A Taliban commander close to the negotiations over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told TIME Thursday that the deal made to secure Bergdahl’s release has made it more appealing for fighters to capture American soldiers and other high-value targets.

“It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking by telephone on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”

Anonymous wrote:And Obama is more smug than most women on this site which is REALLY saying something! He's not apologizing for ANYTHING as of this evening (and said in his grand tone). Enough already.

Anonymous wrote:While these 5 guys were in jail, the Taliban has still existed, still perpetrated violence and here is a big shocker there are plenty of them in Afghanistan who can be violent all on their own without someone sitting in a jail in Cuba to tell them how.

What were we going to do with these guys anyways? Did keeping them in jail really make anything safer? No. It was just window dressing to make people feel better.

Anonymous wrote:Calling them terrorists feeds their egos. Call them the Gitmo Guys...it's demeaning. I think they were chipped and are being tracked.

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that he is a covert spy, and his family was paid off to play along. And the 5 gitmo guys (that's what we should start calling them) were chipped and will be tracked. It's all part of a long term plan.

Anonymous wrote:Earlier a poster lamented our big brother state forcing people to bake for gays!!! Well the guy is not being forced to do anything. He's exercised his right not to bake. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647093/Baker-lost-discrimination-case-opposes-gay-marriage-stop-making-wedding-cakes-altogether.html

If you provide a service for a fee, you must abide by the law. Don't like the law, get out of business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reserving judgment on this while I learned more about it. I read the Rolling Stone profile from 2012, and that portrait, along with everything being reported this week, has led me to believe that this "swap" was a huge, huge mistake. I'm sorry, but the guy joined the Army to have an "adventure." He was raised by parents who were proud to live "off the grid." I support the right of anyone to live the way they want to, but when you are raised to be a free-thinker and a free-spirit and seek adventure, you have no business joining the Army, through which you become accountable to your fellow soldiers and your country. The Army is not a game where you join up to see the sights and maybe do some good along the way. This is just an incredibly naive way to think. And his actions and his attitude about his service were incredibly selfish. His experience of the Army, his capture and detainment were all a result of choices he made. The results are unfortunate, but they are his to own. The security and safety of our country and our that of our allies should not be compromised because his choices turned out to be catastrophic for him. I am bitterly disappointed in our President and whichever advisors supported this move.

He is innocent until proven guilty. PROVEN. He deserves a fair trial.

I agree. And I hope he stands court martial. I still think the preponderance of known evidence (including the Army's own report on his capture) suggests he went off on his own and I still do not believe that the swap was a good deal.

You have already concluded that the preponderance of the evidence indicates his guilt, before he's even tried. I don't know what to say to that. But regardless, the presumption of guilt in this case has no bearing on any decision to rescue him. If the President violated the laws governing the release of prisoners, that is a separate issue.

I am giving my opinion, to which I am entitled. I am not suggesting that it should substitute for a court decision nor am I one of the people foaming at the mouth over this issue. But I do have an opinion based on what is known and has been reported. You disagree. That is fine with me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reserving judgment on this while I learned more about it. I read the Rolling Stone profile from 2012, and that portrait, along with everything being reported this week, has led me to believe that this "swap" was a huge, huge mistake. I'm sorry, but the guy joined the Army to have an "adventure." He was raised by parents who were proud to live "off the grid." I support the right of anyone to live the way they want to, but when you are raised to be a free-thinker and a free-spirit and seek adventure, you have no business joining the Army, through which you become accountable to your fellow soldiers and your country. The Army is not a game where you join up to see the sights and maybe do some good along the way. This is just an incredibly naive way to think. And his actions and his attitude about his service were incredibly selfish. His experience of the Army, his capture and detainment were all a result of choices he made. The results are unfortunate, but they are his to own. The security and safety of our country and our that of our allies should not be compromised because his choices turned out to be catastrophic for him. I am bitterly disappointed in our President and whichever advisors supported this move.

He is innocent until proven guilty. PROVEN. He deserves a fair trial.

I agree. And I hope he stands court martial. I still think the preponderance of known evidence (including the Army's own report on his capture) suggests he went off on his own and I still do not believe that the swap was a good deal.

You have already concluded that the preponderance of the evidence indicates his guilt, before he's even tried. I don't know what to say to that. But regardless, the presumption of guilt in this case has no bearing on any decision to rescue him. If the President violated the laws governing the release of prisoners, that is a separate issue.

Anonymous wrote:Earlier a poster lamented our big brother state forcing people to bake for gays!!! Well the guy is not being forced to do anything. He's exercised his right not to bake. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2647093/Baker-lost-discrimination-case-opposes-gay-marriage-stop-making-wedding-cakes-altogether.html

If you provide a service for a fee, you must abide by the law. Don't like the law, get out of business.