Posted on Jun 2, 2014
Has the swap for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl set a precedent for future POWs?
17.1K
39
43
1
1
0
Debate Stirs Over US-Taliban Captive Swap. In weighing the swap, U.S. officials decided that it could help the effort to reach reconciliation with the Taliban, which the U.S. sees as key to more security in Afghanistan. But they acknowledged the risk that the deal would embolden insurgents.Republicans pressed that point. "Have we just put a price on other U.S. soldiers?" asked Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. "What does this tell terrorists, that if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists?"Republican Representative Adam Kinzinger of Illinois said, "I'm going to celebrate him coming home," but added that the release of "five mid- to high-level Taliban is shocking to me, especially without coming to Congress."
Bergdahl
POW/MIA
Swap
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
5
5
0
1. We aren't at war
2. Indefinite detention as well as pardons for crimes is at the will of the President
3. Congress can... continue to polish that turd called the NDAA that gave the President the ability to do an end run around them.
Had the President actually done something illegal, they would have initiated impeachment proceedings already rather than bellyaching about being left out of the loop.
2. Indefinite detention as well as pardons for crimes is at the will of the President
3. Congress can... continue to polish that turd called the NDAA that gave the President the ability to do an end run around them.
Had the President actually done something illegal, they would have initiated impeachment proceedings already rather than bellyaching about being left out of the loop.
(5)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
Sweet Jesus Evans! I hope you do not have a law degree. Do you really think if a president breaks the law you can a group of lackeys in congress to impeach him/her? You do know that impeachment is only an indictment and not a conviction right? Congress indicts the Senate convicts. I refer you to an great article written by a self proclaimed liberal er I mean progressive Jonathan Turley http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/25/nixon-has-won-watergate/2019443/
Nixon has won Watergate: Column
Barack Obama's imperial presidency is just what his controversial predecessor wanted.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
CW2 - I apologize I did not understand the thumbs up thumbs down. I thought it was agree/not agree I would never vote any of you down had I known. DOH! Stupid Marine that I am.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Joseph Evans
Relax Brett, I made the assumption as well when I first started using Rallypoint. And there are many people who still use it that way. The scoring system however really relates to perceived credibility.
I jack things up a few times, but everything considered, I still see myself as a moderate, even though that looks an awful lot like Democrat these days. And you are right, I do not have a law degree, thank god, considering what some people have done with theirs, I think I'm just as glad not to.
I jack things up a few times, but everything considered, I still see myself as a moderate, even though that looks an awful lot like Democrat these days. And you are right, I do not have a law degree, thank god, considering what some people have done with theirs, I think I'm just as glad not to.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
CW2 Evans, I always find it funny when people don't think we are at war. In the Constitution The Legislative branch is the bunch that declares war, but there is no requirement to actually use the words we declare war, so an authorization of the use of war for an indefinite period would in the eyes of many courts be seen as the equivalent of a declaration of war.
The power of the President to detain enemy combatants indefinitely isn't that big of a deal except when they expanded it to include US citizens has precedent in the Civil War when President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and allowed the arrest of American Citizens without being brought before a judge.
The Congress and Senate won't do anything about the President because if they did it would do two things first, it would take away the types of policies and actions that they rail against and raise campaign funds against, second when the tables are turned and they do the same things when they have control of the government and they do the same things that they are critical of the President doing, they don't want to have a record of limiting that power when it can benefit their party.
The power of the President to detain enemy combatants indefinitely isn't that big of a deal except when they expanded it to include US citizens has precedent in the Civil War when President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus and allowed the arrest of American Citizens without being brought before a judge.
The Congress and Senate won't do anything about the President because if they did it would do two things first, it would take away the types of policies and actions that they rail against and raise campaign funds against, second when the tables are turned and they do the same things when they have control of the government and they do the same things that they are critical of the President doing, they don't want to have a record of limiting that power when it can benefit their party.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
I support the outcome not so much the path to get there. I would think the possible scenario would've come up and could have been discussed at some point in 5 years so that when a small window opened no one would be blind sided.
(4)
(0)
MSgt Ediberto L.
Do the ends justify the means? Happy for our comrade/family however, how it was done is a matter which I am sure will be in debate for some time. Further more, what did we unleash on the world by letting these folks go? We have to consider that the majority of us are not privy to all of the behind the scenes details so who knows why the President elected to bypass congress and let these prisoners go. I want to believe his decision was not taken without long, clear and precise thought/input from his advisors as to the possible present/future consequences from such a bold move. Â
(2)
(0)
CPL Charles Gale
I completely agree with you SFC W., There are just so my unknowns in this situation which makes it very unsettling.
(0)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
Msgt- do the ends justify the means, I don't know that's not for me to decide. There is a huge gap in information so we may never know the reality of the situation that lead to the decision. I just have a hard time believing that in 5 years this particular scenario of prisoner exchange (maybe not the exact prisoners) was never considered as a possibility. That's what gets me about it, the idea should have already been discussed and agreed on as a good idea so that when it came up shouldn't have been the type of issue it has become.
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Every POW Officer in both the VFW and American Legion that I know has been up and down the President and Every Politician we know to get him back no matter what! I could give a rats ass about some backwoods Taliban dummys. Give them back. I don't care.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
I think every time a president bypasses the law it sets a terrible precedent. However in situations like these, where there was probably a small window of time to "pull the trigger," it seems to have been necessary. The POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief and these decisions should probably be left up to his discretion, but I could also understand that he should have to consult maybe a small number of some congressional committee (Intelligence or some other) before he gives the go ahead. But for him to give 30 days notice on trading prisoners for our own POWs is probably not a realistic time frame. We are a country of checks and balances, but it always seems every branch of government is always looking for a to increase their power even if its by regulating the powers of another.
(3)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
It would be an Issue and the legal ramifications would have been more if we had held them in this country for trial as Terrorist. When Congress wouldn't allow that they were held off country effectively as POW and in this case with the President was well within his authority to release them as a POW Trade.
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
PFC Susserman,
Your belief that anyone in either house of Congress has sense enough to do the right thing when forced to make a critical decision which will be highly scrutinized is amazing. These are people who cannot pass a budget, they sure as hell cannot be relied upon to make critical and timely decisions. It also happens that they also knew what was being planned. They're just upset they weren't told of the execution of the plan. If there were constitutional violations the GOP would actually be doing more than just belly-aching, but that's the most we'll get out of them.
Of historical note- trading prisoners dates all the way back to the revolutionary war. One administration agreed to sell missiles to secure the releases of hostages. None of this is new, none of this is unheard of, and at a very minimum at least there are no longer any US soldiers held captive.
Your belief that anyone in either house of Congress has sense enough to do the right thing when forced to make a critical decision which will be highly scrutinized is amazing. These are people who cannot pass a budget, they sure as hell cannot be relied upon to make critical and timely decisions. It also happens that they also knew what was being planned. They're just upset they weren't told of the execution of the plan. If there were constitutional violations the GOP would actually be doing more than just belly-aching, but that's the most we'll get out of them.
Of historical note- trading prisoners dates all the way back to the revolutionary war. One administration agreed to sell missiles to secure the releases of hostages. None of this is new, none of this is unheard of, and at a very minimum at least there are no longer any US soldiers held captive.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Brett Wagner
SSG Nashua, NH - So because we have made mistakes in the past we should continue right? Yes we have made trades in the past and have also refused to make trades in the past. You really want to bring up history on this stuff? How about what we use to do with spies, traitors and deserters? Do you remember what was written about and by General George Washington and what he would do with deserters? I mean if we want to set the president for trading prisoners with history maybe we should do the same with spies, traitors and deserters. Your caught spying you're shot on the spot like FDR did with the six Germans in 1942 when he was concerned that a civilian court would be too lenient so he wrote Executive Proclamation (PDP) 2561 so they could be put in the electric chair a month after being caught. The two that turned themselves and their comrades got off with long prison sentences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius
Operation Pastorius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Operation Pastorius was a failed German intelligence plan for sabotage inside the United States during World War II. The operation was staged in June 1942 and was to be directed against strategic American economic targets. The operation was named by Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, chief of the German Abwehr, for Francis Daniel Pastorius, the leader of the first organized settlement of Germans in America.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Not in my opinion. We've been doing prisoner swaps for hundreds of years.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Do any of you consider Israel to be "soft on terror"? If anything, Israel is insanely harsh, going so far as having a special forces "assassination team" to take out high valued targets in manners we would consider illegal. Yet, Israel has at times traded HUNDREDS of prisoners for a single Israeli soldier. Prisoner exchanges are nothing new and happen all the time.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
And it begins. Time.com is reporting that at least one Taliban Commander is saying that the exchange of Bergdahl for 5 key captured Taliban leaders will push the Taliban to capture "such an important bird".
Taliban Commander: More Kidnappings to Come After Bergdahl Deal
Behind the Scenes of Bowe Bergdahl's Release A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME…
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter not a prisoner of war. He was not captured by the enemy, he abandoned his post and might as well have defected to the enemy. The Taliban are terrorists and not a legitimate recognized nation to negotiate with. Our president has negotiated with likely paid off terrorists. He has released five terrorists so they can again attack Americans. President Obama at this point is pretty much acting on behalf of the enemy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I don't think it's going to embolden the enemy. Since the beginning of the War on Terror insurgents have been trying to capture American soldiers for whatever reason. In fact, because we made a swap, if another soldier is captured, it might buy us the time needed to make the rescue and might save the soldiers life if his/her captors believe they can make a deal.
Also, this whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" rhetoric is insane. On the ground we have done plenty of negotiating with terrorists and their sympathizers. Not to mention, it's easy to say that when you are dealing with an isolated incident and a small group, but considering the Taliban is an entity that we have been at war with for 13 years and have connections to much larger entities, it's time to face the facts that "terrorists" are non-governmental organizations that are large enough and operate in numerous capacities that warrant a seat at the negotiating table, has hard as that may be to accept.
Also, this whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" rhetoric is insane. On the ground we have done plenty of negotiating with terrorists and their sympathizers. Not to mention, it's easy to say that when you are dealing with an isolated incident and a small group, but considering the Taliban is an entity that we have been at war with for 13 years and have connections to much larger entities, it's time to face the facts that "terrorists" are non-governmental organizations that are large enough and operate in numerous capacities that warrant a seat at the negotiating table, has hard as that may be to accept.
(1)
(0)
SGT James Elphick
I should add though, that from what I've heard and believe, we shouldn't have made any deal for him. Unless we intend to throw him in Leavenworth
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Im glad he did. Maybe if it didnt take years to get the smallest things passed in this government of ours he wouldve went to congress. Being he probably little time to make this deal happen. Maybe he didnt want the media blasting it all over the world before the deal happen.
To me 5 terrorists are not going to make or break anything. Im so happy for him. I always had in my mind that if i was ever taken prisioner that the government would never make a deal to get me back.
I bet his family so happy.
To me 5 terrorists are not going to make or break anything. Im so happy for him. I always had in my mind that if i was ever taken prisioner that the government would never make a deal to get me back.
I bet his family so happy.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
There is no doubt that the exchange of 5 members, classified as some of the worst of the worst for Bergdahl's release has set the county down a new course when dealing with the enemy. Am I glad that Bergdahl is coming home, sure. Am I still questioning how he ended up with the enemy? Yes I am. Am I wondering why they didn't just kill him and put him on display like they done to other Americans? Heck yeah.
The story will continue to develop over the next few days, weeks and months.
The story will continue to develop over the next few days, weeks and months.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Keen - from everything I've read, it's pretty clear the guy walked away. He told some of the members of his unit that he wanted to walk to India and he left behind his body armor and weapon before leaving. This wasn't an accident. You don't even hit the latrine without your weapon, that's basics 101.
(1)
(0)
SGT Ben Keen
I totally agree with your sir. From what I'm reading I would say the guy left his post without being properly relieved and sought out the enemy. I think comments being made by his father are also alarming. For example, in a new conference his dad said he was proud that his son was able to help the people of Afghanistan. Now that of course can mean he helped them by serving his country but I think taking the time to mail your stuff home, asking questions about what would happen if he left, and then leaving his post makes his father's comments more damaging.
I do approach this with caution though since I wasn't there so I'm reading this as a 3rd party and therefore can't verify the information personally so much like everyone else, we can read all we want but I'm getting the feeling more and more that the truth may be covered up and this guy showcased as some sort of "hero".
I do approach this with caution though since I wasn't there so I'm reading this as a 3rd party and therefore can't verify the information personally so much like everyone else, we can read all we want but I'm getting the feeling more and more that the truth may be covered up and this guy showcased as some sort of "hero".
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google