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

 

Haven't they said his 5 years in captivity was punishment enough?

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.

 

This will turn into a "Bobby Garwood" case and nothing will ever happen of significance.

 

BTW: Leave none behind does not dictate that we negotiate and trade / swap, nor does it dictate that bringing home alive. It dictates recovery of the soldier without compromise to the mission. Trading terrorist and turning them back into the fight would appear to be a direct compromise of the mission at hand.

 

POW's from Vietnam were only returned during Operation Homecoming after the Paris Peace Accords, NOT during active fighting.

 

This guy cost honest soldiers and their families their lives because he was purely selfish in his action and put himself before his team.

Haven't they said his 5 years in captivity was punishment enough?

 

Wouldn't surprise me. I don't believe for a second that he was a prisoner though.

Wouldn't surprise me. I don't believe for a second that he was a prisoner though.

 

This!

 

The administration just traded 1 Taliban fighter for 5 Taliban fighters.

This will turn into a "Bobby Garwood" case and nothing will ever happen of significance.

 

BTW: Leave none behind does not dictate that we negotiate and trade / swap, nor does it dictate that bringing home alive. It dictates recovery of the soldier without compromise to the mission. Trading terrorist and turning them back into the fight would appear to be a direct compromise of the mission at hand.

 

POW's from Vietnam were only returned during Operation Homecoming after the Paris Peace Accords, NOT during active fighting.

 

This guy cost honest soldiers and their families their lives because he was purely selfish in his action and put himself before his team.

It's my understanding that when there's a formal end to hostilities in Afghanistan at the end of this year, all combatants at Gitmo can no longer be detained, under international law. If that's the case, then all this prisoner exchange does is move these five from Cuba to one year's house arrest in Qatar. This may also be part of a larger plan by Obama to (finally) close Guantanamo before leaving office.

It's my understanding that when there's a formal end to hostilities in Afghanistan at the end of this year, all combatants at Gitmo can no longer be detained, under international law. If that's the case, then all this prisoner exchange does is move these five from Cuba to one year's house arrest in Qatar. This may also be part of a larger plan by Obama to (finally) close Guantanamo before leaving office.

 

Talk about setting up his successor for failure. 'Hey new president, I have released a bunch of terrorists for you to deal with.'

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.

 

Doesn't seem like the call for impeachment was based on emotion. It seems your reaction is...

 

Agree that there are two separate issues, and also agree that you don't NOT do 2 because of 1, but 1 aside...if this transaction results in the loss of ANY US life at the hand of or indirectly due to the 5 men released, OR it sets a precedent for more of our people to be used as bargaining tools, then where do you stand? When Bergdahl or any solder signs up, they know the risk. 1 man's life shouldn't hold any more importance than the next, and it seems we risked MANY for the wellbeing of one.

Doesn't seem like the call for impeachment was based on emotion. It seems your reaction is...

 

Agree that there are two separate issues, and also agree that you don't NOT do 2 because of 1, but 1 aside...if this transaction results in the loss of ANY US life at the hand of or indirectly due to the 5 men released, OR it sets a precedent for more of our people to be used as bargaining tools, then where do you stand? When Bergdahl or any solder signs up, they know the risk. 1 man's life shouldn't hold any more importance than the next, and it seems we risked MANY for the wellbeing of one.

Emotion plays a role in every post on this thread. To suggest otherwise is being disingenuous. My problem wasn't the call for impeachment -- it was because said call was based on incomplete or preliminary information.

It's a good thing I'm not the dictator for the US. I'd have shot the 5, prosecuted our 1, fried him if convicted.

Here's my take. Even if the Taliban had come to Idaho and kidnapped this guy from his bed room as just some innocent non-military hostage for the sole purpose of negotiating the release of captives, you STILL don't release 5 high ranking known very dangerous terrorists to obtain his release.

 

Now, take into account that this guy WILLINGLY abandoned his post, left his fellow soldiers in danger, had 6 soldiers die DIRECTLY due to his actions...personally I don't believe they should have traded a used Koran for him, much less 5 terrorists.

 

Had this same situation happened 70 years ago, and the guy been found and taken back to his unit, it's very possible that he would have been executed on the battlefield as a deserter/trader. Yet today he is branded by some a "hero" and President Obama paints himself as some sort of "savior" getting this guy back. One word describes this whole situation. Pathetic.:no:

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.

 

You are wrong. My call for President Obama's impeachment is based upon: President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013 - Forbes ; https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration ;The PJ Tatler » Did Obama?s Taliban Swap Break the Law? Democrat Law Prof Says?

 

and my belief that he broke the law requiring 30 days notice to Congress. Spokespersons for his administration have claimed that the 30 day notice requirement is unconstitutional. And it well may be. But shouldn't we require the highest elected official to comply with all laws until such law is decided by the judiciary to be unconstitutional? This lawyer thinks so. If President Obama felt that the 30 day notice requirement was unconstitutional, he should have immediately filed suit after the law was enacted to determine its unconstitutionality. But unless and until it (and any other law) is determined by the judiciary to be unconstitutional, it IS the law and I expect and believe the President is required to follow it.

Any American deaths linked to these five terrorists in the future is blood on Obama's hands. Plain and simple. Yet, when it happens, the usual suspects will make endless excuses for him.

You are wrong. My call for President Obama's impeachment is based upon: President Obama's Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013 - Forbes ; https://www.committeeforjustice.org/content/25-violations-law-president-obama-and-his-administration ;The PJ Tatler » Did Obama?s Taliban Swap Break the Law? Democrat Law Prof Says?

 

and my belief that he broke the law requiring 30 days notice to Congress. Spokespersons for his administration have claimed that the 30 day notice requirement is unconstitutional. And it well may be. But shouldn't we require the highest elected official to comply with all laws until such law is decided by the judiciary to be unconstitutional? This lawyer thinks so. If President Obama felt that the 30 day notice requirement was unconstitutional, he should have immediately filed suit after the law was enacted to determine its unconstitutionality. But unless and until it (and any other law) is determined by the judiciary to be unconstitutional, it IS the law and I expect and believe the President is required to follow it.

Story today quoted White House official or officials as saying members of Congress were aware "for years" that White House was working on Bergdahl exchange.

Story today quoted White House official or officials as saying members of Congress were aware "for years" that White House was working on Bergdahl exchange.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers on Tuesday said that Congress hadn’t heard from the Obama administration since 2011 on the possibility of a prisoner swap with the Taliban.

 

Read more: Mike Rogers: No Hill briefing since 2011 - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com

Story today quoted White House official or officials as saying members of Congress were aware "for years" that White House was working on Bergdahl exchange.

 

Difference between knowing they were working on something and providing the required 30 day notice of actual transfer. There are lots of items being "worked on", but when you plan to take the action, completely different animal. Even Jay Carney said that Congress would be notified last year but backtracked yesterday: Carney, peppered with questions at Monday's briefing about the controversy, suggested there was a narrow window in which to execute the trade -- which didn't allow for seeking the say-so of Congress.

 

"It was the judgment of the team and the president that there was enough urgency here to ensure that Sergeant Bergdahl was safely recovered that a 30-day window of hoping that that opportunity remained open was not an option," Carney said.