commanders for him. I don't buy your argument that releasing these prisoners will help us track down cells. I doubt we surgically implanted homing devices on them. Other prisoners that have been released from Gitmo returned to the fight. There is little reason to think these won't.