I agree with buckman they were only pons use them while U can...if it is not them killing Americans there will be others...it is time the military gets to the deserter....do their investigation and bring the deserter to trial and if found guilty he would not be shot as was Eddie Slovik....this guy will just be put in prison to get fat and lazy.....oink! oink!!

I've read it several places, one I quoted earlier who was a Bush adviser.

Given the Geneva conventions ruled to apply I don't think we can keep it open indefinitely once we're out of Afghanistan. They'd have to bring these guys to trial in the US which would go nowhere.

The whole process has been a joke. I read that the military commissions have only gotten 7 convictions, 2 were overturned at a cost of 120 million dollars EACH.

-spence

Evidence appears to indicate he wanted to help Afgan children, not switch teams...we'll see what they determine from his re-entry.

-spence

These guys were Afgan Taliban, I don't think they were involved in any international terrorism. Doesn't mean they're nice chaps, but not the same as if they were alQaeda leadership.

Some of this is genuine I'm sure but also some anger by Dems is a response to the GOP outrage machine they know these actions will provoke. It's amazing how fast they can get in front of a story and cement a false narrative that's pretty soon assumed as fact by everyone.

Fox's relentless attacks toward his parents is particularly disturbing.

-spence

This too will pass with many questions to remain unanswered . No charges will be filed for desertion and the 5 will go back to killing only this time they have more cred
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

God, imagine the let down if they determine he was mentally unstable at the time he left and decide not to court martial.

-spence

Or imagine your back pedaling if we find out Fox was right :)
Pretty pathetic that this may be his biggest foreign-policy achievement!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Fox is right about what?

-spence

"These guys were Afgan Taliban, I don't think they were involved in any international terrorism"

Do you not see the contradiction in that statement? Afghan Taliban are necessarily tied to Al Queda. Afghan Taliban have been in bed with Al Queda, giving them a safe haven, for years and years.

"not the same as if they were alQaeda leadership. "

True on its face, but the organization they belong to is closely affiloiated with Al Queda.

"Fox's relentless attacks toward his parents is particularly disturbing"

If they are attacking his parents, I agree 100%.

It's not contradictory, I just don't think the word "terrorist" is tossed around without consideration. Because you're Taliban doesn't automatically make you a terrorist. Even if Afghanistan did manage to stabilize the Taliban will most likely continue to be a political component of it's government.

I don't believe that's necessarily the case in 2002 when the 5 were captured.

Read this it's really interesting.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/09/0...ladens-revenge

-spence

If he is found guilty of desertion and he should be held accountable for the lives of the men that were lost looking for him. There are children growing up without fathers and wives growing up without husbands because of his actions. There was no need to parade the parents out in the Rosegarden other than for Obamas grandstanding.
The five that were released will guarantee loss of future lives of women and children in Afghanistan.
These women and children did not make a bad decision to put them in harms way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Today he's an active member of the US Army. To not recognize his return because he "could" have been a deserter would be finding him guilty before a trial. We don't do that. Every single military official I've seen has said get him home then we'll sort it out.

1) You have no way of knowing this. 2) Considering the 10+ years of war in the area do you really think that 5 people, even if they were mid to high level Taliban, are going to make any difference?

-spence

" Recognize "??? I'm surprised the President didn't dress up as Rambo and claim he went in there and single-handedly save this poor dying soldiers life who was only trying to help the children ( pure speculation on your part )

You are one naïve person if you think these guys are not going to go back to the Taliban .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Considering your view of the POTUS i'm not surprised at your surprise.

Eventually I'm sure they will, that's not the point. The issue is should we detain them if it's likely they're not a significant threat to the USA. It brings up the larger question of what the Taliban is, was and what could be.

-spence

[QUOTE=spence;

Eventually I'm sure they will, that's not the point. The issue is should we detain them if it's likely they're not a significant threat to the USA. It brings up the larger question of what the Taliban is, was and what could be.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I'm going to have to ask you to quote the source that says that these guys are not a threat to the United States.
The Taliban are bad guys Spence hate to break the news to ya . I'm sure they're right behind the Republicans on the "war on women"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not a threat is an absolute, nobody here including Obama is dealing in absolutes.

-spence

Well could you give us an educated guess as to whether you think they will become a threat to the United States in the future?
I'm sorry I just read back in your posts where you said it is not likely they will become a significant threat to the United States
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trial by Court Martial. If found guilty of conspiring with the enemy and desertion I would say Firing Squad, especially since others died trying to "rescue" him.

On the matter of releasing now 6 terrorists. IMPEACHMENT

True, we don't do that. Or at least we should't.

But it's equally speculative of you to assume that these guys aren't a threat, or to assume that the soldier wandered off to feed hungry kids.

Become a significant threat to the US? No, I don't think the odds of that are very high. Yes, they were Taliban leaders, but their followers are long since dead or onto other things.

I think once we're out of Afghanistan the government will likely cut a deal with the Taliban anyway.

-spence

The evidence available certainly indicates he became disillusioned by the wars impact on the Afghan civilians and particularly the children.

-spence

a conspiracy to aide the terrorists would have to be proven
fat chance of that.... no witnesses
a terrorist label for deserting ...that's a stretch
firing squad is too barbaric for such a passive crime... he was ascared
wasn't like he was shooting back at his own troops... not seen
he was milked for info i'm sure over 5 years -a given
life in prison more likely considering how many lives were lost trying to find him ...thinking he was kidnapped

impeachment .... i think is do-able considering that he was asked specifically by a person in the audience when going for election
if he would attach a letter and circumvent congress and he said absolutely NOT - which proves him to be a complete Liar
and a far worse offense than Clintons oval office BJ or nixon's
cheating to get intel ....

Nobody is going to try and impeach a US President for getting a captive soldier home alive.

Reality check...

-spence

Desertion in time of war. I believe if you check the Manual of Courts Martial is a crime punishible by death.

And to a person not blinded by love of the sitting president, there is equally strong evidence that by virtue of being a "Taliban leader", these guys represent a serious threat.

I'm sure all the Afghan children, especially the little girls, will face better future prospects under the Taliban.

I'll bet they all have book deals by the end of the month :devil2:

-spence

So how would you have handled it differently? left him over there? Doesn't seem your MO, whatever his status was....

A fair question.

The answer is, you try as hard as you can to get him back on your own, but you don't negotiate with terrorists to do it, even if it means you lose the ability to get him back. And that applies whether he is a suspected deserter, or if he's Audie Murphy. Because if all the terrorists around the world see that we now are willing to trade 5 for 1, who (except Spence) would deny that incentivizes more terrorists to do the same thing?

If we have to kill a lot of people to get him back, fine. But you don't negotiate with these people, or reward them, for their behavior. That encourages more similar behavior, and that's exactly why we came up with the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

It's not the same as a prisoner exchange, because subsequengt to a prisoner exchange, after th ewar is over, the released prisoners pose to further threat. A child knows that's not the case with the Taliban or Al Queda.

Rockhound, when you tell your children "no" and they throw a fit, do you cave in and give them what they want? No. Why? Because even a kid can connect those dots and realise he can now get what he wants by doing the same thing.

It's not that complicated. It's horrible for the people who would be lost by not negotiating with those people, but there's no other way.

Your question assumes (incorrectly) that the only 2 choices were to cave in, or accept that we can't ever get him back. There is a 3rd alternative, and that's what I'd choose, and that's you use your brains and your brawn to get him back on our own terms.

When that ship captain got kidnapped by pirates off Somalia, why didn't we give the pirates a dump truck full of money like they wanted? Had we done that, the probably would have let him go, right? But we didn't, we let the SEALs take him back by force, even though th ecaptain easily could have been hurt during the exchange of gunfire. And the reason is exactly the same, because that would encourage more piracy. That was one of the very few that this Bolshevik Klown got right.

1. Sometimes, my kids win, yes.

2. If these guys were scheduled to be released; I've read mixed stuff on that, and they spend the next year in Quater, they don't seem to pose an immediate threat. My hunch is if they show up in intelligence at all, a drone will be over their shoulder pretty damn fast...

It's good you recognize that it's only a phrase. Terrorists are negotiated with all the time. Hell, Israel once release over a thousand Palestinians (we'll assume they were all terrorists right?) for a single low-level military captive...and they're supposed to be tough right?

I don't think they could determine exactly where he was. Looks like he was being moved around western Pakistan. That's not an easy rescue.

Totally different situation. With the Somali pirates we knew exactly where the captive was. The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed.

-spence

Here's the thing…this entire event 5 years ago has been thoroughly investigated by the Army. The media frenzy wants to pretend it's happening in real-time.

I'd wager they have a pretty good idea of where it's all going.

-spence

"they don't seem to pose an immediate threat"

Based on what?

"Terrorists are negotiated with all the time." What you don't do, is give in to them.

Spence, it's really too bad for Hitler that Obama wasn't President in 1938. What would he have conceded in the face of that threat?

"I don't think"..."Looks like "...

Looks to me like you're grasping at straws.

"That's not an easy rescue."

Since when do we abandon the right course once we conclude it's "not easy"? Since January 2009, I guess...

"The order to shoot was given as they thought the Captain was about to be killed."

You sure about that? I thought the order to shoot was given when they had a clear shot. How could they (or you) have known he was about to be killed? Did the pirates announce over loudspeaker that he was about to be killed?

It appears you take a lot of liberties, and make a ton of assumptions, and 100% of them paint Obama in a favorable light. Do you deny that?

Look at what's happening in Ukraine. You don't think Obama wasn't playing chicken with Putin and for the most part appears to be winning?

Ok Scottw.

Do you not think if the military had a feasible plan before they wouldn't have tried it? Oh I forgot, Obama hates the troops.

My understanding is that they had a weapon pointed at his head which prompted the action.

The more I think about this whole Bergdahl situation the more it disturbs me. This is a propaganda campaign to lash out at Obama using an active service member as the proxy.

-spence

seeing him in that leather bomber jacket made me ILL

"Do you not think if the military had a feasible plan before they wouldn't have tried it?"

I never said they'd abandon him. You were the one who said it wouldn't be easy to get him back on our own terms, and I pointed out, correctly, that doing what's right is more important than doing what's easy.

"Obama hates the troops.Obama hates the troops.

He doesn't hate them, but he is completely oblivious to the type of person who answers the call to serve. Hence the repugnant "cling to their guns and religion because they are bitter and racist..." remark. I'll say this, I thank God I didn't serve under him.

"My understanding is that they had a weapon pointed at his head "

regardless of your skewed understanding, the fact is he was in a tiny raft with 3 armed pirates and he would necessarily had guns pointed at him repeatedly. Instead of giving me your understanding, how about either some facts to support your claim, or admit it was pure speculation.

Oh, I missed that one. Yeah, Putin is really on the ropes. Assad too.

Yuck. Maybe he visited a "corpse-men". Yeah, he's a huge fan of the military...

It is being reported that 2 of the 5 released detainees are currently wanted by the UN for war crimes. Not sure if it's true. Why wouldn't we have handed them over if we had them?

30 posts defending terrorists, a traitor/deserter and a lawless president...hit the trifecta on this one...good job Spence :)