Bad precedent

[CAA Flagship]

If the guy deserted, he wasn't worth the trade.

But I'm not sure we even know to what extent the Gitmo prisoners are bad guys. Weren't there more than a few who were given up by rival clans without a clear association to the Taliban?

I like how everyone in this instance believes the Government regarding how bad they are.

Well if the Taliban hand-picked the 5 (rather than saying that all should be released), it would make sense that these are the 5 most important people to them (and quite possibly the 5 most dangerous to us).

Everything about this story is just guess work. But, little by little, the admin is revealing that it is true.

The White House has apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for failing to alert her in advance of a decision to release Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. Feinstein told reporters that she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday evening apologizing for what the administration is calling an ‘oversight.’”

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

They broke the law, it wasn't an oversight. It's ok though since the constitution doesn't apply to them I doubt our laws do either.

[Bronco]

-
Hillary was for the exchange but now says she was against it

Must have caught the Obama Bin Lyin disease when they had their "secret" lunch the day before the trade

Hillary Defends Bergdahl Trade: “The Idea Is You Really Care For Your Citizens, Particularly Those In Uniform”


Unless they’re in Benghazi, in which case you leave them to die…

Via Mediaite:

[Ibanez]

If the guy deserted, he wasn't worth the trade.

But I'm not sure we even know to what extent the Gitmo prisoners are bad guys. Weren't there more than a few who were given up by rival clans without a clear association to the Taliban?

I like how everyone in this instance believes the Government regarding how bad they are.

Well if the Taliban hand-picked the 5 (rather than saying that all should be released), it would make sense that these are the 5 most important people to them (and quite possibly the 5 most dangerous to us).

Everything about this story is just guess work. But, little by little, the admin is revealing that it is true.

The White House has apologized to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for failing to alert her in advance of a decision to release Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay. Feinstein told reporters that she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Monday evening apologizing for what the administration is calling an ‘oversight.’”

Oversight? Bullshit. They operate so far outside of the law it's more comical than troubling.

[CID1990]

Well if the Taliban hand-picked the 5 (rather than saying that all should be released), it would make sense that these are the 5 most important people to them (and quite possibly the 5 most dangerous to us).

Everything about this story is just guess work. But, little by little, the admin is revealing that it is true.

Oversight? Bullshit. They operate so far outside of the law it's more comical than troubling.

Yes, but Bush started a war that killed thousands of Americans.


(Although he did get Congressional approval to do so.)

[Ibanez]

Oversight? Bullshit. They operate so far outside of the law it's more comical than troubling.

Yes, but Bush started a war that killed thousands of Americans.


(Although he did get Congressional approval to do so.)

Yeah well, FDR had thousands More killed.

[CID1990]

The Clinton machine goes to work:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -swap.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots of "former adminstration official" sources in this article.

I smell Huma Abedin, et al.

[Col Hogan]

R

[GrizFanStuckInUtah]

I am not so sure the President doesn't have the power to do this. I am as far from an Obama supporter as you are going to find but you can look at it a couple different ways. The President has the power to pardon people for anything and they do it all the time. The President is the commander in chief and is control of the military and you could look at this as a military operation.

Having said that, the President also needs to answer to us as a nation as to why he did what he did. The story stinks and the truth of what happened needs to come out. If they put Bergdahl up in front of a court martial and make him face charges, I am less pissed off about this whole deal but still pretty unhappy.

[Ibanez]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

[CID1990]

I am not so sure the President doesn't have the power to do this. I am as far from an Obama supporter as you are going to find but you can look at it a couple different ways. The President has the power to pardon people for anything and they do it all the time. The President is the commander in chief and is control of the military and you could look at this as a military operation.

Having said that, the President also needs to answer to us as a nation as to why he did what he did. The story stinks and the truth of what happened needs to come out. If they put Bergdahl up in front of a court martial and make him face charges, I am less pissed off about this whole deal but still pretty unhappy.

"If a President does it, it isn't illegal."

[kalm]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

I'm guessing the administration doesn't do a single damn thing until the possibility of impeachment has been thoroughly vetted.

[Ibanez]

I am not so sure the President doesn't have the power to do this. I am as far from an Obama supporter as you are going to find but you can look at it a couple different ways. The President has the power to pardon people for anything and they do it all the time. The President is the commander in chief and is control of the military and you could look at this as a military operation.

Having said that, the President also needs to answer to us as a nation as to why he did what he did. The story stinks and the truth of what happened needs to come out. If they put Bergdahl up in front of a court martial and make him face charges, I am less pissed off about this whole deal but still pretty unhappy.

Obama is doing the same things that he criticized bush for doing. He's just ignoring his own laws and the Constitution. He signed a 2013 defense bill that requires 30-days notice. Reports say that Bowe appeared to be on good health. Now, we are being told that his health was a risk factor. Tis a sad state of affairs. Let's see if any Democrats have the nads to call him out.

[CID1990]

I get the feeling that this is a truly, illegal situation. Maybe even impeachable of one of the released prisoner launch attacks. What really did we gain by recovering a soldier who appears to be disenfranchised with us and sympathetic to our "enemy?" I know May people are outraged with Benghazi, Obamacare, the IRS an now the VA issues however, I get the feeling this event can be a "game changer."

I'm guessing the administration doesn't do a single damn thing until the possibility of impeachment has been thoroughly vetted.

this guy couldn't get himself impeached if he wanted to

he could commit mass axe murders on Penn Ave during the Memorial Day parade and Nancy Pelosi would be blaming it on his PTSD he got from all the racists disagreeing with him at every turn

Congress doesnt have the stones

[andy7171]

The five, whom Graham has dubbed the "Taliban Dream Team," were released on Saturday in a trade for Bergdahl, who had been held captive in Afghanistan for five years.

But members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have been critical of what they say was essentially negotiating with terrorists for Bergdahl's release.

"The likelihood of an American citizen being kidnapped in the future by a terrorist organization in light of this decision goes through the roof," Graham said. Further, he said, "There's no evidence . . . that these people have renounced terrorism. Quite the opposite. They're now heroes."

The Senate plans classified hearings on Wednesday into why Congress wasn't given the legally required 30-day notice before prisoners are released from Guantanamo.

Graham said he would prefer public hearings, but Senate Democrats don't want an open hearing. That is the opposite of what they demanded when they heard testimony about detainee abuse at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.

"We had an open hearing. We put all our dirty laundry out there for people to see," Graham said. "Now, when it comes time to this release, they want to do it behind closed doors. That will not stand."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Taliba ... id/574985/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

NBC's Chuck Todd said the White House had expected public "euphoria" over Bergdahl's release.

"They consciously put these two things together," Graham said. "It's blowing up in their face."

[Ibanez]

I'm guessing the administration doesn't do a single damn thing until the possibility of impeachment has been thoroughly vetted.

this guy couldn't get himself impeached if he wanted to

he could commit mass axe murders on Penn Ave during the Memorial Day parade and Nancy Pelosi would be blaming it on his PTSD he got from all the racists disagreeing with him at every turn

Congress doesnt have the stones

It's depressing how right you are.

[Skjellyfetti]

but you had no problem with Reagan trading arms for the Iranian hostages, right?

. Jesus. That was 20+ years ago. It has no bearing. You can't excuse Obamas actions because some Republican did something long ago.

Why does it have no bearing? The thread is called: "bad precedent." But, we've been negotiating with terrorists all along - when it suits us. Reagan negotiating with terrorists does have bearing - because it is A PRECEDENT for negotiating with terrorists.

We negotiated with Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines to secure the release of a captured missionary couple in 2002.

We negotiated and paid off former Sunni insurgents (aka "terrorists") to fight on our side during the surge in 2007.

We've been negotiating to free the Nigerian girls kidnapped by radical Islamists.



This was certainly bungled by Obama and his administration... and I get the worry that he is a deserter... but, he's still a US citizen and a member of our military that was captured in a war zone. Bring him home and court-martial him if needed. But, he deserves due process. And, the faux outrage about negotiating with terrorists is bunk. We do it all the damn time.

[HI54UNI]

I'm guessing the administration doesn't do a single damn thing until the possibility of impeachment has been thoroughly vetted.

this guy couldn't get himself impeached if he wanted to

he could commit mass axe murders on Penn Ave during the Memorial Day parade and Nancy Pelosi would be blaming it on his PTSD he got from all the racists disagreeing with him at every turn

Congress doesnt have the stones

First let me say that I think impeachment would be stupid even if he does deserve it.

Having said that how fun would the 2016 election be if Obama was impeached? Biden takes over and becomes the incumbent president. Does Hillary challenge the incumbent? Will the people ready to fall in lock step behind her change their minds to support the incumbent president? Think how nasty that primary fight would be! How pissed off would Hillary be? How many lamps would she throw?

[kalm]

. Jesus. That was 20+ years ago. It has no bearing. You can't excuse Obamas actions because some Republican did something long ago.

Why does it have no bearing? The thread is called: "bad precedent." But, we've been negotiating with terrorists all along - when it suits us. Reagan negotiating with terrorists does have bearing - because it is A PRECEDENT for negotiating with terrorists.

We negotiated with Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines to secure the release of a captured missionary couple in 2002.

We negotiated and paid off former Sunni insurgents (aka "terrorists") to fight on our side during the surge in 2007.

We've been negotiating to free the Nigerian girls kidnapped by radical Islamists.



This was certainly bungled by Obama and his administration... and I get the worry that he is a deserter... but, he's still a US citizen and a member of our military that was captured in a war zone. Bring him home and court-martial him if needed. But, he deserves due process. And, the faux outrage about negotiating with terrorists is bunk. We do it all the damn time.

Due process...

[89Hen]

NBC's Chuck Todd said the White House had expected public "euphoria" over Bergdahl's release.

[GannonFan]

I'm guessing the administration doesn't do a single damn thing until the possibility of impeachment has been thoroughly vetted.

this guy couldn't get himself impeached if he wanted to

he could commit mass axe murders on Penn Ave during the Memorial Day parade and Nancy Pelosi would be blaming it on his PTSD he got from all the racists disagreeing with him at every turn

Congress doesnt have the stones

While I'm not sure this rises to the level of impeachment (what does and doesn't is hugely subjective anyway) I agree that there's not a chance he would be impeached, barring the GOP obtaining a significant majority in the Senate. Without that, there's no chance for conviction and there's nothing to gain for the GOP to go down that course.

[andy7171]

Why does it have no bearing? The thread is called: "bad precedent." But, we've been negotiating with terrorists all along - when it suits us. Reagan negotiating with terrorists does have bearing - because it is A PRECEDENT for negotiating with terrorists.

We negotiated with Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines to secure the release of a captured missionary couple in 2002.

We negotiated and paid off former Sunni insurgents (aka "terrorists") to fight on our side during the surge in 2007.

We've been negotiating to free the Nigerian girls kidnapped by radical Islamists.



This was certainly bungled by Obama and his administration... and I get the worry that he is a deserter... but, he's still a US citizen and a member of our military that was captured in a war zone. Bring him home and court-martial him if needed. But, he deserves due process. And, the faux outrage about negotiating with terrorists is bunk. We do it all the damn time.

HHmmm.
I get that he's a US Citizen and he needed to come back. I don't have a real problem with negotiating with terrorists. If the shit hit the fan and I was being held by them. I would hope someone would do the same for me, regardless of my dumbass decision making that found me in the situation.
But, it's looking more and more like he did desert and quite possibly gave up intel that got people killed, whether tortured or voluntary. And he should get due process in a Military Court.
The combination that and the White House doing all of this on their own, knowing full well, the strong opposition of virtually everyone(whether they admit to it or not) and the breaking of a law made specifically for this situation made by this current President, STINKS REAL FUCKING BAD.
Something is very very wrong here, and it better not get swept away like everything is fine.

[AZGrizFan]

Why does it have no bearing? The thread is called: "bad precedent." But, we've been negotiating with terrorists all along - when it suits us. Reagan negotiating with terrorists does have bearing - because it is A PRECEDENT for negotiating with terrorists.

We negotiated with Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines to secure the release of a captured missionary couple in 2002.

We negotiated and paid off former Sunni insurgents (aka "terrorists") to fight on our side during the surge in 2007.

We've been negotiating to free the Nigerian girls kidnapped by radical Islamists.



This was certainly bungled by Obama and his administration... and I get the worry that he is a deserter... but, he's still a US citizen and a member of our military that was captured in a war zone. Bring him home and court-martial him if needed. But, he deserves due process. And, the faux outrage about negotiating with terrorists is bunk. We do it all the damn time.

Due process...

"captured".

[ASUG8]

Maybe negotiating the detainees away a few at a time is Obama's version of shutting down Gitmo.

[Ibanez]

. Jesus. That was 20+ years ago. It has no bearing. You can't excuse Obamas actions because some Republican did something long ago.

Why does it have no bearing? The thread is called: "bad precedent." But, we've been negotiating with terrorists all along - when it suits us. Reagan negotiating with terrorists does have bearing - because it is A PRECEDENT for negotiating with terrorists.

We negotiated with Abu Sayyaf terrorists in the Phillipines to secure the release of a captured missionary couple in 2002.

We negotiated and paid off former Sunni insurgents (aka "terrorists") to fight on our side during the surge in 2007.

We've been negotiating to free the Nigerian girls kidnapped by radical Islamists.



This was certainly bungled by Obama and his administration... and I get the worry that he is a deserter... but, he's still a US citizen and a member of our military that was captured in a war zone. Bring him home and court-martial him if needed. But, he deserves due process. And, the faux outrage about negotiating with terrorists is bunk. We do it all the damn time.

If the precedent was set in the 1980s, then this event isn't a precedent.