Carney said they had to act quickly - hence the lack of following the law.

 

After 5 years they had to act quickly?

 

I thought that seemed a little funny as well.

Ttp, I don't make posts to get likes from the right wing base or any one else for that matter.

 

I need no more facts than 5 very, very dangerous terrorists were set free in exchange for one soldier. Sounds cold I know, but if the young soldier ended up "strung up", that is simply a cost of the war. His life is worth no more than any other American military member who was placed in harm's way to capture those 5 terrorists so they could be stopped from carrying out their activities.

 

Stripping emotion away, I agree.

People in Obama's own administration, including Chuck Hagel have admitted that the law was not followed. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's legal commentator - certainly no conservative, is also on record saying that Obama broke the law. There does not seem to be much dispute that Obama broke the law.

 

Have you not seen Obama's administration manage enough scandals to know how this one will play out?

 

What will be interesting is whether Obama will try to make this Soldier who went AWOL (or maybe even deserted) into a hero. Under normal circumstances, a Soldier who leaves his post without permission in a war zone would most likely be Court-Martialed, and sentenced to confinement if found guilty. That would be embarrassing for Obama, so I am predicting that there will be no action taken in this case.

 

The guy I heard, and I can't recall his name, is considered to be an expert in the area of "detainee law" FWIW. He is one guy I heard saying the law may not have legs. As I mentioned earlier, he also made it very clear to use "prisoner exchange" vs "prisoner release" in his argument. As you know, words matter when it comes to legalities. He seems to believe there is a difference. It doesn't sound as clear cut as we were first led to believe.

 

Again, I'm not a legal expert so I'm not debating who is right. I am telling you that his specific example of "prisoner exchange" has an impact on the legalities in his esteemed opinion.

If the allegations of the soldier who wrote the column below are true, then at least six Soldiers died while searching for a deserter. I hope that if the column is accurate the Army prefers a court-martial against Bowe Bergdahl. I fear that President Obama will pin a medal on his chest and continue to selectively follow U.S. law.

 

We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night

 

While the possibility Berdahl was a deserter bothers me, I'm not letting my emotions impact my thought process on this. I'd feel the same way about the exchange if the military member being held was a dedicated member of Seal Team 6. Unless information unfolds indicating that the 5 terrorists really "weren't that bad", I have to believe based on their past bad acts, that these 5 dudes are 5 very bad people and once free will be committed to do really bad things against the US' best interests and against US citizens and military members. Perhaps that belief is wrong, but I've yet to learn anything that causes me to conclude these 5 terrorist are going to return to the family farm to live out the rest of their lives in peace. If just one of the 5 returns to his bad ways and causes the death of 1 or more US military members (or even worse, the deaths of US citizens on US soil), how will President Obama (or anyone supporting the exchange) be able to justify trading those lives to save Berdahl's?

 

If the continued imprisonment of the 5 terrorists meant the loss of Berdahl's life, while such may be tragic, it is a price that sometimes must be paid to protect the US. Military members understand that and accept that risk when they sign up.

 

I do want to talk a bit about the "no one left behind" concept because it is being used by some to to justify the exchange. As a former Marine, I fully appreciate and understand "no one left behind". But it has its limits. It is not the paramount concept on the battle field. The primary objective is to accomplish the mission; doing so is paramount. The secondary objective is welfare of your Marines. If a wounded Marine has to be left behind in order to accomplish the mission, he or she gets left behind. Unfortunate, but necessary.

 

The mission in Afghanistan was to weaken terrorists to the point they could no longer mount terrorist attacks on US citizens or US interests. If the impact of releasing the 5 terrorist leaders adversely effects the mission, then Berdahl or any other military member should have been left behind. I hope I am wrong, but I have no reason to believe that the release of the 5 terrorists will help accomplish the mission.

I asked earlier, but does anyone know how many other US Soldiers are being held captive in a similar capacity?

 

I have almost come to the conclusion that the administration felt this trade keeps us safer than holding on to the now released detainees. Meaning, in the Administration's eyes, he is more dangerous than the five released. This possible?

Stripping emotion away, I agree.

 

I firmly believe that, in all phases of life (other than marriage decisions of course), the best decisions are made when emotion is stripped away. Certainly a decision as important as this one, as impactful as this one may be, needed to be made stripped of emotion.

 

Curious to know Clyde how you feel about the possible impact of the release (or exchange if you want) of the 5 terrorists? Do you think it will cause more Americans to be taken prisoner? If the 5 released terrorists return to their "old ways" and many innocents are killed due to the efforts of the 5, would it be fair to place the innocents' blood on President Obama's hands? Will this decision materially and adversely impact our ability to ask foreign governments not to release terrorists that we consider an extreme threat to us and we don't want released?

We have laws for a reason though. Following them isn't always easy but they are there for a reason .

Unfortunately, laws and rules are only as good as the people upholding them. As we can all tell, that is a huge problem right now. The left on this board, just like those in power, are too concerned with defending "their guy" to really be concerned with the big picture.

I heard this AM that Cuba is now pushing for an "exchange" of 3 men in US prisons convicted of spying on us for a US citizen they are holding. The precedent has been set.

 

Trying to follow leatherneck's example and be as emotionless as possible.

 

Watching Bergdahl's father in the Rose Garden made me very uncomfortable. Seeing his tweets more so. As the father of a US service man he has to be willing to accept the fact that his son could lose his life. Not pleasant but a reality none the less. Then seeing him with his Taliban style beard and hearing him speak in Pashto make me wonder if the father won't now become a propaganda arm of the Taliban. The fact that this has now become a propaganda victory for the Taliban as seen in the reaction in Qatar makes it very difficult to stay emotionless in my reactions.

I asked earlier, but does anyone know how many other US Soldiers are being held captive in a similar capacity?

 

I have almost come to the conclusion that the administration felt this trade keeps us safer than holding on to the now released detainees. Meaning, in the Administration's eyes, he is more dangerous than the five released. This possible?

 

From the reports, he was the only captive in Afghanistan.

I asked earlier, but does anyone know how many other US Soldiers are being held captive in a similar capacity?

 

I have almost come to the conclusion that the administration felt this trade keeps us safer than holding on to the now released detainees. Meaning, in the Administration's eyes, he is more dangerous than the five released. This possible?

 

I have thought about that too; well sort of from the perspective of can the release actually make the US safer.

 

President Obama has been attempting to come to some type of truce with the Taliban in Afghanistan. If the release of the 5 terrorists was a major part of making that truce possible and de-escalating the Taliban's terrorist activities towards the US, then I'd honestly look at the release a bit differently perhaps. But up to now, the justification from the Administration for the release has been strictly based on the leave no American behind logic. If I had more faith in President Obama's foreign policies and affairs skills, I might be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and even accept the possibility that there is some behind the curtain benefit justifying the release. But being honest, I don't have that faith. I think President Obama's administration bungled Benghazi, made the wrong decision on the troop draw down (and pending withdrawal) in Afghanistan, handled Russia's activities in Ukraine poorly, and has all in all just done a very bad job in foreign policy matters. Others can disagree and I'm fine with that. Just how I feel.

There is no question that this soldier was a deserter...

 

U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked away

I firmly believe that, in all phases of life (other than marriage decisions of course), the best decisions are made when emotion is stripped away. Certainly a decision as important as this one, as impactful as this one may be, needed to be made stripped of emotion.

Unfortunately, your call for Obama's impeachment yesterday appears to have been based on emotion, despite your statement to the contrary. It certainly wasn't based on full information -- explanation of administration motives, the element of international law, whether the prisoner exchange is part of a broader Afghanistan-exit strategy, on and on.

 

I would also argue that we have two separate issues here: (1) Whether Bergdahl sought out the enemy vs. being captured and (2) the duty of this country to bring home all of our men and women in uniform held by the enemy. To say we shouldn't have done 2 because of 1 is not what this country is about.

There is no question that this soldier was a deserter...

 

U.S. concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl walked away

 

If this is true, I would think he'd be charged. Isn't the charge for desertion treason?

If this is true, I would think he'd be charged. Isn't the charge for desertion treason?

Given what we know, bringing up charges against Bergdahl may well be justified. I suspect, though, he may not be mentally competent to stand trial.

Given what we know, bringing up charges against Bergdahl may well be justified. I suspect, though, he may not be mentally competent to stand trial.

 

I'm cool locking him in a mental institute. Have zero desire to see a deserter be "re acclimated" into society.