Bowe Bergdahl

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:BTW, Republicans are seeing more of their talking points falling apart:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carl-levin-obama-gave-proper-notice-for-prisoner-release/article/2549247

Levin said, “Relative to the requirement that the notification be provided 30 days in advance of the transfer of detainees, the President put Congress on notice on Dec. 23, 2013, that he intended to exercise his powers as commander in chief, if necessary, ‘to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.’”

So, the only issue on which Republicans seemed to have a legitimate case turns out to be moot.

Let’s rewind to a year ago - at a press briefing with Jay Carney. It is not much clearer than this. So, what you are saying is that since the President doesn’t get his way, he will just forget about the law that HE agreed to so he can get his way. Putting “Congress on notice” does NOT give him the authority to break the law.
REPORTER: “Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Is this something that the administration is considering? Is this something that the president would agree to?”

OBAMA SPOKESMAN JAY CARNEY: “What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans — between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue — using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools — the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.”
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/03/rewind-carney-promised-obama-would-notify-congress-of-terrorists-release-in-accordance-with-u-s-law/

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:BTW, Republicans are seeing more of their talking points falling apart:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carl-levin-obama-gave-proper-notice-for-prisoner-release/article/2549247

Levin said, “Relative to the requirement that the notification be provided 30 days in advance of the transfer of detainees, the President put Congress on notice on Dec. 23, 2013, that he intended to exercise his powers as commander in chief, if necessary, ‘to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.’”

So, the only issue on which Republicans seemed to have a legitimate case turns out to be moot.

Let’s rewind to a year ago - at a press briefing with Jay Carney. It is not much clearer than this. So, what you are saying is that since the President doesn’t get his way, he will just forget about the law that HE agreed to so he can get his way. Putting “Congress on notice” does NOT give him the authority to break the law.
REPORTER: “Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Is this something that the administration is considering? Is this something that the president would agree to?”

OBAMA SPOKESMAN JAY CARNEY: “What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans — between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue — using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools — the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.”
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/03/rewind-carney-promised-obama-would-notify-congress-of-terrorists-release-in-accordance-with-u-s-law/

What I am saying is that subsequent to the statement above, Congress was given satisfactory notification.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:BTW, Republicans are seeing more of their talking points falling apart:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carl-levin-obama-gave-proper-notice-for-prisoner-release/article/2549247

Levin said, “Relative to the requirement that the notification be provided 30 days in advance of the transfer of detainees, the President put Congress on notice on Dec. 23, 2013, that he intended to exercise his powers as commander in chief, if necessary, ‘to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.’”

So, the only issue on which Republicans seemed to have a legitimate case turns out to be moot.

Let’s rewind to a year ago - at a press briefing with Jay Carney. It is not much clearer than this. So, what you are saying is that since the President doesn’t get his way, he will just forget about the law that HE agreed to so he can get his way. Putting “Congress on notice” does NOT give him the authority to break the law.
REPORTER: “Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Is this something that the administration is considering? Is this something that the president would agree to?”

OBAMA SPOKESMAN JAY CARNEY: “What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans — between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue — using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools — the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.”
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/03/rewind-carney-promised-obama-would-notify-congress-of-terrorists-release-in-accordance-with-u-s-law/

What I am saying is that subsequent to the statement above, Congress was given satisfactory notification.

Somehow, I doubt that Obama simply saying that he is going to do what he wants is what Congress considers giving them satisfactory notification. Even Dems don’t agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:BTW, Republicans are seeing more of their talking points falling apart:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/carl-levin-obama-gave-proper-notice-for-prisoner-release/article/2549247

Levin said, “Relative to the requirement that the notification be provided 30 days in advance of the transfer of detainees, the President put Congress on notice on Dec. 23, 2013, that he intended to exercise his powers as commander in chief, if necessary, ‘to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.’”

So, the only issue on which Republicans seemed to have a legitimate case turns out to be moot.

Let’s rewind to a year ago - at a press briefing with Jay Carney. It is not much clearer than this. So, what you are saying is that since the President doesn’t get his way, he will just forget about the law that HE agreed to so he can get his way. Putting “Congress on notice” does NOT give him the authority to break the law.
REPORTER: “Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Is this something that the administration is considering? Is this something that the president would agree to?”

OBAMA SPOKESMAN JAY CARNEY: “What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans — between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long. We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue — using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools — the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family. With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made — the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen. As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.”
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/06/03/rewind-carney-promised-obama-would-notify-congress-of-terrorists-release-in-accordance-with-u-s-law/

What I am saying is that subsequent to the statement above, Congress was given satisfactory notification.

Somehow, I doubt that Obama simply saying that he is going to do what he wants is what Congress considers giving them satisfactory notification. Even Dems don’t agree.

The President has said, and Bush's own AG agrees, that this is an unconstitutional restraint on the Presidency. Congress has the ability to declare war. They do not have the power to direct a war.

[Anonymous]

Won't the "notice" given on 12/23/13 be fully investigated and found to be in compliance with the law, or not? Won't there be Republican demands for a copy of the "notice", emails relating to it, hearings on who said what when?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Won't the "notice" given on 12/23/13 be fully investigated and found to be in compliance with the law, or not? Won't there be Republican demands for a copy of the "notice", emails relating to it, hearings on who said what when?

Yes, I expect so. I also wouldn't be surprised if Feinstein has to walk back her criticism when she realizes that she "forgot" being notified. If I remember correctly, there was a previous case in which she was unaware of documentation provided to her by the Administration. Maybe someone else remembers more about that then I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, I don't think Congress is gridlocked on this issue. That's probably the real reason he didn't notify them. He was afraid of pushback from all of them.

What rock do you live under. Congress is gridlocked on EVERYTHING! Name one thing that is not partisan and they are in total agreement.

[Anonymous]

Yet another bullshit witch hunt for Congress to waste millions on, hearings ad infinitum for months, only to come up with NOTHING just like all the rest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If Bowe Berghdahl was your son, wouldn't you want him out of the Taliban's hands no matter what he did, no matter what the cost?

I think that the callousness of the posters here is directly related to the fact that there is no longer a draft. Your sons and daughters are not at risk, so who cares what happens to someone elses? This hews perfectly to the "I got mine" mentality I see in modern Republican attitudes.

Look at the Israeli attitude toward prisoners of war and ours. They traded over 1000 prisoners for one. This is because everyone there knows that one day that could be their son or nephew or brother because there EVERYONE serves their country.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

If Bowe Berghdahl was your son, wouldn't you want him out of the Taliban's hands no matter what he did, no matter what the cost?

I think that the callousness of the posters here is directly related to the fact that there is no longer a draft. Your sons and daughters are not at risk, so who cares what happens to someone elses? This hews perfectly to the "I got mine" mentality I see in modern Republican attitudes.

Look at the Israeli attitude toward prisoners of war and ours. They traded over 1000 prisoners for one. This is because everyone there knows that one day that could be their son or nephew or brother because there EVERYONE serves their country.

Of course, I would want him back. However, I sure would feel guilty if that meant putting other soldiers at risk.

Bull.

[Anonymous]

think that the callousness of the posters here is directly related to the fact that there is no longer a draft. Your sons and daughters are not at risk, so who cares what happens to someone elses? This hews perfectly to the "I got mine" mentality I see in modern Republican attitudes

Once more, as the parent of one who IS serving, I strongly disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think that the callousness of the posters here is directly related to the fact that there is no longer a draft. Your sons and daughters are not at risk, so who cares what happens to someone elses? This hews perfectly to the "I got mine" mentality I see in modern Republican attitudes.

Actually, I do have a child at risk for being sent to Afghanistan. I guess my concern is that Bergdahl's release may put his friends that are there now at risk.

How exactly does his release put others at risk. Do you think that Bergdahl was the first and last American POW. Do you think that he will be the last American POW released during a prisoner exchange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Look at the Israeli attitude toward prisoners of war and ours. They traded over 1000 prisoners for one. This is because everyone there knows that one day that could be their son or nephew or brother because there EVERYONE serves their country.

That has nothing to do with this. And, again, I don't like this as it puts lots more soldiers at risk. Particularly those left there in the coming year when numbers are reduced. That will be quite dangerous.

HOW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't get the logic here. If you are in a position where the Taliban can grab you, they can easily shoot you. If you have no value as a hostage, then you are dead.

Do you have any idea of the reality of the propaganda effect? This will energize the Taliban.

Really. Do you think that they were not energized to get the Americans out of their country before the prisoner swap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And we are exiting the war.

And, our remaining troops will be more vulnerable than ever.

HOW? What's different. They have been fighting foreign invaders for decades. What's changed now?