[Thanos]

Given how Swift-boating works I'm quite sure that if Bergdahl had been killed by the Taliban then the soldiers speaking out against him would be blasting The Obamunist for 'letting our comrade in arms be killed'. Bergdahl's really nothing more than a pawn on the chessboard, the same way that the dead body of Amb. Chris Stevens eventually ended up being. Those most rabid and frothing right now about both have literally no regard in the slightese for either person but that doesn't mean that they aren't willing to fully use both to achieve their tactical political purposes. The Game - this is how it's played.

BTW, few (if any) of Bergdahl's commanding officers have said anything about him being less than a good soldier. When it's all over it'll probably come down to nothing more than a 20 year old kid who made one fuck of a bad mistake when he went over the wire. Doesn't mean the two-legged shit that are using him now for their agenda care in the slightest, but whatever. That's why one of the worst levels of Dante's Hell exists just for them, the faithless users and the schemers who care nothing at all about anything or anyone. That the worst of Bergdahl's accusers in the media never even came close, not even once in their worthless lives, to putting the uniform on themselves is just absolutely typical of them and of the agenda/movement they're working for.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

BTW, few (if any) of Bergdahl's commanding officers have said anything about him being less than a good soldier.

The active duty personnel can't say anything. The others were prohibited from saying anything until Bergdahl was released and, to a man so far, they're saying he went AWOL (at the very least) and that he deserted (at the worst). Apparently Bergdahl's own writings speak to his intentions to go AWOL and 'wander the earth'.

Now what needs to happen is to convene a courts martial and either clear him or convict him. If he's innocent then an Article 85 proceeding will do him a favor by certifying that he was not a deserter.

[Thanos]

I've been on the record from the beginning that Bergdahl needs to be investigated and court-martialled if there was something sinister that he was doing in the background prior to his disappearance. It's called due process, which is allegedly an American value, not that you'd know it from the way the lynch mob on FOX, hate-radio, and the internet scum sites are behaving.

And the death threats against Bergdahl's family? Way to stay classy, Forever Warriors.

[stratos]

$1:

And the death threats against Bergdahl's family? Way to stay classy, Forever Warriors.

I equate this along the same lines I do those who called up parents of soldiers who had died in Vietnam saying they were glad their son had been killed. SCUM

[Winnipegger]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

prisoners of war...must be released

Kind of, but not necessarily and in the case of the US there's the Military Commissions Act of 2006 to consider. I just did a quick Wiki and I still don't know for sure what immediately affects the law concerning release of unlawful combatants. You say you do. Save me some trouble give me a link.

Geneva Convention: Article 4 - Prisoners of War

$1:

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, incuding those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

(1) Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them...

(2) The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law...

I was going to just copy clause (6), but instead included most of it. Remember the Taliban was government of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion. Wouldn't a member of the Taliban fall into one of these categories?

Article 118 - Release and repatriation

$1:

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

[Goober911]

There have been news reports from the soldiers in the unit. There have also been wide differences between these stories about him from bad to good. But guess what sells the best?
Why credit one and disregard the other?

If and there should be an investigation, it will come out.
As to breaking that particular Law - He has that option as the President.
And I do believe he like his predecessor did on a number of laws, his legal interpretation of what this law entailed and his responsibilities under it. Forget the legal term for this but it is common for a President to do so, and is within their power to do so.

[Goober911]

Here ya go.
Have at it
http://www.vox.com/2014/6/9/5786834/obama-law-bergdahl

The law seems clear. Section 1035(d) of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) says the president "shall notify" Congress "not later than 30 days before the transfer or release" of any Guantanamo Bay inmate.

President Obama didn't notify Congress before he freed five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl's release from captivity. The conclusion seems simple: Obama broke the law.

But conversations with constitutional law experts paint a much more complicated picture. The question comes down to where the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief ends and Congress's jurisdiction begins. And it's not a question we're likely to get a definitive answer to anytime soon: given the way that the relevant law works in this area, the Supreme Court will never hear a case about it.

[BRAH]

Obama to free Gitmo terrorist ‘because he took up yoga’


http://nypost.com/2014/06/07/no-reform-too-absurd-for-obama-to-spring-gitmo-detainees/
__


The Bergdhal release wasn't about him but a political move to releasing all Gitmo detainees and closing it appeasing to the base while trying to win back Democrats for the mid term elections and if he has to break the law again to do it he will.

[N_Fiddledog]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.


I was going to just copy clause (6), but instead included most of it. Remember the Taliban was government of Afghanistan at the time of the invasion. Wouldn't a member of the Taliban fall into one of these categories?

Well, in American law here's what the Military Commissions Act of 2006 says.

$1:

"The term 'unlawful enemy combatant' means —

(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces)

I'm not sure who you want to apply section 6 to, but if you wanted to apply it to say the 5 released for Bergdahl I would say a good lawyer on the government side could make a case for releasing what they're calling "unlawful enemy combatants" pretty much whenever they wanted to.

[Goober911]

First the Republicans were for the deal until they were against the deal.
I do recall Senator Kerry being skewered by Bush in a situation reference a vote.
Now we have this,
Now it was known within the Govt the Taliban wanted these 5. Go way back to last year to confirm if you wish.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z3
Yes, Obama could certainly have handled the situation better. It’s fair to question the optics of the Rose Garden ceremony announcing Bergdahl’s freedom, to wonder why the administration did not acknowledge upfront the ambiguities surrounding his tour of duty and to ask why Congress wasn’t alerted to the deal the administration was negotiating.

But what’s truly astounding is how many Republicans raced to turn Obama’s commitment to bringing home a POW into an outrage. It tells us something that so many GOP politicians first tweeted warmly about the good news, only to take their tweets down and replace them with the party line that we never negotiate with terrorists, that Obama had endangered the nation, etc.

Four months ago, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he could support the kind of trade Obama made to get Bergdahl back. When it happened, McCain declared, “I would have not made this deal.” McCain is a national hero who spent more than five years in captivity during the Vietnam War. He may have let his unhappiness with Obama’s overall Afghanistan policy get the best of him.

And a few months later McCain is against it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... feafdd1394

Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our American fighting man. I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details.”

– Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), interview on CNN, Feb. 18, 2014

“We were never told that there would be an exchange of Sergeant Bergdahl for five Taliban.”

[Thanos]

Weather-Vane McCain would still be rotting in a tiger cage in the basement of the Hanoi Hilton if they applied the same "reasoning" to his captivity that he and his GOP friends are attempting to apply to Bowe Bergdahl.

[Goober911]

BRAH BRAH:

Obama to free Gitmo terrorist ‘because he took up yoga’


http://nypost.com/2014/06/07/no-reform-too-absurd-for-obama-to-spring-gitmo-detainees/
__


The Bergdhal release wasn't about him but a political move to releasing all Gitmo detainees and closing it appeasing to the base while trying to win back Democrats for the mid term elections and if he has to break the law again to do it he will.

Could ya riddle me this one please.
How well has the Military/ both administrations done at bringing these to trial.

Yeah I know basic rights to a fair trial were an issue.
Oh, how many were just there due to BS intelligence?

[Winnipegger]

You realize all of America's allies see threatment of prisoners at git-mo as a blatant violation of the Geneva Convention. I don't know details of "Military Commissions Act of 2006", but what you quote sounds like the whole thing just creates a kangaroo court. If you want to treat members of al-Qaida who weren't citizens of Afghanistan as mercenaries, then you won't get an argument. But members of the Taliban who were citizens of Afghanistain? Should have been released long ago. So the 5 released for Bergdahl should have been released anyway.

[BRAH]

Goober911 Goober911:

BRAH BRAH:

Obama to free Gitmo terrorist ‘because he took up yoga’


http://nypost.com/2014/06/07/no-reform-too-absurd-for-obama-to-spring-gitmo-detainees/
__


The Bergdhal release wasn't about him but a political move to releasing all Gitmo detainees and closing it appeasing to the base while trying to win back Democrats for the mid term elections and if he has to break the law again to do it he will.

Could ya riddle me this one please.
How well has the Military/ both administrations done at bringing these to trial.

Yeah I know basic rights to a fair trial were an issue.
Oh, how many were just there due to BS intelligence?

Do Al Qaeda members being held at Gimto fall under the Geneva Convention?

[Thanos]

They really can't bring the majority of the GITMO inmates to trial. Too many of them never should have been detained in the first place. Too many of the others were subjected to "enhanced interrogation" and any federal judge would basically toss the government case out because it was based on information derived on torture. Meanwhile, the conviction rate when terror suspects were taken directly into the civilian side of the federal system is hovering around 100%. The civilian side of the system, where "enhanced interrogation" wasn't allowed and where the convicted have all been given life sentences in SuperMax prisons where there is no hope of parole or escape. Yet the Forever Warriors insisted, and still insist today, that the federal system is too "wimpy" to deal with the cases of individuals charged with terrorism.

Thanks again, tough guys, you fucking chickenhawk idiots. If you turn out to be as right on Bergdahl as you've been on everything from the need to invade Iraq to how necessary it was to hook electrodes up to the nutsack of some poor douchebag that got collared in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan then Bergdahl is probably due for about a 100% vindication.