News Republicans demand hearings over soldier's release

[Rochard]

Army Sergeant was released this weekend, swapped for five worthless pieces of shit that had no value to us. And now the Republicans are saying this was illegal?

They claim the President had to give Congress thirty day notice? Where is that a law, and why is that a law?

Seems this Army Sergeant might have just walked off post and more or less turned himself into the Taliban there...

Thoughts? Comments?

[Rochard]

Oh... Here is the article I was mentioning really....

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0ED26X20140603

[crockett]

Well it's obvious there is nothing productive that Congress could be doing, so this seems to be the best usage of tax dollars. I really wonder how in-between endless bitching and moaning about Benghazi and Obamacare, that they can find the time to whine and Mcomplain about a US solder held prisoner for 5 years getting released.

It's not like they could be doing anything productive on the average $174 thousand they get paid each year.. Not to mention all the money we pay for their travels, food, living expenses and their countless staffers..

Nope this is obviously the best use of tax payer money..

[Axeman]

Why shouldn't they? There is serious doubt that he was a POW, and didn't abandon post, before being caught. 6 troops died in trying locate and retrieve him after his possible desertion.

They traded 5 "high level" detainees from Gitmo in exchange of him.

The law was part of the 2013 defense law, which was signed by Obama. He also signed a signing statement (which he campaigned against using) to say he believes he has flexibility.

A hearing is absolutely legitimate here. Maybe they find everything checks out, maybe they don't. But more than enough reasons to initiate a hearing to find out.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Axeman

Why shouldn't they? There is serious doubt that he was a POW, and didn't abandon post, before being caught. 6 troops died in trying locate and retrieve him after his possible desertion.

They traded 5 "high level" detainees from Gitmo in exchange of him.

The law was part of the 2013 defense law, which was signed by Obama. He also signed a signing statement (which he campaigned against using) to say he believes he has flexibility.

A hearing is absolutely legitimate here. Maybe they find everything checks out, maybe they don't. But more than enough reasons to initiate a hearing to find out.

He was an American soldier, end of story. You get him home then deal with any issues that pertain to his service agreement. John McComplain is just a pampas jerkoff whom has long ago over used his POW status.. He should just go retire and quit acting like a bag of dicks.

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by crockett

He was an American soldier, end of story. You get him home then deal with any issues that pertain to his service agreement. John McComplain is just a pampas jerkoff whom has long ago over used his POW status.. He should just go retire and quit acting like a bag of dicks.

You desert the army in war, its not end of story. Not when it involves turning over 5 "high level" threat detainees.

You think its end of story. Doesn't make it so to all.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Axeman

You desert the army in war, its not end of story. Not when it involves turning over 5 "high level" threat detainees.

You think its end of story. Doesn't make it so to all.

Do you read much or just the first half of a sentence?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Axeman

Why shouldn't they? There is serious doubt that he was a POW, and didn't abandon post, before being caught. 6 troops died in trying locate and retrieve him after his possible desertion.

If he was kidnapped or if he deserted his post doesn't matter. He was in fact in the US Army. If he was kidnapped he needed to be found. If he deserted his post and turned himself in, we would still need to find him and return him to the US and then try him.

Originally Posted by Axeman

They traded 5 "high level" detainees from Gitmo in exchange of him.

But a "high level" detainee has zero value to us at this point. We've pumped all of the information we can pump them with.

Originally Posted by Axeman

The law was part of the 2013 defense law, which was signed by Obama. He also signed a signing statement (which he campaigned against using) to say he believes he has flexibility.

Can you put up a link to this law and explain how it applies here? A few searches turned up nothing specific.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Axeman

You desert the army in war, its not end of story. Not when it involves turning over 5 "high level" threat detainees.

You think its end of story. Doesn't make it so to all.

So you are saying that we don't need to find him? We don't need to bring him back? He shouldn't face charges? We shouldn't hang him?

Shouldn't we move heaven and earth just to find him from a security perspective - he might have information the Taliban want and even after five years, be it a kidnapping or a deseration, we should do everything to get him back.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by crockett

He was an American soldier, end of story. You get him home then deal with any issues that pertain to his service agreement. John McComplain is just a pampas jerkoff whom has long ago over used his POW status.. He should just go retire and quit acting like a bag of dicks.

This is something I don't understand... McCain was a POW. (They beat the shit out of him.) Wouldn't he want to everything in the world to recover a US service man from the enemy, no matter what the circumstances?

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by Rochard

If he was kidnapped or if he deserted his post doesn't matter. He was in fact in the US Army. If he was kidnapped he needed to be found. If he deserted his post and turned himself in, we would still need to find him and return him to the US and then try him.

Certainly don't argue with this. Just in the means to getting it done. Or least I got pauses/concerns.

Originally Posted by Rochard

But a "high level" detainee has zero value to us at this point. We've pumped all of the information we can pump them with.

Agreed the info likely been extracted. But I'm not sure I like the ramifications of putting them back in the hands of the Taliban where they can rejoin the fight. Especially a 5 for 1 trade.

Originally Posted by Rochard

Can you put up a link to this law and explain how it applies here? A few searches turned up nothing specific.

Among other complications, there was a potential legal obstacle: Congress has imposed statutory restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay. The statutes say the secretary of defense must determine that a transfer is in the interest of national security, that steps have been taken to substantially mitigate a future threat by a released detainee, and that the secretary notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of his determination.

In this case, the secretary, Chuck Hagel, acknowledged in a statement that he did not notify Congress ahead of time. When Mr. Obama signed a bill containing the latest version of the transfer restrictions into law, he issued a signing statement claiming that he could lawfully override them under his executive powers.

?The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,? he wrote in the signing statement, adding that if the restrictions ?operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.?

An administration official said the circumstances of a fast-moving exchange deal made it appropriate to act outside the statutory framework for transfers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us...y-taliban.html

I lean 65-70% towards not liking the way they handled the transfer for him. Especially if he deserted his post during war. But a hearing should answer a lot of questions, and maybe at the end, I fall on the other side of supporting it.

[MK Ultra]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/us/bow...html?hpt=hp_t2

One controversy here is a U.S. law that requires the administration to give Congress notice 30 days before releasing any detainees from the military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

Even CNN agrees the law was broken
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...e-law.cnn.html

But I don't expect anything to happen, this administration seems to only obey the law when it is in their interest to do so. ;)

anybody else getting a weird vibe about the circumstances of this whole thing?

[blackmonsters]

It will end just like the rest of the repub bullshit since 2008 : a big flop of stupid shit.

[crockett]

Maybe next time we should trade John McCain. Then he can sit back and wait for congress to agree on how he should be returned..

[crockett]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

It will end just like the rest of the repub bullshit since 2008 : a big flop of stupid shit.

Really 2008 seems to be the point that the Right went bat shit fucking crazy. They used to support all kinds of things that they now rage and complain about. Prior to 2008 most Republicans agreed that global climate change was a real thing..

It's like soon as 2008 hit they all went fucking mental. They were just war mongrels and dick heads prior, then they all went bat shit crazy.

[crockett]

Oh, never-mind I realize what it was.. 2008-09 was when the Tea Party started their rallies.. That's when crazy was unleashed.. It would be funny if it wasn't so fucking sad.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by MK Ultra

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/02/us/bow...html?hpt=hp_t2



Even CNN agrees the law was broken
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...e-law.cnn.html

But I don't expect anything to happen, this administration seems to only obey the law when it is in their interest to do so. ;)

anybody else getting a weird vibe about the circumstances of this whole thing?

You can say that every administration has violated the law. And you might just be right.

I read some there that this has been in the works for months. If that is the case, was Congress aware of it?

[MediaGuy]

Seems he deserted as a protest, but got caught by the Taliban.

What's the big deal? Reagan gave thousands of missiles to IRAN in exchange for a few boys - who poofed their butts over that?

:D

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Axeman

Certainly don't argue with this. Just in the means to getting it done. Or least I got pauses/concerns.

Agreed the info likely been extracted. But I'm not sure I like the ramifications of putting them back in the hands of the Taliban where they can rejoin the fight. Especially a 5 for 1 trade.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us...y-taliban.html

I lean 65-70% towards not liking the way they handled the transfer for him. Especially if he deserted his post during war. But a hearing should answer a lot of questions, and maybe at the end, I fall on the other side of supporting it.

The hearing doesn't seem to be about if this guy deserted his post, the hearing seems to be if the President violated the law in releasing those prisoners. Early indications are that the president did in fact break the law.

At the same time the White House says:

"On Monday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough defended the administration's handling of the negotiations, saying Congress had known for years of negotiations for Bergdahl's release, including the possibility that detainees might be released."

And if any such law was broken, is this like a traffic ticket or will they take this to impeachment? Is this going to be the Republican party making a mountain out of molehill? You have to admit, the Monica crap was pure bullshit.

At the same time I was surprised the US "negotiated with terrorists". We don't do this, and I feel let down. Even more so knowing this might not have been kidnapped.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Seems he deserted as a protest, but got caught by the Taliban.

What's the big deal? Reagan gave thousands of missiles to IRAN in exchange for a few boys - who poofed their butts over that?

:D

..but..but Reagan was a Jesus loving super hero and Obama.. well he's a black Democrat. Totally different and if you don't agree you are a commie loving fags.. Oh yea you dirty LIBERAL!!!

[Axeman]

Originally Posted by Rochard

At the same time the White House says:



And if any such law was broken, is this like a traffic ticket or will they take this to impeachment? Is this going to be the Republican party making a mountain out of molehill? You have to admit, the Monica crap was pure bullshit.

At the same time I was surprised the US "negotiated with terrorists". We don't do this, and I feel let down. Even more so knowing this might not have been kidnapped.

Oh I'd be shocked if they tried impeachment. Though after November if they control both the House and Senate, then all bets are off. But then again, chances are the President would start walking a straighter line if he had real threat of impeachment.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Rochard

You can say that every administration has violated the law. And you might just be right.

I read some there that this has been in the works for months. If that is the case, was Congress aware of it?

John McComplain probably wasn't invited to the committee, so he's trowing a temper tantrum.

[Joshua G]

Originally Posted by Rochard

At the same time I was surprised the US "negotiated with terrorists". We don't do this, and I feel let down. Even more so knowing this might not have been kidnapped.

its always been a grand fraud that the US does not negotiate with terrorists. Even bush, who coined the phrase, negotiated with sunni tribes (i mean terrorists) to establish awakening councils to root out the terrorists.

wasn't yasir arafat at the white house once?

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Axeman

Oh I'd be shocked if they tried impeachment. Though after November if they control both the House and Senate, then all bets are off. But then again, chances are the President would start walking a straighter line if he had real threat of impeachment.

I wouldn't be surprised at all. The Republican party slogan seems to be "beat Obama at all costs".

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

So you are saying that we don't need to find him? We don't need to bring him back? He shouldn't face charges? We shouldn't hang him?

Shouldn't we move heaven and earth just to find him from a security perspective - he might have information the Taliban want and even after five years, be it a kidnapping or a deseration, we should do everything to get him back.

I would not risk lives to try a deserter.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

Reagan gave thousands of missiles to IRAN in exchange for a few boys -

:D

You're confusing the Iran Crisis with the Iran Contra, they were 5 years apart. I know, I was off the coast punching holes in the ocean during the Iran Crisis.

[Vendzilla]

As far as the OP, it has been the long standing resolve of presidents past that

The US does not negotiate with terrorists!

Now it's Obama negotiates with Presidents.

This is not good, now they will think any prisoner they get is worth the absolute worse terrorist we have. I mean we gave them 5 for 1?

What does this say about all those school girls that just got kid napped, are we to pay them to get them back?

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I wouldn't be surprised at all. The Republican party slogan seems to be "beat Obama at all costs".

You're being an asshole for calling this a partisan thing.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by baddog

I would not risk lives to try a deserter.

So you are just willing to throw away a Soldier biased on hearsay and media reports rather than give him his day in court? The simple fact is he is an American Soldier until he is honorably or dishonorably discharged.

[crockett]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You're being an asshole for calling this a partisan thing.

Of course..

[crockett]

Wait you say this..

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

As far as the OP, it has been the long standing resolve of presidents past that

The US does not negotiate with terrorists!

Now it's Obama negotiates with Presidents.

This is not good, now they will think any prisoner they get is worth the absolute worse terrorist we have. I mean we gave them 5 for 1?

What does this say about all those school girls that just got kid napped, are we to pay them to get them back?

Then you say this. Something seems ironic..but I'm sure you wont figure it out, because it's different when YOU do it.

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You're being an asshole for calling this a partisan thing.

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

What does this say about all those school girls that just got kid napped, are we to pay them to get them back?

Who are you referring to when you say "we"?

[AsianDivaGirlsWebDude]

I'm sure Bowe Bergdahl is being thoroughly "debriefed", and will have to account for his actions.



ADG

[baddog]

Originally Posted by crockett

So you are just willing to throw away a Soldier biased on hearsay and media reports rather than give him his day in court? The simple fact is he is an American Soldier until he is honorably or dishonorably discharged.

I do not recall saying that.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by baddog

I would not risk lives to try a deserter.

But you are missing a lot of steps here....

We don't know if he was a deserter, and if he was he need to be found to protect our internal security - imagine having a traitor with his knowledge working for the other side. Even if he was only an E5 or whatever, he still has a lot of knowledge of operational security, etc, how things are done. And if he was a deserter he is now a criminal and we should pursue him until he is caught.

Your logic is "he is a deserter, let's just let him go". It doesn't work that way. You don't just desert the Army in combat zone, go over the enemy, and the US military and the US government forgets about it.

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

But you are missing a lot of steps here....

We don't know if he was a deserter, and if he was he need to be found to protect our internal security - imagine having a traitor with his knowledge working for the other side. Even if he was only an E5 or whatever, he still has a lot of knowledge of operational security, etc, how things are done. And if he was a deserter he is now a criminal and we should pursue him until he is caught.

Your logic is "he is a deserter, let's just let him go". It doesn't work that way. You don't just desert the Army in combat zone, go over the enemy, and the US military and the US government forgets about it.

No, you said . . .

Originally Posted by Rochard

So you are saying that we don't need to find him? We don't need to bring him back? He shouldn't face charges? We shouldn't hang him?

Shouldn't we move heaven and earth just to find him from a security perspective - he might have information the Taliban want and even after five years, be it a kidnapping or a deseration, we should do everything to get him back.

. . . implying that because he WAS a deserter this needed to be done. I was only saying that if we knew 100% he was a deserter I would not risk lives on getting him back; security perspective or not. That's what cruise missiles are for.

I was not judging his guilt, I don't know enough to pass judgement. I do think this was a political ploy on Obama's part though.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by baddog

No, you said . . .



. . . implying that because he WAS a deserter this needed to be done. I was only saying that if we knew 100% he was a deserter I would not risk lives on getting him back; security perspective or not. That's what cruise missiles are for.

I was not judging his guilt, I don't know enough to pass judgement. I do think this was a political ploy on Obama's part though.

Your logic here is "Someone disappears from guard duty on a military base in a combat zone" and our response is "not our problem". Thankfully this is not how our military works.

What you don't seem to understand is that no matter what happened, this man was a liability. He had inside knowledge of security details, information about troop deployments, upcoming operations, and details on past operations - And we needed to prevent him from giving out any details.

My god.... When a criminal shoots and kills someone one we don't say "We aren't going to risk any officers trying to find him".

[pr0phet]

The timing is just so odd. Why the sudden rush?

[TCLGirls]

Originally Posted by pr0phet

The timing is just so odd. Why the sudden rush?

Actually, its been worked on for a number of years.

[blackmonsters]

Repubs want Obama to step down which only means Biden will be president.

[mopek1]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

You're confusing the Iran Crisis with the Iran Contra, they were 5 years apart. I know, I was off the coast punching holes in the ocean during the Iran Crisis.

Iran Contra did have government sell weapons to Iran for money of course but also hoping to have some prisoners released.

[mopek1]

I have to say that on the surface the trade doesn't look great but the fact is that we DON'T KNOW very much at all about the situation and doubt we ever will. The military and government never disclose everything.

[bronco67]

I was listening to some idiots on Fox news try their best to connect dots of this trade back to Obama being a bad president. I actually started laughing after about 5 minutes of their horseshit.

and Republicans need to check on how many detainees Bush released. They seem to have their own history on every subject, whether it's spending, the debt, the deficit, executive orders, prisoner releases, etc. They can really all just suck a dick with their fake outrage about everything Obama does. It's been transparent for years now. All they want to do is have hearings because they're not going to do anything else.

and the same GFY conservative parrots will fall into line on the issue. haha I just looked and saw Vendzilla has posted something entirely predictable. Any one of us should be happy that an American soldier is home, regardless of how he was captured...or not captured. Put politics aside for once.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Maybe, if the Congress stopped trying to micromanage the US Military the Congress would have the time to address some of their domestic legislation duties which they are negligent in performing.

The Commander in Chief and the Defense Secretary are responsible for military decisions.

What would have you preferred -- that we continue feed and house a few dirtballs in Gitmo that could have been traded for a GI held hostage by Jihadists? We could have left Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to rot in Afghanistan -- would that have been preferable?

Gitmo is a long standing political failure. A good number of the Jihadists or Terrorists in Gitmo are political prisoners of war if there is such a designation. There is an international precedent of releasing these sort of prisoners for soldiers held captive as hostages. The terrorists want their "hostages" we hold at Gitmo back too. The Gitmo detainees are little better than baseball cards to be traded -- after years the Gitmo detainees are dead meat -- they will always be suspect of being brainwashed under years of prison camp detainment in outdoor cellblocks made of fenced in "cages' by the Americans. So George and Dick you can claim "Mission Accomplished" one that one I guess.

We could do the unthinkable and have mass executions without trial, summary executions, at Gitmo. Then there would be no exchanges to be made like this -- would you prefer this?

Congress should grow up and STFU up already -- this exchange is far from a treasonable action and a decision made under difficult circumstances.

[tony286]

a few things the article states: "were accusations by some soldiers that the Idaho native was a deserter who cost the lives of several comrades." This doesnt mean shit, it doesnt say he was accused by the military.
Irancontra was treason, congress would not give Reagan anymore money for the Contras. So they sold arms to the iran who were under an embargo. That was impeachable offense.
Makes obama shit look like spitting in the street lol.

[L-Pink]

Originally Posted by AsianDivaGirlsWebDude

I'm sure Bowe Bergdahl is being thoroughly "debriefed", and will have to account for his actions.



ADG

I'm a little surprised he didn't make himself look more "military like" before meeting the President.


.

[dyna mo]

the issue of negotiating/not negotiating with terrorists dates back to our founding fathers, this isn't just a modern day dilemma, it's age old. Jefferson was actually the first president to draw the line.

refer back to the late 18th century and the Barbary pirates of North Africa. These criminal groups were not governments, although when they captured merchant ships and successfully obtained ransoms, the booty and the vessels were often turned over to rulers in Algeria, Tripoli, Morocco and Tunis.

After achieving independence, the United States assumed responsibilities for protecting its own ships from the pirates, a duty that had previously been handled by the British and, in some circumstances, the French. In 1784, Congress appropriated about $80,000 as a tribute to the Barbary nations, in the hopes that this would protect American ships. But the following years, Algerians captured two American vessels and demanded a $60,000 ransom. Thomas Jefferson, then the ambassador to France, vehemently opposed paying, but the American government launched into negotiations for ransom with the Barbary nations that were engaged in this form of terrorism. Indeed, in 1795 alone, the United States paid in excess of $1 million in cash and assets to free sailors captured by pirates.

When Jefferson took over the presidency, he refused to pay any more, a decision that ultimately led to war with the Barbary states. Eventually, during Jefferson’s term, a treaty ended the conflict—but it included a $60,000 payment to the ruler of Algiers for each American held hostage.

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by bronco67

and the same GFY conservative parrots will fall into line on the issue. haha I just looked and saw Vendzilla has posted something entirely predictable. Any one of us should be happy that an American soldier is home, regardless of how he was captured...or not captured. Put politics aside for once.

Hey Shit for Brains, he was listed as a deserter. He went under the fence with a change of clothes and a cell phone.

President Obama signed a law that said he had to give a 30 day notice to congress before he could release gitmo prisoners.

You are such a dumb fucking CUNT, always siding with the president no matter what fuck up he did, I bet you are even siding with him over the VA scandal that left a lot of vets dead waiting in line for treatment, something that Obama promised to fix in his campaign speeches in 2008.

Your a fucking troll with no sense of any truth, only that you are in praise of this asshole!

Go ahead fucktard, answer that? Give me a reason why Obama is not responsible for that?

[Vendzilla]

This whole thing makes me sick, by giving up 5 top leaders of the Taliban for one of our deserters, we have empowered the Taliban and all terrorist. Anything that any president has done in the past like this has little to do with it, because of this being made so public.......

[2MuchMark]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Army Sergeant was released this weekend, swapped for five worthless pieces of shit that had no value to us. And now the Republicans are saying this was illegal?

They claim the President had to give Congress thirty day notice? Where is that a law, and why is that a law?

Seems this Army Sergeant might have just walked off post and more or less turned himself into the Taliban there...

Thoughts? Comments?

I fucking hate asshole republican lawmakers like these. They do fuck-all except obstruct the government in every possible way, regardless of who they hurt.