Foggy Points Of View On Bergdahl
When one usually speaks of the "fog of war," the term is generally understood to mean the disorganization of combat. When battles are fought, it is often unclear as to what is going on, whether you're a private in the trenches or a rear-echelon officer trying to keep on top of a developing situation under your command. What is also understood is that after a while, the fog usually clears somewhat. Things which aren't immediately apparent become clarified when enough time has passed for accurate reports of the situation to come in.
In the case of recently released prisoner of war Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, this progression was reversed. What at first seemed very clear-cut almost instantly became clouded in fog. This fog may clear some when the Army makes a formal statement about the circumstances of Bergdahl's capture by the Taliban, but until that point the speculation is running pretty wild. Due to this lack of facts, the most I can do is offer up my own points of view, some of which I have yet to see expressed elsewhere. So, while we all wait for the facts to come in and the fog to clear a bit, here are some initial reactions. I'm not going to get into every aspect of the case in this initial article, but I'm sure we'll all have time to minutely examine everything in the coming days. As I said, these are just my initial reactions -- the ones that I haven't been hearing from others yet. I'm sure to have more later, when the fog starts to clear a bit for us all.
Leave no soldier behind -- and don't leave your problems for others
The best comment I've yet heard on one of the core issues that detractors are raising -- that if Bergdahl deserted his post, he wasn't worth rescuing or retrieving in any way -- came from Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby: "When you're in the Navy, and you go overboard, it doesn't matter if you were pushed, fell, or jumped. We're going to turn the ship around and pick you up."
This is the most succinct explanation I've yet heard on the military's view of leaving no soldier behind, for any reason. Even someone who has jumped ship gets picked back up.
There's a reason for this, and it's a reason I haven't heard anyone (especially any current or former military officers) adequately explain. Because if a soldier does something criminal while he's in a war zone and wearing the uniform of the United States, it is not only the military's legal prerogative to retrieve that soldier, but also their duty and responsibility to do so. Because they reserve the right to punish their own.
The Army doesn't delegate punishment responsibility to the forces they are fighting. They really don't have the option of taking a "well, he deserted, let's just leave him with the Taliban" attitude towards the matter. They can't. They are legally responsible for their soldiers' actions while in a war zone, and they never just hand over a soldier to a local court for punishment of any kind -- even if the soldier went berserk and killed a bunch of local non-combatant women and children. Tragic events such as these have indeed happened in Afghanistan, and in each case, the military tried their own in courts martial. If convicted, the offender then serves his time in military or federal prison. That's the way it works, for very good reason. If the Army is to be trusted by local populations, it has to show that it punishes its own fairly, but it never defers to local prosecution or punishment. And it certainly never lets the enemy dole out the punishment.
What Bergdahl is accused of is more of an offense against the Army itself than against the local population, which strengthens the case for him to be repatriated and face justice by the Army. But even if all the media stories are true and Bergdahl did exactly what people are accusing him of now, the Army doesn't have the option of just forgetting about him and not doing everything they can to recover him so they can fulfill their own responsibility for holding him accountable for what he did.
What he did
Sergeant Bergdahl is innocent until he is proven guilty. To suggest anything else, at this point, is downright un-American. We haven't even heard his side of the story yet, folks.
If he did wander off with some intention of helping the enemy forces, he apparently didn't do such a hot job of it. The Taliban has always considered him a prisoner, after all, and not one of their own. This is a key point many seem to be missing.
If he is eventually charged with the worst possible scenario (from the stories which are now circulating, but short of turning his coat and aiding the enemy), he might face charges of desertion under duty, with the added circumstance of indirectly causing the deaths of fellow soldiers who were looking for him. He could face the death penalty, if this is proven in a court martial. If proven, he certainly isn't any sort of hero, even if he did endure five years of captivity in the enemy's hands. But none of this is proven, and the Army hasn't even made any of the facts public yet. Time will tell whether the facts support a trial and punishment, but it is up to the Army to determine these facts, and it will be up to the Army to decide what to charge him with and what punishment to seek. Until it does, everything you hear is no better than speculation.
The 30-day notice law
While there have been several complaints made about how President Obama acted (including some from John McCain, who really should know the facts of prisoner-of-war swaps a little better), one struck me as more important than the rest, because it is part of a constitutional power struggle between the executive and legislative branches that goes back to Vietnam. In a nutshell: where do the powers of the Commander-In-Chief end, and the war-making powers of Congress begin?
Congress passed a law which stated that President Obama had to give them 30 days notice before any prisoners could be released to foreign countries from the American military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. President Obama, in a signing statement attached to the law, said that he thought this infringed on his executive powers under the Constitution. But it's really a fight that has been going on since the passage of the War Powers Resolution of 1973.
First, there is the open question of signing statements themselves. When President Bush used them, Republicans defended his assumption of the "unitary executive" concept: the power of a president to alter bills as he signed them, to suit his purposes. At the time, Democrats howled that it was an extra-constitutional usurpation of congressional powers. Now that a signing statement from President Obama is under the microscope, I fully expect these positions to be reversed, politically. I could easily see some Democrats making the case for Obama's signing statement to be the final word on the subject, while Republicans will howl. All par for the course, really.
But the underlying fight is even bigger: how much war-making power does the president have, and how much does Congress have? There have been numerous (and notable) struggles about whether the War Powers Resolution itself is constitutional or not, between presidents and Congresses led by both political parties. It is non-partisan, really, because Republicans and Democrats both always see things differently when they get into the Oval Office (versus how they might have seen things from Capitol Hill). But here's the key: neither side -- and neither party -- has ever had the guts to take the War Powers Resolution to court. They are afraid they might lose, to be blunt. Everyone is actually happier to leave its constitutionality hazy, in fact.
Whether Congress can limit the president in his treatment of prisoners of war easily falls into this ongoing debate. The question, again, is whether Congress is even allowed to put such restrictions on presidential powers. Congress passed a law stating such restrictions. President Obama attached a signing statement that said he considered this to be a usurpation of his Commander-In-Chief powers. These opposing views are about to be tested, but they likely won't ever be tested in court -- for the same reasons the War Powers Resolution has never appeared before a judge.
Instead, we will get a lively investigation in Congress to score some political points, but really the only option they've got open to them is impeachment, which I just don't see happening (at least, not before the midterms). But neither side will likely be willing to set the matter before the judicial branch of government -- and even if they did, it might get thrown out of court as a purely political matter better solved at the ballot box.
In any case, it's pretty clear that Barack Obama didn't follow the letter of this law. He's even apologized for not doing so, which is pretty close to an admission that he did indeed ignore the law. There are two big constitutional questions here, whether the media and the politicians focus on them or not: the validity of presidential "signing statements," and whether Congress even has the power to limit the military options open to the president in such a fashion.
Obama, of course, has stated that there were extenuating circumstances which forced his hand. He hasn't really fully stated this argument, which might best be put: "What else was I supposed to do -- notify Congress and watch an American soldier possibly die in enemy hands, when I had the power to avoid that outcome?" While the president's opponents are making a lot of noise about what they didn't like about the prisoner of war swap, eventually things are going to boil down to this crucial question -- what else would you have had Obama do? So far, it seems this question isn't really even being asked much.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Do we really want the President, or some commander on the ground, deciding who is "worth" saving? Particularly based on political positions? If you WANT to destroy unit cohesion and morale I certainly can't think of a better way. Are we going to have all conservative and all progressive units just to ensure unit members can depend on each other for support? And just how are we going to convince those units that any OTHER unit assigned to support them will actually do so? Our militaries functioning depends on the fact that orders will be followed, objectives will be attained, and soldiers will protect each other, no matter what.
Its enough that we send people into harms way, risking their lives, without sending them into harms way with the knowledge that we, and their fellow soldiers, may, or may not, have their back.
And while I find the rationale for the War Powers Act specious, Congress at least pretended to have a Constitutional rationale. Their orders to the military, a d the militaries, Commander In Chief, have no such fig leaf. Nothing about Congress' authority to declare war could remotely be construed to empower Congress to give orders to the military about how to handle prisoners, or any other aspect of the conduct of a war for that matter. Its a logical extension the War Powers Act in that Congress has simply decided it gets to be Commander In Chief of the military. Its never been a out "declaring war." Its always been about who gets to run the military.
Everything about the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo has been unconstitutional. The entire point of the Due Process clause is to prohibit government from doing exactly what its been doing in Guantanamo, simply imprisoning people indefinitely without charge or trial. Nothing in the constitution limits its protections to American citizens, or people within the states. The constitution applies to all actions of the American government and all activities in American territories. Guantanamo is both. The Bush/Republican argument that it is somehow extraconstitutional territory is as patently false as their water boarding isn't torture claim.
Congress has no authority to order the military to do ANYTHING. Including ordering the Commander In Chief not to release prisoners. Obama's, ANY Presidents, declaration that legislation infringes on Presidential Prerogatives is a far cry from Bush's creative interpretations of legislation.
Elected officials have a duty to protect and defend the constitution. That means they are obligated to ignore unconstitutional laws. ESPECIALLY the President. Because the President is an equal branch of government. Congress is elected by the people to be their representatives. Legislation passed by Congress is enacted in the peoples name by the peoples representatives with the understanding that the people will abide by these their decisions, because the people agreed to those terms when their representatives ratified the constitution. The President made no such agreement.
Congress is free to pass any legislation they choose. Legislation constraining Presidential power, however, is advise, not mandatory. Because the office of the President isn't under Congressional jurisdiction. The President can agree to follow Congressional advice--or not.--And he's free to do so at any time, without notice.
The President stands alone. The office of the President elects no Representative. Congress does not speak for him. He is under no obligation to abide by their decisions. He is their EQUAL. Congress has no constitutional authority to legislate Presidential behavior. The President isn't a citizen subject to Congressional legislation. Its an office. An Office empowered by the Constitution, the same as Congress. And one which can only be constrained by amending the Constitution, the same as Congress. Congress authority is limited to advice, consent, and funding.--That's it. Nothing more.
Declaring war and initiating military operations are to entirety separate things. And rarely occur simultaneously. Our constitution separates powers. Congress gets to declare war, the President gets to initiate military operations. The Authority to declare war is NOT another way of saying that Congress gets to order the initiation of military operations, or order the military mot to initiate operations without Congressional approval. Congress doesn't get to command the military. No matter what back door they try to use.
LewDan -
Excellent comment. Just had to say that.
-CW
In the case of recently released prisoner of war Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, this progression was reversed.
Let's be clear on our designations.
Berghdal was NOT a Prisoner Of War.
He was not captured on the battlefield.
He walked away with the intent of deserting.
This is what the FACTS show...
Due to this lack of facts...
We have a BUTTLOAD of facts...
Ya'all just don't like what those facts say...
The best comment I've yet heard on one of the core issues that detractors are raising -- that if Bergdahl deserted his post, he wasn't worth rescuing or retrieving in any way -- came from Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby: "When you're in the Navy, and you go overboard, it doesn't matter if you were pushed, fell, or jumped. We're going to turn the ship around and pick you up."
But, if you jumped, after leaving a suicide note, is any Captain going to have men killed trying to rescue you???
Not any Captain that wants to keep his command..
The Pentagon knew where Berhdgal was for the last 3 years..
They could have gone in and got him at ANY time...
IF THEY FELT HE WAS WORTH SAVING..
Obama could have ordered Berhdahl rescued ANY TIME in the last 3 years...
IF HE FELT THAT BERGDAL WAS WORTH SAVING..
Sergeant Bergdahl is innocent until he is proven guilty. To suggest anything else, at this point, is downright un-American. We haven't even heard his side of the story yet, folks.
Yes, we have. Thru his letters home, his statements to his fellow troops, his actions and his desertion letter...
We HAVE heard Bergsdal side of the story...
And he is a deserter... period...
At least he would be if the Left didn't have a DEM POTUS to protect..
But none of this is proven, and the Army hasn't even made any of the facts public yet.
Maybe the Army hasn't but that is not the same thing as no facts being available...
There are a plethora of facts available..
Ya'all just don't like what they say...
The facts are these and they are inarguable....
Berhgdal deserted..
14 Soldiers were killed directly or indirectly due to Berghdal's desertion..
I have a TON of evidence to back up my facts.. And will be happy to list it to anyone who doubts these facts..
Is there any evidence to back up the claim that my facts are wrong??
There is not ONE SCINTILLA, not ONE INGOT, not ONE IOTA of evidence that suggests that Berghdhal was NOT a scumbag deserter.
NONE... ZERO... ZILCH.... NADA...
The ONLY reason that the Left wants to believe that the facts are not there is because the Left wants to protect the Democrat in the White House.
That's the ONLY reason...
If the occupant of the White House had a '-R' after his (or her) name then ya'all would be saying EXACTLY what I am saying..
The only difference is we would be in complete agreement...
Michale
Now that a signing statement from President Obama is under the microscope, I fully expect these positions to be reversed, politically. I could easily see some Democrats making the case for Obama's signing statement to be the final word on the subject, while Republicans will howl. All par for the course, really.
Yep.. Hypocrisy is par for the course...
I'de like to see my fellow Weigantians concede that, though... :D
The ONLY time this has been addressed is when LD stated for the record, that there IS no hypocrisy.. :D
Instead, we will get a lively investigation in Congress to score some political points, but really the only option they've got open to them is impeachment, which I just don't see happening (at least, not before the midterms).
You can bet that if the GOP takes the Senate and increases their lead in the House, Impeachment will be batted around a LOT more frequently..
And I'll lay odds that Obama will cave... He doesn't want to go down in history as the SECOND DEMOCRAT POTUS IN A ROW to get impeached.
People might begin to wonder if Democrats are even FIT to be POTUS...
In any case, it's pretty clear that Barack Obama didn't follow the letter of this law. He's even apologized for not doing so, which is pretty close to an admission that he did indeed ignore the law.
Just to knock ya'all back on yer heels..
I agree with Obama. He DOESN'T need to follow this particular "law" because the "law" itself is illegal..
Obama, of course, has stated that there were extenuating circumstances which forced his hand.
Yea... Obama just HAD to get that VA scandal off the front page..
That's the ONLY extenuating circumstance that was in play...
Michale
When a president goes rogue
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-when-a-president-goes-rogue/2014/06/04/bb172cc2-ec12-11e3-93d2-edd4be1f5d9e_print.html
Like I said..
Obama is the POTUS that Nixon always wanted to be..
I think I am going to have that made into a BUMPER STICKER..
OBAMA: The President That Nixon Always Wanted To Be
Catchy....
"No, but it's catchy tune, isn't it. 'Clap On... Clap Off.. The Clapper' "
-Morgan Freeman, BRUCE ALMIGHTY
:D
Michale
Even without the issue of this scumbag being a deserter, one MUST keep in mind..
The released terrorists weren't just some low level grunts or anything like that..
These are terrorists who are on top of the food chain...
To put it into it's proper context, it would be as if FDR or Truman released Goring, Bormann, Himmler, Goebels and Heydrich in exchange for one lowly Sgt....
"Leave No Man Behind" is a laudable concept..
But it MUST bow to military logic and reason..
Even if the soldier was a REAL POW and was even a CMOH awardee, it is simply NOT LOGICAL to release 5 HVT fish to get him back..
And ANY American soldier, sailor, airman or marine who truly IS an American soldier, sailor, airman or marine will tell you the EXACT same thing..
If any of those scumbags that were released go back to the battlefield and/or kill Americans in a terrorist attack??
The blood of those victims (innocent or combat) will be on the hands of President Barack Obama..
Michale
Like I said, even DEMOCRATS have issues with this release..
In Pittsburgh, Leon Panetta questions prisoner swap with Taliban
http://triblive.com/news/adminpage/6228667-74/panetta-bergdahl-obama#axzz33jORXCTp
Even BIDEN didn't support the terrorist swap..
This is the "bi partisanship" ya'all claim you want...
There it is, served up on a silver platter...
Michale
What it all comes down to is one simple point..
In war, you don't release the enemy leadership *while you're still fighting the enemy*!!
It's stoopid and moronic to do that...
And I challenge ANYONE here to prove otherwise...
Michale
Sergeant Bergdahl is innocent until he is proven guilty.
So was Major Nidal Hasan... But his guilt was well established right after the shooting rampage, LONG BEFORE the verdict was read...
Sergeant Bergdahl is innocent until he is proven guilty.
So was Sgt Robert Bales... But his guilt was well established right after the shooting rampage, LONG BEFORE the verdict was read...
Let's face it.. NO ONE here minds, when the facts are clear, labeling someone as guilty LONG before any official verdict is read...
At least no one minds if it doesn't put their agenda in a bad light...
Michale
Why Team Obama Was Blindsided by the Bergdahl Backlash
The president and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters
It's rather ironic..
Obama set up the Rose Garden for a big smooze-fest with Ma and Pa Taliban...
Would it have killed Obama to say some words for the 14 soldiers who DIED trying to "save" Bergsdhal from "capture"..
Apparently, that's just a bridge too far for our Commander In Chief..
Michale
As I said, ANY President has a right to assert Executive powers. Unlike the Rights current fantasy the law is not whatever Congress enacts, unless SCOTUS disagrees. Neither are Presidential actions automatically legal unless SCOUTS disagrees. "Government governs with the consent of the governed." The constitution isn't in code. Bothe Congress and the President get their authority from the constitution. Neither can be constrained except BY the constitution. That's the law we agreed to.
Conservatives pretend the law is situational. It applies, or not, depending on what will achieve their objectives. They believe in the ends justify the means, not the rule of law. We've all agreed to abide by the constitution. Its a requirement of citizenship. The law governs, not Republican desires.
Combat decisions are always value judgments. Always about risk vs reward. The military NEVER engages in an operation unless the cost benefit ratio justifies it. That means that we retrieve our people when we can do so with a minimum of risk to other personnel. But we DO retrieve them. We may not get there soon. We may get there late. But we WILL get there!--Trying to build a conspiracy, or scandal, on the timing, requires (for everyone OTHER than Republicans) some smidgen of evidence, not just while unsubstantiated conjecture by rabid partisans.
The OPINIONS of fellow soldiers that he deserted is NOT proof of desertion. Isn't justification for leaving someone behind even if it were, as CW ably pointed out here. Soldiers risking their lives for this country know that their fellows will risk their lives for them. The entire argument that no search or rescue should have been attempted because it risks other soldiers is a red herring. Soldiers risk their lives for each others all the time. Its one of the things that makes them heroic. And that heroism is one of the reasons we owe them every effort to retrieve the fallen and the captured. They are fighting for us and have a right to expect us to fight for them as well. If we only attempted to retrieve soldiers who could be retrieved in perfect safety VERY few WOULD ever be retrieved.
We owe Bergdahl simply because he wore the uniform. And our debt doesn't end unless, and until, he is convicted by a courts martial. No ones opinions are relevant to that obligation. Not his fellow soldiers, not Congress', not even the President's.
We DON'T leave our people behind.
The OPINIONS of fellow soldiers that he deserted is NOT proof of desertion.
These are NOT "opinions"... These are FACTS...
These are statements that these soldiers gave in their AA reports. These statements are ALL part of the official record...
As is this scumbag's letters home, as is his desertion note...
These are FACTS...
And you know this because you have served...
But you're enslaved by your Party ideology and, apparently that trumps military service..
We DON'T leave our people behind.
Then why didn't the CIA trade a bunch of top level KGB spies for Aldrich Ames??
We DO leave our people behind when they voluntarily join the enemy.. Or we actively hunt them down and kill them...
We sure as hell DON'T trade 5 of the hardest of the hardcore terrorists/scumbags....
Again, you KNOW this...
Michale
We DON'T leave our people behind.
Really??
Tell that to Sgt Andrew Tahmooressi...
Obama sure has left HIM behind...
Tell that to the thousands of Americans who are still missing or languishing in foreign prisons all over the world..
This NO MAN LEFT BEHIND crap of yours is simply a dodge...
Why don't you say what you REALLY mean..
"We don't leave a man behind unless it is politically expedient to do so."
Or...
"We follow the 'Don't Leave A Man Behind' credo only if we can wring some good PR out of it"
THAT is what the Obama Administration is REALLY saying...
Obama and his administration doesn't give a shit about the military men and women.. If he did, he wouldn't have let the VA kill DOZENS...
These are the facts...
Michale
Lets be clear here. When we claim the right to order soldiers actions and control their activities WE are responsible for ensuring their safety and wellbeing. If we courts martial them and confine them for desertion WE are responsible for their safety and wellbeing. Even IF Bergdahl deserted we STILL claim authority over his actions and activities. Its what GIVES us a right to courts martial him. Soldiers can't just unilaterally sever their connection with the military just by walking away. And enforcing that BY retrieving deserters and courts martialing them is ALSO vital to ensuring the continued functioning of our military.
Until Bergdahl is discharged he answers to us and WE are responsible for his safety and wellbeing. There are no exceptions. There are no conditions.
Lets be clear here. When we claim the right to order soldiers actions and control their activities WE are responsible for ensuring their safety and wellbeing. If we courts martial them and confine them for desertion WE are responsible for their safety and wellbeing. Even IF Bergdahl deserted we STILL claim authority over his actions and activities. Its what GIVES us a right to courts martial him. Soldiers can't just unilaterally sever their connection with the military just by walking away. And enforcing that BY retrieving deserters and courts martialing them is ALSO vital to ensuring the continued functioning of our military.
Until Bergdahl is discharged he answers to us and WE are responsible for his safety and wellbeing. There are no exceptions. There are no conditions.
And such safety and well-being trumps ALL other considerations???
BULLSHIT....
There is a priority in the military..
The mission and the men...
Obama totally screwed the mission for this one traitor/deserter...
You don't release high level enemy leaders WHILE YOU'RE STILL FIGHTING THAT ENEMY!!
What part of that do you NOT understand???
Only someone COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORANT of the military and leadership would think such an action is a good idea or is even justified...
Michale
Michale [12],
I don't know that the opinions of Berdahl's fellows expressed in their reports are facts. But even if they are, facts are not VERDICTS. Guilt or innocence is a VERDICT. Desertion is a VERDICT. Unless, and until, there has BEEN a verdict Bergdahl's desertion IS NOT a "fact." THAT is a fact. THAT is the law.
I don't know that the opinions of Berdahl's fellows expressed in their reports are facts. But even if they are, facts are not VERDICTS. Guilt or innocence is a VERDICT. Desertion is a VERDICT. Unless, and until, there has BEEN a verdict Bergdahl's desertion IS NOT a "fact." THAT is a fact. THAT is the law.
Major Hasan's attack on Fort Hood soldiers was "FACT" long before a verdict in a court of law..
Sgt Bales' attack on an Afghan village was "FACT" long before a verdict in a court of law..
Face it, LD.. The only reason you don't want to concede these FACTS, is to protect your messiah...
That's it...
Michale
If the safety and well-being of this traitor is the ONLY consideration, why didn't Obama just surrender to the Taliban??
I mean, if "safety" and "well being" are the ONLY considerations, Obama could have just told the Taliban, "Oh OK.. You win.. We'll just pack up and go home"
Maybe.... JUST maybe... the MISSION is the most important consideration, eh??
At least, it was when *I* was an officer...
Apparently, you and Obama served in a different kind of military..
oh wait.. That's right..
Obama NEVER served..
No wonder he is such a moron when it comes to military issues...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that there are 14 soldiers who WON'T be coming home to see their parents because of the actions of this deserter..
No one here seems to care about them, eh??
Of course not.. Because such concern would not further the agenda of The Messiah....
Michale
Michale,
You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend terrorists are soldiers when it suits you, and mere criminals when that's more to you advantage.
Terrorism is a crime. Terrorism perpetrated by uniformed services of nation states are acts of war, and war crimes. Terrorism by anyone else is simply criminal. You do not get to imprison Mafia bosses indefinitely simply because you believe they will resume criminal activity upon release and are mafia "bosses." You must prove IN A COURT OF LAW specific culpability for specific illegal acts which will be adjudicated specific penalties to be served for specific lengths of time. THAT IS THE LAW.
You do NOT get to ignore the law by calling criminals "enemy combatants," and pretending that they are enemy soldiers, (but without the rights of prisoners of war,) AND criminals you can prosecute before Kangaroo military tribunals.
We are not at war with Al Queda. Al Queda is NOT a nation state or a uniformed service. Terrorists are criminals to be treated in accordance with THE LAW. Not in accordance with you and Congress. The constitution IS THE LAW. It cannot be supercede on the whim of the President, or Congress, or by the whim of the President AND Congress. The Constitution, THE LAW, requires due process or imprisonment IS ILLEGAL.
That shouldn't be to difficult a concept for an ex-Law Enforcement Officer to comprehend.
In order to clarfiy....
We seem to have 3 distinct issues here...
1. Is Bergdahal a deserter?
2. Is it a good idea to trade Enemy/Terrorist Leaders for ANYONE when the war is still going on??
3. Is it a good idea to trade Enemy/Terrorist Leaders for a traitor and a deserter??
As to 1...
We're not going to agree on this. It's in The Messiah's agenda to keep Bergedal as a "hero" so NO amount of facts are going to change ya'alls mind on the traitor/deserter issue..
THAT discussion is moot as there simply CAN'T be any agreement....
So, let's just agree to disagree on that..
#3 is simply an addendum to #2.. You can't say NO to #2 and then say YES to #3...
So, let's shelve discussion on #3...
This leaves #2 as the only contentious question worth discussing.... As in the only possible discussion where consensus might be reached..
So, I challenge ANYONE to defend the position that it IS a good idea to release high value enemy leaders while the fight against that enemy is still going on...
Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???
Michale
Michale,
There are over FOUR THOUSAND Americans who won't be coming home because of your hero Bush. As always, you "outrage" is selective, arbitrary, disproportionate, and irrational.
RE: #20
Fine...
Ignore the terrorist aspect.. It's another one of your Straw Man argument anyways..
These are enemy leaders that were released....
You DON'T release high level enemy leaders when you are still at war with that enemy..
Anyone who has served would know this..
Which explains Obama's ignorance...
Michale
There are over FOUR THOUSAND Americans who won't be coming home because of your hero Bush. As always, you "outrage" is selective, arbitrary, disproportionate, and irrational.
Right...
"It's all Bush's fault"....
Wish I could say I was surprised....
But I am not...
You've become so predictable..
Michale
Why do you bother with multi-page soliloquies, LD??
EVERY ONE of your arguments can be condensed down to one single belief..
"It's ALL Bush's fault"
Michale
You can't have it both ways. You can't pretend terrorists are soldiers when it suits you, and mere criminals when that's more to you advantage.
It's YOU that are wanting it both ways.
When we are discussing Obama's use of drones to assassinate American citizens w/o Due Process, you claim that it's a MILITARY decision and legalities like "Due Process" are not applicable..
But now, your guy's ass is in a sling (AGAIN), NOW you flip to the idea that terrorism is strictly a Law Enforcement issue...
You can't have it both ways, LD....
Michale
Michale,
No. The issue is not the treatment, or release of enemy enemy/terrorists. THERE IS NO WAR. Congress declared war on Afghanistan. We haven't BEEN at war with Afghanistan FOR YEARS! People who were never uniformed service members of any Afghan force cannot be prisoners of war. THERE IS NO WAR. THERE WAS NO OTHER WAR. And if there HAD been a war it would have NO BEARING on these terrorists. THEY are not soldiers.
The bottom line is that there is NO justification for treating terrorists the way you claim they should be treated. No traditional justification. No military justification. No legal justification. NONE.
What you pretend is necessary and appropriate treatment is UNLAWFUL. Unconstitutional. Illegal. Immoral. Unethical. Counterproductive. AND A WAR CRIME in and of itself. THOSE ARE "FACTS." Your claims about the proper handling of "enemies" are NOT.
For the record, I have *NEVER* contended that terrorism was strictly an LEO issue.
NEVER... NOT ONCE...
So, even when you create a Straw Man argument, you STILL can't knock that down...
Michale
RE: 27
Right LD... We're not at war in Afghanistan...
It's all a bad dream...
That's right....
Other than biting sarcasm, I have NO idea how to respond to such delusion masquerading as reality...
We are at war in Afghanistan. The Taliban is the enemy..
And your Messiah just released 5 high level enemy commanders so they can return to Afghanistan and kill more Americans...
These are the facts...
And they are undisputed..
Michale
http://time.com/2826534/bowe-bergdahl-taliban-captors/
Great job, Obama.
You gave the Taliban EVERYTHING they wanted and got back a scumbag deserter in return...
Why don't you invite Taliban sympathizers to the Rose Garden??
Oh wait. You already did...
2017 CAN'T come soon enough...
Michale
“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
-Taliban Commander
Great job, Obama..
Put an even BIGGER target on all Americans, even more so than there already was....
Michale
Michale,
When, exactly did Congress declare war on the Taliban? How, exactly, do you declare war on people who may, or may not, be in a country and not the country itself? If we're "war" on the Taliban in Afghanistan why are we staging attacks in Pakistan? How can you do war by killing people instead if seizing control of territory? Attempting to exterminate a group of people is "genocide" not "war."
And "authorized use of deadly force" has been a standard of law enforcement as long as there's BEEN an America. Just when, and how had it suddenly become a violation of due process and the constitution. AND why are police officers all over the country still engaging in it with court, and Congressional approval?
As always, you, and Republicans, are lying your asses off.
Again, with the straw man arguments...
Everything you ask is COMPLETELY non-sequitor to the discussion at hand..
OBAMA is the commander in chief.. FACT
We are fighting a war in Afghanistan against the Taliban... FACT
Obama just released 5 senior enemy commanders....FACT
What does ANY of your spewages above have to do with these facts??
Answer: Not a damn thing...
You CAN'T argue the facts so you simply throw up total BS to protect your Messiah...
Michale
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpS7Pj1CcAI7JR7.jpg
Now THAT is funny!!! :D
Michale
Michale,
"Due Process" means that the government DOES NOT GET to declare ANYONE an "enemy" and imprison or punish them without concurrence of probable cause by a Grand Jury and conviction in a court of law. The governor has NO RIGHT to be holding prisoners at Guantanamo AT ALL. There IS NO ARGUMENT over whether they SHOULD be held. IT IS ILLEGAL. Try and sentence them, and then release them, or release them. Its that simple. That is the law.
Whether they "should" be released is neither an argument or an option. They have a RIGHT to release.
Oh, and WE got everything we asked for too. That's the way exchanges work. BOTH sides deliver everything the other side asked for.--We, however, gave up something that wasn't ours to keep anyway. Most sane people would consider giving up something you had no right to to begin with in exchange for something you want to be a win in negotiations.
And since Obama didn't kidnap Bergdahl but Bush DID kidnap the terrorists we're surrendering it isn't Obama whose promoting terrorism. The terrorists are following Bush's example.--So,yes. Since you mention it, it IS Bush's fault!
Right..
It's ALL Bush's fault..
Your messiah is completely and utterly blameless..
Even though Obama has been POTUS for 6 years now, EVERYTHING is still Bush's fault..
Gotcha....
Michale
Oh, and Michale,
YOU constantly injecting Bush into EVERY discussion, and then pretending EVERYONE ELSE is just always trying to blame Bush for everything is getting old. YOU are the one who tries to excuse everything Republicans do by dragging in Bush's supposed treatment. YOU are the one who tries condemn everything Obama does by pretending Bush wasn't, or wouldn't, be allowed to do it.
The only one who keeps injecting Bush IS YOU! I'M not the first one who somehow thought Jessica Lynch is relevant.--But at least you're consistent.--Always a hypocrite. Always a Bush apologist. Always an Obama agitator. And always dishonest.
So, Bush kidnapped the terrorists..
What does that make Obama who has continued to hold onto the kidnapped terrorists??
Wait?? What's that WWWWWWOOOOOOOOSSSHHHHHH sound???
THAT is the sound of the air escaping from your fantasy/delusion....
For, if you accuse Bush of kidnapping terrorists and BEING a terrorist, then you HAVE to think the same thing of Obama.. Because Obama has done THAT and so much more...
But, due to your total and complete devotion to Obama, you simply CAN'T go there..
So, to save you from vapor lock, I won't force you to admit what everyone can clearly see..
Yer whacked, dood... :D
I mean that in the best way possible.. :D
Michale
OH... *I* always interject Bush???
Comment #1 LD
The Bush/Republican argument that it is somehow extraconstitutional territory is as patently false as their water boarding isn't torture claim.
and
Including ordering the Commander In Chief not to release prisoners. Obama's, ANY Presidents, declaration that legislation infringes on Presidential Prerogatives is a far cry from Bush's creative interpretations of legislation.
Comment #22, LD:
There are over FOUR THOUSAND Americans who won't be coming home because of your hero Bush. As always, you "outrage" is selective, arbitrary, disproportionate, and irrational.
Just in this commentary alone, it's clear who has the BUSH fixation...
Michale
So, let me see if I have this straight...
Your argument (NOW) is that it was perfectly OK to release those enemy commanders/terrorists because it wasn't right to hold them in the first place??
*THAT* is your argument???
So, the fact that these 5 are responsible for the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocents, the fact that THREE of them are wanted by the UN for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.. NONE of that makes ANY difference to you???
Whose side are you on anyways??
From your argument, you appear to be on the side of the people who delight in killing innocent people by the thousands....
Wait...
THAT is Bush's fault too, right??
Do you realize how far off the reservation you have gone???
Michale
Regardless of everything, one thing is perfectly clear..
Obama needs to keep Susan Rice away from the Sunday talk shows..
She has absolutely ZERO credibility...
Michale
Michale,
You're dishonest, not persuasive. Referring to the Bush rationale for indefinite detention isn't"blaming Bush" or injecting Bush. It just happens that Bush IS RESPONSIBLE for the prisoners on Guantanamo. That you think reality has a liberal bias is not my problem. Bush is the one who established Guantanamo as a prison for suspected terrorists. He BOUGHT prisoners who'd been kidnapped by others and ordered the kidnapping of people who were no where near a battlefield. (Or were we at war with Italy as well?)
You don't get to pretend prisoners at Guantanamo simply materialized out of thin air, are prisoners as a natural law, whom we can hold indefinitely by Devine right.--The truth is Bush is responsible, despite you attempt to deny, deflect, obscure, and mitigate his responsibility in your crusade to crucify Obama.
Bush killed tens of thousands in Iraq ALONE, maiming HALF A MILLION. No OTHER "terrorist" even comes CLOSE to OUR record!
Bush didn't become blameless with Obama's inauguration. Blame did not transfer to Obama. You can't blame Obama for prisoners continuing to be held at Guantanamo as you blame Obama for releasing some! For violating the law BY releasing them. A law enacted BY REPUBLICANS so Obama COULDN'T, supposedly, release them!
Rice isn't the one with no credibility, that would be the Republicans.--And YOU!
Michale -
I have a few questions for you.
Since Bush's name seems to be coming up, what do you think of the 500+ Gitmo prisoners Bush released? Think that was a good idea? Why or why not? One of them may have been part of the people who killed 4 Americans in Benghazi...
What exactly are we supposed to do with the people in Gitmo? They cannot be tried, because we don't have evidence against them (none of the five released could be tried even in military courts). Those 5 had been jailed for 12 years. So are we supposed to just lock them up for life, without ever trying them for anything?
Afghanistan is winding down. Next January, our combat mission will be over, and the 10K left behind will be training the Afghan forces. So we're not even going to be on "the battlefield" in 2015, when the 5 Taliban just released will be able to move back to Afghanistan. Because the war will end, we will be releasing a lot more captured Taliban (prisoners of war are always released at the end of hostilities).
And you still have yet to address the key point: OK, say he comes out on television tomorrow and says "Michale's right, I'm a deserter." How would that change what Obama's duties were in retrieving him? The Army leaves no man behind, even if he is a deserter. That's their mission, and responsibility.
Imagine, for one moment, what Fox News and the rightwingosphere would be saying now if Obama had let the guy die in Taliban custody. Think it would be "Obama did the right thing, he was just a deserter"?
I don't. I think they'd be calling Obama all sorts of names for "not supporting the troops," etc.
-CW
CW,
Since Bush's name seems to be coming up, what do you think of the 500+ Gitmo prisoners Bush released? Think that was a good idea? Why or why not? One of them may have been part of the people who killed 4 Americans in Benghazi...
What kinds of prisoners were these??
Were any of them Taliban commanders wanted by the UN for War Crimes??
WHY did Bush release the prisoners??
If I recall, it was because of hysterical pressure from the Democrats..
What exactly are we supposed to do with the people in Gitmo? They cannot be tried, because we don't have evidence against them (none of the five released could be tried even in military courts). Those 5 had been jailed for 12 years. So are we supposed to just lock them up for life, without ever trying them for anything?
I have ALWAYS known what to do with the prisoners at Gitmo..
Take them out and shoot them..
And you still have yet to address the key point: OK, say he comes out on television tomorrow and says "Michale's right, I'm a deserter." How would that change what Obama's duties were in retrieving him?
Obama's duty is to the MISSION first and foremost..
PERIOD...
Imagine, for one moment, what Fox News and the rightwingosphere would be saying now if Obama had let the guy die in Taliban custody. Think it would be "Obama did the right thing, he was just a deserter"?
Who cares about the Right Wingosphere!??? Not me...
The point ya'all forget is that the priority in ANY Military is the mission..
"You keep your priorities straight. Your mission and your men."
-Gene Hackman, CRIMSON TIDE
ANYONE who has served will tell you the same thing...
Only those who haven't served, or obviously didn't learn military lessons properly, think it's a good idea to release 5 high level enemy commanders when we are still fighting that enemy...
You question ANY soldier, sailor, airman or marine and they will tell you the EXACT same thing...
The mission is job #1. Period...
Michale
In other words, contrary to LD's totally unfounded and outrageously inaccurate claim, the safety and the well-being of our military men and women is NOT the number one priority..
If it were, then we wouldn't even HAVE a military..
I mean, come on people! Think logically....
Michale
Here's a quote to toss into the fray:
We don't leave Americans behind. That's unequivocal. We're going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story ... One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts.
-General Stanley McChrystal
-CW
CW,
We KNOW the facts..
Just like we KNEW the facts with Major Hasan..
Just like we KNEW the facts with Sgt Bales...
But if it will make you feel any better, I will give you this..
Berghdahl is a deserter who hasn't been convicted yet in a court of law...
But Berghdalhl's guilt or innocence is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the point I am making..
Even if Berghdahl WAS actually captured on a battlefield, even if he WAS not a traitor, deserter, even if he was a bona-fide hero with a dozen CMOH's under his belt.....
You DON'T release top level enemy commanders to return to the battlefield...
It's utterly MORONIC to do so...
As I mentioned above (which you might have missed) it's akin to FDR or Truman releasing Goring, Bormann, Himmler, Goebells and Heynrich to get back a SINGLE soldier...
It's dyed-in-the-wool total batshit CRAZY to think that THAT is the smart thing to do...
So, I will give you that Berghsdelli might be the greatest thing since Mom and Apple Pie..
It ain't worth releasing 5 psycho war criminals that will simply rejoin the battlefield and kill even MORE Americans..
And, if Bergesthan WAS the "hero" that ya'all would like to believe he is, HE would tell you the EXACT same thing...
So, let's forget Berghandans guilt or innocence for a second..
Just answer me one simple question..
Would it be the smart thing to do for a Truman or an FDR to release a Goring, a Bormann, a Himmler, a Goebells and a Heynrich to get back a SINGLE soldier??
A simple YES or NO is all that is required...
Michale
We don't leave Americans behind. That's unequivocal. We're going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story ... One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts.
-General Stanley McChrystal
Two words..
U.S.M.C. Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi
Leave no man behind is an honorable axiom..
But when it's subverted for political goals, it don't mean shit...
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that our US Military knew where Berghsin was for the last 3 years...
If "NO MAN LEFT BEHIND" is the ONLY consideration, as ya'all seem to think it is, why EXCHANGE 5 war criminals??
Send in ST6.....
Seal Team 6 could have gone in there, rescued ya'alls "hero", killed all the bad guys and be back in time for tea and crumpets...
Why give up ANYONE, if the ONLY goal is to repatriate an American "POW"???
Answer: Because Obama need a distraction from the VA scandal where he let dozens and dozens of Veterans die..
I guess it was OK for THEM to be left behind, eh???
I guess that the "safety" and "well-being" is NOT the number 1 priority when it comes to caring for our veterans, eh??
Seriously, people..
No matter WHAT angle ya'all choose to look at this from, Obama is in the wrong...
No matter WHAT excuse ya'all come up with, Obama is an incompetent moron...
No matter WHAT spin ya'all choose to spin, Obama frak'ed up...
Obama scrooed the pooch on this one.... This is what the FACTS show...
So...
Just concede the point and we all can move on...
Unless ya'all want to argue further on what the definition of "is" is....
Michale
If ya'all want to read intelligence reports filed on Berghestinni's activities during his captivity..
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/05/exclusive-bergdahl-declared-jihad-in-2010-secret-documents-show/
I know ya'all will discard these, simply because they come from FOX, but.... If THAT's your only "evidence" to refute the claims....
Well, that's pretty lame...
Which is pretty much par for the course for ya'alls defense of Obama.....
Lame....
Michale
Michale,
What's "lame" is your refusal to admit that the current "mission" is to wind down the conflict. "Tge mission" is not, ant never has been, the only thing that matters. EVERY soldier swears to obey the Constitution. EVERY soldier is taught that the law MUST be obeyed. EVERY soldier is taught orders to commit war crimes are ILLEGAL. EVERY soldier is taught that OBEYING illegal orders IS A WAR CRIME.
The torturing of POWs was a war crime. Refusing to repatriate POWs after hostilities end is a war crime. EXECUTING POWS is a War Crime.
Mission my ass! I KNOW what I'm talking about. And what you're arguing is CRIMINAL. What you're arguing--again, is illegal.--Again. Committing war crimes US NOT how the military is supposed to prosecute wars. Committing war crimes IS NOT what the American people expect of their military forces. Committing war crimes WILL NOT accomplish the mission.
We CANNOT end terrorism by exterminating all the terrorists. And THAT is the mission. A.) Doing so only creates MORE terrorists. B.) Doing so makes US terrorists so we'd have to end OURSELVES to end terrorism.
Bush's criminal conduct of the war, and YOUR, criminal endorsement of war crimes doesn't make you an expert on the military, it makes you unfit to comment on military matters. Unlike you, serving officers still honor the oath they swore when they accepted their commission, still honor the constitution they swore to defend, and still understand that that IS "the mission."
Do we really want the President, or some commander on the ground, deciding who is "worth" saving? Particularly based on political positions?
Damn. Kudos, LewDan. Dead on.
Soldiers are soldiers. Leave no man behind. Simple as that.
-David
I just want to point out that the other red herring argument that keeps coming up is the whole "5 high value prisoners" thing.
Unless these guys have been having access to the good ole interwebs, or access to a super secret cuban islamist terrorism carrier pigeon network their "High Value" status went out the window along time ago. Were they "high value" when they were captured? certainly, but, most everyone I know is of the opinion that tactical knowledge and the ability to lead in a terrorist organization has a shelf life that is very short.
When one stops to think about it, the true value of these individuals was in remaining in custody as that provided high recruitment value to various terrorist groups, once released they become a risk to the stability of the organization as it currently exists due to the fact that while the group may have the same name it's goals and operating mindset have changed to match that of the current leadership.
To believe that these 5 will simply be allowed to rejoin the battlefield and get straight back to leading and planning is a belief that ignores the basic tenants that dictate how one is promoted and power is maintained in a terrorist group.
Given the rather public and messy leadership squabbles that occur whenever the power flow in a terrorist group is disrupted or altered one could even argue that releasing these guys back into the wild will be helpful for us in the short term as we wind down the "graveyard of empires" conflict.
As a matter of fact, Bergdahl came up as a subject in a briefing the other day in the context of protests (of which the consensus was that it is too early for preemptive protests) the general feeling in the room was that IF he did desert he is screwed and will get what is coming, there was also a bit of the bastard is guilty in the room. The two things missing, however, were the 5 released prisoners and a sense that we had done the wrong thing by retrieving one of our own. As a matter of fact pretty much everyone in the room just took the return as a basic fact of life.
Oh, and by the way Lew very eloquent points made.
Do we really want the President, or some commander on the ground, deciding who is "worth" saving?
Now I KNOW you have never served.. At least not in a command position. Never been a leader..
That is EXACTLY what leaders do all the time..
They assess the mission first and foremost. (I noticed how you didn't address that...) and then they weigh the odds and the risks and decide on a course of action..
Doctors and health professionals do it all the time as well. It's called "triage"...
Speaking from ignorance as usual...
David,
Soldiers are soldiers. Leave no man behind. Simple as that.
Yea?? Tell that to the Marine Sgt STILL sitting in a Mexican prison..
Wait.. I can guess your response... "Oh, that's different"
Tell that to the veterans in the VA who have DIED because they were "left behind"..
Where was Obama's so-called "honor" then???
Wait.. I can guess your response... "Oh, that's different"
The fact that ya'all use that honored military tradition in a perverse political way to protect a scumbag moron like Obama and use that same honored military tradition to defend the indefensible is personally insulting to those Americans who HAVE served.. Who HAVE lived by that code of honor..
So please.. Stop (mis)using such an honorable MILITARY axiom for a cheap and totally useless political agenda..
GT,
To believe that these 5 will simply be allowed to rejoin the battlefield and get straight back to leading and planning is a belief that ignores the basic tenants that dictate how one is promoted and power is maintained in a terrorist group.
What training, experience or expertise do you have that allows you to make such a TOTALLY bullshit politically self-serving statement??
None??
Didna think so...
You people are completely ignorant of the subject at hand..
Never served.. Never seen combat.. Never actually ACTED on the No Man Left Behind precept..
So please... Quit the ignorant spewings... It's offensive to those who HAVE served..
If NO MAN LEFT BEHIND was the order of the day, Obama or the US Military could have sent in ST6 ANYTIME in the last 3 years...
So, your claim that NMLB is in play is complete and utter politically self-serving bullshit...
Which is par for the course...
Michale
No Man Left Behind???
PHOENIX — Investigators have determined that more than 100,000 veterans nationwide were kept off waiting lists for medical appointments, and Acting Veterans Affairs Secretary Sloan Gibson said the nation will learn Monday how many patients were relegated to "secret lists."
Looks like over 100,000 military men were "left behind" by ya'alls messiah, Obama...
During a news conference Thursday at the Carl T. Hayden Medical Center in Phoenix, where the VA medical scandal erupted, Gibson also disclosed that at least 18 Arizona veterans died while awaiting doctor appointments.
18 military men DIED because Obama "left them behind"....
So please.. Cut the bullshit. No one on the Left, ESPECIALLY Obama, gives a flying fuck about ANYONE in the military...
Cue the... IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!! hysteria... :^/
And, by the bi...
Obama's poll numbers are dropping like a lead weight in a pond...
Apparently, the American people are thinking the same thing I am thinking..
Obama is an incompetent amateur who is WAY over his head...
Michale
The best comment I've yet heard on one of the core issues that detractors are raising -- that if Bergdahl deserted his post, he wasn't worth rescuing or retrieving in any way -- came from Pentagon spokesman Admiral John Kirby: "When you're in the Navy, and you go overboard, it doesn't matter if you were pushed, fell, or jumped. We're going to turn the ship around and pick you up."
Yea??
And if you jumped ship to desert during a time of war and 14 sailors died in rough seas pulling your worthless ass out of the drink, guess what??
Yer NOT going to get a ticker-tape parade, complete with Ma and Pa Taliban in the Rose Garden with the President Of The United States..
Yer gonna be thrown in the brig, charged with desertion during war time and taken out, shot and THEN be thrown BACK overboard to feed the sharks..
THAT scenario is more analogous to the Bergiedahl situation than ANY ya'all have come up with..
Michale
And if you jumped ship to desert during a time of war and 14 sailors died in rough seas pulling your worthless ass out of the drink, guess what??
Of course, I don't mean, YOU personally CW... :D
I was speaking of the Admiral's fabled "you"...
Michale
Yer gonna be thrown in the brig, charged with desertion during war time and taken out, shot and THEN be thrown BACK overboard to feed the sharks..
That last part was just a pleasant fantasy of mine.. :D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out to ya'all that, in 2010 the Pentagon released a report of their investigation into the Bergehstahn disappearance..
The investigation concluded that the soldier DID, in fact, desert...
So, there is your investigation into the FACTS and there is the rendered conclusion..
Berghdahle is a deserter.
PERIOD...
"These are the facts of the case. And they are undisputed."
-Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN
Michale
The Obama Administration really has no depth for it's depravity when facing legitimate criticism..
Brandon Friedman, Deputy Assistance Secretary tweeted that the REAL soldiers who are speaking against Bergdhali are "psychopaths" and Bergendale walked away because of those "psychopaths" and lack of leadership..
Such accusations are ESPECIALLY depraved considering that it was one of the platoon leaders who was KILLED searching for this worthless deserter...
This Friedman loser is typical of the Obama Administration. Utterly and completely clueless as to what Military Service is all about...
Michale
"Leave no man behind" isn't a bumper sticker slogan to American armed service members. It isn't a matter of ethics. It isn't a matter of convenience. It isn't a matter of pragmatism. Its a matter of honor.
Soldiers are responsible for each other. They have a duty to complete the mission AND bring each other home.--And, unlike Congress, soldiers don't look for excuses to shirk their duty. Unlike politics honor means something to soldiers. Whatever Bergdahl may, or may not have done does not affect THEIR duty, and THEY understand that. Duty and honor are the reasons soldiers serve.
Torturing prisoners is not honorable. Summarily executing prisoners is not honorable. Forcibly retaining prisoners after a conflict has ended is not honorable. Claiming someone's a terrorist to deny them rights and THEN claiming they're POWs to deny them trials is not honorable.
Most of us who have already served are proud to have done so honorably, and simply take it for granted that those currently serving will do the same. As soldiers always have done.
There are plenty of pragmatic and legal arguments for leaving no man behind but the short, definitive reason for our armed services is simply that its their duty, and a matter of honor.--Everyone who's served knows that.
"Leave no man behind" isn't a bumper sticker slogan to American armed service members. It isn't a matter of ethics. It isn't a matter of convenience. It isn't a matter of pragmatism. Its a matter of honor.
Obama HAS no honor..
If he did, he would have ordered ST6 in 3 years ago to get this supposed hero...
Your point is refuted with facts..
I simply won't let you hide behind an Honor Code that you adhere to ONLY when it's politically expedient to do so..
To allow you to do this would dishonor EVERY soldier, sailor, airman and marine..
Bergsdalh is a deserter.
This is fact...
The safety and well-being of ANY soldier is NEVER a priority over the mission.
This is fact...
Obama compromised the mission by releasing 5 HVTs and war criminals..
This is fact....
All you have is semantics, empty rhetoric and messiah worship...
This is FACT....
Michale
Obama used Bergsdail to fade the heat from the VA scandal..
You remember the VA scandal?? Where Obama left hundreds of thousands of military men and women behind. Where dozens and dozens of those military men DIED because Obama left them behind...
Obama used Bergahli....
That is the anti-thesis of "honorable"...
Obama is not fit to be POTUS.
Michale
"Leave no man behind" isn't a bumper sticker slogan to American armed service members.
Yer absolutely right..
To REAL soldiers, REAL sailors, REAL airman and REAL marines, REAL military people like me, it's a way of life...
But to the Obama Administration and to those who support Obama??
It IS nothing but a bumper sticker.
An old and tired cliche that has no meaning in today's brave new world... An old and dated maxim to be used for political benefit and then as quickly discarded..
THAT is all "Leave no man behind" means to Obama and his supporters...
Michale
Obama's poll numbers continue to drop..
From 44.6 to 43.3.....
Looks like I actually might be right this time.. :D
Who woulda thunked it?? :D
Michale
Tell ya what..
Forget all the rhetoric from BOTH sides of the issues... Forget all of the facts that I have listed here..
Forget all of that and ask yourself ONE question...
How could Obama NOT know about the 2010 Pentagon report that listed Bergsdhalh as a deserter??
Only one of two possibilities exist..
1> Obama didn't know about Bergdinni listed as a deserter... That indicates a gross level of incompetence, even for THIS Administration.
or
2> Obama DID know about the Pentagon report but figured he could make it fly anyways.. THAT indicates such a gross mis-read of the American people as to approach the same level of incompetence as #1...
Either way, it makes Obama look utterly and grossly incompetent...
Michale
Would ya'all like to hear from REAL military people??
Of course you wouldn't, but here it is anyways..
A D-Day Veteran Politely Declines Obama Invitation
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/379738/d-day-veteran-politely-declines-obama-invitation-john-fund
Michale
“It’s not that we don’t want to respect the commander-in-chief. It’s just that he makes it so hard to do so.”
-Unknown D-Day Veteran
I couldn't possibly agree more with that exact sentiment..
Michale
Anytime anyone starts talking about "real" Americans or "real" soldiers its a safe bet they're a minority with delusions of grandeur.
For a self-professed "military expert" you don't seem to know squat about the military, Michale.
You don't have to like your commanders and you don't have to agree with them, but you respect their rank and follow their orders. "Real" soldiers do not disrespect their Commander In Chief. You can disagree and there're times and places you can protest, but "real" soldiers understand that protest and disagreement doesn't mean you disrespect your commanders, your service, or your country. The President represents the United States of America. Disrespect him and you disrespect America. The President is the Commander In Chief. Disrespect him and you disrespect the armed services. Once again, its a matter of duty and honor.--Yours and your fellow soldiers.--"Real" soldiers get that.
Now I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but unless the military has greatly changed since my day, the general attitude among real soldiers is bring Bergdahl home. Then try him and fry him.
P.S. Michale, Real soldiers don't denigrate the service of other veterans and service members by claiming they're not "real" soldiers.
And Obama didn't leave anyone behind in the VA scandal. Administrators falsified documents and Obama is doing something about it. That's leadership. Addressing problems instead of just trying to spin them the way Congress and the Republicans are. The way YOU are, Michale. You have zero interest in veterans. You're only concern is trying to use the problems to hash Obama instead of working to see the problems solved. The VA's issues predate Obama, are systemic, and are the fault of everyone.
"The buck stops here" doesn't mean that the President is responsible for CAUSING every problem. It means the President must accept responsibility for their existence and take responsibility for their solution.--But you wouldn't know about that, Michale, because THAT is leadership.
Now I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but unless the military has greatly changed since my day, the general attitude among real soldiers is bring Bergdahl home. Then try him and fry him.
I have no problem with bringing the scumbag deserter home to have him shot...
MY problem is that Obama released high level Taliban commanders, war criminals to do it...
You don't have to like your commanders and you don't have to agree with them, but you respect their rank and follow their orders. "Real" soldiers do not disrespect their Commander In Chief.
You mean, like YOU have done with President Bush?? :D
And Obama didn't leave anyone behind in the VA scandal. Administrators falsified documents and Obama is doing something about it.
Yea, he is doing something about it NOW...
Why wasn't he doing something about it BEFORE dozens of military men were left behind to die??
Answer: Because he doesn't care about the military...
As usual, your posts are long on rhetoric and messiah worship..
Yet, you don't bring ONE SINGLE FACT to the discussion..
Funny how that is, eh?? :D
Michale
And Michale,
No Officer worthy to be an officer makes judgments on whether soldiers are worth retrieving. But they have a duty to all to weigh the costs and risks associated with retrieval. Help may not get there soon, may nit get there in time, but it usually gets there. And if it doesn't it sure as hell isn't because soldiers aren't worth it!
I am constrained to point out that REAL Commander In Chiefs are WORTHY of respect.
Obama has proven time and time again that he is NOT worthy of respect, NOT fit to lead...
He ain't qualified to be a dog catcher...
Michale
No Officer worthy to be an officer makes judgments on whether soldiers are worth retrieving. But they have a duty to all to weigh the costs and risks associated with retrieval. Help may not get there soon, may nit get there in time, but it usually gets there. And if it doesn't it sure as hell isn't because soldiers aren't worth it!
Yea??
Tell that to the 14 soldiers that died because this scumbag deserted..
Where's THEIR Rose Garden meeting???
Obama used Berghdalli for political purposes... To fade the heat from all the military veterans that Obama left behind.
That is the ONLY REASON Obama wanted this Berghdahal...
You would THINK that Obama would have checked the FACTS before making such a big deal, eh??
But, just another reason why Obama is incompetent to lead...
Michale
Jon Stewart said it best...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltmuOOpxK-0
Obama fucked up... AGAIN...
No ifs, ands or buts about it..
Michale
Michael,
The things the voices in your head tell you do not determine reality. The detainees were not members if any uniformed armed service, there for they are not warriors, or war criminals. They were not convicted if any crimes, therefore they are not criminals if any sort.
We all know all you want to do us bash Obama I personally told you, years ago, when Bush was still President, that all indefinite detention, torture, kangaroo court military tribunals would accomplish is to ensure the suspected terrorists in our custody could never be tried or convicted.--Nkw since you find it so universally inappropriate to "blame Bush" for no other reason than Bush was to blame, I won't do that.--It isn't Obama's fault terrorists you think are high-level and high-risk were released, it's YOUR FAULT. Instead of just OBEYING THE LAW and prosecuting them, YOU had to go all Charles Bronson and take these into your own hands.--Well Mr Counterterrorism Military Expert, now, BECAUSE IF YOU they get to walk.
Instead of projecting onto President Obama what don't YOU show a little leadership? Act with honor for once. And simply admit your OWN responsibility and culpability? THAT'S something a "real" soldier would do.
Now I won't pretend to speak for everyone, but unless the military has greatly changed since my day, the general attitude among real soldiers is bring Bergdahl home. Then try him and fry him
OK.. Now we're getting somewhere...
So, you are of the opinion that we should rescue this deserter.
Bring him home...
Try him...
Then fry him...
OK, great.. We are 1000% in agreement here..
So, explain to me this..
WHY did Obama do an Osama Bin Laden victory lap around the Rose Garden for a deserter??
A deserter that we had to give up FIVE "Four Star Generals" to get back???
Don't you think that is... oh I dunno..
FRAKIN' STOOPID!!!????
Michale
The detainees were not members if any uniformed armed service, there for they are not warriors, or war criminals.
Uh... yes they are...
Two of the five are wanted by the UN for War Crimes...
Mullah Norullah Noori
As a senior Taliban military commander in Zabul Province.
Noori, who is estimated to be around 46 or 47 years old, has developed close ties to Taliban leader Mullah Omar and other senior Taliban officials, according to a JTF-GTMO report. Noori, who was named as the Taliban governor for the Balkh and Lagman provinces, is wanted by the United Nations for war crimes including the murder and torture of thousands of Shiite Muslims.
Mullah Mohammad Fazi
Fazi is an admitted senior commander who served as chief of staff of the Taliban Army and as a commander of its 22nd Division. He’s also wanted by the United Nations on war crimes for the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan.
You see, LD.. Here is your EXACT problem.
You can't see past your messiah devotion complex.. Your Obama Derangement Syndrome...
Tell ya what...
Why not come back here when you have FACTs to attack my positions with..
Because, to date, you are completely ZERO in the FACTS department..
Michale
Basically, I can predict practically EACH and every argument that comes from Weigantians...
It's either a noun, a verb and "Obama is the messiah" or it's a noun, a verb and "it's all Bush's fault"
So, I guess that will cover ya'alls comments from now until the mid-terms.. :D
Michale
Michale,
I understand that you're rule-of-law challenged but Bergdahl has not been convicted of desertion. Just as your terrorists have never been convicted of terrorism. Now after years of you proclaiming Obama broke the law! without a single indictment, much less impeachment, (You DO understand that impeachment means Congress pressing charges against the President don't you? If Republicans actually had ANY evidence of Obama breaking the law they would bring charges, impeachment. Republicans going on Fox News isn't even bringing charges, much less proof of guilt!) its no surprise to anyone that you proclaim Bergdahl guilty. But your opinions, entirely aside from the fact that whether Bergdahl deserted is irrelevant to our seeking his release, (yet another concept you appear to be incapable of appreciating,) are not facts. No conviction, no desertion. Its the American way. Google it.
We have no legal reason to hold the prisoners at Guantanamo. Your insistence that they're terrorist doesn't trump the law. They are not soldiers. Not POWs. We've already held them far longer than the law allows. Our conflict with Afghanistan ended years ago. The Taliban have not been the Afghan government for a decade. The Afghan government has been our partner for a decade. THERE IS NO WAR to justify holding "POWs" until the end of hostilities. There ARE NO "HOSTILITIES."
Obama got something in return for releasing captives we've no right to detain ANYWAY. Getting something for nothing is not giving in to terrorists.
In point of fact WE are just as guilty of terrorism, just as guilty of illegally seizing and falsely imprisoning as the "terrorists."
THAT'S what you REFUSE to let penetrate that rock sitting in your neck! There is NOTHING different about our behavior and the terrorists'. NOT ONE SINGLE THING. THEY claim WE are THEIR enemy and "terrorists," and not without some reason! WE claim THEY are our enemy and "terrorists," and with plenty of reason.
Its our militaries commitment to honor and duty that distinguishes them from Somali thugs and Al Queda terrorists. Not whether or not innocents are killed, but whether they are killed inadvertently, unavoidably, regrettably but necessarily. And as THAT is subjective it mostly depends on who wins, who gets to write the histories. But, not quite. If you don't behave honorably you cross the line into criminality.
We did that with indefinite detention and torture. When your belief that the ends justify the means leads you to go outside the law that should be a pretty big clue-stick that you're acting less than honorably. Especially when you've sworn an oath to protect the law, which EVERY armed service member swears.
You take an oath to honor the constitution and you DO NOT get to ignore the forth amendment just because you think someone's a terrorist. Because of Bush's creative counterterrorism now WE are terrorists and the terrorists we apprehended get to walk.
Honor requires you he able to face the truth. Even hard truths. You can't do that. Somewhere you lost either the desire or the ability to act honorably. Blaming Obama for everything and anything whether its try or not isn't honorable. Excusing Bush for everything whether its true or not isn't honorable. Condemning terrorists for doing the same things that you do for the same reasons that you do them isn't honorable.
It isn't enough to defend this nation simply by killing our enemies. We must defend our honor as well. We must do it honorably. Not just to maintain our moral authority but because the rule of law is a fragile thing and all the protection we have within this nation. We can't afford to break it. It'll do us no good to defend against external threats if we destroy ourselves from within doing it.
An America that kidnaps tortures and imprisons people at in secret at undisclosed black sites is an America in the process of not being America anymore. That is not defending the nation.--So, unlike you I've no problem with Obama releasing the captives. We made that inevitable fifteen years ago. Turning terrorist ourselves hasn't improved our security and isn't going to.
Michale [77],
Okay... Let me rephrase--They are not POWs because they are not members of an army that's existed in the last decade. And because we haven't been at war with the country they severed for over a decade.--You see Michale in order to be a POW there must still be a war in progress.
And the "criminal" part of "war criminal" means "convicted of a crime." It does NOT mean "supposedly wanted by the UN so we get to keep him in a cage instead of turning him over to them."
If the UN wants them they know where they are.
You see, Michale, THOSE little niggling details, would be what are called "facts."
Class dismissed.
You see, Michale,
If "wanted for war crimes" meant you're a war criminal then your heroes Bush and Cheney would be war criminals too! Luckily for them, though, trials and convictions are necessary.
So as long as they stay out of the countries who's courts want them they get to not be "war criminals!"
WOW....
3 comments and not a FACT to be found..
Just a lot of semantics and discussion of what the definition of 'is' is....
:D
"a noun, a verb it's all Bush's fault"
-LD
:D
Michale
If "wanted for war crimes" meant you're a war criminal then your heroes Bush and Cheney would be war criminals too! Luckily for them, though, trials and convictions are necessary.
Using your reasoning, your messiah Obama is ALSO a "war criminal"...
Are you SURE you want to go with that reasoning, LD?? :D
Michale
Signing statements are part of a statute's legislative history, not part of the statute itself. They may express correct opinions, or they may express incorrect opinions. Courts can take them into consideration just as they would consider statements by members of Congress and by citizens arguing for or against a bill while it's before Congress. If a question is nonjudiciable, then adding a piece of legislative history doesn't accomplish anything: the contention between the branches is just as it would be without the signing statement, or if the statute had been passed under a previous administration with a different opinion on the constitutionality of the provision.
I've been saying "statute" rather than "law". My take on the vocabulary is that no matter what's passed by Congress and signed by the president (or passed by veto override, or allowed to become law unsigned by the expiration of the time limit for veto), it's a statute: even if it's blatantly unconstitutional, ore pure gibberish. But Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or restricting the free exercise thereof, for example. If it passes a bill purporting to do something that would violate that restriction, that bill becomes a statute but the relevant aspect does not become law.
I don't really like prisoner swaps. Giving someone something they want, in exchange for the release of a hostage, is basically hiring them to take more hostages.
They may express correct opinions, or they may express incorrect opinions.
Is there any such thing AS "correct" or "incorrect" opinions??
By definition, opinions are not facts and really can't be right or wrong..
I don't really like prisoner swaps. Giving someone something they want, in exchange for the release of a hostage, is basically hiring them to take more hostages.
Exactly..
I see the short term value of such actions, but invariably the long term consequences are not pleasant to contemplate...
Michale
Is there any such thing AS "correct" or "incorrect" opinions?
Sort of. "Opinion" can refer to various things, from the written document provided by a court expressing its decision, to someone's attitude toward something that's purely a matter of taste. In this context, it's about non-authoritative legal questions: statements about the law, made by someone other than a court deciding a case. Such legal statements can be interpreted as nothing more than predictions about how courts will decide cases: on that reading, they're correct or incorrect, but not knowable with certainty until the courts actually make their decisions.
That's not my preferred understanding, though. I think words have meanings, and meanings have gray areas. If someone says the second amendment says "the right of the states to keep and bear arms", for example, they're incorrect. If they say it confers an absolute individual right to own nuclear ICBMs, again, they're incorrect. But on a lot of the nuances in between, there is no correct or incorrect substantive answer: the correct answer is that the amendment can reasonably be interpreted in any of several different ways, and it's the proper role of courts to decide among them with due consideration of various principles such as stare decisis. But a court's decision only creates case law: it doesn't change the text of the relevant statutes, regulations, and constitutions; and it doesn't appreciably change the natural-language meanings of the words in them.