US Soldier Bowe Berghdahl freed from Taliban in prisoner exchange

#353
#353
Nothing officially on Reuters, but throwing this out there just in case:

Traded Taliban leaders free to roam in Middle East? Claim undercuts Obama assurance | Fox News

President Obama's claim Tuesday that the U.S. would "be keeping eyes" on five hardened Taliban leaders traded for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl's freedom was immediately challenged by a Middle East official quoted as saying they'd actually be allowed to move freely -- and even "go back to Afghanistan if they want to."

The source, identified as a senior Gulf official, reportedly told Reuters that the five Taliban members would not be treated like prisoners while staying in Qatar, where they were released. Rather, they'd be allowed to "move around freely" in the country and then be allowed to travel outside Qatar after one year.
Click to expand...

Taking bets on how long they will stay in Qatar?
 
#355
#355
hog88 said:
fyp
Click to expand...


I agree with your correction, I'm just not putting much weight in that 30 day notice issue, given all the circumstances.

To me, over time, the questions will be: 1) what happened to the five Taliban? Are we comfortable saying they are not in process of attacking us? and 2) what's the complete, true story, behind Bergdahl's capture?
 
#356
#356
lawgator1 said:
How so? Article predates this by a month and says its been discussed for awhile.
Click to expand...

<sigh>

Discussed for over two years. So don't backtrack on the fact that yes, it was discussed (nobody argues that point) and yes, Congress was aware it was on the table (nobody argues that point).

But still Congress was NOT notified of the exchange as required (which I think you won't argue either).
 
#357
#357
Abe Hoffman said:
I agree that Obama did not comply with the letter of the law. Congress, however, was well aware of what was going down.
Click to expand...

No they were not aware of it "going down." Please, just stop. If you are ignorant of the facts as they are being reported right now, please stop responding to the subject at hand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#358
#358
lawgator1 said:
I agree with your correction, I'm just not putting much weight in that 30 day notice issue, given all the circumstances.

To me, over time, the questions will be: 1) what happened to the five Taliban? Are we comfortable saying they are not in process of attacking us? and 2) what's the complete, true story, behind Bergdahl's capture?
Click to expand...

So your fine with any POTUS picking and choosing which laws apply and when?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#359
#359
lawgator1 said:
I agree with your correction, I'm just not putting much weight in that 30 day notice issue, given all the circumstances.

To me, over time, the questions will be: 1) what happened to the five Taliban? Are we comfortable saying they are not in process of attacking us? and 2) what's the complete, true story, behind Bergdahl's capture?
Click to expand...

Which right now are questionable at best.
 
#360
#360
"Mr President, with all due respect you're a complete & utter moron." I said with all due respect so it's ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#361
#361
Abe Hoffman said:
Below are quotes from an AP article dated April 24:

By DEB RIECHMANN
— Apr. 24, 2014 3:27 PM EDT

"The State Department is leading the most publicized approach to getting Bergdahl back — a plan to exchange him for five Taliban detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

"In late February, the Taliban said they had suspended "mediation" with the United States about swapping Bergdahl for the five Taliban detainees, blaming the "current complex political situation" in Afghanistan. There also is some congressional opposition to the prisoner swap. According to military documents, one of the five served as interior minister during the Taliban's five-year rule of Afghanistan and had direct ties to Osama bin Laden."

"That's dead," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said when asked about the prison swap idea. "It hasn't gone anywhere for a couple of years."

Sounds like Congress was aware of what was going on.

AP sources: Work to free US soldier disorganized
Click to expand...

Interesting - thanks for posting.

It sounds like at one time a 5 for 5 swap was considered (from the paragraph above the one you quoted)

The Pentagon is exploring several avenues to get Bergdahl released, including one that seeks to negotiate with the Haqqani network, according to an individual familiar with the government's efforts. The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to publicly discuss the Pentagon's efforts, said some government officials also are looking into ways to seek the simultaneous release of Bergdahl and four civilians, including a woman who was pregnant when she went missing, believed held by militants.
Click to expand...

Also sounds like the "consultation" on this was several years ago (swapping the 5 guys in Gitmo).

Bottomline, it sure looks like Congress was caught off guard by this move.
 
#365
#365
Grand Vol said:
<sigh>

Discussed for over two years. So don't backtrack on the fact that yes, it was discussed (nobody argues that point) and yes, Congress was aware it was on the table (nobody argues that point).

But still Congress was NOT notified of the exchange as required (which I think you won't argue either).
Click to expand...


No, I agree there was not letter of the law compliance with the 30 day notice. I just don't think it is a big deal in the scheme of things on this whole situation.

I had earlier said that I was under the impression that Congress had not just been told of possibility of a trade, but that they knew who the five Taliban were. I was asked for a link, which I could not provide, and said maybe I misheard. But then it was posted that there was an article back in April confirming that Congress knew who the five were.

One wonders if there is just a lot more to this whole thing than meets the eye.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#366
#366
lawgator1 said:
No, I agree there was not letter of the law compliance with the 30 day notice. I just don't think it is a big deal in the scheme of things on this whole situation.

I had earlier said that I was under the impression that Congress had not just been told of possibility of a trade, but that they knew who the five Taliban were. I was asked for a link, which I could not provide, and said maybe I misheard. But then it was posted that there was an article back in April confirming that Congress knew who the five were.

One wonders if there is just a lot more to this whole thing than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

Isn't there always?
 
#367
#367
Interesting article. A few take aways:

When this was considered in 2012 military and intelligence leaders thought it was a bad (dangerous) idea.

What Congress knew of it then they didn't like (Feinstein comments)

This seems like an appropriate question to ask Jay Carney - was such an assessment made?

This time around there was no formal intelligence assessment of, for example, the risks posed by releasing the Taliban commanders. While some intelligence analysts looked at the issue, no community-wide intelligence assessment was produced, according to these officials.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing the facts that changed since 2012.
 
#368
#368
So let's look at the facts of the matter...

Berghdahl abandoned his post in a combat theater and was captured by the Taliban. The conditions of which are debatable at this point in time.

This deal has been on the table for two years (at least).

Congress was duly made aware of the deal, but never agreed to going through with it.

The Taliban, specifically the Haqqani Network, dictated the conditions of the swap.

Claiming "medical concerns" the Administration unilaterally went through with the exchange without notifying Congress of the deal.

Berghdahl is being announced as a hero.

Public backlash, especially from former unit members, of said dedication and whatnot used by Hagal and Rice.

Qatar facilitated the deal, now (allegedly) says former detainees are free to move around the country and the US is not specifically keeping tabs on them.

So we as a nation have let an insurgent network dictate terms of an exchange which ended up being heavily in their favor, violated the law in going through with said exchange, claimed very vague "medical conditions" as the reason for the sudden exchange (although it's been discussed for two years), are trusting a foreign country to keep up its end of the bargain and tried to make this deserter out to be a hero even though evidence strongly suggests just the opposite.

Missing anything?

Oh wait, let's try this one on for size. So all the sudden the Taliban/Haqqani Network after five years suddenly would allow significant harm to come to their only bargaining chip they have in freeing prisoners? Make sense to anyone else?
 
#369
#369
lawgator1 said:
One wonders if there is just a lot more to this whole thing than meets the eye.
Click to expand...

I know you're mancrush on Obama and this Administration sometimes gets in the way of objective common sense...

But there is ALWAYS more than meets the eye with them.
 
#371
#371
volinbham said:
This seems like an appropriate question to ask Jay Carney - was such an assessment made?
Click to expand...

The question was asked yesterday in the Press Conference. And as usual, the answer was vague, sidestepped and ignored.

The claim the threat was "mitigated" was made several times. No further explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#375
#375
82_VOL_83 said:
Maybe we should put it in terms he may be able to understand:

1) Honey I want to have a baby.

2) Honey I am pregnant.
Click to expand...

The Taliban impregnated this marine???

Shirley, that's against the Geneva convention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top