SGT Bowe Bergdahl Freed

[guineapigfury]

Lakers cheerleader with STDs? Leave Paula Abdul out of this.

[Fuzz]

No surprise, there goes that slippery slope. Not saying they haven't been trying to do this, as shown by the quote we just confirmed the value of doing so.

"A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahls release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets."

https://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/

[Homestar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dZsRRuoiXfs

Video purports to show the exfil. Filmed by Talibs so there's lots of jibberjabber.

[pawnman]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/05/exclusive-bergdahl-declared-jihad-in-2010-secret-documents-show/

None of which matters....even if he is guilty of everything he is accused of, he's an American soldier, who deserves to face American justice, not be left in captivity indefinitely.

No surprise, there goes that slippery slope. Not saying they haven't been trying to do this, as shown by the quote we just confirmed the value of doing so.

"A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahls release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets."

https://time.com/2826442/taliban-kidnappings-bergdahl/

Meh. Does anyone think they weren't already trying this crap?

[mcbush]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dZsRRuoiXfs

Video purports to show the exfil. Filmed by Talibs so there's lots of jibberjabber.

Exfil portion runs from 3:50-12:00 to save you some jibberjabber.

[Vprdrvr69]

What a clown show. At least now everyone can stop focusing on the VA scandal and how well vets are really taken care of. This has nothing to do with rescuing our soldier; everything is political, scandalous, and deceitful. Don't think this is any different. To think about the amount of heros that died in this shithole trying to capture HVTs that would mass murder Americans in the blink of an eye. We just released the top five! My blood boils as I think about the countless memorials that I attended paying respects for real heroes that gave all to put these terrororist fuks away. Why are we still there? What a joke.

We would've been much better off trading four cabinet members and the pres himself- that's a win win! Seriously!

[scoobs]

Why didn't they bomb that area once they got out?

[Mark1]

Why didn't they bomb that area once they got out?

I wouldn't want to be the next person to get rolled up after that decision. Getting your head sawed off on film is the scene everybody imagines when they think about ending up being captured over there, but the reality is that that isn't statistically likely. It was never a frequent outcome on the OEF battlefield, and even though it was a popular tactic in Iraq, that was the case for only a short period around 2004. You let loose on those guys after the transfer and you can guarantee the next poor bastard to get snatched goes out in the most gruesome manner imaginable.

Not to mention no matter how unrealistic it is, there's an understanding that to have a stable Afghanistan after we leave the Taliban has to be included at the table. The Soviets did their damnedest to kill their way to victory and never came close. We, although employing less aggressive tactics, haven't been able to come close in 13yrs. They aren't going anywhere, so probably best not to royally piss them off right before you leave the area if your hope is that the area doesn't turn into a festering anti-American cesspool.

[Bode]

What amazes me about the video is that they took him to the helo before they finished patting him down. Imagine if he had an IED placed on him. I'm amazed.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuggyU2]

I'd say Napolitano is qualified to weigh in on this:

https://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/4/napolitano-when-the-president-disregards-the-law/

Also...

I wonder how the guys that were busy on this day in 1944 would react to some of the posts here.

Actually, I don't wonder. I'm pretty sure I know.

And having been heavily involved with the annual POW reunion at Randolph for three years, the character of the men that I met through that event stands in sharp contrast to what I see in Mr Bergdahl.

Edited June 6, 2014 by Huggyu2

[nsplayr]

We just released the top five! My blood boils as I think about the countless memorials that I attended paying respects for real heroes that gave all to put these terrororist fuks away.

The top 5? Lol.

These guys were members of the Taliban and I'm sure hate us (wouldn't you after 10+ years of essentially illegal detention), but come on, this wasn't bin Laden, Zawahiri, Wuhayshi, Shekau and Joseph f'in Kony.

One guy wasn't even high-level, 3 others were political guys more than field commanders or terrorist facilitators and not particularly radical as far as Taliban go, and one guy was a real hard core cock-sucker who surrendered to the NA and who probably should have just been killed rather than turned over to us in the first place.

I don't know enough to make a 100% defensible judgement on whether or not these guys were super-valuable or not, but I'm guessing you don't know either, and frankly with the war winding down we kinda have to deal with these dudes one way or another. What's your alternate solution...summary execution? Trials in the US? Indefinite, illegal detention in Cuba? Not a lot of great options IMHO.

I've been to many of those same memorials and to me the best thing to do that honors our dead brothers is to end the War in Afghanistan under the best circumstances possible and continue pounding these a-holes from afar whenever they pop their heads out of the sand. Releasing Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo was an inevitability in terms of actually ending the war, might as well get our guy back while we're at it even if he's not the most shining example of military discipline & bravery.

We would've been much better off trading four cabinet members and the pres himself- that's a win win! Seriously!

Dude, probably not a great idea to be saying stuff like that out loud. You know, as an active duty officer beholden to the UCMJ. There's just no need to go down that path. Edited June 7, 2014 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

It's good to see that nsplayr is still defending the policies of the Obama administration no matter what. It's not like 2 of these guys were wanted by the UN for war crimes...oh wait... So yes, you have trials for them and the others for crimes, as necessary. This is what happens when you invade a country...if want to discuss the legitimacy of the invasion, then that's a separate and valid conversation, but definitely one worth having.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/31/us-pays-high-price-for-last-pow-in-afghanistan.html

(I know...The Daily Beast is such a conservative website)

I'm far from a historical/war scholar, but don't countries typically wait until the end of the war to release prisoners that are being held in prison? And if the war is so bad, then why are we waiting until the end of 2016 to have all the troops out?

Edited June 7, 2014 by HeloDude

[Day Man]

What war crimes are you referencing?

[HeloDude]

Unless you're picking on the words 'war crimes' vs what I'm assuming is maybe something closer to 'crimes against humanity'? (if so, my apologies), then read the link:

Fazl, for example, was the Talibans former deputy defense minister and is wanted by the United Nations for his role in massacres targeting Afghans Shiite Muslim population.

Or am I still missing something?

[KState_Poke22]

The top 5? Lol.

These guys were members of the Taliban and I'm sure hate us (wouldn't you after 10+ years of essentially illegal detention), but come on, this wasn't bin Laden, Zawahiri, Wuhayshi, Shekau and Joseph f'in Kony.

One guy wasn't even high-level, 3 others were political guys more than field commanders or terrorist facilitators and not particularly radical as far as Taliban go, and one guy was a real hard core cock-sucker who surrendered to the NA and who probably should have just been killed rather than turned over to us in the first place.

I don't know enough to make a 100% defensible judgement on whether or not these guys were super-valuable or not, but I'm guessing you don't know either, and frankly with the war winding down we kinda have to deal with these dudes one way or another. What's your alternate solution...summary execution? Trials in the US? Indefinite, illegal detention in Cuba? Not a lot of great options IMHO.

I've been to many of those same memorials and to me the best thing to do that honors our dead brothers is to end the War in Afghanistan under the best circumstances possible and continue pounding these a-holes from afar whenever they pop their heads out of the sand. Releasing Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo was an inevitability in terms of actually ending the war, might as well get our guy back while we're at it even if he's not the most shining example of military discipline & bravery.

Dude, probably not a great idea to be saying stuff like that out loud. You know, as an active duty officer beholden to the UCMJ. There's just no need to go down that path.

1. What does Kony have to do with it? I know I know, you're trying to make a point but he has no connection to al Qaeda or the Taliban so your hyperbole is ineffective.

2. "Probably should have been killed rather than turned over to us in the first place." Yeah...most of the "prisoners" taken in OEF qualify for that (rather than just be released by the Afghans days or weeks after we capture them.)

3. So you're saying that because we have to figure out something to do with prisoners we should just release them because we aren't entirely sure? That sounds like sound logic...

4. Bit of a sidetrack but the way the Administration has decided to end the war in Afghanistan is certainly not "under the best circumstances ."

5. All that being said I'm fine with the administration going to great lengths to get back an American. It seems to me like he definitely disappeared under shady ass circumstances but I think that should be determined in a US court and if found guilty I hope he us punished to the full extent of the law.

[pintail21]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/05/exclusive-bergdahl-declared-jihad-in-2010-secret-documents-show/

Classic Fox News "reporting". The headline says he joined up with his captors and was a traitor, but buried in the story they say he made an escape attempt. Well is he really best buddies with them or just earning his captors trust to escape again, and is he really declaring jihad or just saying what he needs to to live a but longer? My god that is one of the worst pieces of journalism I have ever seen.

[nsplayr]

So yes, you have trials for them and the others for crimes, as necessary.

Sounds great, let's bring them to the US and try them in federal court. Should have done that as soon as we rolled them up. Problem is that A) Enough people in Congress from both parties are against it to prevent it from happening, and B) We indefinitely detained these people without charges for 10+ years and likely tortured some of them...kinda makes a trial difficult after that.

So while it seems like we agree trials would be best, what's your solution to dealing with these guys assuming you're not a fan of trading them for our guy?

I'm far from a historical/war scholar, but don't countries typically wait until the end of the war to release prisoners that are being held in prison? And if the war is so bad, then why are we waiting until the end of 2016 to have all the troops out?

Well they weren't just released, they were traded. And I'm all for drawing down to our residual CT and embassy protection force as soon as practical. I'm hopeful that either of the next Presidents (Abdullah or Ghani) aren't as big of assholes as Karzi turned out to be but let's get dudes out of the FOBs as soon as we can, the COIN war and forward posture isn't worth the risk anymore.

1. What does Kony have to do with it? I know I know, you're trying to make a point but he has no connection to al Qaeda or the Taliban so your hyperbole is ineffective.

2. "Probably should have been killed rather than turned over to us in the first place." Yeah...most of the "prisoners" taken in OEF qualify for that (rather than just be released by the Afghans days or weeks after we capture them.)

3. So you're saying that because we have to figure out something to do with prisoners we should just release them because we aren't entirely sure? That sounds like sound logic...

4. Bit of a sidetrack but the way the Administration has decided to end the war in Afghanistan is certainly not "under the best circumstances ."

5. All that being said I'm fine with the administration going to great lengths to get back an American. It seems to me like he definitely disappeared under shady ass circumstances but I think that should be determined in a US court and if found guilty I hope he us punished to the full extent of the law.

1. Kony was supposed to be funny...#Kony2012. He's the meme of every bad guy we're going after.

2. Agreed, although there are some guys worth getting for their intelligence value that become a problem later if you can't try them or hand them over to a legit partner government.

3. What's your solution? The dudes that are Afghan Taliban absolutely should be charged or released at the conclusion of our combat operations in Afghanistan. If it's not clear I'm not a fan of indefinite detention without charges, even for guys who are huge assholes. Charge them, kill them rather than capture them in the first place, release them to a legit Afghan government that will continue to detain them (haha, unlikely), but keeping essentially POWs from the War in Afghanistan in Guantanamo forever isn't a good plan.

4. Again, what's your solution? At this point I don't know if there's a lot to salvage...hopefully Karzi will wind up meeting the pointy end of something sharp, maybe the next guy will be better, and we can keep some SOF dudes around to strike actual, no-shit AQ/HQN/TTP/etc. targets rather than trying to secure villages or chase our tail after the next "mid-level Taliban commander."

5. Totally agree...Bergdahl if our guy regardless of his alleged crimes and we get our guys back, period.

Edited June 7, 2014 by nsplayr

[HeloDude]

So while it seems like we agree trials would be best, what's your solution to dealing with these guys assuming you're not a fan of trading them for our guy? Well they weren't just released, they were traded.

Just so I'm clear, is it safe to assume (I'm asking because I don't want to put words into your mouth if it is not correct) that you would have supported trading every Taliban member that we have captured for our one guy? If not, then please tell me how many you would have traded--we already know you're cool 5 of their top guys, so would you have supportd trading all of them and if not, why, and also what number between that maximum and the original 5 that you supported would you have traded? Would it have been smart for the British to have traded Rudolph Hess and other top Nazi officials for one captured British guy before the end of the war? And if not, then why not?

As for the trials of people suspected of crimes, this is nothing new. What makes it so that the US can't have their trials in a military tribunal? Why does it have to go to a federal court? As for the guys who are not suspected of any crimes, then you release when the conflict has ended...sounds pretty standard to me. I guess they could release them to the Afghan people for them to have a trial--it's what Bush decided to do with Sadaam Hussein, for better our worse.

That's my suggestion--what is yours?

[nsplayr]

First off, I strongly disagree that the 5 who were released were the "Top 5." Whether you're talking top 5 high-value detainees, top 5 Taliban, etc., they don't meet that mark no matter how you measure it. That's point #1. One, or as your argue two, of these guys were real, hard-core assholes when we rolled them up; I say the case on the other 2-3 is murky at best, although they surely are more radicalized after spending 10+ years down there but in many ways that's to be expected based on our policies.

To answer your question, I don't know the appropriate relative value of prisoners in our detention. I didn't take part in the negotiations, don't know the circumstances of how the deal unfolded, etc. So it's hard to say. That would be a nuanced position to take for anyone who wasn't privy to all the details. I'm glad we got our guy back first and foremost, and we'll have to let history judge whether releasing these guys was "worth it" or not if we're even able to judge that definitively.

Not that that's reasonable...people who don't trust the President or the administration will throw spears and just intuitively think the deal was bad and people who support the President will generally feel oppositely. Neither position is logically defensible because frankly there aren't that many people who have access to all the right information to make a judgement, and truthfully pretty much everyone who does also has political leanings and/or an agenda.

As for the trials of people suspected of crimes, this is nothing new. What makes it so that the US can't have their trials in a military tribunal? Why does it have to go to a federal court? As for the guys who are not suspected of any crimes, then you release when the conflict has ended...sounds pretty standard to me. I guess they could release them to the Afghan people for them to have a trial--it's what Bush decided to do with Sadaam Hussein, for better our worse.

That's my suggestion--what is yours?

Military tribunals aren't ideal since they look like kangaroo courts, even if we take pains to make them as legitimate as possible. If a person is legitimately a war criminal and we have evidence proving that, try them in a "real" court, namely one that's legitimate in the eyes of the world. Our entire enterprise at Guantanamo, from the detentions to the tribunals, is tainted with illegitimacy and I can't disagree based on what we've done with the guys down there. I have little doubt most of those guys are bad dudes (and if they weren't before they certainly are now), but that doesn't mean we just throw out the law and international norms.

My suggestion is real trials, real convictions, and real federal prisons for anyone we have legit evidence on, and release to third countries if we're unable to convict them. That's a decision that carries a decent amount of risk but at this point unless the whole population of the prison falls into a black hole we have to do something with them and close that place down as soon as practical. It's done nothing but hurt our moral standing in the world and if we have legit evidence on guys let's hear it so their crimes are known and their punishment is public.

Edited June 7, 2014 by nsplayr

[Vertigo]

... you would have supported trading every Taliban member that we have captured for our one guy? If not, then please tell me how many you would have traded--we already know you're cool 5 of their top guys, so would you have supportd trading all of them and if not, why, and also what number between that maximum and the original 5 that you supported would you have traded? Would it have been smart for the British to have traded Rudolph Hess and other top Nazi officials for one captured British guy before the end of the war? And if not, then why not?

If we're talking a sheer numbers game, Israel has set the bar pretty damned high.

In 2006 they releases 1,027 Palestinian prisoners for 1 Israeli Sgt.

In 1985 they swapped 1150 prisoners for three Israeli soldiers. A 350 to 1 ratio.

Over three decades they have released an estimated 7000 Arab prisoners for 16 Israelis for an average of 437.5 enemies to 1 friendly.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Vertigo

[Spaceballs]

Lots of new reports have been coming out from people that served with him saying he was a traitor. The "secret" documents that were leaked a couple days ago claim he started a jihad against the US. Even before that he made statements about hating the US and the Army. He needs to go to a court martial and face the proper punishment if he did willingly desert his unit.

Obviously none of us were there so we don't know the real story, but from what I've seen it appears that he is a deserter at best and a traitor at worst.

[M2]

The top 5? Lol.

These guys were members of the Taliban and I'm sure hate us (wouldn't you after 10+ years of essentially illegal detention), but come on, this wasn't bin Laden, Zawahiri, Wuhayshi, Shekau and Joseph f'in Kony.

One guy wasn't even high-level, 3 others were political guys more than field commanders or terrorist facilitators and not particularly radical as far as Taliban go, and one guy was a real hard core cock-sucker who surrendered to the NA and who probably should have just been killed rather than turned over to us in the first place.

I don't know enough to make a 100% defensible judgement on whether or not these guys were super-valuable or not, but I'm guessing you don't know either, and frankly with the war winding down we kinda have to deal with these dudes one way or another. What's your alternate solution...summary execution? Trials in the US? Indefinite, illegal detention in Cuba? Not a lot of great options IMHO.

I've been to many of those same memorials and to me the best thing to do that honors our dead brothers is to end the War in Afghanistan under the best circumstances possible and continue pounding these a-holes from afar whenever they pop their heads out of the sand. Releasing Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo was an inevitability in terms of actually ending the war, might as well get our guy back while we're at it even if he's not the most shining example of military discipline & bravery.

Dude, probably not a great idea to be saying stuff like that out loud. You know, as an active duty officer beholden to the UCMJ. There's just no need to go down that path.

Sure, they were real pussycats...

Here are the Taliban Terrorists Obama Released to Free POW Bowe Bergdahl

According to a 2008 Pentagon dossier on Guantanamo Bay inmates, all five men released were considered to be a high risk to launch attacks against the United States and its allies if they were liberated. The exchange shows that the Obama administration was willing to pay a steep price, indeed, for Bergdahl’s freedom. The administration says they will be transferred to Qatar, which played a key role in the negotiations.

In the initial statements released about the deal, the White House declined to name the detainees who would be leaving the Cuba based prison Obama has been trying to close since his first day in office.

A senior U.S. defense official confirmed Saturday that the prisoners to be released include Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa and Mohammed Nabi Omari.

While not as well known as Guantanamo inmates like 9-11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Taliban 5 were some of the worst outlaws in the U.S. war on terror. And their release will end up replenishing the diminished leadership ranks of the Afghan Taliban at a moment when the United States is winding down the war there.

“They are undoubtedly among the most dangerous Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo,” said Thomas Joscelyn, a senior editor at the Long War Journal who keeps a close watch on developments concerning the detainees left at the Guantanamo Bay prison...

(Full story at link)

[nsplayr]

Dude, take your pick of sources and you'll get a different opinion..

https://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

I stand by that none of us armchair quarterbacks here (myself included) know the true value of keeping these guys as detainees (forever?) vs the value of releasing them in order to get Bergdahl back. I'm inclined to believe it was worth it for various reasons I've discussed although it's hard to say for sure.

Maybe you disagree. What would have been your alternate plan?

[brickhistory]

Bergdahl walked off post.

The bad guys were captured.

Bergdahl is a soldier wearing the uniform of his country.

The bad guys are terrorists not wearing uniforms and not following the Laws of War, the Geneva Convention, or any recognized ROE. Therefore they aren't POWs. The 'enemy combatant' status was invented to fit the situation. Not civilian criminals who can be tried in civil court, but not military subject to, traditionally, military tribunals.

The conflict/war is not over, therefore talk of exchanging of prisoner/enemy combatants are premature.

The Administration has been getting hammered, even by the usually tame press on the left, by a loooong sequence of buffoonery - Ukraine/Crimea, VA scandal, etc, etc, etc.

Gitmo's closure was the very first Executive Order issued by the current Administration. Opportunity for a 'feel good' while showing decisive executive action to, finally, accomplish that EO.

Surprise - BOOM.

Not a word from this Administration regarding the Marine with rifles and a wrong turn in Mexico.

Or the civilian contractor (possibly CIA) imprisoned in Cuba for some years now. We do have more than a few convicted spies of Cuba's - including Americans convicted of such.

Or the now three Americans being held in North Korea. I hear the little fat one likes food and oil, yet nary a peep for any sort of deal there.

Sadly, we kid ourselves if we think the higher echelons of the USG won't write off a GI for their greater good - themselves. The bro network within the military won't, but those at the top of the slippery pyramid have and will.

Edited June 8, 2014 by brickhistory

[nsplayr]

The bad guys are terrorists...

I would have thought that in a forum like this we could do away with broad-brush distinctions like this that we know simply are not true. Do you honestly believe every person who fought against us in Iraq and Afghanistan (or elsewhere) is a terrorist? What's your definition of terrorist?

The conflict/war is not over, therefore talk of exchanging of prisoner/enemy combatants are premature.

Not much of a student of history eh? Exchanging prisoners before the conflict is over has happened very frequently in the past.

Not a word from this Administration regarding the Marine with rifles and a wrong turn in Mexico.

Except when the Secretary of State raised the issue on a visit to Mexico...and except the 11 times he's been visited by US consular officials. Ya know, not a word.

Could more be done? Probably. That's really more of a law enforcement case involving a close ally rather than some fighting group or tyrannical regime grabbing one of our dudes so it's a little more nuanced. We'll see, hopefully he'll be out of Mexican jail soon despite any mistake that might have been made.

You also conveniently left out cases like the Current TV reports or even Captain Phillips and Jessica Buchanan. I think the perpetrators in those last two cases saw some pretty effective "negotiation" techniques being employed.

Edited June 8, 2014 by nsplayr