Soldier freed from Taliban after 5 year captivity

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

So you agree that some HUD official posting on his personal twitter is "the administration saying stuff"?

If that's the case then the administration is saying a lot of stuff on Dakka.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
So you agree that some HUD official posting on his personal twitter is "the administration saying stuff"?

If that's the case then the administration is saying a lot of stuff on Dakka.

In all fairness, he's at a fairly high level, according to this chart:

http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/about/admguide/orgcharts/hud.pdf

I said people in the administration, not the administration. It's still pretty bad. People got worked up and righteous about what the Clippers owner said in a private conversation.
I think this is far worse since it's a highly placed government official putting a message out to the public at large.

**d-usa**

And he is still using a personal twitter account saying personal stuff.

Politicians left and right are attacking people on a daily basis speaking in the record and in their official capacity.

But some guy on his own twitter is "the administration"?

**Relapse**

As I said, he's someone in the administration. To tell the truth, if he doesn't think it'll go public when he says something like that on twitter, he's dumber than a box of rocks.

**d-usa**

And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.

Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.

If he doesn't think it will go public he is an idiot. If people think his personal statements are the official statements of the administration then I would shake my head at them as well.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.

Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.

d, I said someone in the administration, not "the" administration. He is highly placed, though, as I said which is why it was looked at as a newsworthy item when he spouted that gak.

Here is what the guy's office entails.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/secretary/powersec

If that correlates to your job description at the VA, then it would be a major item, according to the news carriers, if you said something similar.

**Jihadin**

Should have stuck with "Some Ass Clown in HUD said his unit is a bunch of psychopath" on his own personnel twitter account

**d-usa**

Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.

Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.

Here is what the guy's office entails.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/secretary/powersec

You realize that's not him right?

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.

Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.

Here is what the guy's office entails.

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/about/secretary/powersec

You realize that's not him right?

I blush

Got the wrong one up. Here we go:

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=public-affairs.pdf

**Jihadin**

"I’d like to clarify tweets I wrote last night on my personal Twitter account concerning the return of Bowe Bergdahl. First, I do not speak for the Administration on national security issues in any capacity—public or personal. As a former infantry officer and combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have only the highest regard for our servicemen and women. They are my friends, my colleagues, my mentors, my brothers, and sisters. While I just wanted to make the point that the public should wait before passing judgment, I unfortunately used my own poor judgment in choosing inappropriate language that many view as disparaging to U.S. service members. That was certainly not my intent and I regret making the comments on my personal account in such a way. I apologize to those with whom I work in the Administration, at HUD, and, most importantly, to any service members who took offense.”

**d-usa**

I would be fine with saying "a high ranking HUD official", I just think spreading him to mean "an administration official" is stretching things a bid thin.

To me "the administration" would be the big boss, anybody working in the White House, or the individual secretaries of the cabinet.

That's my only beef.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
I would be fine with saying "a high ranking HUD official", I just think spreading him to mean "an administration official" is stretching things a bid thin.

To me "the administration" would be the big boss, anybody working in the White House, or the individual secretaries of the cabinet.

That's my only beef.

The big boss? Bruce Lee'll kick his ass! The ironic thing is, if you go by his job description, it looks like he would be some kind of media specialist.

**Ouze**

whembly wrote:
“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.”

This is a dumb sentiment and I think you probably know that if you consider it. Capturing a US soldier alive has always been and will always be a very useful tool for the Taliban because the PR value of executing them on the internet is enormous. The only way you can defend the Taliban's POV on this (which as a side note, you should maybe think about) would be if you honestly think they had not previously been trying to do this. That is, I believe, utterly impossible for any reasonable person to believe.

D-USA is right. The old status quo was that the Taliban was eager to capture US troops alive, so they could make videos about killing them. That they might now have some value alive other then for that is a net bonus, and the desire of the Taliban to capture troops is still going to be exactly the same as before.

I think it was right to make a swap. I think the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is a travesty, I think it's a betrayal of American Ideals, and I think holding men indefinitely in an extralegal environment should be horrifying to conservative and liberal alike. I consider it the greatest failing of the Bush adminsitration - opening a facility with the stated goal of putting the detainees is "legal outer space"; as they put it - and I think the greatest failure of the Obama administration was not righting this wrong. Charge them, grant them POW status, or let them go: those are the options as I see it. As the war winds down and we start to realize that it's going to be very hard to continue extrajudicially holding these guys forever, we're going to have to release them anyway, and we might as well get something out of it than nothing.

We have no moral high ground here.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
"I’d like to clarify tweets I wrote last night on my personal Twitter account concerning the return of Bowe Bergdahl. First, I do not speak for the Administration on national security issues in any capacity—public or personal. As a former infantry officer and combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have only the highest regard for our servicemen and women. They are my friends, my colleagues, my mentors, my brothers, and sisters. While I just wanted to make the point that the public should wait before passing judgment, I unfortunately used my own poor judgment in choosing inappropriate language that many view as disparaging to U.S. service members. That was certainly not my intent and I regret making the comments on my personal account in such a way. I apologize to those with whom I work in the Administration, at HUD, and, most importantly, to any service members who took offense.”

Way to go Rakkasan

**Jihadin**

Was more likely passed up twice

**Relapse**

The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Relapse wrote:
The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.

Probably a 40 foot shipping container of assorted guns, rpgs, grenades and the like

**d-usa**

I'm not one to say that some of his fellow soldiers and our politicians are full of crap, but I do question where all this "why are we risking our lives for a deserter" talk was from everybody while he was still missing. It just feels very "swift boat".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/04/the-real-reason-the-u-s-didn-t-rescue-bowe-bergdahl.html

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.

Slams head on desk...

**Ouze**

Relapse wrote:
The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.

Is this the marine with the 3 guns that "accidentally" crossed the border? Because if so, those charges didn't seem very bogus to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
I'm not one to say that some of his fellow soldiers and our politicians are full of crap, but I do question where all this "why are we risking our lives for a deserter" talk was from everybody while he was still missing. It just feels very "swift boat".\.

And even if not,

1.) It seems way, way too early to smear him. Lets have the facts come out first. If he deserted, then charge him.

2.) Even if he was a deserter, he was an American serviceman and we get back our troops, even if they're not particularly good or particularly loyal. Call me an idealist.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
D-USA is right. The old status quo was that the Taliban was eager to capture US troops alive, so they could make videos about killing them. That they might now have some value alive other then for that is a net bonus, and the desire of the Taliban to capture troops is still going to be exactly the same as before.

I think it was right to make a swap. I think the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is a travesty, I think it's a betrayal of American Ideals, and I think holding men indefinitely in an extralegal environment should be horrifying to conservative and liberal alike. I consider it the greatest failing of the Bush adminsitration - opening a facility with the stated goal of putting the detainees is "legal outer space"; as they put it - and I think the greatest failure of the Obama administration was not righting this wrong. Charge them, grant them POW status, or let them go: those are the options as I see it. As the war winds down and we start to realize that it's going to be very hard to continue extrajudicially holding these guys forever, we're going to have to release them anyway, and we might as well get something out of it than nothing.

We have no moral high ground here.

The issue with that is you are putting the cart before the horse. At the time Berghdl was captured the status quo was that a US serviceman was useful as a propaganda tool for an execution video (barring whatever information could be wrung from them). What changed the status quo was the fact that the US and Taliban are now talking and interacting politically to reach a settlement so the US can withdraw from Afghanistan.

I agree about GITMO too. While there is room to play with the legal definition of the detainees the fact remains that this makes it a minefield when we try to repatriate them, and it has been a huge black eye for the US and her international standing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
CNN is arguing this was actually a step to getting rid of GITMO and it kind of backfired.

It's a good way to test the water. See how the public react to a prisoner exchange to get a POW back, then if it is favourable sell the closing of GITMO as the only way to get all out troops out of Afghanistan

d-usa wrote:
And he is still using a personal twitter account saying personal stuff.

Politicians left and right are attacking people on a daily basis speaking in the record and in their official capacity.

But some guy on his own twitter is "the administration"?

I agree with d-usa. However ill-advised his comments were it does not appear that he made them in an official capacity

Relapse wrote:
The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.

We have millions of illegal immigrants who are Mexican natives who we could trade

**d-usa**

It's just amazing how quick positions change:

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
whembly wrote:
“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.”

This is a dumb sentiment and I think you probably know that if you consider it. Capturing a US soldier alive has always been and will always be a very useful tool for the Taliban because the PR value of executing them on the internet is enormous. The only way you can defend the Taliban's POV on this (which as a side note, you should maybe think about) would be if you honestly think they had not previously been trying to do this. That is, I believe, utterly impossible for any reasonable person to believe.

D-USA is right. The old status quo was that the Taliban was eager to capture US troops alive, so they could make videos about killing them. That they might now have some value alive other then for that is a net bonus, and the desire of the Taliban to capture troops is still going to be exactly the same as before.

I disagree.

The Talibans (and potentially other terrorists) now has something concrete in this transaction. Namely, 5 of their guys for 1 of ours. When is that last time we've done something like that? Honestly? (Jessica Lynch was rescued by Special Ops).

All you have to do is look at how Isreal handles these prisoner swap. Both sides actively engage in strategies to capture the enemy with the express purpose to get the other side to release their POWs.

Is that what you're advocating for?

I think it was right to make a swap.

I'm glad he's home. It's the "how" is disconcerning...

I think the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is a travesty, I think it's a betrayal of American Ideals, and I think holding men indefinitely in an extralegal environment should be horrifying to conservative and liberal alike. I consider it the greatest failing of the Bush adminsitration - opening a facility with the stated goal of putting the detainees is "legal outer space"; as they put it - and I think the greatest failure of the Obama administration was not righting this wrong. Charge them, grant them POW status, or let them go: those are the options as I see it. As the war winds down and we start to realize that it's going to be very hard to continue extrajudicially holding these guys forever, we're going to have to release them anyway, and we might as well get something out of it than nothing.

Eh... if it was really that cut & dry, Obama would've shut down Gitmo on Day 1 of his Presidency.

We have no moral high ground here.

Regarding the Talibans? Zero feths given.

Regarding to having function in place to indefinitely detain people? (The Patriot Act?) Yeah... that simply need to end.

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
It's just amazing how quick positions change:

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10410396_752174718178617_7055949021762110585_n.jpg

https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/t1.0-9/10336711_752174708178618_8673761216414764799_n.jpg

Just reading those Tweets made my head spin

**Easy E**

I believe Obama tried to close GITMO and there was a big outcry from certain groups about bring terrorists and the "worst of the worst" onto Amnerican soil to be tried was insanely dangerous.

Then we he wanted to send them to a third party country there was outcry from certain groups that doing so would be insanely dangerous and they would just return tot he fight.

I guess if we depopulate GITMO by trading them for our own POWS there is an outcry from some groups that.... well I think you know where this is going.

What is the solution for closing GITMO? Send the detainees to Mars as the first human colonists?

**Frazzled**

1. Don't close it.
2. Soylent green. Its made from peas or something.

**whitedragon**

Easy E wrote:
I believe Obama tried to close GITMO and there was a big outcry from certain groups about bring terrorists and the "worst of the worst" onto Amnerican soil to be tried was insanely dangerous.

Then we he wanted to send them to a third party country there was outcry from certain groups that doing so would be insanely dangerous and they would just return tot he fight.

I guess if we depopulate GITMO by trading them for our own POWS there is an outcry from some groups that.... well I think you know where this is going.

What is the solution for closing GITMO? Send the detainees to Mars as the first human colonists?

You must hate freedom.

**whembly**

Is this legit?

Voice of reason...

Time to let military justice do justice

The Obama team managed to shoot themselves in both feet with the Bergdahl PR stunt. They thought they could tug on America's heartstrings, get heaps of praise and distract us from the rest of their abysmal failures. It didn't quite work out that way, did it?

The outrage of the many folks who knew of the dubious circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's walkabout exploded with righteous fury. The Rose Garden ceremony with Obama and Papa Bergdahl doing his "Love the Taliban” bit didn't help much and it sure seemed like Bowe was headed for a heroes welcome for serving with honor and distinction. The administration was talking like there was no need for any review of the circumstances of his "disappearance" or need for any punishment as he had obviously suffered enough. Wrong!

The flip side of "Bring them all home" is "Hold them all accountable". If you served with honor and distinction you get the hometown parade and a lifetime of free drinks at the VFW. If you served dishonorably, forget the cheering crowd, keep cash on hand for your own refreshments, and do expect a mighty boot in the ass. It seemed the Obama team wanted to make sure their guy stayed the hero and was going to torpedo any attempt to look at the back-story. There is no doubt in my mind that a good dose of undue command influence was ready to make sure he stayed clean. That brought the aforementioned outrage and it served the purpose of derailing the hero train Obama and his folks planned to joy ride on. But as these things often do, it has spun up into a "Hangin's too good for 'im" mentality.

Now it has become apparent that Bergdahl will have to answer for his actions and all those who had been muzzled will get to speak. This is a good time to make sure we stop looking at the considerable information out there in the media as the gospel truth. I have seen, read, heard about it and talked to people deep in the know about this and it looks very, very bad for Bergdahl. However, and this is vital, he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. That hasn’t even come close to happening yet. So let's keep the fire/heat on the administration so they don’t derail the Army investigation, and likely court martial, and make sure it happens properly. But it is time to douse the torches and put away the pitchforks.

The vast majority of information is coming from the same media folks that I, and many of you, spend voluminous amounts of time calling sensationalistic fantasists. All of a sudden the NY Times or CBS is somehow trustworthy? And yes we have heard directly from many members of his unit, but we surely do not have the whole story. We haven't heard a single word from Bergdahl himself about what his time in the unit was like. And while it was a complete Blue Falcon move for that Obama flack to call his unit leaders psychopaths, if he was as much of a screw up as it sounds like, is it crazy to wonder if he was catching a lot of crap? If you say that doesn't happen I will throw a BS flag. It does and even COL Jessup admitted it.

So it's time to remember we have a functional military justice system that will be under intense scrutiny as this unfolds. Many have served, and even made the ultimate sacrifice, to protect our way of life and our liberties. Let’s remember not to hang Bergdahl in the court of public opinion without a trial. He still deserves his day in court.

Indeed...

**Relapse**

Ouze wrote:
Relapse wrote:
The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.

Is this the marine with the 3 guns that "accidentally" crossed the border? Because if so, those charges didn't seem very bogus to me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
I'm not one to say that some of his fellow soldiers and our politicians are full of crap, but I do question where all this "why are we risking our lives for a deserter" talk was from everybody while he was still missing. It just feels very "swift boat".\.

And even if not,

1.) It seems way, way too early to smear him. Lets have the facts come out first. If he deserted, then charge him.

2.) Even if he was a deserter, he was an American serviceman and we get back our troops, even if they're not particularly good or particularly loyal. Call me an idealist.

Ouze, he could well have been telling the truth about the accidental border crossing. He wouldn't be the first that did something like that. In all fairness, there is a call to let the facts come out before passing judgement on Bergdahl for desertion. Doesn't Tahmooressi deserve the same benefit of a doubt? He is, after all, in a confinement situation where his health is suffering and he could be killed at any moment, similar to Bergdahl's.

**CptJake**

I know the crossing from El Paso to Juarez had a point where you are at least a mile inside the US, but there are NO places to turn around, you MUST go through the crossing into Mexico to get back at that point. And the 'This is the last chance to turn' sign was not very well marked.

**Relapse**

Looks like the idea is building momentum:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/06/lawmakers-renew-drive-to-free-marine-held-in-mexico-on-heels-bergdahl-deal/