Bergdahl Prisoner Swap:Obama Obeys ONLY the Laws He Wants To.

@parados,

Quote:

You can argue all day or the next 10 decades

You can defend Obama for eternity, Shill. It still doesn't change the act of treason perpetrated by the traitor in chief. Breaking laws is now old news when it comes to Obama.

This is an impeachable offense. It will remain an impeachable offense. And November could determine whether Republicans go for impeachment if they take the Senate.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

So, there is no national security interest when US soldiers die? That seems a rather outlandish statement to make.

An army of 550000 is then down by one, not statistically relevant.

Quote:

Your opinion doesn't count for much when it comes to national security

yes, what the people wanting not counting for much in America today is indeed a problem.

Quote:

The government makes those decisions.

in mine and all Americans name. We can always withdraw consent.

Quote:

The argument that US troops will be less safe in a war zone is ridiculous

LOgically it makes perfect sense, and this is one of the reasons the military is not liking this deal. Abusing prisoners at Abu GHraib also made our soldiers less safe, anything that gives opponents a reason to harm us soldiers makes our troops less safe

Quote:

US troops knowing they will be left to die if captured certainly has a security interest for the US.

I am pretty OK with letting soldiers who desert after denouncing the US rot, it will discourage the practice.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

I am pretty OK with letting soldiers who desert after denouncing the US rot, it will discourage the practice.

I think you are right. And I would bet the majority would feel the same way. Unless they want him shot. Either way, he was not worth a dime, and certainly not 5 killers or war criminals.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Your attitude is very relevant for morale. When you claim to be the one in charge and you claim you don't give a damn about individual soldiers they would see no reason to give a damn about your security.

1 Reply

@revelette2,

revelette2 wrote:

Bellinger said the particular detainees released couldn't be tried in a federal court for crimes of committing a federal act of terrorism. The two left were more than likely soldiers for the Taliban in some kind of way, the others were just picked up probably. I don't really know. I just know they are not AQ and that's the main point.

I'm glad you can easily distinguish between the organization that planned and executed 9/11 attack as well as numerous others, and the governing organization that provided them with safe-haven and material support.

George Bush was right:

“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” — George W. Bush, 9/20/01

These released prisoners will make every effort and contribution to restore the Taliban to the dictatorial, theocratic rulers of Afghanistan, and once they do, it will be a good bet that they will return to giving material support to our terrorist enemies. Perhaps not as blatantly as did before 9/11 but they will still the same.

Will these five tip the scales? Almost certainly not, but James Clapper and Leon Panetta both considered them sufficient risks to American security to reject the idea of an exchange when it was first surfaced.

In my opinion, it is not, at all, unreasonable to argue that the risk was worth taking to make good on our nation's commitment to not leave any warrior behind. I have a problem though with efforts to paint these men as essentially harmless has-beens, who will not present an appreciable risk. It's not that the risk was too great, but that it is being downplayed to justify the deal and the manner in which it was executed. Just as Bergdahl's health condition has been exaggerated to do the same thing.

This is not to say that you have been precisely doing what I have a problem with, but you certainly seem to be accepting of it.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

Advocate wrote:

I understand that Obama attached a "signing statement" to the bill that required the president to consult with congress before a prisoner release, which exempted himself from such requirement. See:

Signing statement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ronald Reagan, left, and George H. W. Bush; both presidents issued significant numbers of signing statements containing constitutional objections to laws passed by Congress.
A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN).

During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes. The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and has since been continued by the Obama administration.[1] In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[2]

The American Bar Association was absolutely correct in 2006 and I have yet to see a legal opinion from a respected legal expert that asserts that a "signing statement" exempts a president from the authority of any law.

I can accept a "signing statement" that indicates the President is not certain of the constitutionality of a given law, explains a reason for signing it, but reserves the right to challenge it on constitutional ground at a later date. (And by "challenge" I don't mean ignore.) Beyond this I am against them, no matter who the president might be.

The "Well Bush did it too!" avenue of argument is only applicable when discussing this matter with someone who believes Bush never made any mistakes or never deliberately did anything wrong. Otherwise it crumbles in the face of the historic admonition of mothers: "Two wrongs don't make a right."

I don't know anyone in this forum, including people who might consider themselves strong Bush supporters, who believe he was infallible. Any attempt to argue that Obama supporters agree with every action he has taken would be met with rejection, if not outrage, and rightly so.

And if you are going to insinuate hypocrisy ask yourself who was one of the most outspoken critics of Bush's use of "signing statements"?

Senator Barrack Obama.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

1.) So, there is no national security interest when US soldiers die? That seems a rather outlandish statement to make.

2.) Your opinion doesn't count for much when it comes to national security. The government makes those decisions. The argument that US troops will be less safe in a war zone is ridiculous. US troops knowing they will be left to die if captured certainly has a security interest for the US.

If anything is outlandish it is your argument that the recovery of Bergdahl was a matter of National Security. I don't think that even the White House is trying that excuse (but then it's still relatively early).

Are you seriously arguing that there aren't relative levels of safety even in a war zone?

That there was only one American soldier held as a prisoner in Afghanistan (and he, for whatever reason, walked into their clutches) is a pretty good indication that the Taliban hasn't been focused on capturing Americans. Now we have Time Magazine interview with a Taliban leader that indicates after this deal turned out so well for them that they are going to try it again.

Again, it's not unreasonable to argue that the risk of negotiating with terrorists (and yes the Taliban are terrorists) and freeing these five really bad guys is worth the benefit of retrieving a captured American warrior, but to attempt to dismiss the risk is intellectually dishonest.

In any case, if Hawkeye's opinion on National Security doesn't count for much then, certainly, neither does yours, so why don't you do us all a favor and spare us from it.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

In any case, if Hawkeye's opinion on National Security doesn't count for much then, certainly, neither does yours, so why don't you do us all a favor and spare us from it.

Until Obama is held accountable you will be listening to Parados and people like him. It will not make his actions any less abhorrent to Americans. But you won't hear them over the media and the internet posse they belong to unless there is someone to tell them they are full of ****. Not to mention destroying this country.

0 Replies

Quote:

Ayatollah Khamenei: Obama doesn’t have guts for a military attack

Looks like Obama has already emboldened our enemies with his recent blunder.

Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/06/06/ayatollah-khamenei-obama-doesnt-guts-military-attack/#V8hujjbfQcCI9wmG.99

0 Replies

Quote:

Moral narcissism creates an atmosphere of dishonesty bizarrely similar to Islamic taqqiya. In Islam, the believer is permitted to lie to the non-believer because the believer has the greater truth. For the moral narcissist, lies becomes truth in almost the same manner. Some like Dan Rather (a moral narcissist par excellence) could thus pronounce the Bush National Guard papers real when anyone with an IQ in triple digits could see that they were fake. They felt real to Dan. And, crucially, that made him feel good about himself.

In the Bergdahl affair, what really was operative in the prisoner swap was Barack Obama’s feelings about himself. Never mind that Bergdahl may have been a deserter whose sympathies were with the enemy. Never mind that many U.S. servicemen had already been killed attempting to rescue him. Never mind that the five released prisoners were all likely to resume their lives of terror as soon as possible, murdering who knows how many more people. And never mind that the release of the terrorists would only encourage the Taliban to kidnap more hostages. What mattered was how Barack perceived himself.

He (Obama)is a clear danger to this country and its future.

http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2014/06/05/obama-bergdahl-moral-narcissism/2/

1 Reply

Very interesting development.

We've learned that the CIA was interested in Sgt Bergdahl's captivity and engaged a private contractor to monitor him through their assets in Afghanistan.

According to the reports from this contractor, Bergdahl attempted to escape from the Taliban more than once, during the early period of his captivity, and on one occasion his attempt resulted in him being caged for an unspecified period of time.

Also according to these reports, towards the end of his captivity, Bergdahl converted to Islam, pronounced himself a “mujahid,” or warrior for Islam, and was perceived to be acting friendly with the Taliban and they too with him. He was even allowed to carry and fire an AK-47 (in practice).

How accurate may we believe these reports to be??

To my mind, the fact than the owner of the private firm Duane R. Clarridge was previously indicted for lying to congress (but pardoned by Bush Sr) doesn't have an impact on the question. The CIA had used his firm for years and they must have found it reliable enough to use it more than once.

These clandestine actions are always murky though and there certainly is no assurance that they are completely accurate, but it seems doubtful that the reports were totally fabricated.

What do the reports tell us or suggest?

To me they go towards discounting any assertion that Bergdahl was a collaborator, or at least that deserted with the intent to join the Taliban.

The fact that he tried to escape and was at first treated roughly by the Taliban can support the notion that toward the end of his captivity he either fell into a Stockholm Syndrome state, or assumed a role which he believed would earn him better treatment and a better chance of surviving. I would bet on the former. We know it happens and it seems a more likely explanation than he was acting a part. If he had tried to escape again once he obtained greater freedom, I would believe he was consciously playing a role; but he didn't. In any case, I don't think we can fairly criticize him for having what amounts to an emotional/mental breakdown and coming out "brainwashed" on the other end, even if it led to him collaborating with the Taliban. Whatever we expect of our soldiers, we shouldn't expect them to be supermen with psyches made of steel. I don't know how the Military will treat him as respects whatever he may have done while suffering Stockholm Syndrome, but I would hope it would not be very harshly.

Of course it's possible that his conversion and any subsequent acts of collaboration were done freely and without emotional/mental duress, but, obviously, it will require questioning of the man himself to make this determination. I would imagine that to some extent, this questioning is going on right now in the German hospital in which he resides.

Bottom line, for me, is that these reports do not provide convincing evidence of "intentional" collaboration and actually do provide evidence that helps Bergdahl's case whether in terms of military law or public opinion. I don't, however, think they add anything to the question of whether or not he deserted.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I would imagine that to some extent, this questioning is going on right now in the German hospital in which he resides.

He isn't in a German hospital but in the Landstuhl Regional Military Center, the largest American hospital outside the United States (for 52,000 local American military personnel and their families and for more than 250,000 additional American military personnel and their families in Europe), commanded by Col. Judith Lee, Nurse Corps.

1 Reply

Additional Interesting Developments

The Administration has now decided to change their story and claim that the reason they couldn't tell congress about the planned exchange was that the Taliban had threatened to kill Bergdahl if it was made public.

This is pathetic on a number of counts.

First of all what possible reason would the Taliban have to insist on such secrecy that if violated they would kill Bergdahl and queer a great deal that was right within their grasp. It makes no sense.

Secondly, as Saxby Chambliss has argued, the Administration trusted him and Dianne Feinstein with advance knowledge (something like four months in advance) of the bin-Laden raid and there were no leaks and that, arguably, was a much more crucial endeavor.

Finally, even if this is not BS, why didn't they come right out and say it when they announced the deal? Why the nonsense about his health? They sound like a little kid caught in a lie who keeps trying to get himself out of trouble.

The Taliban released a video of the prisoner exchange a couple of days ago.

I have watched this video at least a dozen times and found no reason to believe that Bergdahl was in serious, let alone life threatening, physical condition. He does a lot of blinking but that could be due to either his being blindfolded or drugged, and he stumbles a bit as he is led to the helicopter. Stumbles, not collapses, not pitches forward, not being unable to walk without support.

Of course there is the possibility that he simply didn't display, in the video, symptoms of his life threatening condition, but it's telling that the Proof of Life video the Administration just showed congress as proof of his poor health was viewed with the same skepticism by members of congress from both sides of the aisle.

BTW - The Proof of Life video was taken some four months before the exchange and is what the Administration says convinced them that Berdahl's health was critical. So critical that they couldn't waste any time notifying congress, but apparently not so critical that the exchange couldn't wait another four months. This what probably explains the pathetic shift in excuse to "The Taliban would have killed him if we notified you!"

Last night Megan Kelly had an "exclusive" (she reminded viewers of how exclusive it was about 100 times!) interview with 6 of his former fellow servicemen. All of these men were composed, articulate, and in agreement.

All of them believe, without a doubt, that Bergdahl deserted.

All of them believe he should be given a fair military trial.

None of them felt there was enough evidence to conclude that Bergdahl had collaborated with the Taliban.

None of them believe there is enough evidence to be certain that anyone died as a result of searching for Bergdahl, although some believe that men did die as a result.

None of them believe the deal should have been made.

In addition, none of them impugned Bergdahl, beyond the charge of desertion. There were no angry rants about him or his family. There were no expressions that any of them wished he had rotted in a Taliban cage or that he now should die or rot in a military prison.

Most interesting was the surprise they expressed upon seeing the e-mails Bergdahl sent to his parents (published by Rolling Stone) expressing dissatisfaction with the mission of his unit. These e-mail have given people the impression that Bergdahl expected his time in Afghanistan to be spent on "helping" the people of Afghanistan and that he was frustrated and dissatisfied that he wasn't doing enough of this.

Very surprisingly, the men interviewed last night all said that it was the exact opposite; that he was frustrated and dissatisfied because there wasn't enough action; that there was too much time spent on winning "hearts & minds."

I can't see any reason why they would lie about this, and it is a startling revelation since it turns upside down the accepted narrative that Bergdahl was upset that he wasn't getting a chance to help the Afghan people, that if he deserted it was because he cared too much and wasn't enough of a macho warrior - a psycho like the other men (as one Administration official has suggested).

It's possible that his expressed desire for more combat was a way to hide his fear of it, and his desertion was based on reluctance to fight rather than too much fighting, but none of the six men ever even remotely questioned his courage.

This certainly upends the notion that Bergdahl was too sensitive a young man to serve in a military he was misguided and misled to believe serving was all about helping people.

If he was misled, it appears that to him it was about how much fighting he would be involved in. This could explain the otherwise contradictory fact that he wanted to join the French Foreign Legion. Maybe he wasn't looking to be an ersatz member of the Peace Corps, maybe he was looking to be a badass.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

That there was only one American soldier held as a prisoner in Afghanistan (and he, for whatever reason, walked into their clutches)

True there was only one. That he "walked into their clutches" is simply you making **** up. You talk about outlandish statements and then claim he walked into their clutches without any evidence of how and when he was captured by the Taliban.

The Taliban are terrorists? They were the ruling government in Afghanistan when we invaded. Under international law they would be returned at the end of hostilities. The US is leaving Afghanistan. We would have no valid reason to hold them. They were not accused of a crime that would cause them to be held.

Since my statement that there is some national security interest in having our soldiers returned has no value then your statement that any such claim is outlandish is of no value either since it would imply there is no national interest in the return of our soldiers at the end of a conflict.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Thank you.

How this is important I can't say, but I should have written "...right now in the hospital in Germany in which he resides."

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Maybe there is too many speculating on maybes.

1 Reply

I think Bowe 's will be an interesting court-martial,
unless obama gives him a pardon first.

0 Replies

You claim to be a legal expert, Shill. Here are a few you can enlighten us on.

Quote:

IMPEACH AND ARREST THE TYRANT KING OBAMA!

Quote:

Barack Hussein Obama is in direct violation of 18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists as a result of the removal of five Taliban GITMO detained terrorists and the transfer OF them to the government of Qatar where they, according to the specified arrangement negotiated BY Obama that they only be keep from traveling for a period of one year.

According TO 18 U.S. Code § 2339A:

18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists

(a) Offense.— “Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section 32, 37, 81, 175, 229, 351, 831, 842 (m) or (n), 844 (f) or (i), 930 (c), 956, 1091, 1114, 1116, 1203, 1361, 1362, 1363, 1366, 1751, 1992, 2155, 2156, 2280, 2281, 2332, 2332a, 2332b, 2332f, 2340A, or 2442 of this title, section 236 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2284), section 46502 or 60123 (b) of title 49, or any offense listed in section 2332b (g)(5)(B) (except for sections 2339A and 2339B) or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act…”

That being the willful and deliberate potential violation of up to some 43 separate sections of a written and standing law.

Further more…

To examine in detail the specific nature of Barack Hussein Obama’s grievous violations of the law 18 U.S. Code § 2339A, we must seek clarification of and for the definition OF said Providing material support to terrorists.

ARREST 2(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—

(1) “the term ‘material support or resources’ means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;

(2)” the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and

(3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.”

For FURTHER clarification… “personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself) ”as seen in the above definition.

It continues. See link.
http://www.thenationalpatriot.com/2014/06/04/impeach-and-arrest-the-tyrant-king-obama/

Bergdahl Prisoner Swap:Obama Obeys ONLY the Laws He Wants To.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know