rickyp wrote:

A former Bush administration official broke with Republicans on Tuesday to defend President Obama’s prisoner exchange, arguing that since “the war in Afghanistan is winding down,” the United States would be required to return prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay back to Afghanistan.

“I don’t see how these particular Taliban officials could ever have been tried in the southern district of New York,” John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush explained during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday. “They’re certainly some Al Qaeda detainees who committed actual terrorist acts against Americans who perhaps could have been tried in a federal court because they committed federal crimes, but these particular Taliban detainees I think could never have been tried in federal court.” Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, several of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/06/ex-bu ... ial-george

On Tuesday, President Obama insisted that he had “consulted with Congress for quite some time” over the possibility of swapping Taliban detainees for American hostage Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. That’s news to Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, who said it’s been more than two years since she was consulted on the issue, adding that the exchange was greeted by the Senate Intelligence Committee with “surprise and dismay.”

News of Bergdahl’s release this past weekend has stirred controversy in part because the Obama administration side-stepped a legal requirement to give Congress 30 days’ advance notice.

In late Nov. 2011, Feinstein was first briefed on the Obama administration’s proposal to trade five senior Taliban detainees at Guantanamo for Bergdahl, she told reporters Tuesday.

Alarmed at the prospect, Feinstein and her Republican vice-chairman Saxby Chambliss, wrote two classified letters expressing their views—in Dec. 2011 to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and to the president himself in Jan. 2012.

“Both letters registered concerns with the proposals, and opposed the transfers of the detainees to Qatar,” Feinstein said.

Feinstein and Chambliss say that Clinton responded in a letter on Feb. 13, 2012, acknowledging that a 30-day forewarning was necessary for any prisoner exchange and promising future consultation with Congress.

Feinstein said there was no additional consultation until mid-day Saturday, when one of her senior aides received a call from Deputy Director of National Intelligence Robert Cardillo.

Cardillo told the aide that Bergdahl was back in United States custody, and that the Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay were being flown to Qatar.

Feinstein’s description of the White House’s congressional consultations was backed by Republican Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, who said this morning on MSNBC’s Morning Joe that he hadn’t been briefed by the Obama administration on this issue since 2011.

Feinstein and Chambliss expressed frustration that they had not been warned in advance about the exchange, not only because forewarning had been demanded by Congress in previously-signed laws, but because they had worked with the White House in the past.

Toobin said the signing statement amounts to the President's opinion "of what the law should mean," rather than a legal ruling.

"This is an example of a signing statement where the President is taking power for himself that the law didn't give him," Toobin said. "That may be constitutional, but it is still a violation of what the law says."

To Congress, the exchange irritated an already raw nerve over the never-ending power struggle between the White House and legislators, who accuse every administration of trying to run roughshod over congressional authority.

Even an Obama ally like Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California told CNN that as the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she should have received some advance notice of the swap involving Guantanamo detainees.

On Tuesday, Feinstein told reporters that the White House deputy national security adviser, Tony Blinken, called her to apologize for the lack of advance notice. However, it was unclear from Feinstein's comments if Blinken referred to a courtesy call or the 30-day notification under the law.

Meanwhile, both Feinstein and House Speaker John Boehner said the White House encountered opposition from top Democrats and Republicans on congressional intelligence committees when it previously discussed the possibility of exchanging Bergdahl for Guantanamo detainees as far back as 2011.

"Given the past briefings and concerns we had addressed -- and these were from both committees and the leadership of both committees; the concerns were bipartisan -- and I strongly believe that we should have been consulted, that the law should have been followed and I very much regret that that was not the case," Feinstein said.

If you say, "They are POWs," then there is a "war." What war?

And, as much as I read about politics, which is quite a bit, I'd never heard of this guy until now.

rickyp wrote:steve

If you say, "They are POWs," then there is a "war." What war?

The War in Afghanistan. Against the Taliban government of Afghanistan

Why is it that Bellinger is speculating but what you're doing isn't?

freeman3 wrote:I would like to make several points:

(1) As RJ points out Israel has a long history of prisoner exchanges. Israel is as tough a country as you will find, but they have not been willing to let solders who have been taken prisoner be tortured and killed to avoid prisoner exchanges. In theory what RJ says is the best course, but it's extremely difficult to sacrifices soldiers when they are captured. It may encourage terrorists to capture soldiers, but it also encourages them to keep them alive as a bargaining chip.

(2) I keep seeing this claim that Bergdahl's desertion cost the lifes of six other American soldiers. I have yet to see any proof of that they were specifically looking for him when they were killed (the way I understand it they were engaged in other missions, though they would certainly would have been on the look-out for him, too).

(3) It is curious why the army would have promoted him while he was AWOL. If the evidence was clear, and he was found to be AWOL, why would the Army promote him? It certainly seems like he went AWOL but I don't understand why the Army would promote an AWOL soldier.

A Pentagon investigation in 2010 concluded that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit prior to his capture by the Taliban the year before, a finding that led the military to curb any high-risk rescue plans, the Associated Press reported Tuesday.

A former Pentagon official told the AP that the evidence presented in the investigation was "incontrovertible" that Bergdahl had left the unit when he disappeared on June 30, 2009.

The military investigation was broader than a criminal inquiry, this official said, and it didn't formally accuse Bergdahl of desertion. In interviews as part of the probe, members of his unit portrayed him as a naive, "delusional" person who thought he could help the Afghan people by leaving his Army post, said the official, who was present for the interviews.

Nabi Jan Mhullhakhil, the provincial police chief of Paktika province in Afghanistan, where Bergdahl was stationed with his unit, said elders in the area told him that Bergdahl "came out from the U.S. base ... without a gun and was outside the base when he was arrested by the Taliban."

After weeks of intensive searching, the military decided against making an extraordinary effort to rescue Bergdahl, especially after it became clear he was being held in Pakistan under the supervision of the Haqqani network, a Taliban ally with links to Pakistani's intelligence service.

(4) Even if he went AWOL that does not mean we should not have tried to get him back. He is still an American citizen, he's a solider in a combat zone under enormous strain, and we should try to get him back. Now if he helped the Taliban, that's different, but there is no evidence that he did.

Nice, but we don't believe the Taliban are the government of Afghanistan.

The point is that Bellinger is a nobody

Speaking on "Special Report," Krauthammer told Fox News host Bret Baier that Bergdahl should face an investigation over allegations that the soldier left his post in Afghanistan on the night he went missing. However, he insisted that the White House did the right thing by bringing him home first.

"Look, had the choice been mine, I would have made that same choice," Krauthammer said. "It's a difficult decision and I would not attack those who would have done otherwise."

The United States negotiated the release of Bergdahl, who had been held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan for the past five years, in exchange for five Guantanamo detainees.

Krauthammer said that the United States, along with other Western countries, "always comes out on the short end" in hostage swaps. He included Israel in this, pointing to when the country gave up 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in return for one sergeant.

"The reason we put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don't," Krauthammer said. "That's why we always end up with unequal swaps."

rickyp wrote:fate

Nice, but we don't believe the Taliban are the government of Afghanistan.

Just after 9/11 the American Government requested that the Afghani government detain Osama bin Ladin and turn him over . The Afghani government asked for evidence before they would take action.
The US refused and the invasion began. Some of the 5 were members of the Taliban government. A government which the US recognized, lest why was a formal request made to them by the US government?

fate

The point is that Bellinger is a nobody

Sez you.

You're a big fan of Charles Krauthamer aren't you?

Speaking on "Special Report," Krauthammer told Fox News host Bret Baier that Bergdahl should face an investigation over allegations that the soldier left his post in Afghanistan on the night he went missing. However, he insisted that the White House did the right thing by bringing him home first.

"Look, had the choice been mine, I would have made that same choice," Krauthammer said. "It's a difficult decision and I would not attack those who would have done otherwise."

The United States negotiated the release of Bergdahl, who had been held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan for the past five years, in exchange for five Guantanamo detainees.

Krauthammer said that the United States, along with other Western countries, "always comes out on the short end" in hostage swaps. He included Israel in this, pointing to when the country gave up 1,000 Palestinian prisoners in return for one sergeant.

"The reason we put a value on the individual human life the way that the ones at the other end of the table don't," Krauthammer said. "That's why we always end up with unequal swaps."

The negotiations for Bergdahl’s release took shape in the early months of 2011 and evolved over the next three years into the agreement announced over the weekend.

When the talks began as part of what U.S. officials hoped would be a broader Afghan peace effort, U.S. envoys were forbidden to offer any detainees held in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as part of a trade for Bergdahl. According to people familiar with the process, negotiators were allowed to include only Taliban fighters held at the detention center at Bagram air base, outside Kabul.

Those restrictions put Taliban moderates open to peace talks — including Tayeb Agha, who was appointed by Taliban leader Mohammad Omar to represent him in the negotiations — in a difficult position with the movement’s more hard-line elements.

As one person familiar with the discussions — who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the secret negotiations — said, Agha could not sell that deal.

The Taliban countered with a list of six senior Taliban officials being held at Guantanamo Bay. The list included the five Taliban commanders released as part of the Bergdahl agreement, as well as a sixth who died during the talks, which stretched from February 2011 until June 2012.

If you say, "They are POWs," then there is a "war." What war?

The War in Afghanistan. Against the Taliban government of Afghanistan

Yes, the Taliban WAS the government--12+ years ago

Appeal to authority

rickyp wrote:fate

If you say, "They are POWs," then there is a "war." What war?

ricky

The War in Afghanistan. Against the Taliban government of Afghanistan

fate

Yes, the Taliban WAS the government--12+ years ago

Which means that when they were taken, they were taken as POWs.

Since they've never been officially charged with acts of terrorism by the US.... thats their status.

Eventually all POWs in every conflict have always been repatriated and a prisoner exchange has occurred.

One of the five Taliban leaders freed from Guantanamo Bay in return for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s release has pledged to return to fight Americans in Afghanistan, according to a fellow militant and a relative.

“After arriving in Qatar, Noorullah Noori kept insisting he would go to Afghanistan and fight American forces there,” a Taliban commander told NBC News via telephone from Afghanistan.

Noori pushed to return to Afghanistan after learning that the U.S. had provided written assurances that no country would arrest any of the five freed for a year as long as they lived peacefully, one of his relatives told NBC News by telephone from Afghanistan.

Obamas' caught in the kneee jerk ODS on this...

If he didn't do "everything he could" to secure Bergdahls release ... he would and was being castigated by the right.
When "everything he could" includes a POW exchange, he's castigated.

If he was seen walking on the surface of the Potomac, his opponents would report that he could not swim.

Again, they're either terrorists or POW's. They are not both.

rickyp wrote:fate

Again, they're either terrorists or POW's. They are not both.

Have they been convicted or even charged with acts of terror?

freeman3 wrote:We got a US prisoner back for a relatively low cost. And it's easy for us to say that we shouldn't negotiate but if it were our family member or one of us had to make the decision, I suspect we would see things quite differently...

The military owed Bowe Bergdahl its promise to try to rescue him, even if he walked away. The nation did not owe him an agreement to compromise national security by surrendering five high-value prisoners without asking what we were getting in return.

These were top officials in the Taliban regime: a provincial governor, a deputy defense minister, a deputy intelligence minister, a top arms smuggler, and a top Taliban military commander. Two of them are wanted by the United Nations for war crimes committed against Afghanistan’s Shiites. . . .

Well, no, they don’t have superpowers. All they have is the influence and connections to get a gang of brutes together, and the absence of any of the normal vestiges of human conscience that would cause them to shrink from atrocities like: bombing schools because they let girls play sports; shooting a girl in the head; because she stands up for her right to be educated; horribly mutilating women to punish them for disobedience in their roles as marital slaves; dragging a 7-year-old out of the yard where he is playing and hanging him from a tree because his grandfather spoke out against the Taliban.