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

 

Firing Squad?

Draw and Quarter?

How about a play from their book, public flogging followed by stoning?

Has it occurred to anybody else that if Berghal had gone to Afghanistan as a civilian and sought the hospitality of the Taliban, then he might have ended up on Obama's personally approved kill-list? Instead, he deserted his platoon and Obama traded five top Taliban leaders to get him back into this country.

 

This was not a trade of POWs. The Taliban does not represent any government and is still a threat to the Karzai government. At best, Bergdahl was a deserter who was taken hostage. He was not captured on a battlefield fighting for his own country.

 

While Obama had no problem targeting American citizens who joined the Taliban for drone strikes, we are now told that it is wrong to even criticize Obama for this trade until a full investigation has been made of Bergdahl. Does anybody believe that Obama really wants any further investigation of Bergdahl?

 

Bergdahl deserves a trial by court-martial.

Last U.S. Soldier executed for desertion. Good and sad story.

 

Eddie Slovik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Glad you mentioned this. Read a real interesting story on same this morning. Story on Slovik's execution told through the eyes of one of the men who witnessed it. He's in his 90s now but his memory is still sharp.

 

The Last American Soldier Executed for Desertion - The Daily Beast

Reports are now surfacing that millions in cash was also included in the trade.. Enough to support the Haqqani terror network for ten years...

What do you think the intelligence experts and (mostly Democrat) senators discussed in the two-hour briefing, (a) the history and timeline of the Bergdahl case or (b) the Kentucky State Fair? Duh. One account of the info session even disclosed that a lot of the important details didn't come out until near the end ... after McCain and pals walked out.

So...they waited until they left, you're telling me, before they discussed anything of importance? Or did they just not want them to hear?

Reports are now surfacing that millions in cash was also included in the trade.. Enough to support the Haqqani terror network for ten years...

Really, really hope this isn't true.

Reports are now surfacing that millions in cash was also included in the trade.. Enough to support the Haqqani terror network for ten years...

If this is true, then the payment should be considered treason. If a payment was made, it was probably made indirectly - millions of dollars in extra foreign aid to Qatar, with the Qataris providing "humanitarian aid" to the Haqqani network without the Obama administration's knowledge or approval (wink, wink, nod, nod).

 

I am sure that if there was a payment involved, Obama will not hear about it until the Washington Post or MSNBC breaks the story.

If this is true, then the payment should be considered treason. If a payment was made, it was probably made indirectly - millions of dollars in extra foreign aid to Qatar, with the Qataris providing "humanitarian aid" to the Haqqani network without the Obama administration's knowledge or approval (wink, wink, nod, nod).

 

I am sure that if there was a payment involved, Obama will not hear about it until the Washington Post or MSNBC breaks the story.

We need a few hundred more treason posts on this thread based on rumors and hearsay.

We need a few hundred more treason posts on this thread based on rumors and hearsay.

Let us say for argument's sake that compelling evidence emerges showing that the Obama administration's deal to obtain Bergdahl's release included a cash payment to the Haqqani terrorits organization through a third party.

 

Under those circumstances, would you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether American laws were broken by the deal? If Obama orchestrated the payment of millions of dollars to the Haqqani network, would you agree that would constitute treason?

 

Feel free to dodge these questions. I don't really expect an answer. :lol2:

Let us say for argument's sake that compelling evidence emerges showing that the Obama administration's deal to obtain Bergdahl's release included a cash payment to the Haqqani terrorits organization through a third party.

 

Under those circumstances, would you support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate whether American laws were broken by the deal?

We could play the "let's say for argument's sake" game from now to doomsday. Let me know when you uncover something other than hearsay based on a "report" from Oliver North and Breitbart.

Reports are now surfacing that millions in cash was also included in the trade.. Enough to support the Haqqani terror network for ten years...

 

I'm a terrorist holding my wife hostage. Please send 2 million dollars and I will let her go to her moms.

We could play the "let's say for argument's sake" game from now to doomsday. Let me know when you uncover something other than hearsay based on a "report" from Oliver North and Breitbart.

Thanks for not disappointing me. As I said, I never expected an answer to my questions.

 

The fact that the Obama administration violated the law requiring a 30-day notice to Congress prior to releasing five high ranking Taliban war criminals is not based on hearsay, yet that has not stopped liberals from defending him. A similar violation of law prompted the appointment of a special prosecutor for the Iran-Contra scandal.

 

In the case of Iran-Contra, the same argument that liberals are making about the constitutional powers of the president trumping a federal law would have been equally applicable to that situation. Yet, I am still waiting for any liberal to call for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the Obama violation of current law. Nor did I hear any liberals rushing to defend the Iran-Contra deal based on their deeply held respect for the powers that the U.S. Constitution grants to the POTUS.

 

FYI, it is difficult to uncover facts without an effective investigation. Eric Holder has already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he cannot be trusted to conduct an investigation that involves the Obama administration's lawlessness.

We need a few hundred more treason posts on this thread based on rumors and hearsay.

He said if.

We could play the "let's say for argument's sake" game from now to doomsday. Let me know when you uncover something other than hearsay based on a "report" from Oliver North and Breitbart.

 

You didn't answer Mitch's question. I, for one, would like to hear your answer.

Thanks for not disappointing me. As I said, I never expected an answer to my questions.

Then don't ask 'em.