I'd heard that, but I hadn't looked into it. Is it accurate that he was a deserter?
edited for holy caps lock batman
The situation is really strange. He could have just wandered off the FOB I guess... but why would you? There is definitely enough to bring him to trial. A lot of POWs were tried for desertion after Korea as well, it's tricky to prosecute since the media optics are so bad. I would say time served is enough punishment if we didn't just trade one NCO with a room temperature IQ for five very competent Taliban field grade officers.
Out for an evening troll? I havn't read of any Gitmo inmates being beheaded for a video.
If you can cite the executed POW's then we'll talk about it. Otherwise I suggest you apologise for your "troll" comment.
Bergdahl was treated better than a gitmo inmate, beyond any doubt.
Bull gak. Plain and simple bull gak. The detainees in GITMO get great health care (which clearly Bergdahl did not) and plenty of other amenities.
I'm sure "Enhanced interrogation" was part of the health care package?
Can we mention the suicides, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, sexual abuse?
Habeas corpus? Think deep and hard why you're rattled.
I'm sure "Enhanced interrogation" was part of the health care package?
Can we mention the suicides, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, sexual abuse?
Habeas corpus? Think deep and hard why you're rattled.
Out for an evening troll? I havn't read of any Gitmo inmates being beheaded for a video.
If you can cite the executed POW's then we'll talk about it. Otherwise I suggest you apologise for your "troll" comment.
Bergdahl was treated better than a gitmo inmate, beyond any doubt.
Bull gak. Plain and simple bull gak. The detainees in GITMO get great health care (which clearly Bergdahl did not) and plenty of other amenities.
I'm sure "Enhanced interrogation" was part of the health care package? Can we mention the suicides, solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, sexual abuse?
Habeas corpus? Think deep and hard why you're rattled.
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Suicides? Any irony that a tactic seen as legit by the Talibs includes strapping explosives to a guy and having him suicide while killing others? And it isn't as if suicides are unique to or were even over represented in GITMO. Hell, vets are capping themselves daily. Solitary confinement is bad? We have it in all our prisons, not unique to GITMO nor necessarily a bad thing. And sleep deprivation? As part of interrogation I have zero problems with it, or with sensory deprivation.
But regardless, your strawman is nothing but that. You have no evidence the Talibs treat prisoners better than the US military, and in fact it isn't too hard to find documented cases of their brutality as a systemic issue as opposed to aberrations which US troops get punished for. The article I posted with video of Talibs murdering prisoners is not unique. Do you suppose those Talibs were prosecuted by their leadership, and then punished?
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Suicides? Any irony that a tactic seen as legit by the Talibs includes strapping explosives to a guy and having him suicide while killing others? And it isn't as if suicides are unique to or were even over represented in GITMO. Hell, vets are capping themselves daily.
Solitary confinement is bad? We have it in all our prisons, not unique to GITMO nor necessarily a bad thing.
And sleep deprivation? As part of interrogation I have zero problems with it, or with sensory deprivation.
But regardless, your strawman is nothing but that. You have no evidence the Talibs treat prisoners better than the US military, and in fact it isn't too hard to find documented cases of their brutality as a systemic issue as opposed to aberrations which US troops get punished for. The article I posted with video of Talibs murdering prisoners is not unique. Do you suppose those Talibs were prosecuted by their leadership, and then punished?
It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
It is very simple to understand.
I said, this one guy was treated better than Gitmo prisoners. It's very simple. You take out out of the original context to apply to the larger group. I wasn't talking about the larger group I was talking about this ONE GUY.
As for the handwaving off American war crimes, it does not surprise me considering you foam at the mouth.
The "taliban" are a multi-faction entity, a fact you fail to comprehend. They mentioned it was pastun Haqqani keeping him as a prisoner of war and that there was an internal dispute between the hardliners in the taliban and the other group seeking to protect Bergdahl as an asset.
Now as I said either apologise or don't bother posting in response.
This released prisoner is a massive arsepain to the american warmonger ego. It's a big motive in blaming the victim in this case.
$10 says the land of the free will put a gag order on this poor guy.
Just a quick google of beheadings of U.S. soldiers will yield you a wealth of information or Youtube videos which I will not post here because it is graphic.
We can also speak of Daniel Pearl and other noncombatents beheaded by these animals in numbers enough to put your allegations of better treatment of prisoners by the Taliban and others of their ilk pretty far into the realm of delusional.
We have enough people on these forums who served over there that I am sure have first hand stories of how well prisoners get treated by the terrorists.
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Suicides? Any irony that a tactic seen as legit by the Talibs includes strapping explosives to a guy and having him suicide while killing others? And it isn't as if suicides are unique to or were even over represented in GITMO. Hell, vets are capping themselves daily.
Solitary confinement is bad? We have it in all our prisons, not unique to GITMO nor necessarily a bad thing.
And sleep deprivation? As part of interrogation I have zero problems with it, or with sensory deprivation.
But regardless, your strawman is nothing but that. You have no evidence the Talibs treat prisoners better than the US military, and in fact it isn't too hard to find documented cases of their brutality as a systemic issue as opposed to aberrations which US troops get punished for. The article I posted with video of Talibs murdering prisoners is not unique. Do you suppose those Talibs were prosecuted by their leadership, and then punished?
It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
It is very simple to understand.
I said, this one guy was treated better than Gitmo prisoners. It's very simple. You take out out of the original context to apply to the larger group. I wasn't talking about the larger group I was talking about this ONE GUY.
As for the handwaving off American war crimes, it does not surprise me considering you foam at the mouth.
The "taliban" are a multi-faction entity, a fact you fail to comprehend. They mentioned it was pastun Haqqani keeping him as a prisoner of war and that there was an internal dispute between the hardliners in the taliban and the other group seeking to protect Bergdahl as an asset.
Now as I said either apologise or don't bother posting in response.
This released prisoner is a massive arsepain to the american warmonger ego. It's a big motive in blaming the victim in this case.
$10 says the land of the free will put a gag order on this poor guy.
And, as I stated earlier, this One Guy was NOT treated better than the detainees in GITMO. Not even close.
And I gave an example of Talibs executing prisoners, got a similar example of US troops executing Talibs in GITMO?
Just a quick google of beheadings of U.S. soldiers will yield you a wealth of information or Youtube videos which I will not post here because it is graphic.
We can also speak of Daniel Pearl and other noncombatents beheaded by these animals in numbers enough to put your allegations of better treatment of prisoners by the Taliban and others of their ilk pretty far into the realm of delusional.
We have enough people on these forums who served over there that I am sure have first hand stories of how well prisoners get treated by the terrorists.
Not arguing for any side here, but you quoted him talking about a single prisoner and then talked about how many other prisoners were beheaded. Disingenuous at best.
Just a quick google of beheadings of U.S. soldiers will yield you a wealth of information or Youtube videos which I will not post here because it is graphic.
We can also speak of Daniel Pearl and other noncombatents beheaded by these animals in numbers enough to put your allegations of better treatment of prisoners by the Taliban and others of their ilk pretty far into the realm of delusional.
We have enough people on these forums who served over there that I am sure have first hand stories of how well prisoners get treated by the terrorists.
Not arguing for any side here, but you quoted him talking about a single prisoner and then talked about how many other prisoners were beheaded. Disingenuous at best.
He asked for citation of executed POW's and I obliged.
Just a quick google of beheadings of U.S. soldiers will yield you a wealth of information or Youtube videos which I will not post here because it is graphic.
We can also speak of Daniel Pearl and other noncombatents beheaded by these animals in numbers enough to put your allegations of better treatment of prisoners by the Taliban and others of their ilk pretty far into the realm of delusional.
We have enough people on these forums who served over there that I am sure have first hand stories of how well prisoners get treated by the terrorists.
Not arguing for any side here, but you quoted him talking about a single prisoner and then talked about how many other prisoners were beheaded. Disingenuous at best.
He asked for citation of executed POW's and I obliged.
I stand corrected, I had assumed you were talking about his treatment by the Taliban.
Just a quick google of beheadings of U.S. soldiers will yield you a wealth of information or Youtube videos which I will not post here because it is graphic.
We can also speak of Daniel Pearl and other noncombatents beheaded by these animals in numbers enough to put your allegations of better treatment of prisoners by the Taliban and others of their ilk pretty far into the realm of delusional.
We have enough people on these forums who served over there that I am sure have first hand stories of how well prisoners get treated by the terrorists.
Not arguing for any side here, but you quoted him talking about a single prisoner and then talked about how many other prisoners were beheaded. Disingenuous at best.
He asked for citation of executed POW's and I obliged.
I stand corrected, I had assumed you were talking about his treatment by the Taliban.
I swear that had killed him being there was no new video of him alive for quite awhile even on the attempt of peace talk. I'm glad I was wrong.
Only POW that has been held by Taliban and Insurgent forces that lived as far as I know.
We only recovered bodies or ID cards of service members of those taken by insurgent forces
I also know if they televised a beheading of a US/Coalition military member would open a huge can of worms they do not want and they knew it.
I also know the GITMO detainee's have better care then anyone in the freaking world.
The only thing to say here is welcome home and I hope he manages to adjust back to his old life after what must have been one of the most traumatic experiences imaginable.
Some of the cheap point scoring being made on this thread is revolting. This isn't the time or place.
Jihadin wrote: That's going to be one massive non taxable back pay he have coming.
He'll need it for the decompression. Like I said at the beginning, I can't imagine the thoughts and emotions he must be going through. I would guess he wants a lot of alone time with his family.
Just a quick google of beheadings of U.S. soldiers will yield you a wealth of information or Youtube videos which I will not post here because it is graphic.
We can also speak of Daniel Pearl and other noncombatents beheaded by these animals in numbers enough to put your allegations of better treatment of prisoners by the Taliban and others of their ilk pretty far into the realm of delusional.
We have enough people on these forums who served over there that I am sure have first hand stories of how well prisoners get treated by the terrorists.
Not arguing for any side here, but you quoted him talking about a single prisoner and then talked about how many other prisoners were beheaded. Disingenuous at best.
He asked for citation of executed POW's and I obliged.
It helps if you knew the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone the difference between the Iraqi insurgency and the Taliban.
Well okay, what's the difference between Gitmo and Abu Ghraib?
If you can't stick to the relevant subject....why even bother responding?
Here is the list of things the Gitmo inmates have been subjected to:
Humiliation tactics
Sleep Deprivation
Sensory Deprivation
Solitary Confinement
Forced Medication
Use of Dogs to Scare Detainees
Temperature Extremes
Sensory Bombardment
Now if you could please offer to specify what they did to Bergdahl in comparison?
So Ronin you had personnel info on how Bergdahl was being treated for the past five years? Personnel info being provided by his captors? Being Abu Ghaib and GITMO are two different monsters there were a major difference between the two. Since you appear to have first hand knowledge on Enhance Interrogation technique compare to "Torture" interrogation you should know the difference between the two. Since it seems your arm chairing with no real knowledge or personnel experience in Iraq and Afghanistan your offering your view point? Am I correct?
Jihadin wrote: Since you appear to have first hand knowledge on Enhance Interrogation technique compare to "Torture" interrogation you should know the difference between the two.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
It's not very hard to read what the red cross has slammed the U.S about gitmo., either
If ICRC says it's torture, it's torture. I don't care if your government calls it under a euphemism.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
I handed over Insurgents to ANA, handle transportation of insurgents to and from detainee facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I have more experience then you when dealing with detainee's Since you interview him then you know more to him throughout his ordeal but I have mention before on here on a certain practice. Also as a clarification
Finally released without charges in January 2005, Habib struggled to have his account of his experiences believed, as he alleged he had been tortured by the CIA, Egyptians, and US military, at times with Australian intelligence officers present. For some time, each of the governments denied his allegations, but they have gradually been confirmed.
which lead to
An Egyptian official confirmed Habib's account of his torture in Egypt having been witnessed by an Australian officer, whom he named. The Australian government quickly made an out-of-court settlement in the suit by Habib.
It's not very hard to read what the red cross has slammed the U.S about gitmo., either
International Red Cross not American Red Cross to avoid confusion. So Enhance Interrogation compare to Physical Interrogation. There's two sides but SERE showed me there's big freaking difference. There's book knowledge and there's RL experience. So I laugh at the International Red Cross attempt to label Enhance Interrogation as physical torture
If ICRC says it's torture, it's torture. I don't care if your government calls it under a euphemism
As someone pointed out earlier to me on another thread. Debating you a bit of a wildcard. You either quick to label people or unwilling to "debate" and stick with "what you know"
Jihadin wrote: International Red Cross not American Red Cross to avoid confusion. So Enhance Interrogation compare to Physical Interrogation. There's two sides but SERE showed me there's big freaking difference. There's book knowledge and there's RL experience. So I laugh at the International Red Cross attempt to label Enhance Interrogation as physical torture
Americans a love a good euphemism.
It's not torture... it's Enhanced interrogation. Because making someone bound in a painful fixed position for hours upon hours is not doing something painful to them, it's simply a way "Enhance interrogation"
Depriving an individual of sleep somehow doesn't physically hurt them according to you, it somehow magically "enhances" their memory for interrogation purposes.
keeping someone blinded, deafend is not psychological torture at all, it's us americans offering them an "enhanced method of zen meditation". No no you have us all wrong., gitmo is a five star hotel guys
indefinite detention without charge is a good thing, that's why we built a prison in cuba to avoid our own constitutional laws.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
I handed over Insurgents to ANA, handle transportation of insurgents to and from detainee facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I have more experience then you when dealing with detainee's Since you interview him then you know more to him throughout his ordeal but I have mention before on here on a certain practice. Also as a clarification
Finally released without charges in January 2005, Habib struggled to have his account of his experiences believed, as he alleged he had been tortured by the CIA, Egyptians, and US military, at times with Australian intelligence officers present. For some time, each of the governments denied his allegations, but they have gradually been confirmed.
which lead to
An Egyptian official confirmed Habib's account of his torture in Egypt having been witnessed by an Australian officer, whom he named. The Australian government quickly made an out-of-court settlement in the suit by Habib.
It's not very hard to read what the red cross has slammed the U.S about gitmo., either
International Red Cross not American Red Cross to avoid confusion. So Enhance Interrogation compare to Physical Interrogation. There's two sides but SERE showed me there's big freaking difference. There's book knowledge and there's RL experience. So I laugh at the International Red Cross attempt to label Enhance Interrogation as physical torture
If ICRC says it's torture, it's torture. I don't care if your government calls it under a euphemism
As someone pointed out earlier to me on another thread. Debating you a bit of a wildcard. You either quick to label people or unwilling to "debate" and stick with "what you know"
Doncha know, the Taliban and Al Quaeda terrorists all the time settle in court with the victims they behead and torture to death. It's a good thing they are so much more humanitarian, as claimed by Ronin and, and... I can't go on
It's not torture... it's Enhanced interrogation. Because making someone bound in a painful fixed position for hours upon hours is not doing something painful to them, it's simply a way "Enhance interrogation"
Depriving an individual of sleep somehow doesn't physically hurt them according to you, it somehow magically "enhances" their memory for interrogation purposes.
keeping someone blinded, deafend is not psychological torture at all, it's us americans offering them an "enhanced method of zen meditation". No no you have us all wrong., gitmo is a five star hotel guys
indefinite detention without charge is a good thing, that's why we built a prison in cuba to avoid our own constitutional laws.
It's not torture... it's Enhanced interrogation. Because making someone bound in a painful fixed position for hours upon hours is not doing something painful to them, it's simply a way "Enhance interrogation"
Depriving an individual of sleep somehow doesn't physically hurt them according to you, it somehow magically "enhances" their memory for interrogation purposes.
keeping someone blinded, deafend is not psychological torture at all, it's us americans offering them an "enhanced method of zen meditation". No no you have us all wrong., gitmo is a five star hotel guys
indefinite detention without charge is a good thing, that's why we built a prison in cuba to avoid our own constitutional laws.
good job america, good job
You're downright adorable.
I like when he claims the Taliban and Al Quaeda treat their prisoners better than we do.
Good deal. I am sure his parents are hyper relieved. Blessings on them.
I wonder if we could use all that NSA tech to track them. Isn't therre a Bond tracker somewhere to put on these guys and then drone their locations in six months. Come on CIA, do somethin.
An Egyptian official confirmed Habib's account of his torture in Egypt having been witnessed by an Australian officer, whom he named. The Australian government quickly made an out-of-court settlement in the suit by Habib
What? Did not know that bit? You interview the guy and he forget to mention Australia government was in on it to? He proclaim that its the US all by itself eh
Torture is torture then no matter who they put in isolation eh? OMG We're torturing convicted US Citizens by putting them in Isolation
GITMO Detainee Facility. Enlighten me on the Pro's and Con's I know why its there and quite a few others on here. First though. Tell me what state at the time GITMO cranked up was willing to hold Insurgent fighters?
An Egyptian official confirmed Habib's account of his torture in Egypt having been witnessed by an Australian officer, whom he named. The Australian government quickly made an out-of-court settlement in the suit by Habib
What? Did not know that bit? You interview the guy and he forget to mention Australia government was in on it to? He proclaim that its the US all by itself eh
Torture is torture then no matter who they put in isolation eh? OMG We're torturing convicted US Citizens by putting them in Isolation
GITMO Detainee Facility. Enlighten me on the Pro's and Con's I know why its there and quite a few others on here. First though. Tell me what state at the time GITMO cranked up was willing to hold Insurgent fighters?
This guy is a comedy gold mine, I have to take him off ignore to see what gems he's coming up with based off the answers you guys are givin him.
An Egyptian official confirmed Habib's account of his torture in Egypt having been witnessed by an Australian officer, whom he named. The Australian government quickly made an out-of-court settlement in the suit by Habib
What? Did not know that bit? You interview the guy and he forget to mention Australia government was in on it to? He proclaim that its the US all by itself eh
I specifically mentioned the suit itself. Reading is not hard for most.
Torture is torture then no matter who they put in isolation eh? OMG We're torturing convicted US Citizens by putting them in Isolation
Solitary confinement is considered a psychological torture when continued indefinitely. Combine that with an incarceration that is without trial or even charge. Considering it's a psycosis incubation....I have zero qualms over calling it torture.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
If Ronin really interview this guy why did he not say the Australian Intelligence Officer name who witness the torture in Egypt? Or any other names of Americans, Australians and/or Egyptian who did the torturing? Be dropping manhole covers instead of dimes if it was me
Jihadin wrote: If Ronin really interview this guy why did he not say the Australian Intelligence Officer name who witness the torture in Egypt? Or any other names of Americans, Australians and/or Egyptian who did the torturing? Be dropping manhole covers instead of dimes if it was me
How is ASIO relevant to the subject for me to bother?
Naming ASIO officers is also a big no-no. Good way to get on a "watch list", or end up in court, or worse. No thanks.
As you can see what happens to whistleblowers/ info revealers/whathaveyou, the powers that be go after their throats. Manning, Snowden. Assange ... etc. you get the idea
How is ASIO relevant to the subject for me to bother?
Naming ASIO officers is also a big no-no. Good way to get on a "watch list", or end up in court, or worse. No thanks.
As you can see what happens to whistleblowers/ info revealers/whathaveyou, the powers that be go after their throats. Manning, Snowden. Assange ... etc. you get the idea
Really?
DAMNING evidence from an Egyptian intelligence officer that names an Australian official who witnessed the torture of Sydney man Mamdouh Habib in Guantanamo Bay has been revealed as the trigger for a hushed-up government payout to Mr Habib and a high-level investigation.
The explosive 840-word statement, released exclusively to The Sun-Herald, was shown to government solicitors three days before they suddenly paid Mr Habib an undisclosed amount to drop his lawsuit claiming Australia was complicit in his CIA-engineered kidnap in 2001, transfer to Egypt and subsequent torture.
In his statement, which is yet to be tested in court, the intelligence officer says Egyptian guards routinely filmed terrorism suspects in their jails. He says there is footage and photographs of Mr Habib and an Arabic-speaking Australian called George who witnessed his degradation.
''He has rounded face aged 35-40 and bald (no hair) his height is about 170 fat without moustache with beard, hazel eyes big nose, fat neck. George was present during the medical check on Habib who was handcuffed and tied feet. His eyes were closed and he was unable to see.
''He [Habib] was naked of any cloths [sic] even his underwear. He was hysterical, almost crazy, drugged. The hand down of him and his belongings and the medical check was before the Australian official [George]. Habib constantly was fighting with the guards and wanted to escape outside.
''During Habib's presence some of the Australian officials attended many times and some of them were women. The same official who attended the first time, George, used to come with them and Habib was tortured a lot and all the time as the foreign intelligence wanted quick and fast information.''
The statement from the intelligence officer was taken by Mr Habib's Egyptian lawyer, Hisham Mahmoud Ramadan, who told Mr Habib yesterday that the overthrow of the Mubarak regime would make it easier to get more information about his torture.
Mr Habib was arrested in Pakistan in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. He was secretly taken to Egypt where he was tortured for seven months before he was imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, where he was held until January 2005. He was released without charge. He immediately began legal action against the Australian government, claiming it was complicit in his transfer and torture.
Then foreign minister Alexander Downer attorney-general Philip Ruddock repeatedly denied knowledge of the transfer. So did then ASIO boss Dennis Richardson and federal police chief Mick Keelty.
Mr Habib sued and after a six-year battle, the Gillard government suddenly agreed to pay him an undisclosed sum on December 17 in exchange for him dropping his case. The amount is subject to a strict confidentiality agreement. In a similar case, Canadian-Syrian engineer Maher Arar received $10 million from the Canadian government.
Sydney lawyer Ecevit Demir, who attended the meeting at which the Habib compensation was agreed, confirmed the Egyptian intelligence officer's statement was discussed. Mr Habib said he brought the statement to Julia Gillard's attention at the end of October. Soon after, she ordered an inquiry. He has decided to reveal the details of the statement because, despite the payout, the government is still refusing to give back his passport.
The Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, did not comment when The Sun-Herald asked if his department or ASIO would co-operate with the inquiry or whether ''anyone now wanted to change their stories''.
Mr Habib detailed interrogations by a man he identified only as George in his 2008 book, My Story: The Tale of a Terrorist Who Wasn't. He said George, who he had thought was Egyptian because he spoke Arabic with an Egyptian dialect, questioned him in Egypt and later in Afghanistan on his way to Guantanamo Bay.
The Department of Foreign Affairs has confirmed in writing to Mr Habib that there was an official named George working at the Australian embassy in Cairo. However, it maintained that while George did make inquiries about Mr Habib, George never had it ''confirmed'' that Mr Habib was in Egypt.
When The Sun-Herald showed Mr Habib a photograph of George, he recognised him and said he had seen him several times in the Egyptian jail.
Mr Habib told The Sun-Herald he would take the Egyptian agent's statement to the Inspector-General of Intelligence Services, Vivienne Thom, who is heading the inquiry ordered by Ms Gillard.
Wow. So Ronin, are you still submitting that this particular individual - or most American POWs - are treated better by the Taliban than those at GTMO?
That's a hell of a statement there.
I'm not saying that GTMO is a light hearted place, or that awful things don't happen there, but you do know about the Taliban, right?
Go ahead and repeat/summarize your original statement just so I can grasp what the feth you're talking about.
Thokt wrote: Wow. So Ronin, are you still submitting that this particular individual - or most American POWs - are treated better by the Taliban than those at GTMO?
That's a hell of a statement there.
I'm not saying that GTMO is a light hearted place, or that awful things don't happen there, but you do know about the Taliban, right?
Go ahead and repeat/summarize your original statement just so I can grasp what the feth you're talking about.
As I said many times, I am only reffering to Bergdahl.
We can see he is a special case. There seems to be some issues at play given his stance on the american occupation.
Just because Americans think of the Taliban in a certain way does not exclude the fact that it is a factional force that may have motivations for treating him well. Another factor is the pashtun guest culture it could appear that keeping him alive is a straining task considering many would have wanted him dead.
Thokt wrote: Wow. So Ronin, are you still submitting that this particular individual - or most American POWs - are treated better by the Taliban than those at GTMO?
That's a hell of a statement there.
I'm not saying that GTMO is a light hearted place, or that awful things don't happen there, but you do know about the Taliban, right?
Go ahead and repeat/summarize your original statement just so I can grasp what the feth you're talking about.
He's backpeddling now to say he meant just in the one case.
Thokt wrote: Wow. So Ronin, are you still submitting that this particular individual - or most American POWs - are treated better by the Taliban than those at GTMO?
That's a hell of a statement there.
I'm not saying that GTMO is a light hearted place, or that awful things don't happen there, but you do know about the Taliban, right?
Go ahead and repeat/summarize your original statement just so I can grasp what the feth you're talking about.
He's backpeddling now to say he meant just in the one case.
Read my first and second post, third one too. How more specific can I be?. I can't help your incorrect comprehension.
I also said if you want to cite executions please do so and we'll talk about it. Which I did. Nothing is there with me saying the Taliban is good to people.
It seems pretty clear he picked pashto given that his father pretty much confirmed it. That would seem pretty impossible if he was put into solitary confinement as is standard practice in gitmo.
Don't call me a troll right off the bat. How about that?
There are a myriad of ways you could of approached this without being inflammatory, but you seem to want to ignore those. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck and people will think you are a duck.
I'm guessing the game of "duck, duck , goose " as a child became a source of mental anguish as a result. Next time don't taunt the ducks by sticking bread up your nostril!
Bullockist wrote: I'm guessing the game of "duck, duck , goose " as a child became a source of mental anguish as a result. Next time don't taunt the ducks by sticking bread up your nostril!
I never knew about that game until I moved out west and saw college kids playing it.
Be direct. That link doesn't explain your reasoning. Am I too assume from that article that he wasn't treated as badly if not worse than a GTMO prisoner?
Breotan wrote: So, about that whole "We don't negotiate with terrorists." thing...
The "War on terror" is a fraud, that's what.
You are concerned about a trade when you should be more concerned about the U.S arming terrorists in Syria.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thokt wrote: Be direct. That link doesn't explain your reasoning. Am I too assume from that article that he wasn't treated as badly if not worse than a GTMO prisoner?
Expert security analyst says it is typical for the type of high profile prisoner.
The guy can speak Pashto....kinda implies he hasn't been sensory deprived, bound and hooded?
44Ronin wrote:Read my first and second post, third one too. How more specific can I be?. I can't help your incorrect comprehension.
44Ronin wrote:sarcasm is beyond some.
44Ronin wrote:I specifically mentioned the suit itself. Reading is not hard for most.
44Ronin wrote:It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
As for the handwaving off American war crimes, it does not surprise me considering you foam at the mouth.
Now as I said either apologise or don't bother posting in response.
Dude, seriously. Quit it with this whole "I'm the smartest one here, I'm dealing with a bunch of children, oh woe is me why must I deal with these plebians?" schtick. It's not funny, it massively undermines your argument. ("Stop using ad hominem attacks you idiot") and generally makes you come across as an unlikeable arsehole.
44Ronin wrote:Read my first and second post, third one too. How more specific can I be?. I can't help your incorrect comprehension.
44Ronin wrote:sarcasm is beyond some.
44Ronin wrote:I specifically mentioned the suit itself. Reading is not hard for most.
44Ronin wrote:It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
As for the handwaving off American war crimes, it does not surprise me considering you foam at the mouth.
Now as I said either apologise or don't bother posting in response.
Dude, seriously. Quit it with this whole "I'm the smartest one here, I'm dealing with a bunch of children, oh woe is me why must I deal with these plebians?" schtick. It's not funny, it massively undermines your argument. ("Stop using ad hominem attacks you idiot") and generally makes you come across as an unlikeable arsehole.
44Ronin wrote:Read my first and second post, third one too. How more specific can I be?. I can't help your incorrect comprehension.
44Ronin wrote:sarcasm is beyond some.
44Ronin wrote:I specifically mentioned the suit itself. Reading is not hard for most.
44Ronin wrote:It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
As for the handwaving off American war crimes, it does not surprise me considering you foam at the mouth.
Now as I said either apologise or don't bother posting in response.
Dude, seriously. Quit it with this whole "I'm the smartest one here, I'm dealing with a bunch of children, oh woe is me why must I deal with these plebians?" schtick. It's not funny, it massively undermines your argument. ("Stop using ad hominem attacks you idiot") and generally makes you come across as an unlikeable arsehole.
So tell how do you deal with mob who turn a molehill into a mountain?
44Ronin wrote:Read my first and second post, third one too. How more specific can I be?. I can't help your incorrect comprehension.
44Ronin wrote:sarcasm is beyond some.
44Ronin wrote:I specifically mentioned the suit itself. Reading is not hard for most.
44Ronin wrote:It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
As for the handwaving off American war crimes, it does not surprise me considering you foam at the mouth.
Now as I said either apologise or don't bother posting in response.
Dude, seriously. Quit it with this whole "I'm the smartest one here, I'm dealing with a bunch of children, oh woe is me why must I deal with these plebians?" schtick. It's not funny, it massively undermines your argument. ("Stop using ad hominem attacks you idiot") and generally makes you come across as an unlikeable arsehole.
So tell how do you deal with mob who turn a molehill into a mountain?
Debate with them politely. Provide evidence to back up an assertion which goes against the majority view, namely, everyone knows GITMO inmates are treated like gak (but they do have good healthcare), and everyone knows that the Taliban tortures prisoners to death. If you can't provide evidence, explain your reasoning.
Also, Rule #1. Read it, learn it, abide by it. If others don't, then you have the yellow triangle of friendship, or you can put them on your ignore list.
It'll be interesting to see how Sgt Bergdahl and his family adjusts to his freedom.
Living under that tension all those years to suddenly have it released has probably got to have some serious emotional and physical consequences making me wonder what measures are in place to help them with the decompression.
It'll seriously be some intense living, I imagine, with everyone viewing on the news those first weeks back.
BlaxicanX wrote: The news article states that the US got the POW in exchange for 5 Gitmo detainees.
Wouldn't this count as negotiating with terrorists?
"Hey, Taliban, you want some of your bros out of prison? Just capture some of our dudes and we'll trade you."
Let me first say that I'm really happy Bergdahl is home now.
I can't image what he's going through and he should be given whatever the feth he needs.
On the flip side... I can't help to wince at how this is handled...
We now have an administration that's willing to negotiate with Terrorists here. What this says to me is that every American abroad is now "open season".
BlaxicanX wrote: The news article states that the US got the POW in exchange for 5 Gitmo detainees.
Wouldn't this count as negotiating with terrorists?
"Hey, Taliban, you want some of your bros out of prison? Just capture some of our dudes and we'll trade you."
Let me first say that I'm really happy Bergdahl is home now.
I can't image what he's going through and he should be given whatever the feth he needs.
On the flip side... I can't help to wince at how this is handled...
We now have an administration that's willing to negotiate with Terrorists here. What this says to me is that every American abroad is now "open season".
Really? I don't see how this will cause them o target Americans any more than they do now.
-Shrike- wrote: Debate with them politely. Provide evidence to back up an assertion which goes against the majority view, namely, everyone knows GITMO inmates are treated like gak (but they do have good healthcare), and everyone knows that the Taliban tortures prisoners to death. If you can't provide evidence, explain your reasoning.
Also, Rule #1. Read it, learn it, abide by it. If others don't, then you have the yellow triangle of friendship, or you can put them on your ignore list.
All I've seen is everyone else dance around his posts and just call him names. Reading this thread he's seeming to be the cooler head despite arguing for a controversial viewpoint.
Relapse wrote: It'll be interesting to see how Sgt Bergdahl and his family adjusts to his freedom.
Living under that tension all those years to suddenly have it released has probably got to have some serious emotional and physical consequences making me wonder what measures are in place to help them with the decompression.
It'll seriously be some intense living, I imagine, with everyone viewing on the news those first weeks back.
Honestly, the more I see around, some of his comments from pre-"capture" and from his dad... I want to see him get off a plane in the US, and right into handcuffs.
Yeah, we didn't classify him as a deserter at the time, but the more that comes out, the more that particular picture is painted. Seriously, feth this guy.
-Shrike- wrote: Debate with them politely. Provide evidence to back up an assertion which goes against the majority view, namely, everyone knows GITMO inmates are treated like gak (but they do have good healthcare), and everyone knows that the Taliban tortures prisoners to death. If you can't provide evidence, explain your reasoning.
Also, Rule #1. Read it, learn it, abide by it. If others don't, then you have the yellow triangle of friendship, or you can put them on your ignore list.
All I've seen is everyone else dance around his posts and just call him names. Reading this thread he's seeming to be the cooler head despite arguing for a controversial viewpoint.
I don't know why CptJake gets a free pass for starting it either. All Ronin did was state one specific prisoner was treated better than Gitmo detainees and CptJake jumped down his throat with baseless accusations. It appears DakkaDakka is open minded until it comes to the Middle East and then being a nationalistic blowhard is all well and good.
-Shrike- wrote: Debate with them politely. Provide evidence to back up an assertion which goes against the majority view, namely, everyone knows GITMO inmates are treated like gak (but they do have good healthcare), and everyone knows that the Taliban tortures prisoners to death. If you can't provide evidence, explain your reasoning.
Also, Rule #1. Read it, learn it, abide by it. If others don't, then you have the yellow triangle of friendship, or you can put them on your ignore list.
All I've seen is everyone else dance around his posts and just call him names. Reading this thread he's seeming to be the cooler head despite arguing for a controversial viewpoint.
I don't know why CptJake gets a free pass for starting it either. All Ronin did was state one specific prisoner was treated better than Gitmo detainees and CptJake jumped down his throat with baseless accusations. It appears DakkaDakka is open minded until it comes to the Middle East and then being a nationalistic blowhard is all well and good.
Here is my first response:
Bull gak. Plain and simple bull gak. The detainees in GITMO get great health care (which clearly Bergdahl did not) and plenty of other amenities.
Care to show what part of that seems to meet your criteria as a baseless accusation? Note: I responded specifically to:
If you can cite the executed POW's then we'll talk about it. Otherwise I suggest you apologise for your "troll" comment.
Bergdahl was treated better than a gitmo inmate, beyond any doubt.
I showed Talibs executing prisoners, and gave an example of GITMO prisoners being treated better than Bergdahl. Has Ronin ever posted any legit source backing his claim Bergdahl was treated well?
-Shrike- wrote: Debate with them politely. Provide evidence to back up an assertion which goes against the majority view, namely, everyone knows GITMO inmates are treated like gak (but they do have good healthcare), and everyone knows that the Taliban tortures prisoners to death. If you can't provide evidence, explain your reasoning.
Also, Rule #1. Read it, learn it, abide by it. If others don't, then you have the yellow triangle of friendship, or you can put them on your ignore list.
All I've seen is everyone else dance around his posts and just call him names. Reading this thread he's seeming to be the cooler head despite arguing for a controversial viewpoint.
I don't know why CptJake gets a free pass for starting it either. All Ronin did was state one specific prisoner was treated better than Gitmo detainees and CptJake jumped down his throat with baseless accusations. It appears DakkaDakka is open minded until it comes to the Middle East and then being a nationalistic blowhard is all well and good.
-“I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools,” he concluded. “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”
This quote was given prior to him leaving the base to be "captured" by the Taliban... As I said, feth him. His actions DIRECTLY led to 6 soldiers dying, and who knows how many have been indirectly affected by his desertion.
You really have no clue what you are talking about.
Suicides? Any irony that a tactic seen as legit by the Talibs includes strapping explosives to a guy and having him suicide while killing others? And it isn't as if suicides are unique to or were even over represented in GITMO. Hell, vets are capping themselves daily.
Solitary confinement is bad? We have it in all our prisons, not unique to GITMO nor necessarily a bad thing.
And sleep deprivation? As part of interrogation I have zero problems with it, or with sensory deprivation.
But regardless, your strawman is nothing but that. You have no evidence the Talibs treat prisoners better than the US military, and in fact it isn't too hard to find documented cases of their brutality as a systemic issue as opposed to aberrations which US troops get punished for. The article I posted with video of Talibs murdering prisoners is not unique. Do you suppose those Talibs were prosecuted by their leadership, and then punished?
It appears you massively lack basic comprehension.
You talk of strawman when you are the only one doing it.
It is very simple to understand.
I said, this one guy was treated better than Gitmo prisoners. It's very simple. You take out out of the original context to apply to the larger group. I wasn't talking about the larger group I was talking about this ONE GUY.
For this to hold true your argument requires that ALL Gitmo detainees to be treated terribly, and that is not the case, ergo you cannot argue that he was treated better than Gitmo prisoners, as some Gitmo prisoners were treated better than he was.
BlaxicanX wrote: The news article states that the US got the POW in exchange for 5 Gitmo detainees.
Wouldn't this count as negotiating with terrorists?
"Hey, Taliban, you want some of your bros out of prison? Just capture some of our dudes and we'll trade you."
Technically speaking I believe the Taliban are classified as a political entity, as they were the former government of Afghanaland.
Here is the list of things the Gitmo inmates have been subjected to:
Humiliation tactics
Sleep Deprivation
Sensory Deprivation
Solitary Confinement
Forced Medication
Use of Dogs to Scare Detainees
Temperature Extremes
Sensory Bombardment
Now if you could please offer to specify what they did to Bergdahl in comparison?
Again, things done to *some* Gitmo detainees. Dont confuse the injustices suffered by a visible minority reported about in the media with things that happened to EVERY detainee.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim who was never formally charged for any crime within detention, despite having settled out of court with the Australian government to absolve the aforementioned government of any liability in his treatment during his detention by the United States.
Uh huh, and I'm the SEAL who capped OBL since we're making unsubstantiated claims. Regardless of which, there is some controversy regarding some of the claims made by Mamdouh Habib, so that doesn't mean a lot relative to events which are actually documented, so theres a bit of a credibility issue there. Beyond that, we have people that have first hand experience with Gitmo, and I know people myself who were stationed there (at the detention center, not just the base) who have explained to me first hand what the situation is like and how, while some truly terrible things happened there, that was very much in the minority and not a common occurrence. Considering how consistent the descriptions I've heard from person to person (and from people who theoretically shouldn't know one another), I'm inclined to believe it, unless some sort of big government conspiracy has them all touting the 'company line'.
Actually, you're throwing around the big claims about personal interviews with nothing to back them..
It's not like he was at hyde park, sydney on september 8th 2007 to talk to people :sarcasm:
hang on... he actually was...
Doesn't mean he was telling the whole truth. Embellishment is a common feature of storytelling, the truth rarely resembles what is told, though its usually never too far off (if you're doing it right).
Okay, now that I've got my two cents in, I'll withhold judgement on Bergdahl, I don't think he *intended* to end up in that situation or to harm anyone, though what exactly did occur is definitely suspect. Personally, I'm a little more creeped out by the beard on his father....
Jihadin wrote: Since you appear to have first hand knowledge on Enhance Interrogation technique compare to "Torture" interrogation you should know the difference between the two.
I interviewed Mamdouh Habib, a renditon victim
Are you a member of the press? What magazine, newspaper, or other journalistic group/association do you work for?
-“I am ashamed to be an American. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools,” he concluded. “I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting.”
This quote was given prior to him leaving the base to be "captured" by the Taliban... As I said, feth him. His actions DIRECTLY led to 6 soldiers dying, and who knows how many have been indirectly affected by his desertion.
His actions did not lead directly to anything. It was the decision of an officer somewhere along the line to waste time and resources searching for a known dissenter and probable deserter.
All I remember when it happen was the 110% accountability, being read General Order Number One, written counseling on every single one of soldiers and NCO's about General Order Number One with emphasis on the "No Sex", being collared into the SGT Major office along with others and getting reamed out just in case one of ours sneak off the FoB for a piece of non existence tushie being they caught one of our's (that stood the Hell out).
In turn we all went back to our respective platoons. Repeat the process of reaming out the platoon for even thinking they might get laid for real on FoB or off FoB. Then dropping the reason why. Then being asked how dumb can a guy get. Lower enlistee can do the damndest things
Jihadin wrote: All I remember when it happen was the 110% accountability, being read General Order Number One
GONO?
<--- Naive civilian, here.
It's basically a long-standing "General Order" that applies to all service members in a warzone.... Boils down to No Booze, No Sex (though usually, they turn a blind eye to this, if there's no fraternization or adultery... especially if it's a dual military couple in the same base)
BlaxicanX wrote: The news article states that the US got the POW in exchange for 5 Gitmo detainees.
Wouldn't this count as negotiating with terrorists?
"Hey, Taliban, you want some of your bros out of prison? Just capture some of our dudes and we'll trade you."
Let me first say that I'm really happy Bergdahl is home now.
I can't image what he's going through and he should be given whatever the feth he needs.
On the flip side... I can't help to wince at how this is handled...
We now have an administration that's willing to negotiate with Terrorists here. What this says to me is that every American abroad is now "open season".
Really? I don't see how this will cause them o target Americans any more than they do now.
Americans had a general policy of NOT negotiating with Terrorists.
Americans had a general policy of NOT negotiating with Terrorists.
Think about it for a bit.
IIRC, it's not only policy, but the LAW to not negotiate with terrorists.
Isn't it also the law that the POTUS has to advise Congress of the release of any GITMO detainees before they are released so they may raise national security concerns?
If we don't negotiate with terrorists then this guy was not a POW and no American soldier captured will ever be a POW.
I always thought the whole "we don't negotiate" deal was a stupid cowboy mindset on our part. But I think it is a giant "feth you" to our armed forces to deprive them of POW status because you want to play the "they are terrorists, not combatants" game with our own prisoners.
chaos0xomega wrote: Its called accountability, its kind of a big deal in the military. It wasn't so much a decision as it was a requirement.
That's an institutional problem.
Absolutely. The military really should just let people wander off whenever they feel like it. Even more in warzones. Gotta fight the power, man.
Yeah, that 'problem' is perhaps one of the most comforting things to a lot of our service members, the 'no man left behind' is a bit of a morale boost, but yeah, you know, institutional problems and all that.
d-usa wrote: If we don't negotiate with terrorists then this guy was not a POW and no American soldier captured will ever be a POW.
I always thought the whole "we don't negotiate" deal was a stupid cowboy mindset on our part. But I think it is a giant "feth you" to our armed forces to deprive them of POW status because you want to play the "they are terrorists, not combatants" game with our own prisoners.
The policy doesn't prevent our forces from trying to rescue them.
It's also there to telegraph to FUTURE potential kidnappers that they ain't getting gak.
Well... the 'nappers got their gak now.
What does that tell the other 'nappers out there now?
We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night
For five years, soldiers have been forced to stay silent about the disappearance and search for Bergdahl. Now we can talk about what really happened.
It was June 30, 2009, and I was in the city of Sharana, the capitol of Paktika province in Afghanistan. As I stepped out of a decrepit office building into a perfect sunny day, a member of my team started talking into his radio. “Say that again,” he said. “There’s an American soldier missing?”
There was. His name was Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, the only prisoner of war in the Afghan theater of operations. His release from Taliban custody on May 31 marks the end of a nearly five-year-old story for the soldiers of his unit, the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment. I served in the same battalion in Afghanistan and participated in the attempts to retrieve him throughout the summer of 2009. After we redeployed, every member of my brigade combat team received an order that we were not allowed to discuss what happened to Bergdahl for fear of endangering him. He is safe, and now it is time to speak the truth.
And that the truth is: Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.
On the night prior to his capture, Bergdahl pulled guard duty at OP Mest, a small outpost about two hours south of the provincial capitol. The base resembled a wagon circle of armored vehicles with some razor wire strung around them. A guard tower sat high up on a nearby hill, but the outpost itself was no fortress. Besides the tower, the only hard structure that I saw in July 2009 was a plywood shed filled with bottled water. Soldiers either slept in poncho tents or inside their vehicles.
The next morning, Bergdahl failed to show for the morning roll call. The soldiers in 2nd Platoon, Blackfoot Company discovered his rifle, helmet, body armor and web gear in a neat stack. He had, however, taken his compass. His fellow soldiers later mentioned his stated desire to walk from Afghanistan to India.
The Daily Beast’s Christopher Dickey later wrote that "[w]hether Bergdahl…just walked away from his base or was lagging behind on a patrol at the time of his capture remains an open and fiercely debated question.” Not to me and the members of my unit. Make no mistake: Bergdahl did not "lag behind on a patrol,” as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon—including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.
Our deployment was hectic and intense in the initial months, but no one could have predicted that a soldier would simply wander off. Looking back on those first 12 weeks, our slice of the war in the vicinity of Sharana resembles a perfectly still snow-globe—a diorama in miniature of all the dust-coated outposts, treeless brown mountains and adobe castles in Paktika province—and between June 25 and June 30, all the forces of nature conspired to turn it over and shake it. On June 25, we suffered our battalion’s first fatality, a platoon leader named First Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw. Five days later, Bergdahl walked away.
His disappearance translated into daily search missions across the entire Afghanistan theater of operations, particularly ours. The combat platoons in our battalion spent the next month on daily helicopter-insertion search missions (called "air assaults”) trying to scour villages for signs of him. Each operations would send multiple platoons and every enabler available in pursuit: radio intercept teams, military working dogs, professional anthropologists used as intelligence gathering teams, Afghan sources in disguise. They would be out for at least 24 hours. I know of some who were on mission for 10 days at a stretch. In July, the temperature was well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit each day.
These cobbled-together units’ task was to search villages one after another. They often took rifle and mortar fire from insurgents, or perhaps just angry locals. They intermittently received resupply from soot-coated Mi-17s piloted by Russian contractors, many of whom were Soviet veterans of Afghanistan. It was hard, dirty and dangerous work. The searches enraged the local civilian population and derailed the counterinsurgency operations taking place at the time. At every juncture I remember the soldiers involved asking why we were burning so much gasoline trying to find a guy who had abandoned his unit in the first place. The war was already absurd and quixotic, but the hunt for Bergdahl was even more infuriating because it was all the result of some kid doing something unnecessary by his own volition.
On July 4, 2009, a human wave of insurgents attacked the joint U.S./Afghan outpost at Zerok. It was in east Paktika province, the domain of our sister infantry battalion (3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry). Two Americans died and many more received wounds. Hundreds of insurgents attacked and were only repelled by teams of Apache helicopters. Zerok was very close to the Pakistan border, which put it into the same category as outposts now infamous—places like COP Keating or Wanat, places where insurgents could mass on the Pakistani side and then try to overwhelm the outnumbered defenders.
One of my close friends was the company executive officer for the unit at Zerok. He is a mild-mannered and generous guy, not the kind of person prone to fits of pique or rage. But, in his opinion, the attack would not have happened had his company received its normal complement of intelligence aircraft: drones, planes, and the like. Instead, every intelligence aircraft available in theater had received new instructions: find Bergdahl. My friend blames Bergdahl for his soldiers’ deaths. I know that he is not alone, and that this was not the only instance of it. His soldiers’ names were Private First Class Aaron Fairbairn and Private First Class Justin Casillas.
Though the 2009 Afghan presidential election slowed the search for Bergdahl, it did not stop it. Our battalion suffered six fatalities in a three-week period. On August 18, an IED killed Private First Class Morris Walker and Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen during a reconnaissance mission. On August 26, while conducting a search for a Taliban shadow sub-governor supposedly affiliated with Bergdahl’s captors, Staff Sergeant Kurt Curtiss was shot in the face and killed. On September 4, during a patrol to a village near the area in which Bergdahl vanished, an insurgent ambush killed Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews and gravely wounded Private First Class Matthew Martinek, who died of his wounds a week later. On September 5, while conducting a foot movement toward a village also thought affiliated with Bergdahl’s captors, Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey stepped on an improvised land mine. He died the next day.
It is important to name all these names. For the veterans of the units that lost these men, Bergdahl’s capture and the subsequent hunt for him will forever tie to their memories, and to a time in their lives that will define them as people. He has finally returned. Those men will never have the opportunity.
Bergdahl was not the first American soldier in modern history to walk away blindly. As I write this in Seoul, I'm about 40 miles from where an American sergeant defected to North Korea in 1965. Charles Robert Jenkins later admitted that he was terrified of being sent to Vietnam, so he got drunk and wandered off on a patrol. He was finally released in 2004, after almost 40 hellish years of brutal internment. The Army court-martialed him, sentencing him to 30 days' confinement and a dishonorable discharge. He now lives peacefully with his wife in Japan—they met in captivity in North Korea, where they were both forced to teach foreign languages to DPRK agents. His desertion barely warranted a comment, but he was not hailed as a hero. He was met with sympathy and humanity, and he was allowed to live his life, but he had to answer for what he did.
The war was already absurd and quixotic, but the hunt for Bergdahl was even more infuriating because it was the result of some kid doing something unnecessary by his own volition.
I believe that Bergdahl also deserves sympathy, but he has much to answer for, some of which is far more damning than simply having walked off. Many have suffered because of his actions: his fellow soldiers, their families, his family, the Afghan military, the unaffiliated Afghan civilians in Paktika, and none of this suffering was inevitable. None of it had to happen. Therefore, while I’m pleased that he’s safe, I believe there is an explanation due. Reprimanding him might yield horrible press for the Army, making our longest war even less popular than it is today. Retrieving him at least reminds soldiers that we will never abandon them to their fates, right or wrong. In light of the propaganda value, I do not expect the Department of Defense to punish Bergdahl.
He’s lucky to have survived. I once saw an insurgent cellphone video of an Afghan National Police enlistee. They had young boys hold him down, boys between the ages of 10 and 15, all of whom giggled like they were jumping on a trampoline. The prisoner screamed and pleaded for his life. The captors cut this poor man’s head off. That’s what the Taliban and their allies do to their captives who don’t have the bargaining value of an American soldier. That’s what they do to their fellow Afghans on a regular basis. No human being deserves that treatment, or to face the threat of that treatment every day for nearly five years.
But that certainly doesn’t make Bergdahl a hero, and that doesn’t mean that the soldiers he left behind have an obligation to forgive him. I just hope that, with this news, it marks a turning point for the veterans of that mad rescue attempt. It’s done. Many of the soldiers from our unit have left the Army, as I have. Many have struggled greatly with life on the outside, and the implicit threat of prosecution if they spoke about Bergdahl made it much harder to explain the absurdity of it all. Our families and friends wanted to understand what we had experienced, but the Army denied us that.
I forgave Bergdahl because it was the only way to move on. I wouldn’t wish his fate on anyone. I hope that, in time, my comrades can make peace with him, too. That peace will look different for every person. We may have all come home, but learning to leave the war behind is not a quick or easy thing. Some will struggle with it for the rest of their lives. Some will never have the opportunity.
And Bergdahl, all I can say is this: Welcome back. I’m glad it's over. There was a spot reserved for you on the return flight, but we had to leave without you, man. You’re probably going to have to find your own way home.
And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.
We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.
He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and dangerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.
d-usa wrote: And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.
We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.
We got "our" guy, now he can get "our" justice.
Sure... okay. But we're talking about OFFICIAL stance, vs any sort of backroom deals.
I find all the teeth-gnashing kinda strange though... the Executive Branch has always dealt with these sorts of things.
The Republican outrage just seems... what's the phrase... out of balance. I'm tired of it even now...
The only beef, really stems from the fact that he's an apparent deserter. If that's the case, he'll have is day in military court.
Jihadin wrote: He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and dangerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.
People like this are the reason we have warnings on coffee advising that the contents may be hot
“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement.
Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.
The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.
Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl’s release.
A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.
“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” the official said. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that the detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar, where they are to stay for at least a year, “are hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans and countless Afghans on their hands. I am eager to learn what precise steps are being taken to ensure that these vicious and violent Taliban extremists never return to the fight against the United States and our partners or engage in any activities that can threaten the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan.”
Beyond this individual instance, some raised the larger question of whether it is sound policy for the United States to have, in the words of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), “negotiated with terrorists.”
Bergdahl for
Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa
Khairkhwa was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban's rule. He hails from the same tribe as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and was captured in January 2002. Khairkhwa's most prominent position was as governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001, and he was alleged to have been "directly associated" with Osama bin Laden. According to a detainee assessment, Khairkhwa also was probably associated with al Qaeda's now-deceased leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He is described as one of the "major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan" and a "friend" of Karzai. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities.
Mullah Mohammad Fazl
Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. He has been accused of war crimes during Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s. Fazl was detained after surrendering to Abdul Rashid Dostam, the leader of Afghanistan's Uzbek community, in November 2001. He was wanted by the United Nations in connection with the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites during the Taliban's rule. "When asked about the murders, he did not express any regret," according to the detainee assessment. He was alleged to have been associated with several militant Islamist groups, including al Qaeda. He was transferred into U.S. custody in December 2001 and was one of the first arrivals at Guantanamo, where he was assessed as having high intelligence value.
Mullah Norullah Noori
Noori served as governor of Balkh province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance. Like Fazl, Noori was detained after surrendering to Dostam, the Uzbek leader, in 2001. Noori claimed during interrogation that "he never received any weapons or military training." According to 2008 detainee assessment, Noori "continues to deny his role, importance and level of access to Taliban officials." That same assessment characterized him as high risk and of high intelligence value.
Abdul Haq Wasiq
Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban regime's intelligence service. His cousin was head of the service. An administrative review in 2007 cited a source as saying that Wasiq was also "an al Qaeda intelligence member" and had links with members of another militant Islamist group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. Wasiq claimed, according to the review, that he was arrested while trying to help the United States locate senior Taliban figures. He denied any links to militant groups.
Mohammad Nabi Omari
Omari was a minor Taliban official in Khost Province. According to the first administrative review in 2004, he was a member of the Taliban and associated with both al Qaeda and another militant group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. He was the Taliban's chief of communications and helped al Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Omari acknowledged during hearings that he had worked for the Taliban but denied connections with militant groups. He also said that he had worked with a U.S. operative named Mark to try to track down Taliban leader Mullah Omar.
His actions lead to
According to firsthand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera and a diary.
At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.
Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops -- from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad to the larger group that made up the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division -- told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.
Many are flocking to social media, such as the Facebook page "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero," where they share stories detailing their resentment. A number of comments on his battalion's Facebook page prompted the moderator to ask for more respect to be shown.
"I challenge any one of you who label him a traitor to spend 5 years in captivity with the Taliban or Haqqani, then come back and accuse him again. Whatever his intent when he walked away or was captured, he has more than paid for it."
E-mails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl's fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: He told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.
"The future is too good to waste on lies," he wrote to his parents. "And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."
Bergdahl wrote to them, "I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting."
CNN has not independently verified the authenticity of the e-mails.
A former member of Bergdahl's squad who has yet to identify his last name publicly but goes by "Cody" tweeted this weekend that before he disappeared, Bergdahl once told him, "If deployment is lame, I'm going to get lost in the Mountains and make my way to China."
Leatherman told CNN that Bergdahl "always looked at the mountains in the distance and talked of 'seeing what's on the other side.' "
Cody noted in his Twitter recollections a story that others from Blackfoot Company relay. While soldiers were searching for Bergdahl, a platoon "came upon some children, they asked him have they seen an American. The children said 'yes, he was crawling on his belly through weeds and acting funny a while ago,' " according to Cody.
Bergdahl's parents: 'It isn't over'
The platoon went to the village where the children said the American had gone. "Villagers said an American did come through the area and was wanting water and someone who spoke English," Cody shared.
Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."
"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is, he was there to protect us, and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources, and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."
Many soldiers on the ground at the time said insurgents were able to take advantage of the intense search for Bergdahl.
"A huge thing in-country is not building patterns. Well when you are looking for a person everyday that creates a pattern. While searching for him, ambushes and IEDs picked up tremendously. Enemy knew we would be coming. IEDs started being placed more effectively in the coming weeks. Ambushes were more calculated, cover and concealment was used," Cody tweeted.
On August 18, 2009, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker were killed by an IED in the search for Bergdahl. Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss was killed on August 26; 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek were killed after being attacked in Yahya Khail District on September 4; Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey was killed September 5 by an IED at the Forward Operating Base, Sharana.
Moreover, other operations were put on hold while the search for Bergdahl was made a top priority, according to officers who served in Afghanistan in that time. Manpower and assets -- such as scarce surveillance drones and helicopters -- were redirected to the hunt. The lack of assets is one reason the closure of a dangerous combat outpost, COP Keating, was delayed. Eight soldiers were killed at COP Keating before it was ultimately closed.
One soldier with the 509th Regiment, a sister unit of the 501st, told CNN that after Bergdahl disappeared, the U.S. Army essentially was told to lock down the entire province of Paktika. He described sitting in the middle of a field with his platoon, vulnerable, with capabilities and personnel mismanaged throughout the region. Different platoons ran out of water, food and ammunition.
Two mortarmen -- Pvt. Aaron Fairbairn and Pfc. Justin Casillas -- were killed in a July 4, 2009, attack.
"It was unbelievable," the soldier said. "All because of the selfish act of one person. The amount of animosity (toward him) is nothing like you've ever seen before."
That Bergdahl was freed in an exchange for five detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a further source of consternation.
"I don't understand why we're trading prisoners at Gitmo for somebody who deserted during a time of war, which is an act of treason," Vierkant said.
Happy he made it home but I hate him for causing other soldiers deaths
d-usa wrote: And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.
We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.
We got "our" guy, now he can get "our" justice.
Sure... okay. But we're talking about OFFICIAL stance, vs any sort of backroom deals.
Our official stance is this: "Got one of our own citizens? Kill him. Behead him on camera and post the video for his friends and family to see. Drag his headless corpse through the street and mount his head on a spike in front of whatever cave you are hiding in. Send his fingers to individual suicide bombers to wear as a necklace to remind them who they are fighting against. We don't care. As long as he is alive you will get nothing form us except people looking to hunt you down to free him. He will be more value and less problems for you dead."
All because we can't do what we do to POWs so they are terrorists instead.
I'm pretty pragmatic there and that is the message we are sending with our "we never negotiate" stance. But I'm sure they are happy to get rid of the one US guy to free up room in their caves full of soldiers and citizens from every other country that is weaker than us and actually negotiates...
The only beef, really stems from the fact that he's an apparent deserter.
And that should be a non-issue. He is still a US soldier wearing the uniform. If a guy that is living stateside decides "feth it, I don't wanna be a soldier anymore. I'm out. Ok thanx bye" he is still a member of the military until the military says he isn't. He will get hauled back and face the consequences. Same thing with an idiot walking off in a war-zone. As long as he is still alive and he is still a soldier. I'm sure that there are plenty of guys out there who feel that they should have just killed him because he is a fether, but that's not how it works. He is ours, we will get him, and then we will deal with his desertion. His capture and his desertion should be two separate issues IMO.
Jihadin wrote: He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and dangerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.
People like this are the reason we have warnings on coffee advising that the contents may be hot
I absolutely loathe that people still use that poor woman as some sort of "sue happy culture" poster-child. OTOH, it showcases how many people will spout off about cases without actually understanding them.
Jihadin wrote: Putting a lrg hot coffee that's in a styrofoam cup between my thighs is bad
Knowing to walk off the FoB by my lonesome self is bad
There is "hot coffee" and then there is "melts-nylon-and-burns-human-flesh-all-the-way-down-to-the-bone-requiring-multiple-skin-grafts coffee". I'll leave it to you to figure out which she got.
edit: there's also the "I just want to cover my medical bills and time missed from work" fact that she didn't sue for big bucks, just enough to cover her bills, but like I said, no one wants to actually read about the case; they'd rather just demonize an old woman.
d-usa wrote: And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.
We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.
We got "our" guy, now he can get "our" justice.
Sure... okay. But we're talking about OFFICIAL stance, vs any sort of backroom deals.
Our official stance is this: "Got one of our own citizens? Kill him. Behead him on camera and post the video for his friends and family to see. Drag his headless corpse through the street and mount his head on a spike in front of whatever cave you are hiding in. Send his fingers to individual suicide bombers to wear as a necklace to remind them who they are fighting against. We don't care. As long as he is alive you will get nothing form us except people looking to hunt you down to free him. He will be more value and less problems for you dead."
All because we can't do what we do to POWs so they are terrorists instead.
I'm pretty pragmatic there and that is the message we are sending with our "we never negotiate" stance. But I'm sure they are happy to get rid of the one US guy to free up room in their caves full of soldiers and citizens from every other country that is weaker than us and actually negotiates...
You opinion is noted.
The only beef, really stems from the fact that he's an apparent deserter.
And that should be a non-issue. He is still a US soldier wearing the uniform. If a guy that is living stateside decides "feth it, I don't wanna be a soldier anymore. I'm out. Ok thanx bye" he is still a member of the military until the military says he isn't. He will get hauled back and face the consequences. Same thing with an idiot walking off in a war-zone. As long as he is still alive and he is still a soldier. I'm sure that there are plenty of guys out there who feel that they should have just killed him because he is a fether, but that's not how it works. He is ours, we will get him, and then we will deal with his desertion. His capture and his desertion should be two separate issues IMO.
You're right... his capture/POW and his apparent desertion are separate issues.
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely loathe that people still use that poor woman as some sort of "sue happy culture" poster-child. OTOH, it showcases how many people will spout off about cases without actually understanding them.
You loathe people who make humorous throw away lines? You must be a delight at parties. If it helps unrustle your jimmies please substitute my comment with; "People like this are the reason we have warning labels on products most reasonable people wouldn't mis-use"
streamdragon wrote: I absolutely loathe that people still use that poor woman as some sort of "sue happy culture" poster-child. OTOH, it showcases how many people will spout off about cases without actually understanding them.
You loathe people who make humorous throw away lines?
I think he loathes when someone spouts long standing falsehoods based on a complete lack of understanding. It is also the situation he loathes, not the people.
chaos0xomega wrote: Its called accountability, its kind of a big deal in the military. It wasn't so much a decision as it was a requirement.
That's an institutional problem.
Absolutely. The military really should just let people wander off whenever they feel like it. Even more in warzones. Gotta fight the power, man.
Yeah, that 'problem' is perhaps one of the most comforting things to a lot of our service members, the 'no man left behind' is a bit of a morale boost, but yeah, you know, institutional problems and all that.
He was a clearly stated deserter. Sacrificing multiple loyal soldiers to save a deserter makes zero sense.
Ahtman wrote:Common sense would say not to make coffee so hot it gives third degree burns in two seconds.
Cheers! At least someone else knows the truth about that case.
Ahtman wrote: I think he loathes when someone spouts long standing falsehoods based on a complete lack of understanding. It is also the situation he loathes, not the people.
Mis-reading on my part, thank you for that correction
Jihadin wrote: He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and the migerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.
And he spent 5 years in the hands of the Taliban for it. There are guys we're putting into prison for half that time for raping people.
I for one am getting sick and tired of all military out there that I'm seeing saying this guy wasn't worth the effort we put into freeing him.
EVERY MAN IN UNIFORM IS WORTH THE EFFORT. Otherwise we can always find some dumb thing everyone of us did in the past that would ruin the cause to bring us home.
Is it common to sign NDA on stuff throughout your tour duties?
Like, Bergdahl's own platoon having to sign NDA to prevent them from talking about the events that transpired?
That whole thing seems very odd to me.
<---- noobish civillian
Usually, it's a blanket NDA regarding ANY classified info you may come across. It does seem odd to me to have a "specific NDA" put in place for a select group.
Jihadin wrote: He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and the migerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.
And he spent 5 years in the hands of the Taliban for it. There are guys we're putting into prison for half that time for raping people.
I for one am getting sick and tired of all military out there that I'm seeing saying this guy wasn't worth the effort we put into freeing him.
EVERY MAN IN UNIFORM IS WORTH THE EFFORT. Otherwise we can always find some dumb thing everyone of us did in the past that would ruin the cause to bring us home.
Agreed.
Even if we "only" bring him/her home to face UCMJ for their stupidity... I do wish that the Pres. hadn't apparently broken the law in negotiating, and ultimately trading some of the worst terrorists in Guantanamo for this guy. (really, we don't know if he talking with ANYONE in congress, or if he talked to a select few insiders)
My understanding (which may be wrong) about the NDAs in this particular case is that they were put out under the pretense of not wanting info released that would endanger Bergdahl or compromise search efforts and intel ops supporting those efforts. Analogous to the 'on going investigation, no comment' type deal.
CptJake wrote: My understanding (which may be wrong) about the NDAs in this particular case is that they were put out under the pretense of not wanting info released that would endanger Bergdahl or compromise search efforts and intel ops supporting those efforts. Analogous to the 'on going investigation, no comment' type deal.
Okay... that makes much more sense. Thanks!
The buzz I'm reading is that this is a smoke test to see if the Administration can get away with this (which, I'm of the opinion that they could anyways).
CptJake wrote: My understanding (which may be wrong) about the NDAs in this particular case is that they were put out under the pretense of not wanting info released that would endanger Bergdahl or compromise search efforts and intel ops supporting those efforts. Analogous to the 'on going investigation, no comment' type deal.
Okay... that makes much more sense. Thanks!
The buzz I'm reading is that this is a smoke test to see if the Administration can get away with this (which, I'm of the opinion that they could anyways).
They want to close down Gitmo...
Now it'd be pretty "awesome" to see the gitmo plane get a drone strike mid-air (the pilots would get advanced warning/parachute out, of course)
For some perspective, the McDonald's coffee thing that is much bemoaned isn't as ridiculous as it seems, they were serving coffee at 190* F. The difference in regards to how quickly it would cause 3rd degree burns compared to most of their competitors serving at 130-160*F was pretty massive, and McDonald's quality control manager admitted that the coffee was hot enough to burn the mouth and throat even several minutes after serving. This was supposedly done to ensure coffee remained hot after driving some distance, but McDonald's own research showed that people generally tried to consume it immediately.
Essentially McDonald's was serving something at a higher temperature than their competitors and what their own research determined was necessary, and someone got hurt.
This guy from what it sounds like had a massive brainfart (who knows what sort of psychological issues he may have had) and paid 5 years of his life for it. It's good that he's back, but sad other soldiers died looking for him.
So am I but I hate him still for costing soldiers their lives for his stupidity. He has to live with the fact now that his action cost them their lives. He is not a "Hero", he should not be protected from if they prosecute him under UCMJ.
Jihadin wrote: So am I but I hate him still for costing soldiers their lives for his stupidity. He has to live with the fact now that his action cost them their lives. He is not a "Hero", he should not be protected from if they prosecute him under UCMJ.
This adds a new level that will be interesting to see play out. I wonder if the family of those killed because of him, if that was the case,will be interviewed.
Ah, but see, he hasn't suffered. If Taliban Tina from earlier in the thread is to be believed, he was basically at Club Med.
If he deserted (which seems pretty likely), my vote would be to charge him, but either way I'm glad we got him out so that this doesn't remain a thing.
No one knows how he was treated while in captivity. His first two years could have been "Hell" and the last three could have been easy. We do not know.
I myself picked up some Pashto from over five deployments. Five years in captivity you will pick up the language.
No one knows yet the full extent on what happen to him while in captivity. So far it "seems" he has been will treated. You know full well if your are an experience "interviewer" that you cannot stand by what he said, what "they" said, and what other "analyst" type say. You would dig for more confirmation would you not?
Jihadin wrote: I myself picked up some Pashto from over five deployments.
I bet you would've picked up a lot more if you'd deserted to the enemy. Hell, McCain would be pretty fluent in Vietnamese if he'd intentionally punched out after expressing his disgust with his country.
My two cents as someone who has never served a day in his life is this; As an act of faith to all those who are serving, have served, or ever will serve they need to know that if they are captured they will not be forgotten. That being said it does not mean that if he deserted his post that he is immune from the repercussions of that action.
Some of the comments here are serving as a springboard for me to research this in depth. I'm beginning to go from extremely happy he got out to wtf as I read in various news services of how he just abandoned his post and others died died trying to find him and save him. Other sources say he was captured in a raid, however.
If he deserted and turned collaborater, that would explain his good treatment while other soldiers that have been captured were barely recognizable corpses when found.
Obama's actions in this, I feel the need to research, also, to see if what he did was legal or not. I have been told what he did not only violated United States law, but alsothe Geneva Convention. The last might be a stretch, but as I said, springboard for research to me.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: My two cents as someone who has never served a day in his life is this; As an act of faith to all those who are serving, have served, or ever will serve they need to know that if they are captured they will not be forgotten. That being said it does not mean that if he deserted his post that he is immune from the repercussions of that action.
Tell that to the Vietnam POWs that died in captivity years after the war.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: My two cents as someone who has never served a day in his life is this; As an act of faith to all those who are serving, have served, or ever will serve they need to know that if they are captured they will not be forgotten. That being said it does not mean that if he deserted his post that he is immune from the repercussions of that action.
Tell that to the Vietnam POWs that died in captivity years after the war.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: My two cents as someone who has never served a day in his life is this; As an act of faith to all those who are serving, have served, or ever will serve they need to know that if they are captured they will not be forgotten. That being said it does not mean that if he deserted his post that he is immune from the repercussions of that action.
Tell that to the Vietnam POWs that died in captivity years after the war.
Such as?
You're really not familiar with the live prisoners issue?
Dreadclaw69 wrote: My two cents as someone who has never served a day in his life is this; As an act of faith to all those who are serving, have served, or ever will serve they need to know that if they are captured they will not be forgotten. That being said it does not mean that if he deserted his post that he is immune from the repercussions of that action.
Tell that to the Vietnam POWs that died in captivity years after the war.
Such as?
You're really not familiar with the live prisoners issue?
We can take that back to North Korea, too. I don't know how many prisoners were left there.
Yeeeeaaaahhhh.... I wasn't ready to jump on the hate bandwagon as fast as some of my army buddies, but as I read more about this the dude really starts to come off as a gakheel.
That he was promoted to Sgt in absentia is mind blowing, and if in fact anyone else died searching for or trying to rescue him.......
It's Army SOP (probably DoD) to promote to SGT anyone who becomes a POW (assuming they arent a SGT or higher already)... The thing that brings some question marks to me is that I've read some stuff recently saying that his unit/the army hadn't ever officially declared him a POW?? If that's true, that should raise a few eyebrows.
That he was promoted to Sgt in absentia is mind blowing, and if in fact anyone else died searching for or trying to rescue him.......
It's Army SOP (probably DoD) to promote to SGT anyone who becomes a POW (assuming they arent a SGT or higher already)... The thing that brings some question marks to me is that I've read some stuff recently saying that his unit/the army hadn't ever officially declared him a POW?? If that's true, that should raise a few eyebrows.
You aren't automatically promoted to SGT...
POW benefits
Promotions: POW personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
MIA benefits
Promotions: MIA personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
I find it mind blowing since there were apparently pentagon reports as early as 2010 finding that he was most likely a deserter.
trexmeyer wrote: You're really not familiar with the live prisoners issue?
I don't know of any credible evidence to support the assertion that POWs were left in Vietnamese captivity after the war was over. It's been investigated multiple times.
That he was promoted to Sgt in absentia is mind blowing, and if in fact anyone else died searching for or trying to rescue him.......
It's Army SOP (probably DoD) to promote to SGT anyone who becomes a POW (assuming they arent a SGT or higher already)... The thing that brings some question marks to me is that I've read some stuff recently saying that his unit/the army hadn't ever officially declared him a POW?? If that's true, that should raise a few eyebrows.
You aren't automatically promoted to SGT...
POW benefits
Promotions: POW personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
MIA benefits
Promotions: MIA personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
I find it mind blowing since there were apparently pentagon reports as early as 2010 finding that he was most likely a deserter.
Wouldn't a suspected deserter still be a full member of the armed forces until he has actually been court marshaled and then discharged? Can you do that when the person is not present?
That he was promoted to Sgt in absentia is mind blowing, and if in fact anyone else died searching for or trying to rescue him.......
It's Army SOP (probably DoD) to promote to SGT anyone who becomes a POW (assuming they arent a SGT or higher already)... The thing that brings some question marks to me is that I've read some stuff recently saying that his unit/the army hadn't ever officially declared him a POW?? If that's true, that should raise a few eyebrows.
You aren't automatically promoted to SGT...
POW benefits
Promotions: POW personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
MIA benefits
Promotions: MIA personnel continue to be considered for promotion along with their contemporaries. Policy provides for each missing or captured officer/enlisted member to be considered for promotion to the next higher grade when they are eligible. The eligibility for officers is based on the date of rank in their current grade. For enlisted members, eligibility is based on time in grade and time in service.
I find it mind blowing since there were apparently pentagon reports as early as 2010 finding that he was most likely a deserter.
Wouldn't a suspected deserter still be a full member of the armed forces until he has actually been court marshaled and then discharged? Can you do that when the person is not present?
SGT isn't an automatic promotion... so ... don't promote them? I mean, if nothing else he hasn't passed an APFT in the required window to be considered for promotion since he deserted as a PFC. I get that it's done as a goodwill thing so is probably all but automatic, but come on.
No. All legal, personnel, and financial actions go on hold as soon as the individual is declared AWOL. Which is like 24 hrs after he is reported missing. If he did it in the US then no efforts would have been made to locate him till he gets pop by LEO for whatever infraction that gets their attention. Then he is held and turned over to a MP unit that comes to retrieve him. Since he deserted in a combat zone, or went AWOL, and later label as deserter same thing happens but now the US Military has to look for him. Since the video of him came up verifying he was captured then he slides into POW status the search for him was called off.
We go to extrodinary length to retrieve a fallen comrade. 173rd lost a guy in Korangal Valley to enemy action. In fact the company was pushed back down the spur of a ridge. The guy killed was the commo guy with all the fills and a man pack SINGAR. Being it was evening when he went down the unit could not retrieved the body due to darkness and the amount of enemy fire. It was literally force on force. In twelve hours they brought an additional battalion from 501st and another battalion from RC South to go into Korangal Valley. His body was retrieved but all his gear, weapon, comm's and personnel effect was stack neatly by his body. All his food, water, pogey bait, and money was taking. Local villagers located the body first.
A month later Insurgent forces executed two men who searched the body for not taking the rifle and ammo. Four days later informant dropped dime on the shooters
Bromsy wrote: SGT isn't an automatic promotion... so ... don't promote them? I mean, if nothing else he hasn't passed an APFT in the required window to be considered for promotion since he deserted as a PFC. I get that it's done as a goodwill thing so is probably all but automatic, but come on.
Bingo. It's a goodwill thing. Not doing it could have become a story in its own right, and Big Green probably wouldn't want to be in that position without being able to say for certain one way or another.
They can always reduce him back down as part of a sentence.
The big thing for me is starting to become the trade. Letting five guys the Taliban actually wanted back go walking off in exchange for this chucklehead is bad juju.
d-usa wrote: I wasn't even thinking about the promotion, just the "still a soldier even if he deserted" thing.
Well yeah, of course he's still a soldier. I just hope he is investigated/prosecuted and handed the DD and or prison sentence he seems to deserve, at which point he will stop being a soldier.
d-usa wrote: I wasn't even thinking about the promotion, just the "still a soldier even if he deserted" thing.
Well yeah, of course he's still a soldier. I just hope he is investigated/prosecuted and handed the DD and or prison sentence he seems to deserve, at which point he will stop being a soldier.
That's what I was thinking.
If he is found guilty of deserting, could he become liable for the deaths?
Tell that to the Vietnam POWs that died in captivity years after the war.
Seaward.....help me out here....NVA prisoners? Viet Cong prisoners? US Prisoners?
ARVN perhaps. I met one of those guys who was left to rot. Poor bastard.
ARVN, almost unquestionably. The South Vietnamese really got screwed when we pulled out.
The notion that we left behind Americans in captivity is unsubstantiated by anything I can find, though. I was reading about this the other day for unrelated reasons. I'm no expert on it, but the experts say no.
d-usa wrote: I wasn't even thinking about the promotion, just the "still a soldier even if he deserted" thing.
Well yeah, of course he's still a soldier. I just hope he is investigated/prosecuted and handed the DD and or prison sentence he seems to deserve, at which point he will stop being a soldier.
That's what I was thinking.
If he is found guilty of deserting, could he become liable for the deaths?
He could, theoretically. My gut says they won't go for it.
Bromsy wrote: Well yeah, of course he's still a soldier. I just hope he is investigated/prosecuted and handed the DD and or prison sentence he seems to deserve, at which point he will stop being a soldier.
It'd be nice, but I think it's unlikely. Too much of a gak storm. We released five Jihad Joes so we could get a moon unit out of Waziristani hill-jail just so we could throw him in jail ourselves. It wouldn't play.
Relapse wrote: Some of the comments here are serving as a springboard for me to research this in depth. I'm beginning to go from extremely happy he got out to wtf as I read in various news services of how he just abandoned his post and others died died trying to find him and save him. Other sources say he was captured in a raid, however.
Purely out of curiosity, can you post some of the sources that show him captured in a raid?
If you are sentenced to prison, are you still a soldier in prison and get discharged after you served your sentence?
I believe that is how it works. Knew a guy through a friend who went to Fort Leavenworth and that is what happened if I recall correctly.
I actually don't think so, because... To my knowledge the most money they can go for is the 45 days in an Article 15. Elsewise the government owes money to the person as a salary. I believe that they are slapped with a dishonorable right from the get go, but are still under "contract" so they are considered military.
I could be wrong though (never did get into much UCMJ, trouble or otherwise)
I was wondering because I was thinking about them being forced to wear their uniforms and such, but after thinking a little bit I'm pretty sure that when I heard about stuff like that it was still during the trial.
d-usa wrote: I was wondering because I was thinking about them being forced to wear their uniforms and such, but after thinking a little bit I'm pretty sure that when I heard about stuff like that it was still during the trial.
Yeah, they generally wear military uniforms during trial, but I think (and could be wrong, again) that they wear "army issued prisoner uniforms" ie. orange jumpsuits, as done in most every other penitentiary.
I just read about this one congressman saying, with absolutely no evidence, that Bergdahl went to the Taliban on purpose. Ahh, politics, one of the few places were lying is not only accepted, but is treated as art.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I just read about this one congressman saying, with absolutely no evidence, that Bergdahl went to the Taliban on purpose. Ahh, politics, one of the few places were lying is not only accepted, but is treated as art.
Sad thing is.... he/she may or may not be lying in this case... But you are correct that the evidence we currently have can't fully support (or really support at all) that kind of statement.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I just read about this one congressman saying, with absolutely no evidence, that Bergdahl went to the Taliban on purpose. Ahh, politics, one of the few places were lying is not only accepted, but is treated as art.
Sad thing is.... he/she may or may not be lying in this case... But you are correct that the evidence we currently have can't fully support (or really support at all) that kind of statement.
It's a bit like the desertion thing. At first it was not verified, but people said it anyway.
To be fair, there is a lot of confirmation he walked off his COP, unauthorized. Doing so and not returning within 30 days (while you are AWOL) fits the definition for desertion.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I just read about this one congressman saying, with absolutely no evidence, that Bergdahl went to the Taliban on purpose. Ahh, politics, one of the few places were lying is not only accepted, but is treated as art.
Actually... some of Bergdahl's own platoon mates are speaking out about this.
Just curious for your camouflage types. If Bergdahl was a deserter, lets hypothetical suppose - the President could not pardon or commute him, correct? Undue command influence?
Ouze wrote: Just curious for your camouflage types. If Bergdahl was a deserter, lets hypothetical suppose - the President could not pardon or commute him, correct? Undue command influence?
Erm...
I would still think he could Pardon him.
The military is under federal jurisdiction and the only prohibition on pardons is if the President was convicted during his tenure, he/she couldn't pardon him/herself.
EDIT: you can, the process however is different vs a non-military request.
He has to go through the motions first. Though if the POTUS absolves him of all responsibility then its Undue Command Influence. POTUS then would set back the attempt by congress to remove that portion from UCMJ. For more clarity, the Sexual assault charges against a fellow Field Grade Officer being dropped by a General Officer.
You can't pardon or commute until after a trial, so as long as he didn't state intent to do so prior to a trial (or otherwise influence a trial) he could do what he wanted.
Negative Ouze. That blanket pardon is not in effect. My wife had an expat American who deserted from the military and went to Canada and came back with that document. Was a no go. Her office had to inform the US Army he was contain in Seattle awaiting pick up by them so a team from Lewis came and got him. He used that document in USCIS for another reason to have something done. That of which I cannot tell you.
From the article;
"Horton said Bergdahl didn't talk about Afghanistan much, and they more or less lost touch after he was deployed, but said he wanted to go."
With all due respect to the former teacher I'd put more faith in those who served with him as their testimony is more relevant to his deeds and possible mindset at the time.
Ouze wrote: Just curious for your camouflage types. If Bergdahl was a deserter, lets hypothetical suppose - the President could not pardon or commute him, correct? Undue command influence?
Honestly dont know... But if that "anonymous" person at the WH is correct, nothing will be done, and he'll get away scot free because "he's suffered enough"
I'm just speaking in generalities since I don't yet know enough about this guy, but in general: I think "he's suffered enough" is sometimes a valid sentence in the pursuit of satisfying justice, if not in pursuit of satisfying the law. I've never been an advocate of dura lex sed lex .
Ouze wrote: I'm just speaking in generalities since I don't yet know enough about this guy, but in general: I think "he's suffered enough" is sometimes a valid sentence in the pursuit of satisfying justice, if not in pursuit of satisfying the law.
I mean, I don't really think that Mr. President can come down and say, "go easy on him, see if there's a way to get him out cleanly" as yeah, I think your earlier statement of "undue command influence" would come into play; Just the same as if Mr. President said, "get every ounce of the UCMJ out of that punk, make him bleed". Which is why, often times the President doesn't make comments publicly about these things other than "we've brought this guy home"
And I'm sure I don't have to repeat myself on my stance of whether "he's suffered enough"
Well, we have to wait and see what the investigation reveals. Just because someone was unsympathetic to our war rationale doesn't mean he didn't just get snatched while taking a dump; although Occam's razor kinda frowns on that.
Jihadin wrote: Hey I'm glad he is alive and going home to his families. His actions though cause some families to receive folded flags instead their love ones.
Which is why, IMO they should investigate for desertion and proceed to court martial if/when evidence is found
I posted another similar article on that about the reorientation of unit missions on here. So combat patrols turn into a search patrols. Everyone was getting hit during that time period. With search patrol the unit has to go into areas that has more exposure to actions looking for him.
Edit
I kind of figure you were about the UCMJ and pardon bit on playing Devil Advocate. Just take into account his action is touchy with a lot of us because he put soldiers in danger and some were killed over it.
The President's authority to issue pardons for Federal offenses is absolute. Pardons can be issued before conviction or after. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before any charged could be brought to a court.
The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense."
Even if there were a conflict of interest, the President is under no requirement to recuse himself of his authority to pardon. Congress doesn't even have oversight authority regarding Presidential pardons.
Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."
And back to the topic...
Relapse wrote: The more I hear about this guy the more pissed I get. We lost good men for him?
Yep. And I'm afraid this tool will be let off light as some sort of publicity stunt as the election draws near. It'll certainly drive Republican voter turnout, though.
Breotan wrote: The President's authority to issue pardons for Federal offenses is absolute. Pardons can be issued before conviction or after. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before any charged could be brought to a court.
A Presidential pardon is different than using "command influence" on a case.... So basically, in this instance, he would have to give the order for a pardon, or essentially make no comment about a trial or investigation until after a conviction. Because if he makes a comment such as "I hope he gets the book thrown at him" a good military trial defense attorney is going to use that against the prosecution as undue command influence, which will significantly harm the prosecution.
Breotan wrote: The President's authority to issue pardons for Federal offenses is absolute. Pardons can be issued before conviction or after. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before any charged could be brought to a court.
The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense."
Even if there were a conflict of interest, the President is under no requirement to recuse himself of his authority to pardon. Congress doesn't even have oversight authority regarding Presidential pardons.
Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."
McChrystal on Bergdahl: ‘We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal’
Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday urged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s critics not to “judge” him until all the facts are in and sharply defended the extensive and risky search efforts that claimed the lives of some of his fellow soldiers.
“We did a huge number of operations to try to stop the Taliban from being able to move him across the border into Pakistan,” McChrystal told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview. “And we made a great effort and put a lot of people at risk in doing that, but that’s what you should do. That’s what soldiers do for each other.”
Bergdahl’s release as part of a prisoner swap involving five Taliban commanders has drawn angry scrutiny in Congress. It has also prompted some of his former comrades in arms to paint him as a deserter unworthy of the frantic search efforts on his behalf.
McChrystal, who commanded the war effort in Afghanistan at the time of Bergdahl’s June 2009 vanishing, declined to shed any more light on the circumstances of his disappearance.
“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”
Asked whether he would have made the same prisoner swap, McChrystal replied: “We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal.”
“There will be a lot of discussion on whether the mechanism for getting Sgt. Bergdahl back was right — and I’ll leave it to people to argue that,” he added.
McChrystal spoke to Yahoo News on the battlefield of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where he was due to headline a summit on national service. He has called for an ambitious public-private partnership to get Americans age 18-28 to do one year of service.
The Summit at Gettysburg: Our Unfinished Work is being hosted by the Aspen Institute’s Franklin Project, together with the National Conference on Citizenship, ServiceNation and Voices for National Service.
McChrystal was forced to resign after a 2010 Rolling Stone article featured him and his aides criticizing civilian leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden.
I love what this Chief U.N. weapon inspector says about mint press "news":
"The MPN report had been "widely circulated" and cited among others by Military.com, the Voice of Russia, Press TV, Spanish newspaper ABC, ConsortiumNews.com and InfoWars. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting initially characterized the article as "honest about the limits of its knowledge", but after Gavlak's comments dissociating herself from the story wrote that "with the allegations of unprofessional behavior on the part of Mint Press News, there's little reason to take the Mint Press story seriously." Asked about the Mint Press News story Åke Sellström, Chief UN weapons inspector in Syria remarked ; "They are famous for 1001 Arabian Nights Stories."
“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”
Nice comment by him. Cannot in anyway possible say McChrystal influence any possible UCMJ action
Very true. What I am worried though of the possible can of worms this action might be opening. If an American hostage is taken and the US Government plays the "We do not deal with terrorist" card then we have problems. People will forget the Taliban was the existing government before they protected OBL and forced an eviction.
Current perception on most Americans now that "Insurgents" now cover Taliban, AQ, and other groups of fighters
I'm afraid this tool will be let off light as some sort of publicity stunt as the election draws near.
Exactly who does this help? Not the guy who can't run again, and the other democratic possibles are nowhere near it. The only people that might benefit from at election it would be Republicans.
Actually some Republicans voiced opposition after the deal was made public. Democrats are already hammering them about it being Bergdahl was released. Now though the issue on how he was capture and came to be a POW is now tarnishing the Dems a bit.
My opinion is it'll be a no issue come elections this year since none of the Representatives or Senators had anything to do with it.
Jihadin wrote: Actually some Republicans voiced opposition after the deal was made public. Democrats are already hammering them about it being Bergdahl was released. Now though the issue on how he was capture and came to be a POW is now tarnishing the Dems a bit.
My opinion is it'll be a no issue come elections this year since none of the Representatives or Senators had anything to do with it.
Looks like both sides are unhappy with Obama on this deal:
Political suicide for either side to bang away at each other over it. Let Bergdahl have his fame for a short bit. Hit him with UCMJ and give him a Dishonorable if possible and take all his pay. Neither political party can say anything about that either
Ahtman wrote: All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.
Yep, definitely a whacked situation. I don't know how many editorials I've read saying Obama should be hosting the families of those killed looking for Bergdahl after he walked away from his post, and those are the nice ones. Even CNN, when they aren't putting Obama at the gym forward as a prominant news item seemed to be critical.
However, many said the briefing did little to quell their concerns, with Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., saying he left the briefing with more questions than answers.
Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss agreed.
“I don’t see how anybody can walk out of there with any kind of comfortable feeling that the administration from a notification standpoint, and I emphasize that, did what they should have done or what they had the opportunity to do. I mean, it was like they didn’t trust Dianne (Feinstein) and me," he told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren on "On the Record."
Spoiler:
Relapse wrote: Even CNN, when they aren't putting Obama at the gym forward as a prominant news item seemed to be critical.
I saw that earlier. I think it's a pretty big diplomatic faux pas, if you ask me - the Europeans generally are less fond of gun shows than Americans are, and yet there he was, with them on display, flexing all over.
Also, when looking for a picture of Obama flexing for this thread, I found this unrelated image.
Bergdahl's former comrades also wondered if he gave the Taliban intelligence because the enemy executed "very calculated, very methodical" strikes after Bergdahl's disappearance, said former Army Sgt. Buetow.
Before you all jump the gun thinking he did. Remember that the locals knew the unit was conducting combat patrols/search patrols. Soldiers/Terps were asking the locals for his where about. It does not take a physic master to understand how they can predict a unit movement after awhile knowing the unit additional objective was locating him
Some experts speculate Bergdahl may have experienced Stockholm syndrome, in which he may have emotionally bonded with his Taliban captors over the five years.
Breotan wrote: And I'm afraid this tool will be let off light as some sort of publicity stunt as the election draws near. It'll certainly drive Republican voter turnout, though.
Far be it from me to ever defend this guy, especially if he turns out to be a deserter, but 5 years in a Taliban hell-hole isn't exactly "getting off light".
As Jihadin pointed out, it's possible he may have experienced Stockholm Syndrome.... But I do wonder, and perhaps someone with a mental health background can help with this but.... If he did in fact go willingly to the Taliban, would it be more difficult to argue SS? I mean yeah, sure when he first got to the Talibs cave, I doubt they had a plate of cookies and tea waiting for him and they probably beat him some. But if he WANTED to be with them instead of the Americans, I'm sure they could/would quickly see that and alter their treatment of him.
As for a trial, yeah, I think there's a lot to consider in any sentencing. Personally (and I know I won't be chosen as a juror), I think that his 5 years with the Taliban is worthless next to the American lives lost in the pursuit of finding him.
Tibbsy wrote: Like many in this thread it seems, I'm glad he's being brought home.
But if it's true he deserted, he should go to trial for it.
I do think any sentence given if he's found guilty should take into account his time spent in captivity though.
Should the 6-8 guys who got killed looking for him also be taken into account?
I know nothing about Military law, but probably not.
Desertion during wartime is a capital offense because it can lead to the deaths of others. That it actually did so might be a factor in sentencing, but given the remarkable contoversy over the last execution for desertion, I find it highly unlikely that it will happen.
Cases like this become about PR, and adding in the death penalty just makes it toxic.
Ahtman wrote: All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.
Maybe not an election stunt, but after the VA scandal it is possible that this was a calculated move to try and win back veterans. It just backfired.
It's possible, but there seems to be no evidence that the White House was sitting on this offer for months and was waiting (which, no doubt, would be seen as a scandal in its own right).
I think we're just at a point in a presidency where everybody has made up their minds, and pretty much every act will be spun in the direction the viewer wants.
Polonius wrote: It's possible, but there seems to be no evidence that the White House was sitting on this offer for months and was waiting (which, no doubt, would be seen as a scandal in its own right).
I think we're just at a point in a presidency where everybody has made up their minds, and pretty much every act will be spun in the direction the viewer wants.
Which is why I never said that the White House was sitting on this for months, or that they were sitting on it at all. If they had been sitting on this then they would have had ample opportunity to inform Congress of the release 30 days prior as required by law. It is likely that negotiations on this matter have been on going for some time and may have reached a point where a deal was possible. Political expediency and the potential to make political capital with veterans may have helped make the deal a reality.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Political expediency and the potential to make political capital with veterans may have helped make the deal a reality.
Instead, they went all in, and the Vets are finding out about the "ace in the sleeve" and are rearin' for a fight at high noon now (that "ace in the sleeve" being that bergdahl may have been a deserter and all the other gak that's coming out)
Ahtman wrote: All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.
Maybe not an election stunt, but after the VA scandal it is possible that this was a calculated move to try and win back veterans. It just backfired.
It's possible, but there seems to be no evidence that the White House was sitting on this offer for months and was waiting (which, no doubt, would be seen as a scandal in its own right).
Not sure if it's "scandalish" per se.... but, there's information coming out that the DoD knew where he was located for quite some time.
Easy E wrote: I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.
Truly we live in interesting times.
The man is/was in uniform... we should always try to get them back regardless how they were lost.
But you can't tell me that this was purely just a sacred obligation to get him back. Their actions made it clear that political benefits for the WH were considered when it came to the Bergdahl swap.
In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.
A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME by telephone Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.
“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
Easy E wrote: I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.
Truly we live in interesting times.
In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.
Many here in OT do not seem to object to the release being secured. It is inexcusable to leave a brother/sister-in-arms behind. The controversy here arises from the manner in which the POW was captured, the White House lauding him as a hero, making a deal with terrorists, not following the law in relation to GITMO detainees, and the fact that his alleged actions have caused the deaths of other servicemen.
BRUSSELS — President Obama said Thursday he will not apologize for the agreement that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, and he dismissed critics who have attacked the agreement that freed five Taliban detainees.
"I'm never surprised by controversies that are whipped up in Washington, all right?" Obama during a joint news conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron. "That's par for the course."
Saying the United States has a "basic principle" that it does not leave any soldier behind on the battlefield, Obama said: "We saw an opportunity and we seized it and I make no apologies for that."
The Obama administration released five Taliban members from the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for the release of Bergdahl after some five years in captivity.
Some congressional Republicans criticized the deal, saying it might encourage the Taliban to kidnap more Americans.
Members of Congress from both parties faulted the administration for not providing proper notice that it intended to release prisoners from Gitmo.
Obama said lawmakers knew that a prisoner swap was possible and that his administration acted quickly out of concern for the state of Bergdahl's health.
"We're now explaining to Congress the details of how we moved forward," Obama said.
Some troops who served in Afghanistan have accused Bergdahl of deserting his post, a claim administration officials have disputed.
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees, said the prisoner swap "has put in danger now countless American men and women in uniform across this globe."
Speaking Wednesday on CNN, Rubio said: "What the president has done here is send a very clear message and incentive, that if you can get your hands on an American serviceman or woman, you can trade them for as many as five terrorists."
Obama said he and other officials were thinking about Bergdahl's parents when they signed off on the trade.
"I write too many letters to folks who, unfortunately, don't see their children again after fighting a war," Obama said. "I make absolutely no apologies for making sure that we get back a young man to his parents."
I don't get this. Weren't american soldiers who are likely to be kidnapped likely to be killed also in that same situation?? How on earth does this endanger them more?
Ahtman wrote: All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.
What was the news prior to this?
Elections in India
Elections in Europe
FCC idiocy on Net Neutrality
Open Carry Shenanigans
VA Problems
The VA issues aren't new, and have been a problem going back multiple administrations, so not sure why it would be treated as just this ones. Oddly, even with this story there is still news happening, as well more on the older stories, so it isn't stopping people from discussing or seeing other news stories.
Sining wrote: I don't get this. Weren't american soldiers who are likely to be kidnapped likely to be killed also in that same situation?? How on earth does this endanger them more?
It gives the enemy more of an incentive to go out and make an effort to capture soldiers.
Ahtman wrote: All of which seems to argue that it isn't an election publicity stunt by the Obama administration.
What was the news prior to this?
Elections in India Elections in Europe FCC idiocy on Net Neutrality Open Carry Shenanigans VA Problems
The VA issues aren't new, and have been a problem going back multiple administrations, so not sure why it would be treated as just this ones. Oddly, even with this story there is still news happening, as well more on the older stories, so it isn't stopping people from discussing or seeing other news stories.
Right, it's better that they kept him alive instead of killing him. However now there may be in increase in number of attempts and their zeal in those attempts. Especially at a 5 important to 1 unimportant rate of exchange.
That seems to only work if you want to believe it, and are wearing political blinders of some sort. It hasn't changed the story about the VA either so it doesn't seem to have the virtue of deflecting anything. All you are really doing is saying that it is a conspiracy based on nothing more than there was a story about the VA and now there is another story, which isn't really all that convincing.
That seems to only work if you want to believe it, and are wearing political blinders of some sort. It hasn't changed the story about the VA either so it doesn't seem to have the virtue of deflecting anything. All you are really doing is saying that it is a conspiracy based on nothing more than there was a story about the VA and now there is another story, which isn't really all that convincing.
All I'm saying was that it was an attempt to Wag the Dog.
The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.
The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.
The VA has had problems for a long time, why would it now suddenly require such an odd story to try and counteract it? Especially since at best it also keeps the VA problems in the light as well since this guy will be dealing with the VA.
Just look at the two issues and think about it.
Which goes back to it being there only if that is what you want to see. If you actually think about it it doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.
The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.
The VA has had problems for a long time,
Agreed. I'd even say it isn't fair to "blame" Obama. The only thing that's remotely fair to criticise Obama is that he broke a campaign promise. Goodness sake, it was the Obama administration that increased VA $$$ by almost 80% since the start of his Presidency.
is that why would it now suddenly require such an odd story to try and counteract it? Especially since at best it also keeps the VA problems in the light as well since this guy will be dealing with the VA.
Eh... I truly believe the WH didn't expect this sort of backlash. I'd posit that they were hoping for a Hero's Welcome and high accolades for rescuing a hostage. (ie, deflect some of the VA issue, hence my Wag the Dog statement).
The lack of caves full of soldiers and citizens from every nation on earth other than the US makes it appear that negotiating with terrorists doesn't change their agenda all that much.
d-usa wrote: The lack of caves full of soldiers and citizens from every nation on earth other than the US makes it appear that negotiating with terrorists doesn't change their agenda all that much.
I don't buy that really...
In my eyes... the biggest danger with this swap is that it could strengthen Taliban crew in Afgan/Pakistan.
Look what they did... they negotiated as equals with the US and apparently got the better deal.
But, really guys... isn't this the proverbial "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" thing?
Just get rid of the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch and go to the parliamentary system.
Nobody can do gak anyway unless the legislature gets to be involved and then nobody will do gak because the legislature is too busy pandering and arguing to actually do anything.
d-usa wrote: Just get rid of the Judicial Branch and the Executive Branch and go to the parliamentary system.
Nobody can do gak anyway unless the legislature gets to be involved and then nobody will do gak because the legislature is too busy pandering and arguing to actually do anything.
The Star Wars Imperial Senate, in RealD, coming to a D.C. near you!
Jihadin wrote: Why put in the effort then if the result going to be the same
Because prior to this they had zero incentive to keep you alive.
Our government policy has been this: If you guys get your hands on Jihadin just go ahead and kill him. Be sure to film it and put in on the internet, that way his wife knows what happened to him. Parade his dead body around as well. We are going to kill you anyway so why bother keeping him alive if you can just kill him and get some good propaganda footage.
Because once you get past all the "we are tough on terrorists" and "we don't negotiate with evil because we are the good guys" bs that is nothing but pandering to people sitting on their ass at home that is all it is: A giant feth you to our soldiers. Because they know that the enemy has zero reason to keep them alive because they are not considered POWs by our own government.
You might be okay with knowing that your government cares so little about your life that they continue the official policy of "kill him, you get nothing", but I think it's bs.
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues. You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
If we really want to show how tough we are with terrorists. Next time they take a hostage and we find out where they are held, don't send in the SEALs. Just bomb the place into oblivion and kill the kidnappers and the hostage. That will show the bad guys how tough we are. AMIRITE!
Easy E wrote: If we really want to show how tough we are with terrorists. Next time they take a hostage and we find out where they are held, don't send in the SEALs. Just bomb the place into oblivion and kill the kidnappers and the hostage. That will show the bad guys how tough we are. AMIRITE!
I don't think I noticed anyone in this thread advocate for that position.
CptJake wrote: You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.
That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".
CptJake wrote: You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.
That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
CptJake wrote: You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.
That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?
CptJake wrote: You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.
That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?
Did any of the detainees there meet the legal criteria for POW status? (nope)
CptJake wrote: You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.
That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?
Did any of the detainees there meet the legal criteria for POW status? (nope)
Congratulations on holding two completely incompatible positions and somehow making them fit and work together in your head.
CptJake wrote: You have to note that the Haqqani network uses kidnapping for ransom and for political purpose as a revenue stream and as a terror tactic.
And American Soldiers are useless for that purpose. So just cut off their heads on camera and dumb the body somewhere.
That's the message we send with "we don't negotiate".
They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
Is Gitmo a POW camp following the Geneva Convention for POWs?
Did any of the detainees there meet the legal criteria for POW status? (nope)
Congratulations on holding two completely incompatible positions and somehow making them fit and work together in your head.
Asking folks to follow the law of war, and our troops being held to it don't seem completely incompatible at all. You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status. Not sure how that is hard to grasp. Our guys follow the rules or get punished.
You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status.
You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status because the laws of warfare don't apply.
Non-legal combatants capturing one of our guys? They should act like legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare!
You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status.
You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status because the laws of warfare don't apply. Non-legal combatants capturing one of our guys? They should act like legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare!
And our troops do. They don't interrogate then execute. They provide medical care. They give access to IRC, they allow a legal process to review status, and so on. We do act like legitimate folks and do follow the laws of war. The exceptions get punished when caught.
.
What have ducks ever done to you ?
