Bergdahl Prisoner Swap

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sometimes I wonder who really should be blamed for many of the US servicemen's deaths.

We got a warning once from this cat -

You know who...it's been gone over here.

[Gaspar]

There is obviously some things that we don't know.  This was a oddly lopsided trade.

All we do know about Bergdahl is that:
He was withdrawn according to his fellow soldiers and spent more time with the Afghans than with other soldiers.  
He learned to speak the local dialect, and studied the local maps.
Bergdahl left base one day unarmed, unescorted and out of uniform.  
He told no one about where he was going or why.
He was captured and kept for 5 years.
Durring his captivity he sent emails to his parents discussing his shame to be an American (perhaps under duress), as reported in Rolling Stone in 2012. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607
A lot can happen to a person when treated as a prisoner for 5 years.

What we know about the individuals traded:

Abdul Haq Wasiq
Thought to be in his early 40s, Wasiq served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence and "had direct access to Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin leadership," according to an internal memo that assessed risk at Guantanamo. He reportedly used his office to support Al Qaeda "and to assist Taliban personnel elude capture." He also reportedly arranged for Al Qaeda personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff. Wasiq belongs to the Khogyani Tribe and began his religious training under his father, Muhammad Saleem, who died in 1981.Three years later, he went to study Islam at Warah, a school located on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border near the Khyber Pass. When the Taliban assumed control in Afghanistan, a number of Islamic students, including Wasiq, went to Kabul. Wasiq has been accused by Human Rights Watch of mass killings and torture. According to a report by the Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Wasiq "arranged for Al Qaeda personnel to train Taliban intelligence staff in intelligence methods."

Mullah Norullah Noori
As a senior Taliban military commander, Noori has been described in government reports as a military mastermind of sorts who engaged in hostilities "against U.S. and Coalition forces in Zabul Province." Noori, who is estimated to be around 46 or 47 years old, has developed close ties to Taliban leader Mullah Omar and other senior Taliban officials, according to a JTF-GTMO report. Noori, who was named as the Taliban governor for the Balkh and Lagman provinces, is wanted by the United Nations for war crimes including the murder and torture of thousands of Shiite Muslims. Noori has been able to remain a "significant figure" to Taliban supporters and sympathizers. According to government records, which are based on conversations with Noori, he grew up in Shajoy where he learned to read and write at a mosque in his village. His father was the imam at the mosque. As a boy, he worked as a farmer on his father's land. In March 1999, he traveled to Kabul where he met with Mullah Yunis, the commander of the Taliban security base, and expressed interest in joining the Taliban. After the Taliban front lines fell in November 2001, Noori traveled to Konduz where he was trained and worked with Omar. Noori has been implicated in the murder of thousands of Shiites in northern Afghanistan. When asked about the killings, Noori "did not express any regret and stated they did what they needed to do in their struggle to establish their 'ideal state.'"

Mullah Mohammad Fazi
As the Taliban's former deputy defense minister, Fazi was held at Guantanamo after being identified as an enemy combatant by the United States. Fazi is an admitted senior commander who served as chief of staff of the Taliban Army and as a commander of its 22nd Division. He's also wanted by the United Nations on war crimes for the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan.  According to documents, Fazi "wielded considerable influence throughout the northern region of Afghanistan and his influence continued after his capture." The Taliban has used Fazi's capture as a recruiting tool. "If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties" with other terrorist groups, the Guantanamo report says.

Mullah Khairullah Khairkhwa
Khairkhwa is the former governor of the Herat province and has close ties with Usama bin Laden and Mullah Omar.  According to the Joint Task Force Guantanamo file, Khairkhwa "represented the Taliban during meetings with Iranian officials seeking to support hostilities against US and coalition forces." Khairkhwa and his deputies are suspected of being associated with an extremist military training camp run by the Al Qaeda commander Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was killed in 2006. U.S. authorities have also accused Khairkhwa of becoming a powerful opium trafficker.

Mohammad Nabi Omari
As a senior Taliban leader, Nabi Omari has held multiple leadership roles in various terror-related groups. Pre-9/11, Nabi, who is estimated to be in his mid-40s, worked border security for the Taliban – a position that gave him "access to senior Taliban commander and leader of the Haqqani Network, Jalaluddin Haqqani," according to the JTF-GTMO report. Born in the Khowst Province of Afghanistan, Nabi Omari and his family were forced to resettle as refugees though In Miram Shah, Pakistan after the Soviet Union's occupation in Afghanistan. In the late 1980s, Nabi Omari returned to Afghanistan where he fought with the mujahideen against the Soviets. During the early 1990s, he ping-ponged between Taliban-related positions and others, including a stint as a used car salesman. In August 2002, Nabi reportedly helped two al Qaeda operatives smuggle missiles in Pakistan. The weapons were smuggled in pieces and the plan was to reassemble the missiles once all of the pieces had been brought across. Nabi was caught in September 2002 and eventually moved to Guantanamo.

What we don't know is far more important than what we know.  I am happy for him and his family, but It seems that Bergdahl may only represent a token.  Someone had/has something that we were willing to trade 5 very dangerous men for.  Their release is being celebrated and the concept that any low level American hostage will represent a huge bargaining chip cannot be receded. I don't think this will end well, but will reserve judgment until we know what we don't know.  

[guido911]

It is really great that you and gaspar can find so many ways to be upset.

When it comes to Obama...

[guido911]

Could be that there are some of us not running around like a bunch of mouth breathing rednecks, and are waiting for some facts to come about. (if the truth ever comes out about Bergdahl's situation.)

Who are freakin referring to? This story has been evolving over the past 3 days, and the facts are coming out. Here's the mouth breather red neck Jake Tapper asking questions, but I guess he is not getting facts to come out.

[guido911]

I remember reading that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said that no matter what he allegedly did, the swap was the right thing to do.  He also stated that he would be investigated and court martialed if he indeed did desert.

Molehill, meet mountain.

What the hell do you mean mountain/molehill? 5 freakin terrorists that were at Gitmo are now free, and we get in return a possible deserter that reportedly disavowed his own country? The pres. ignores his notification requirements, ticking off his members of his own party? Bergdahl's comrades are ripping him for desertion, and I can only imagine what the families of the soldiers that died looking for Bergdahl must feel.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/208070-white-house-apologizes-to-senate-intelligence

Everyone, hold Mr. Molehill to account if any Americans get taken hostage in the near future and get used as a bargaining chip, or if these 5 killers are involved in any future death or casualties.

[Conan71]

...or if these 5 killers are involved in any future death or casualties.

If?

I think we know better.

Looks like Obama broke at least one law that he signed just months back.  Also looks as if they were looking for some sort of uplifting PR in the wake of the VA scandal, something along the lines of the 52 hostages released by Iran in 1981.

Could Obama be impeached over prisoner swap which brought home soldier who 'walked away' from his unit? Republicans claim deal was ILLEGAL

The president ignored a law – which he signed last year – requiring him to notify Congress 30 days before releasing anyone from Guantanamo Bay

The Obama administration never told Capitol Hill until after Bergdahl was in American custody and the US Taliban prisoners were preparing to leave

A former federal prosecutor told MailOnline that while the 30-day-notice law is probably unconstitutional, putting enemy combatants back in a position to harm Americans is an impeachable offense

A White House insider said Obama administration officials didn't anticipate how controversial Bergdahl's rescue would be, and compared it to the 1981 release of 52 US hostages in Iran

Since Saturday several of Bergdahl's former military comrades have said he was an Army deserter, and some have speculated that he also aimed to join with the Taliban in Afghanistan

An official Pentagon report concluded in 2010 that Bergdahl 'walked away,' so little effort was made to retrieve him, according to the AP

Obama 'clearly violated laws which require him to notify Congress thirty days before any transfer of terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, and to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated,' House Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Buck McKeon of California and Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member Sen. JIm Inhofe of Oklahoma said Saturday.

'Our joy at Sergeant Berghdal's release is tempered by the fact that President Obama chose to ignore the law, not to mention sound policy, to achieve it.'

What makes the news more controversial still is that many do not see Bergdahl as a hero. Instead he has been branded a 'deserter' by many of his former comrades.

An official Pentagon report in 2010 concluded that he 'walked away' from his post, so the U.S. Army did not exert any extraordinary efforts to find him after an initial flurry of searches, according to an insider who spoke to the Associated Press.

And at least six soldiers lost their lives in circumstances related to the Idaho native's disappearance from his post on June 30, 2009. Parents of one dead military men were told that their son perished in a mission aimed at taking down a Taliban target, not capturing a deserter.

With the circumstances of Bergdahl's disappearance no longer in any substantial doubt, the remaining outrage has focused on the Obama administration's decision to trade five high-value Taliban terror detainees for him – several years after the Pentagon decided he wasn't worth recovering.

Yet it appears the administration believed it would win a PR victory big enough to eclipse any legalistic hand-wringing on Capitol Hill, and whatever objections might surface among the military rank-and-file.

A White House official told MailOnline on Monday morning that Obama's deputies were caught flatfooted by the intensity of public outrage in some quarters after Bergdahl's rescue by Special Forces.

'Everyone thought this would be a January 1981 moment,' the insider said, referring to the negotiated release of 52 U.S. hostages in Iran after 444 days in captivity.

How delusional can you get? Absolutely nothing like the Iran hostage release.  Virtually no one had heard of Bergdahl until this weekend, now we find out we swap out five high ranking members of a known terrorist organization for a freaking deserter and people are rushing to defend this grossly incompetent administration yet again.  Let's see how many "Well Bush did it" lame comparisons come up.

[Hoss]

I can almost see the spittle from the some of the usual suspects in here hitting their screens right now.  Love the faux outrage.

All I pointed out is that the Chair of the Joint Chiefs said it was the right thing to do (negotiate for his release).  The initial negotiations got underway over two years ago.

And yes, I still say mountain/molehill.  I guess some people get a little butthurt easier than others.

People are so eager to blame the current President that they love to grasp at straws.  It's a no-win situation for him here.  Had he not done it, there would have been outrage.  He did it...still, outrage.

How predictable....and petty.

And yes, I'm invoking the "Bush" clause here.

Because he did the exact same thing.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/18/steny-hoyer/hoyer-correct-500-guantanamo-detainees-were-releas/

[Conan71]

And yes, I still say mountain/molehill.  I guess some people get a little butthurt easier than others.

People are so eager to blame the current President that they love to grasp at straws.  It's a no-win situation for him here.  Had he not done it, there would have been outrage.  He did it...still, outrage.

How predictable....and petty.

Where are you getting this?

Why would anyone be outraged by five leaders of the Taliban being held indefinitely in Gitmo?  How is it faux outrage that these guys legitimately may be responsible for the deaths of Americans in the past and now have the ability to do so again?

How can anyone be so glib not to grasp that concept?

Bergdahl is no hero, ostensibly he wanted to renounce his citizenship.  I'm even starting to question his "imprisonment" as more information becomes available.

It doesn't matter how long ago the admin started working on this.  As far back as 2010, the Pentagon determined Bergdahl was not an asset worth retrieving.  If the Admin worked on this for two years, that was two years after it was determined we did not need to find him.

Secondly, the Admin did not go through the legal channels they signed off on to notify Congress prior to releasing enemy combatants.

Third, how is a five to one swap (five high ranking members of the Taliban for one enlisted man) even remotely equitable?

Why do I have the feeling if this had been BushCheneyRummyCo, you would be all over this?  I would have been.  It's an inexcusable blunder for any administration to do something like this. 

This is nothing at all like releasing monetary assets of a nation in exchange for actual hostages held against their will for over a year.  This is putting enemies back on the battlefield.  What is incredible is someone thought this would be a shining moment like the hostage release was for Reagan after his inauguration in 1981.

I have a feeling Gen. Dempsey is already feeling duped if you watch him slowly walking back his comments.  Sure we brought home the last POW, but I don't think he was made aware of the questionable circumstances under which Bergdahl was being held.

I have a feeling I know why Carney resigned last week, he's got a severe case of vertigo from all the spinning already.  He was probably worried about vomiting with the nausea over this one.

[Hoss]

Where are you getting this?

Why would anyone be outraged by five leaders of the Taliban being held indefinitely in Gitmo?  How is it faux outrage that these guys legitimately may be responsible for the deaths of Americans in the past and now have the ability to do so again?

How can anyone be so glib not to grasp that concept?

Bergdahl is no hero, ostensibly he wanted to renounce his citizenship.  I'm even starting to question his "imprisonment" as more information becomes available.

It doesn't matter how long ago the admin started working on this.  As far back as 2010, the Pentagon determined Bergdahl was not an asset worth retrieving.  If the Admin worked on this for two years, that was two years after it was determined we did not need to find him.

Secondly, the Admin did not go through the legal channels they signed off on to notify Congress prior to releasing enemy combatants.

Third, how is a five to one swap (five high ranking members of the Taliban for one enlisted man) even remotely equitable?

Why do I have the feeling if this had been BushCheneyRummyCo, you would be all over this?  I would have been.  It's an inexcusable blunder for any administration to do something like this. 

This is nothing at all like releasing monetary assets of a nation in exchange for actual hostages held against their will for over a year.  This is putting enemies back on the battlefield.  What is incredible is someone thought this would be a shining moment like the hostage release was for Reagan after his inauguration in 1981.

I have a feeling Gen. Dempsey is already feeling duped if you watch him slowly walking back his comments.  Sure we brought home the last POW, but I don't think he was made aware of the questionable circumstances under which Bergdahl was being held.

I have a feeling I know why Carney resigned last week, he's got a severe case of vertigo from all the spinning already.  He was probably worried about vomiting with the nausea over this one.

Sure if it were Bush I would have been.  Wait, how about the outrage with the 500 detainees HE let go at the end of his second term.  Where was the damned outrage then?

You can't be effing serious... 

[Conan71]

Sure if it were Bush I would have been.  Wait, how about the outrage with the 500 detainees HE let go at the end of his second term.  Where was the damned outrage then?

You can't be effing serious... 

Did you even read the article you posted from Politifart?

Our only quibble with Hoyer is his use of the word "released." That could be interpreted to mean that under Bush, 500-plus detainees left the center and were immediately freed. But the Pentagon says there is a difference between a release and a transfer to another country. The vast majority of detainees leave Gitmo under a transfer, which means they are transported to another country that places them under some type of restrictions. Some are incarcerated in those countries because of criminal charges, while others face monitoring or travel limitations.

Those may have been low level operatives or street thugs accidentally detained.  They sure as heck were not high ranking members of the Taliban and they weren't swapped for a traitor.  Dig further and I'll be willing to listen.  As of now, apple meet orange.

Again, people are quick to excuse more executive level incompetence by saying it's okay because Bush did it.  It's sad people just can't come clean then and say: "You know, I'm really sorry I voted for someone who does all the same stupid stuff Bush did, because I really hated Bush because he was so incompetent."

[Hoss]

Did you even read the article you posted from Politifart?

Those may have been low level operatives or street thugs accidentally detained.  They sure as heck were not high ranking members of the Taliban and they weren't swapped for a traitor.  Dig further and I'll be willing to listen.  As of now, apple meet orange.

Again, people are quick to excuse more executive level incompetence by saying it's okay because Bush did it.  It's sad people just can't come clean then and say: "You know, I'm really sorry I voted for someone who does all the same stupid stuff Bush did, because I really hated Bush because he was so incompetent."

You do realize that these five were not 'freed'.  That what happened to them was essentially the same thing as what happened to these 500 others.  They were all released to Qatar...a third nation.

And yes, I did read the article.

You should probably remove the recovering part from your title now.

I guess 'no man left behind' means 'only if you aren't accused of deserting'.

I guess it's convenient.

[Conan71]

You do realize that these five were not 'freed'.  That what happened to them was essentially the same thing as what happened to these 500 others.  They were all released to Qatar...a third nation.

And yes, I did read the article.

You should probably remove the recovering part from your title now.

I guess 'no man left behind' means 'only if you aren't accused of deserting'.

I guess it's convenient.

And we can trust Qatar to keep them on a short leash.  Yeah, okay.

According to terms of the release, they are to remain in Qatar (after receiving a hero's welcome) for a year "before they can rejoin their ranks in the Taliban."

Yeah, that's some really severe restrictions.  

Hey if you want to keep bailing water from the bilge of the FAILboat go on ahead.  That's your prerogative.

[Hoss]

And we can trust Qatar to keep them on a short leash.  Yeah, okay.

According to terms of the release, they are to remain in Qatar (after receiving a hero's welcome) for a year "before they can rejoin their ranks in the Taliban."

Yeah, that's some really severe restrictions.  

Hey if you want to keep bailing water from the bilge of the FAILboat go on ahead.  That's your prerogative.

Hey, technically, I've got no dog in this hunt.  I'm pointing out that technically, they're getting released in the same manner that the 500 that got released were.  I pretty much washed my hands of this administration after last year.  But watching the screeching from the right when he does something is becoming painful, especially when if he'd let him languish and possible die, there would have been calls for his head.

I'm pretty sure actually that if Obama came out in favor of oxygen, the Republican party would suffocate themselves to prove that they were against it.  The hyper-partisanship has become ridiculous and I'm surprised that not more mainstream Republicans haven't come out and complained that their party has been co-opted by a group of nuttier-than-fruitcakes professional lobby monkeys.  Not that the Democratic wing of the government is any better.  They just aren't imploding within themselves they way the GOP is doing right now.

My fear is that the GOP WILL implode.  That wouldn't be good for either party.  The mainstream Republicans need to do something to take back their party.  Because if you look at the way our current President has governed, he's quite a bit more right of center than most liberals would like.  The reason you don't notice is that the crazy train has run the Republicans so far to the right that it makes the moderates look liberal, in their eyes.  Hell, I just saw an attack ad tonight by TW Shannon on James Lankford essentially calling him a liberal because he voted on bills that the President approved of.  How dare he!  How dare they do the job of governing instead of obstructing.

I'm just sick of all of it.  And no matter who takes the House and/or Senate in November, it's not getting any better until 2016.  And if Hillary runs, watch out.  I don't think there's a Republican out there at this moment in time who could touch her.  And most Republican pundits know it.  Unless they can find someone with lightning in a bottle, I don't even think pressing on Benghazi is going to affect her.

Sorry for the rant.  A moment of clarity brought to you by Bulleit Bourbon, I guess...

[guido911]

I can almost see the spittle from the some of the usual suspects in here hitting their screens right now.  Love the faux outrage.

Ah yes. The "faux outrage". Just listen to these conservatives ripping your man-child

And what you are reading in this forum from the usual suspects is what I often call illustrations of "honor" and "character". Words many in here would not ascribe to you.

[Hoss]

Ah yes. The "faux outrage". Just listen to these conservatives ripping your man-child

And what you are reading in this forum from the usual suspects is what I often call illustrations of "honor" and "character". Words many in here would not ascribe to you.

Maybe you and Scott should get together and compare notes.  It must be fun being the only two clairvoyants on here.

It's quite hilariouis *YOU* of all people mention honor and character given your propensity for ad hominems on this forum.  So full of honor and character when you call people a POS, right?

Yawn.