This is something I have been thinking about. I'm in no way prepared to defend or condemn the specifics of the trade. But, on a broader scale, are we as Americans at a point where we would rather an American soldier to eventually die at the hands of the enemy, rather than be brought home to answer to the charges and the consequences of his walking away in front of the people he left behind? I can't answer for military personnel, or the families of those that may have died searching for him. But, from the perspective of an American civilian who at least believes in the ideal of the American justice system, I think I would rather he be brought to justice through our system. Leaving him to die at the hands of the enemy as his just rewards doesn't sit right with me.

 

I think the question here is what is the value of "liberating" Bergdahl ? I don't think it's callous, I think it's a military operational question. If a guy deserts his post and we put other soldiers in harms way to recover him rather than continue their mission, that seems "more wrong" than leaving him.

 

If in the end we traded 5 bad guys for one low ranking deserter and had good soldiers killed in the process, then we got a bad deal. Yes it's a human life, but he took an oath to support and defend, not desert his unit.

 

To call him a hero because he was captive for his own actions is bunk. It devalues the real heroes out there risking their lives daily on the mission at hand.

This whole deal was probably reviewed during the May 25th 'surprise' visit by the CiC.

 

Is it possible that someone did not agree with the decision?

 

White House outs CIA official by mistake - CNN.com

 

"The White House accidentally revealed the name of the CIA's top intelligence official in Afghanistan to some 6,000 journalists.

 

The person was included on a list of people attending a military briefing for President Barack Obama during his surprise visit to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan on Sunday."

This whole deal was probably reviewed during the May 25th 'surprise' visit by the CiC.

 

Is it possible that someone did not agree with the decision?

 

White House outs CIA official by mistake - CNN.com

 

"The White House accidentally revealed the name of the CIA's top intelligence official in Afghanistan to some 6,000 journalists.

 

The person was included on a list of people attending a military briefing for President Barack Obama during his surprise visit to Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan on Sunday."

 

Seems to be a recurring theme of accidental outings of the intelligence community by this Administration.

 

At some point we have to believe that this is complete lawlessness or total incompetence…you can't possibly have all these issues happen and not choose one side or the other.

Edited June 5, 201412 yr by BirdBrain
spelling

Seems to be a recurring theme of accidental outings of the intelligence community by this Administration.

 

At some point we have to believe that this is complete lawlessness or total incompetence…you can't possibly have all these issues happen and not chose one side or the other.

 

Both are criminal and undermine the security of our country's interests.

Seems to be a recurring theme of accidental outings of the intelligence community by this Administration. At some point we have to believe that this is complete lawlessness or total incompetence…you can't possibly have all these issues happen and not chose one side or the other.

 

How many accidental outings have there been?

How many accidental outings have there been?

 

Valerie Plame by the Bush Adm. He took a worse beating over that than Obaam has. Of course the Dems were calling for his head and now the Dems see no problem with Pbama doing it on "accident"

The other case was not necessarily an accidental outing, but more of a witch hunt against Thomas Drake. The other incident is more related to the treatment of Bradley Manning and his leaked information. I should have been more clear.

 

My point is more about the appearance of intimidation of personnel within the intelligence arena.

 

The Plume case was Bush, so the behavior is not specific to this Administration.

The use of the middleman seems to have always been a way around the dreaded "negotiating with terrorists" cliche. That didn't change here.

 

It could have an impact on the 30-day issue. Not sure. Seems like there are some Constitutional powers the President has that would trump the 30-day notice in certain types of cases.

 

There has been for quite some time a dispute concerning how far the powers of a President as the CIC actually extend. Whether it be the War Powers Act or the 30 day notice to Congress issue in play here, Congress has been attempting to clip the wings of a President's powers involving certain aspects of the military.

 

I absolutely detest when a President, any President, signs a bill into law with a "reservation of rights" side letter. If a President doesn't think a provision in a bill is constitutional, he shouldn't sign it. If, however, a President is going to use the "reservation of rights" route, there should be a requirement that such President must file a declaratory judgment action within 30 (or some reasonable number) days contesting the applicable provision on which he is "reserving his rights". The approach taken in the past is just stupid and does nothing but kick the can down the road and create divisive problems like we are seeing here.

Here's something that disturbs me:

 

The 5 released had not been charged with anything. How long are we going to keep "detainees" and not charge them? If we know they've committed crimes against the US, why aren't we charging them and bringing them to trial? It's been a decade or more for a lot of these detainees. FAR too long to be detained and no decision made about what we are going to do with them. What are we going to do with Guantanamo Bay when we finally exit Afghanistan?

Here's something that disturbs me:

 

The 5 released had not been charged with anything. How long are we going to keep "detainees" and not charge them? If we know they've committed crimes against the US, why aren't we charging them and bringing them to trial? It's been a decade or more for a lot of these detainees. FAR too long to be detained and no decision made about what we are going to do with them. What are we going to do with Guantanamo Bay when we finally exit Afghanistan?

 

Ongoing conflict, I think they are being treated more like prisoners of war pending a final outcome rather than being criminally charged.

 

I don't think much changes at Guantanamo other than we don't house prisoners. We will continue to be an established force there, in particular given the recent situations with Vlad and the boys

Ongoing conflict, I think they are being treated more like prisoners of war pending a final outcome rather than being criminally charged.

 

I don't think much changes at Guantanamo other than we don't house prisoners. We will continue to be an established force there, in particular given the recent situations with Vlad and the boys

 

What are we going to do with the detainees? These were 5. How do we handle the release of the rest?

Here's something that disturbs me:

 

The 5 released had not been charged with anything. How long are we going to keep "detainees" and not charge them? If we know they've committed crimes against the US, why aren't we charging them and bringing them to trial? It's been a decade or more for a lot of these detainees. FAR too long to be detained and no decision made about what we are going to do with them. What are we going to do with Guantanamo Bay when we finally exit Afghanistan?

 

I say keep it open for another 50 years...then if any of them are still alive let them go.

 

As far as not being charged bu still be held I found this

The government previously said that about 46 prisoners are being held in indefinite detention under international law. That generally means they can be detained until hostilities end, a fuzzy endpoint that has been challenged by human rights groups who have called for the men to be released.

 

Read more: Dozens of men held at Guantanamo Bay without charge to have cases reviewed: Pentagon* - NY Daily News

I say keep it open for another 50 years...then if any of them are still alive let them go.

 

As far as not being charged bu still be held I found this

 

 

See? I just don't like that indefinite detention thing. Either charge them or let them go. Would we allow our citizens to be detained as such?

See? I just don't like that indefinite detention thing. Either charge them or let them go. Would we allow our citizens to be detained as such?

I think looking at this as a criminal proceeding is wrong. I think a better way to look at it is as POW's. Enemy combatants are held because they were trying to kill you in battle but were captured in battle. You keep them until the hostilities are over and they will no longer be a threat.

 

I think I read a while back that around 20% of released prisoners are Known to have taken up arms and attacked US or US allies in that region. I'd guess many more have as well it was just that amount that was known.

See? I just don't like that indefinite detention thing. Either charge them or let them go. Would we allow our citizens to be detained as such?

 

I don't think people who take up arms against us deserve any where near the rights we give our citizens.