Bergdahl

I feel like I am watching a live episode of Homeland with a sergeant released from captivity after several years. I am looking for Claire Danes in the background.

Yes, it certainly has that "Homeland" feeling.

Plenty of GI's must have deserted during the 13 years of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars. What made Bergdahl such a high priority that the government swapped five ultra-dangerous terrorists for him? More to this than meets the eye, so far.

I believe that obama wants to close Gitmo before he leaves office and it will be easier to do with the worst of the worst already gone. There is always a plot behind these things

Personally I don't think Obama really thought it through all the way. With all the VA stuff coming down, a good media piece about saving a war hero POW and appearing with the grateful parents sounds like a great turn around moment.

Dealing with the bad press around the taliban guys is one thing. But he got totally caught off guard by the fact he was getting back at best a deserter and at worst a traitor. If he did know, he thought the nondisclosure agreements were going to shut his squad mates up. Instead, he ended up with them all in the media and unable to find a single, soildary person in the world willing to say he "served with honor and distinction" except liar susan rice.

Then the horrific, ridiculous press conference with bowe's weird beard father praising allah and writing tweets about hating america and supporting the taliban.

Maybe underlying it all the policy could have been defended, but the way he carried it out is nothing short of bizarre.

Little nicky the only problem is that your forgetting many republican congressman were writng letters to get this guy out. All of a sudden now they flip the switch? Either a brilliant piece of strategy or just more bull shit flip flopping.

Watch Megyn Kelly tonight aT 9:00 FOR PART 3 OF HER INTERVIEW WITH HIS FELLOW PLATOON MEMBERS.

None of these things are cut and dry. There are all sorts of things in the background that I would guess we don't know and will never. But, I think its a safe bet to say that the taliban creeps had microchips implanted somewhere on their body. Most likely place is the rectum. When they return to their lair, they will be scanned and debugged, but at least the CIA will know where they went then a big bomb will blow them up.

I think that if the US implanted chips in their bodies, their friends in Qatar would willingly remove them for these shitbirds.
Qatar has already indicated that they and they only will monitor them and not USA. Of course it would be cool to put a drone strike on them. I think they cheated us and gave us a new Taliban mole who can help their jihad against us. This is just my opinion.

This is a very complex matter, and the noisiest critics of the exchange fail to consider the important fact that at the cessation of the war, hostilities, and active military presence in Afghanistan, the US is hard pressed to establish a basis for continuing to hold the five Taliban members. While the Bush administration purposely avoided designating them as prisoners of war in order to subvert the protections guaranteed by the Geneva Convention and international law, it is important to keep in mind that the prisoners have been held since 2002 without any criminal charges.

In order to justify holding these prisoners indefinitely after the war, we have to charge, try and sentence them. There are tenuous arguments that can be made, however, that these prisoners defy a classification envisioned by the Convention, but it will almost universally be viewed around the world that the Geneva Convention or international law would not endorse a situation where captured combatants during war, who are not charged with specific crimes, remain detained at the cessation of the conflict.

Thus, if it were important to keep the Taliban 5 detained perpetually, they needed to have been charged, and because after twelve years we could not find a basis, on which to charge them criminally, they would be released. If they are guilty of crimes during their time as provincial governors (as reports indicate), that would be for the Afghan government to consider as the US has no jurisdiction over that.

As far as Bergdahl being a traitor, deserter, etc., that may be, and all the more reason to secure him from the Taliban and allow the military tribunals to examine the facts and pass judgment. This is not a valid reason to allow an American POW to remain imprisoned. You can bet that if he died as a prisoner, the same politicians, who are vilifying him and his family, would be accusing the president of his death.

I don't see what's so complex about it.

First, our major concern should be the U.S. Constitution. Not the Geneva Convention or international law.

Second, this obviously isn't a conventional war where we are fighting a standard uniformed opponent that we can make a treaty with. There is really no "cessation of conflict" and so we are under no obligation to ever let these guys go. We are perfectly justified in holding them indefinitely. Though, I'd prefer to just have them executed and be done with it.

If "our major concern" in this matter should be the U.S. Constitution, please show me an article and section, or amendment that permits the government's indefinite detention of a person without indictment or formal charges, without a right to counsel, without a trial, and without due process.

Clearly the Constitution is of no concern here. If it were applicable, these guys would have to have been released more than a decade ago. In fact the government in 2000 bent over backwards to argue specifically that the honored protections and liberties do not extend here and should therefore be ignored.

And there are obvious reasons why we can not disregard the Geneva Convention or international treaties and law. As we have been the most militaristically engaged nation in the world since the 20th century, we have had, have and likely will have the largest number of armed personnel across the globe. Failure to abide by the convention or international law is an invitation for nations around the world to do the same.

We have now learned that a 2 star General will conduct the investigation into Berghdal's desertion which is a shame as from what I've been told by active duty soldiers, much of the officer corps has become wimpy and politically correct. The chances are good that he will conclude what the White House tells him to conclude. Hopefully I am wrong

Told by whom?

Fox news lol.

They should shoot this deserter(which is what the punishment should and used to be) and his taliban loving father. And then drone strike those bastards they let go free, i mean they know exactly where there are. Then it would be like this whole clusterfuck never happened, just food for thought...

There you go again raising logical legal arguments and making sense. A casual observer might even think that you've studied law or practiced law...

Yeah, the knee jerk reaction is to want to see this guy hanged. And I certainly feel that way. I'm only pro-death penalty in extreme cases, and treason is certainly one of them. But give the guy his day in court.

Then hang him .

Like most liberals, you are approaching the war on terror as a police action, i.e. prosecute them and put them in prison. These terrorists are in a grey area where neither prisoner of war, in the traditional sense, or criminal prosecution fully applies. Every last prisoner in Guantanamo should have been brought before military tribunals and then executed years ago.

And, no, letting 5 terrorists go free so we could save the skin of a guy who walked away and all but joined the enemy was a stupid thing to do. But I wouldn't expect you to call Obama's screw up for what it is. You've always been quick to defend your guy.



Oh please. Klydon comes here every day acts like he's all about the law and here to explain it to us mere mortals. And many of you, who are of the same liberal persuasion, are only to happy to buy what he's selling. But the reality is, he starts from his own personal liberal leanings and then - like any lawyer - twists the law to suit his agenda. You may be impressed with his legalese mumbo jumbo but I'm not. The guy's full of it.

I do not always agree politically with Kly. I don't always agree politically with anyone here. But I do respect his expertise in his chosen profession the same as I would anyone else's. In this particular case he's starting from some very basic facts and in no way is twisting the law as you claim. There have, as mentioned, been a number of cases in which the Supreme Court has upheld the right to habeas corpus, found that military commissions in certain instances violated both the Geneva convention and the UCMJ, and placed other checks on executive branch power. And obviously ,there are very obvious practical reasons that you do not wish to torture or summarily execute captured prisoners.

It is amazing to me, that many conservatives, who are in other cases claiming to be fierce defenders of both individual rights and separation of powers, want to throw all of those things out when someone is a "terrorist".

Additionally the Right didn't lose its religion when Bush released over 500 prisoners from Guantanamo or when he paid ransom to get Americans back. Much of this is just political theater. The only real issue I see is the lack of Congressional notification.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...terrorists.html

http://aattp.org/under-bush-600-gitmo-de...i-attack-video/

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/opinio...pinion&_r=0

Please don't craft arguments for me when you can't produce consistent, sensible rationales to support your own flawed conclusions. Again if you brought the prisoners to trial in a military tribunal, the Constitution, in which you wrap yourself so tightly but seem not to understand, would still demand that there be formal charges, discovery and due process. This is exactly what the government did not want to happen.

Look in the mirror, pal. Twisting things to fit an agenda is the job of the fundamentalists and creationists.

Now that is a fine sexy women only problem is she is a lawyer. No, just kidding love lawyers especially if she is sexy.

I know there are lawyers on here. In general do you think female lawyers make better criminal lawyers as compared to men?

I've worked with, for, and against lawyers for 40 years and don't see either sex as being superior over the other. Female lawyers do seem to be more detail oriented than many men and as any lawyer on this site can tell you detail is very important. Some jurors may have a bias against the sex opposite of them selves. Also, men have dominated this profession for ages. female lawyers are newer on the scene and so there aren't as many.

Bergdahl charged with desertion

http://nypost.com/2015/03/25/bowe-bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official/

Put him Down.

Bergdahl that is a fucking jerkoff. Look at his father another jerk off.

Don't stop there Footreads and Obama?

Obama thinks everything is perfect. If the plan is to destroy the country.

Well in a court martial everyone involved must be at least your rank or a rank higher than you and up. Not sure about the investigating part though.

They should have the fool in office on the stand, after all he gave up 5 terrorists for this idiot.