I've already said I don't like the precedent, but I'm also acknowledging that we don't have the whole picture and the military presumably has a more complete one.

Ouch......

I think that's reasonable. I tend err on the side of them knowing this guy semi-deserted but went ahead anyway thinking it would be good PR regardless. The whole "we were worried about his health and didn't have time to go through congress" angle leads me to believe there were some skeletons in his actions and they were hoping to sidestep being questioned. I didn't see the 5-1 offer being "pulled off the table" anytime soon.

It's like Pat Riley saying "Hey, I jumped at trading Lebron, Wade, Bosh, Ray Allen and Birdman for Amare Stoudemire. I mean, why wait and risk the deal being pulled? I'm sure my owner and coaches understand why I couldn't risk losing the deal and therefore didn't have time to talk to them first." :D

Flashback! 1/2014: PJ Media Encourages Readers to Sign Petition to Free Bergdahl "By Any Means Necessary" - Little Green Footballs

This is exactly what I meant when referring to the pundits. Back in January (long past the time the investigation into his release was done), there were right wing pundits calling for the Obama administration to do anything in its power to release him, and they even mentioned the possible swap of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Now that he has been released, these same talking heads have fallen all over themselves to throw Bergdahl under the bus.

Obviously...because it's not about Bergdahl - it's about trying to score political points.

I know you know that. Hell - I think we all know that.

Yep, and evidently it is working, as the new set of post-release talking points seem to have made their way swiftly into the news cycle. Forget what was said before he was released. That doesn't matter anymore.

Here's why I feel so strongly about this.

My brother did 3 tours in Iraq. If he were held captive for *any* reason whatsoever, I would want him brought back. It doesn't matter if he went AWOL or whatever. He may have to face the consequences when he gets back, but at least I would know he was back and "safe". I'd also be able to visit him and there would be closure.






My brother came back from Iraq. I'm able to go visit him sometimes like I did tonight. In Arlington National Cemetery.

:(

FWIW - the next time you visit him - give him a big ole thanks from me. Appreciate his service.

Sorry for your loss.

There are six families who will never see their loved ones again because of this guy's actions. I know that alone is not enough reason to leave him there out of spite or whatever if he can be brought back without more bloodshed. Leaving him there won't bring those guys back. It's still hard for me to get past that fact though. I think I changed my mind on the after-the-fact consequences. Maybe he still should be tried and punished if the desertion is proven. (and it sounds like the pentagon already made that conclusion). I wonder if he feels any guilt or if he's just insulated in a world now within his family and community that blames the military or American generally for his actions, what happened to him, and the deaths he caused.

Edit: And I still think it's an open question too whether this kind of thing endangers future soldiers, or if we really should be so quick to disregard that possibility. This isn't like old-timey wars with a far-away country where the threat ends as soon as the war is over. On the other hand, the military has changed too, the advances in technology and everything, the ways wars are fought, and the current status of military activity overseas, it's not like a terrorist group can just pick up a U.S. solider off the street tomorrow in an attempt to gain something in a future trade. A solider would have to pretty much walk into enemy hands to be caught. And presumably, the U.S. still wouldn't negotiate with terrorists if a civilian was kidnapped. Though from the tone of some in this thread, I wonder if people even have that opinion anymore. It is pretty easy to kidnap a random U.S. civilian overseas. Private interests and insurance companies do pay ransoms, and that's turned kidnapping into big business in parts of South America. The private interests don't always have the money - but the U.S. government always does. So if the government were willing to pay money for civilians, everyone would be a profitable target, not just the rich, or relatives of the rich (who also have the ability to protect themselves with security/bodyguards/etc). Hell, I was in Serbia last week, and while that's a safe country, and I made sure not to look like someone who had any money to deter general muggings, I would feel a lot less safe if I knew the government was willing to release terrorists or pay off anyone who kidnapped me. It'd suck to have the kidnapping value of a rich guy (via the government), but not have access to any of the rich guy protections, like bodyguards. It's a lot safer to be a poor schlub the government wouldn't save.

In which case, of all people, I can't reconcile the seeming contradiction here. Apparently you are a far more forgiving soul than I.

That's entirely aside from offering condolences on your loss, which I do, and I hope you understand that.

Whistle blowers are after Serco. They received a $1.2 billion contract from Centers For Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). The contract is for Serco to process paper applications from those seeking to sign up for insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
Employees are saying there is no work. One person said they were paid to play games.
There is an office in Wentzville, MO and out congressmen and senators are after them.
Its been on the news for a couple weeks here. Interesting stuff.

http://www.kmov.com/special-coverage...261768091.html

What I'm tired of is one side crying out about war crimes, illegalities and corruption and then turning around and defending their guy when he not only does the same thing, but does so even more blatantly. Seems to me if a politician takes a sh*t and calls it roses, the party faithful are quick to fall in line behind him and say, "smells great, give me a dozen."

I don't see anyone saying that he shouldn't be put on trial if he is in fact charged with desertion. So not sure what point you are trying to make, unless you are saying he is already guilty in the absence of being charged with anything.

If you don't understand why his family would want him back for closure, then maybe that should trigger something within you that your moral compass has *really* gone astray.

Interesting video. I had kinda imagined a cold war spy exchange on a bridge somewhere where the prisoners walked by each other and to the other side.

Taliban video shows Bowe Bergdahl's release in Afghanistan - CNN.com

I'm not talking about Bergdahl. Whatever else happens to him, I hope the knowledge that at least six of his brothers gave up their lives for his actions gnaws at him for the rest of his life. I'm talking about the most 'honest' and 'transparent' administration in the history of mankind. Hope and change, baby, hope and change.

I'm in full-on "vote third-party, or if you can't vote against the incumbent" mode right now because both sides keep pulling this "talk out of both sides" stunt.

As I said, the mistake here was not getting him back. It was parading him around on the White House lawn. That was just sheer stupidity on the part of the Obama administration.

I'm not Jon, but I completely understand why his family would want him back. What about the families whose son/husband/father died looking for him? Should they get a say as well? Or in matters like this is it best to ignore the emotion and do what "we" think is best.

Not to be crass, but do families of soldiers that die in other missions get a say in how things are done in the military?

Of course not, but they are certainly allowed to criticize a mission if it turns out to have cost their family member's life and wasn't really needed/productive.

Yet this is entirely different that what you were arguing above.

The administration definitely had a different take on this whole thing, from the tone of that press conference. I agree, this should have been handled quietly without fanfare, with a press release after the fact.

But since the administration apparently sees this guy as something of a hero, I wonder how that will manifest itself in its relationship with him going forward. I think its fair to assume he'll get free mental and physical health care, probably for the rest of his life. Will other military pay and benefits accompany that?

Has he been court martialed? Dishonorably discharged? Until either of those happen, why would he not receive what any other member of the armed services would be eligible for? Because of a series of links from the Drudge Report?

It's not what "we" think is best, it's honoring the code that no one gets left behind.

I guess no reason at all, which is interesting to me. According to reports, the pentagon determined he walked away willingly. Other investigative reports like that Rolling Stone piece determined the same thing. I'm not sure that's debatable any more. But some of the reported comments from officials this week make it seem like the government doesn't want to prosecute, because he's been through enough already. So ya, I guess he's entitled to back pay and everything else.

I was reading somewhere else, the Boise sub-reddit I think, where some were calling for this guy to be strung up, others were calling for him to be prosecuted (some were saying he was correct for fleeing an unjust war). But some tried to calm the first two groups down by saying, "look, this guy's not a hero, he's going to get dishonorably discharged and he's not getting military benefits." I thought - why is that so obvious? I think he might get his regular benefits and then some, based on how the government has held this him and their achievement in getting him back up on a pedestal. They're not going to want him struggling on his own in rural Idaho. They're not going to want him going on a mass shooting or whatever down the road. He'll be setup for life. I can understand how that would infuriate other military families.

Not a big fan of the overall decision, but as a father I feel for his dad and what he has been through. He has to be elated no matter where this goes from here.

Oliver North is concerned there might have been a ransom paid to the Taliban as part of Bergdahl's release. I guess he is upset he might have missed out on getting consulting dollars on how to conduct such a transaction.

Yeah I saw that yesterday and I almost spit out the water I was drinking onto my computer.


In a delicious piece of irony, keep in mind that the Taliban was the recognized government of Afghanistan when we invaded. This soldier was a POW of that Taliban regime. We got him out the same way we got John McCain out of Vietnam.


In case someone demands the links to where those things were actually said - this article's got the links to the actual statements. Lawmakers Change Their Minds After Demanding 'Every Effort' Be Made To Free Bergdahl | ThinkProgress

Is there a distinction between money, weapons, and prisoners as far as trade chips? Can you be in favor of using some and not others?

There are laws prohibiting the use of cash transfers and weapons in certain cases. Not so with prisoners.

There was the 30-day notice requirement for GITMO releases, but I guess that's not a big deal.

But what about from a moral perspective, like we've been talking about here? Would you change those laws if you could? What if we could have gotten him back for $500 million or something, and it was legal, should we pull the trigger, or is that different?

The 5 names had been discussed for over a year as trade targets. Not sure what the requirement was for notification, but this was not something was was suddenly sprung on Congress. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that advanced approval was given by the committee for a certain pool of detainees. Would the captors still have honored a deal after 30 days of grandstanding by Congressmen in an election year?

From a moral perspective, I'm ok with using all legal methods available in negotiations.

But what if was your choice whether to make money or weapon exchanges legal? Should we be doing those things, should we re-visit those laws?

What if my aunt had balls? Would she then be my uncle? What if the choice was to make prisoner exchanges illegal? Not really sure what you are getting at here.

There was this whole debate about the morality and security concerns of prisoner swaps. But now you're just tying your opinion exclusively to what the law currently is. Which renders all those previous arguments you made kind of pointless.

I'm just trying to figure out what the basis of the differences of opinion on this. Is there a point where you would say that a prisoner trade shouldn't be made because it endangers U.S. troops too much? Is it just that that these 5 released prisoners don't create a risk, but cash and weapons might?

Is Oliver North vilified only because his acts were criminal? Was that scandal a scandal only because of the laws in place? I always thought there was more to it than that. Like that we found those actions revolting from a moral perspective too. It just seems weird to see him continue to be vilified in a new world of, "hey, we negotiate with bad guys all time, who cares." If the only reason he's a villain, and the only reason that was a scandal (at least the hostage part of the scandal) is that laws were broken, should we change those laws?

The laws should change so that someone who was accused of breaking them can be viewed in a more favorable light? That is a strange argument to make.

It's really not that complicated. Do you think it should be legal for the U.S. government to pay for the release of hostages?

It's a different question than what was argued above. I think it's well within a family's right to question the need for a mission where a love one perishes - esp if there is information available on it. That doesn't mean that should impact a true leader's policy decisions, but that doesn't change the family's right to question.

Heck, Bowe's dad could lambaste the administration for years for a decision to not trade for his son - that's his right and even understood to a point. But, that doesn't mean his actions should impact real policy decision by the military and Obama. If it's in the country's best interest to do a rescue or make a deal, then do it. If not, then you have to have the guts to make an unpopular decision. That's why being president isn't an easy job. Releasing these five terrorist to bring back one guy while sidestepping notification laws to congress doesn't seem to be in our country's best interest. I guess others in this thread disagree - such is life.

If there could be a case made for it, other than because it would make people accused of breaking it look better, then it would be something to consider. But the US generally follows the Geneva Convention, even when the other side in a conflict doesn't. The Geneva Convention specifically mentions prisoner transfers, and general practice before that avoided the use of ransom payments for POWs.

This is so frustrating. I didn't say that ransoms should be legal so Oliver North looks better. Why are you so hostile towards my question that I guess you're just not going to answer? I wasn't even asking you specifically. If you don't have an opinion on my general thought you didn't have to respond.

Edit: I really didn't mean it to be this controversial thing. I think the arguments about why the prisoner swap was appropriate are really good, and I agree with them. I was kind of surprised by some of the reasoning behind it, and I just wondered if people looked at cash and weapons swaps the same way. If that question makes you pissy for some reason, then just don't answer it.

I guess I misunderstand what you are asking with this:

Basically:

Obama sidestepping a notification law and trading 5 terrorists to get back Bowe = good

North sidestepping a law to trade weapons to get back hostages = bad

So, it's OK to sidestep a law as long as you don't agree with it.

I'm having more of an issue with why anyone would want a treacherous SOB like this back, tbh.

My child does that, I'd shoot him myself. And reload.

If we don't think the underlying conduct is bad anymore, maybe we should make it legal. Like how people who want to legalize marijuana or gay marriage don't believe that those activities are wrong or harmful to society. It's not so that people who were previously convicted of marijuana or homosexuality in the past can "look better." (though that might be a side-effect)

Edit: The majority vibe here seems to be, "we've always negotiated with terrorists and rogue states, why the angst now?" So it was weird to see Oliver North's name thrown out in a negative context. Obviously he's a criminal, and no future changes in the law will change that. But if the only difference between him and prisoner swaps is the law, and there was nothing wrong or harmful about his conduct, then maybe we should re-visit those laws. Not for his sake. But for the same reasons we want to change gay marriage and marijuana laws. Because we don't think that conduct is bad or harmful anymore.

Well, that says more about you than anything anyone else could say.

False equivalency is false. There's a big difference between "notification" and "trading weapons". I guess your partisan goggles don't let you see that though.

North et al wouldn't have been in any more than political hot water if it was only about arms for hostages. You're forgetting the whole Contra part of Iran-Contra. The indictments were not about the sale of arms, but were based on the transfer of funds to the Contra rebels in direct violation of U.S. law.