The United States has always had prisoner of war exchanges. We did it with the
Nazis during WW-2. Why should this young man be any different?I
think those who advocate that he be left to rot should experience the very thing
they advocate for him.
We traded men like Hitler, and Joseph Stalin for a deserter.
It comes to this....either you believe Barack and his White House propoganda
machine OR you believe our brave soldiers who served with Bergdahl. Our soldiers
have come forward and called Bergdahl a diserter and a possible traitor. Team
Obama has spun a different narative as they did with Benghazi and the u-tube
video nonsense. At the root of the lies from the White House is the same team
that lied about Benghazi including Susan Rice. Team Obama is now
going after our soldiers - trashing them. Yes trashing the brave men who risked
life and limb to bring Bergdahl back. This is THE most disgusting thing I have
ever seen a sitting US president do but it is vintage Obama and vitage
progressive Democrat. Trash our best and bravest to attempt to save your own
sorry tail. "This is a spit in the face of every serving US
solider" (US Army Soldiers who served and commanded Bergdahl).
People who say we shouldn't have prisoner exchanges to free soldiers are
not worthy of o have the military protect against them.
?Does anyone REALLY believe that the 5 terrorists will NOT become active in the
war on terror again? How will this NOT embolden our enemies? "Really.... so what terrorist acts were these five charged with? I agree.....
"Madness. Absolute madness." Americans have now accepted tabloid
journalism and political rhetoric as evidence enough to convict. Due process,
rule of law..... who needs them when you have talking heads deciding the fate of
many.I have no doubt these guys might not be the best friends of
America. I have no doubt they may try to harm America. But these men were
incarcerated as prisoners of war - not terrorist. Any proclamations otherwise
are not backed by the law. If they were terrorist, we have had 10 years to
charge them. If you want to be upset about anything it should be our lack in
ability to charge these men with anything - even Jay-walking.The
constitution isn't suspended just because we don't like someone.So yes, I agree... I am disgusted by many of the comments - particularly
those that would abandon the constitution and rule of law....
Between 2007 and 2009, President George W. Bush released 520 detainees from the
facility at Guantanamo Bay – at least that’s how many are officially
recorded. One of those detainees was Abu Sufian bin Qumu, who is a suspect in
the Benghazi embassy attack.Not one American soldier in trade.
Wow.Just wow.I am absolutely amazed and terribly,
terribly disappointed at the amount of foolishness and short-sighted thinking
being expressed about this story.The longer I live the more I see
that liberals typically DO think primarily in the short term, do not like
rules/discipline, tend to live with a "there is no 'bad'"
mentality, do not believe that life should be hard or that anything good can
come from difficulty and sacrifice and that our enemies are only our enemies
because we just aren't nice enough to them.Absolute folly.Does anyone REALLY believe that the 5 terrorists will NOT become active
in the war on terror again? How will this NOT embolden our enemies? How?
Suddenly, the same enemy that produced and actively fosters a culture so
hardened and depraved that they literally sawed the heads off of Americans
(remember the reporter Daniel Pearl?) is now likely to be our friends because we
gave them 5 prisoners?Madness. Absolute madness.Reading
the comments here it's now wonder we're in the mess we're in.How long, Lord, how long?....
Berghal, I would like to know what was his breaking point? He's not the
first in Afghan! Looks like he was unqualified in a combat zone.Which brings up his chain of command. After hearing his team leader, and
teammates. Who did you report your findings too? What did you do about it? If
the team leader reported his findings to the chain of command, what did the
chain of command do? Sounds like a breakdown in leadership and the system. It
cost the lives of six.There were several Taliban factions who were
with us in the fall of 2001, in getting rid of Al Qaeda. The Taliban committed
there terror when we stayed after Tora Bora. I put no fault on the
father for his behavior. My son is in the middle east today, and I would do
anything to get him out under the same circumstances. Why swap these
five guys? We will see them again. It was a demand by the taliban, not a
negotiation.Why the secrecy, it would of been a circus without
it.Winnners Taliban, Bergdahl's. Losers, American people. I
blame Bush for getting us there, and Obama for keeping us there.
Funny that some of you are bringing up the arms for hostages during Reagans
years. So are you now saying that it was a good thing for Reagan to do? Sounds
like it if you attempting to defend this Obama move. Or do you agree that is
was wrong. In which case you are saying that the Obama move is wrong too. You
can't defend Obama by using something that for decades now you have used
against Reagan.This was a stupid deal from the White House that
thought they would be doing victory laps in the public opinion polls with it.
The interesting question now is will Bergdhal be court martialed for desertion
and other things, or will the White House intervene and try to stop the Army
from doing what it should? Because if it comes out that Obama has in essense
released 5 terrorist leaders in exchange for one traitor, it will be another
feather out of the cap of the Obama legacy. Which hasn't got many feathers
to begin with.
"Vexing questions raised after Bergdahl prisoner exchange"And? . . . Vexing Questions are raised in the minds of
"Conservatives" whenever Michelle Obama wears a knew dress.Is there anything about the Obamas that does not vex
"Conservatives?"Let's look at situation at hand
here.We had one POW in the Aghan war. The Obama administration
arranged for his release.And NO, it did not involve negotiations
with terrorists. It involved the imprisonment of an American service member in
the hands enemy combatants in a wartime situation . . And it involved his
negotiated release.Prisoner exchanges are nothing new. Abe Lincoln
arranged for the exchange of tens of thousands.Does that vex DN too?
Leave the guy to rot. He walked off the job. He deserted his post. In another
country, he would have been simply shot. He is at best a deserter, at worse, a
collaborator with terrorists.
From our local constitutionalist we have,"What is the penalty
for desertion? Soldiers are telling us that the Sargent deserted and that at
least six soldiers were killed because of that desertion. It seems strange that
a President would violate the Constitution to reward a soldier who left his
unit, but our President is a master at deflection. When the heat is on him for
the deaths in the VA, he diverts attention."Mike.... somewhere
in there buried deep in the constitution is this little concept called due
process, and that you are not guilty until proven so. This guy may ultimately
be found to have left his post. But to this point, he has not even been charged
with anything. To say the President should leave someone to die in enemy hands
based on something not yet proven is the most unconstitutional of acts.Due process is the most elemental construct of constitutional law - being an
expert - I though you would understand that.
"Everyone should be happy that Bergdahl is coming home after five years. But
we should hope the price of his homecoming does not prove to be costly."After spending years with the Taliban, perhaps Bergdahl has information
which can be used against them.
"Though Cheney told Fox News on Monday that he would not have agreed to the
deal, Bellinger stressed that the Bush administration “returned something
like 500 detainees from Guantanamo.” Statistics from the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence show that only 6 percent (5 in
total) of Guantanamo detainees released during the Obama administration have
potentially engaged in militant activities. That compares with a rate of nearly
30 percent under the Bush administration."
I believe the administration has already indicated that Congress was notified of
the negotiations some three years ago. I think it is also significant that drone
attacks against the Taliban have stopped for now. Meanwhile, the new government
has agreed to have close to 10,000 troops stay in the country. I think there may
be something larger going on here than just a prisoner swap.
@ 2bits -Bush didn't even show up for guard duty, In the States.
Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahWhat is the penalty for desertion?
Soldiers are telling us that the Sargent deserted and that at least six soldiers
were killed because of that desertion. It seems strange that a President would
violate the Constitution to reward a soldier who left his unit, but our
President is a master at deflection. When the heat is on him for the deaths in
the VA, he diverts attention.9:40 a.m. June 3, 2014========= Gee Mike, Why don't we see if there is enough
evidence [and not talk radio hear-say] to even draw up charges.The
Uniformed Code of Military Justice will then hold a Court Martial. This matter will not be tried on TV via FoxNews and trumped up charges in a
Kangaroo Court of Public Opinion in a Bananna Republic.Thanks for
your pretended supoort of our troops.At least Sgt. Bergdahl had the guts
to enlist and GO to the Middle East for his country.
The ironic part is... IF Bush had done this, Esquire, LDS Liberal and Ernest T.
Bass would be the ones complaining. Remember when BUSH could do
nothing right (in their eyes)... And Obama has basically continued everything
Bush did... but Obama is perfect in every-way (even when he does exactly what
Bush would have done)...
I love the "they will try and capture our troops now" line. Are you
seriously saying this has not been their number 1 goal since forever? Do you
guys have zero knowledge of history or guerilla warfare?
Whatever the eventual case is with Bergdahl, anyone wiling to judge him
prematurely without evidence is not a supporter of the troops. You may as well
spit on him and call him a baby killer. If it turns out he violated
military code then I'm sure he'll answer for it. Let the investigation
take place before dishonoring him.
To all you worried about the law stating the president needs to inform (BTW
McCain confirmed congress has "some" knowledge this was in the works),
can you all please find the part of the constitution that says we can hold
people in prison without charging them with a crime? I can't seem to find
that section.Either these five guys were combatants held as
prisoners of war (remember that the Taliban was the government in place at the
time these people we're taken captive), or they are terrorist. If they
were combatants, we don't need to charge them. If they are terrorist - we
can't hold them without charge. It is really simple.As to the
attacks on this soldiers character and his family as justification for partisan
rhetoric.... no one has proven he deserted... no one has charged his dad as an
enemy sympathizer. What happened to "innocent" until proven guilty. Do
we suspend that when it is politically expedient. This guy is
getting harsher treatment than the GI who killed an innocent family... and this
is wrong. His politics or beliefs should have nothing to do with honoring his
sacrifice and keeping our commitment.
When it comes to opinion on war and the fight against terror the DN review board
has been more often than not on the wrong side. Remember them supporting almost
all of GWB's positions and those killed hundreds of thousands of innocent
lives and cost our country billions of dollars.BO's opinions have
turned out to be much better for America and the rest of the world. I'll
trust him on this one over the DN.
As some of the more ardent contributors here posted about John Swallow - why
don't we wait for the story to unfold and the wheels of justice to turn
before judging? If he's guilty of a Courts Martial offense, it'll
happen. Wait for for the evidence - innocent until proven guilty, yada, yada,
yada, is all we heard from you guys for months during the Swallow scandal.
Perhaps this young man deserves the same courtesy.
Bush didn't even show up for guard duty, In the States, and your judging
this young man.Republican's hypocrisy know no bounds. We left men in
Vietnam, we have learned, hopefully.Tailban were our friends when we
armed and trained them and called them freedom fighters, when Russia was
invading. They are not al qaeda.
LDS Liberal"Pres. Obama pulls the troops out, and home,"Obama pulled the troops out? When did this happen? He is a
war monger just like Bush. If I had my way, they would be sharing a cell.
If they really cared about the soldiers, they wouldn't even be in the
middle east. They are the UN's hired muscle and nothing more.
There's been a lot of armchair quarterbacking of this thing as it unfolds.
Just how should it have played out? This guy was off our radar until the deal
went down, but what if we'd have known about him a week earlier? By we, i
mean the public at large. Would we be howling to have this american in failing
health brought home, lest we heap scorn on the administration? If they came back
and said five was too many, he has to stay as their captive, how would we have
reacted? Heavens, what would fox say? Now the rescued is half a pariah, as if
he'd been on John Kerrys' swift boat. But in the end, our guy comes
home, they got 5 thugs back and no one is happy no matter how it turns out. But
as we fret about those released, remember this. Terrorism isn't about what
they do to us. It's about what we do to us after that.
Irony of the Week: Our POW gets back alive after 5 years. Republicans blow their
"Your constant comparing past history remarks are restated over and over to
the point of becoming nauseous and banal"Too funny Joan. Did
you read my posts in this thread? I actually disagree with this latest prisoner
swap and said so. Nope, I didn't compare it to anything. Sorry. In other areas, I do point out past history. Not to justify current
actions, but to point out the hypocrisy and pure partisanship. I
will say it again. I believe that this prisoner swap was ill conceived.
Let's face it...Some people think Bush starting 2 wars, spending $4 trillion, 4,000 Americans dead, 75,000 wounded, violating Geneva convention laws about Gitmo, and torture -- NO Osama
Bin Laden, and Mission Accomplished! Pres. Obama pulls the
troops out, and home, KILLS Osama Bin Laden, and does a POW swap and
he's now a defective Leader by these same conservatives?Politics is blind, Bias is conflicted to common sense, and
one-side hatred is truely irrational.
2 bits,Obama NEVER said he wanted to "release" all prisoner
in GITMO. We wanted to move them to Federal Prisons in the US and use Federal
Courts for trials, where possible.Also keep in mind that Bush
released over 300 from GITMO - Government reports indicate that around 30%
returned to battle. (Notice any right-wingers making issue of that?) One
possibly implicated in the tragedy at Benghazi.
Joe Blow, Esquire. So, two wrongs make a right? Your constant comparing past
history remarks are restated over and over to the point of becoming nauseous and
banal. As one historian has written - if we do not LEARN from the past - we
will repeat the same errors over and over.And to those who constantly
criticize Deseret Ness - simple solution to frustration - read another news
"Maybe he will heal America's racial-divide, and end partisanship and
Washington-as-usual (as promised)..."Takes 2 to tango.Also, Guantanamo? Charge them, try them or release them. Holding these guys
indefinitely is wrong.
Don't worry too much about the release of the 5 high value Taliban
prisoners. Obama was going to release them anyway... for NOTHING. We may as
well get SOMETHING for them!Barack Obama has been promising and
trying to release ALL the prisoners from Guantanamo and close it for more than 6
years! He was going to release them anyway... we may as well get SOMETHING for
these 5!====Now... we've already committed to
remove all US troops from Afghanistan (something the Taliban wants more than
anything, given to them for nothing).... and we've given back the main
people they want.... What other bargaining chips do we have left???====How long do you think it will be before Obama ignores Congress
and closes Guantanamo releasing all the prisoners on his own... by Presidential
Order?He's already tried it closing it once (by presidential
order)...And he told us in the State of the Union address that he
doesn't need Congress to do what he wants...Lots of things need
to happen in the next 2 years (for his legacy). Maybe he will
heal America's racial-divide, and end partisanship and Washington-as-usual
@JoeBlow"Basically, it would seem to me that this exchange will lead
to more captured American soldiers."What do you think terrorists
would do to American soldiers they essentially capture (could capture if they
deemed it worthwhile) if they don't see any worth in it?
We should have just left him because that's what we, the most moral and
religiously correct country on earth does.
@louie - He put himself in that situation when he walked away from his post. He
wasn't captured while performing his duties as a soldier, but during an act
of desertion. Perhaps he was misguided or even suffering from some mental
condition that prompted him to do what he did. Or maybe he really just decided
he was done serving. Regardless, he found himself in those circumstances as the
result of his own actions. And, let's not forget about his fellow soldiers
that put themselves in harms way to find him, some of whom lost their own lives
looking for him. So to answer your question: "...and if he died
in captivity what then would have been said about the Obama Administration?"
In my opinion, the administration would've been sending a message that the
U.S. isn't going to hand over terrorists to get back deserters.I know his family is glad to have him back, but I'm the families of the
soldiers who died while looking for him would've loved to have them back as
Then there's the little legal issue of... it's the law that they have
to notify Congress first. The Administration didn't.I know.
Many Presidents (including Reagan) also conducted covert operations, and made
deals without notifying the media (and probably Congress). It goes on. We
just have to assume that what we get is worth what we expend to get it.The question is... what did we get in this case... a deserter? Or a hero?And for what? I've heard that at least 6 good marines were killed in
operations conducted to find him and get him back. Now we put 5 very dangerous
people back on the war field to kill more Afghan women and children (and
Americans if we don't get out fast).The question is... what did
we get... and at what price?If we gave up 5 Taliban supporters and 6
marine's lives, to get one deserter and a Taliban sympathizer back... it
wsn't a good deal (IMO).I guess we will find out eventually.Remember all the investigations and grief Reagan and those involved in
HIS covert opps (intended to get back US prisoners of war) got when
He left his unit, comrades and security of the compound on his own. Sounds like
desertion to me. No, we don't want to leave anyone behind, but
we have. There are aircrew members from the Korean and Vietnam wars that are
unaccounted for, some probably transported to the Soviet Union. Our government
chose not to pursue their release.The question remains that this man
willfully left his unit, in a combat situation. Risked the lives of other
soldiers in search operations.I don't agree with the swap, it
enables a hardened enemy. It is another clumsy foreign policy decision by an
administration who is woefully inept in their various roles. If the
negotiations have been going on for several years, what is Hilliary's role
in this?"What difference does it make?" Just sayin'
What is the penalty for desertion? Soldiers are telling us that the Sargent
deserted and that at least six soldiers were killed because of that desertion.
It seems strange that a President would violate the Constitution to reward a
soldier who left his unit, but our President is a master at deflection. When
the heat is on him for the deaths in the VA, he diverts attention.
If releasing 5 highly dangerous prisoners is what it takes to get him back...
that's what it takes. I agree with the philosophy that we
don't leave our people behind (IF) we can get them back. Sometimes you
can't.But there's something fishy here. 5 highly
dangerous prisoners for one marine who apparently walked off his post... Just
seems way out of proportion.I can see doing that for a marine
captured in battle, but not for one who walked over to their side evidently
intending to get caught.We also need to get to the bottom of his
father's tweets in support of the prisoners at Gitmo. According to the
Washington Post, he tweeted, "I'm still working for the release of all
the Guantanimo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child
Ameen"...If his family turns out to be Taliban sympathizers...
and good soldiers gave their lives searching for a deserter... it won't be
@E SamProvo, UTYou could have saved a lot of column inches if you
had simply written the only thing that should have been written: "Welcome
home, soldier, and we thank you for your service."9:23 a.m. June
3, 2014======== Impossible to do for the "We hate
all things Obama" crowd.
You could have saved a lot of column inches if you had simply written the only
thing that should have been written: "Welcome home, soldier, and we thank
you for your service."
"Unfortunately, had the political parties been reversed, I feel that the
political bickering would be similar."True That.People look at EVERYTHING through partisan glasses. They go into any and
every issue looking to either support their beloved party or to bash the evil
other one.Both parties do and have done virtually the same thing.
It is so humorous to watch the hairs people split to somehow make what their
party did, totally different.
As an American Soldier, I am grateful for the return of one of my own. Prisoner
exchanges are a common event in a war.That being said, however, it
is going to get real ugly as SGT Bergdahl's actions are investigated.
Despite the fact that his actions have been discussed ever since he went
missing, it will be viewed as a partisan political way to get back at the
President for the swap.Unfortunately, had the political parties been
reversed, I feel that the political bickering would be similar.
I wish the DN editorial board had spent 1/100th the time considering supporting
the invasion of 2 Middle Eastern countries, 13 years or war, $4 trillion, 6,000
american lives, and 75,000 Americans wounded -- As they have over
this 1 POW exchange...
No man left behind... unless it could be viewed as a good political move for
democrats - then let the guy die over there. That's the republican line
now? Oh we're not saying.... we're just saying. And it
goes on.And then there's the FACT that republicans have made it
illegal to shut down Guantanamo and then criticize Obama for not shutting down
Guantanamo. Must be nice to have it all different ways. Honesty sure
doesn't get in the way.
This is definitely one of your best editorials. I'm glad you're not
worried about being politically correct today.This is just another
reason why Mitt Romney should be our Commander-in-Chief.What will
Obama say when it is revealed he was a collaborater?
Have you forgotten Iran-Contra, one of Reagan's scandals? Israel has had
prisoner exchanges. This is hardly unique. Besides, even if he did desert, the
Army will deal with it. Better to clean up this mess rather than leave the guy
there to be used as a propaganda tool of the Taliban, whether willingly or
unwillingly. In the end, if I thought the Republicans had an ounce of good
intent, I might give their arguments more credibility. They don't and I
won't. Let the Army sort it out.
Here's some ideas Joe.5 for 1..they only had one of ours and we
have a boatful of theirs. One who was in failing health and one for whom the
window of opportunity was closing rapidly. Let me ask the question again how
many Afghans are worth one American on the free market (not being facetious)?
Trading 5 dangerous individuals for one. First of all these are
Taliban leaders. The Taliban is a terrorist organization but not an
international terrorist organization. Their purpose is to control one of the
most backward, and tribal countries in the world. They have shot
and killed Americans because we came in and shot and killed them. Now we are
leaving. This has been played out over and over again in Afghanistan for the
past 500 years, always with the same result. The country is always
pretty much the same collection of warring tribes and Kabul when the invader
leaves regardless of the invaders intent. Doesn't matter whether you
wanted to conquer Afghanistan, turn it in to a democracy, or run off Al Qaeda,
it ends the same way. We cant leave a man on the battlefields, ask a
soldier about the importance of loyalty. "
Do you get the wisdom holding hundreds in prison without charging them with any
crime - what so ever? Which sets a more problematic long term
problem for America... the holding of people with out charges for a decade, or
saving a young man from being held prisoner for 5 years. What I
find most vexing here is we this same crowd holds Israel up as the poster child
of how to deal with terrorist, and yet they have many times exchanged prisoners.
Do we only get it when they do it, but not when we do?Have we
forgotten about Francis Gary Powers? Or going way back to 1864, the Belle Plain
prisoner exchange. This is absolutely nothing new."I don't
get the concept of "we cant leave a man on the battlefield"?Obviously you didn't serve, and you don't remember Vietnam.
Obama is just giving you what you voted for. He can't close down Guantanamo
without either holding military tribunals or releasing dangerous prisoners. The
court trial on American soil didn't quite work out.Think before
Don't I remember something about trading arms to Iran for hostages?
and if he died in captivity what then would have been said about the Obama
Admittedly, I dont know all the details, but on the surface, I dont get it?I dont get the wisdom of a 5 for 1 swap.I dont get the wisdom of
trading 5 highly dangerous individuals for BergdahlI dont get the concept
of "we cant leave a man on the battlefiels"Basically, it
would seem to me that this exchange will lead to more captured American
soldiers.I dont get it.