• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US Soldier spends 3rd Christmas as Taliban Prisoner

Page 15 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I'm ready for Biden. First thing, we'll get him checked out for his level of cognitive function. Now the bar is set pretty low for politician's. They can pass at a much lower level than the average person. But I think he'll fail. So, we'll end up with Boehner. A bottle of Scotch and a tanning bed will keep him occupied.
 
eskimospy said:
So you are okay with negotiating with "terrorists" and paying them to stop shooting at us, but are not okay with negotiating with "terrorists" for people they have captured. The similarity there should be slapping you in the face.
Click to expand...

No. As I made clear I'm OK paying them to kill other bad guys, but I'm not OK with paying them to take us hostage.

eskimospy said:
Additionally, how did you feel about Reagan negotiating with terrorists?
Click to expand...

You mean Iran Contra?

I didn't "feel" anything. I didn't know about it. I was living in Europe with no access to US (or even English language) news. By the time I returned that wasn't in the news and Clinton was President.

Fern
 
Jaskalas said:
The Foxnews report claims he converted AFTER his capture. This should not be considered relevant or held against him. The important question is his desertion and capture. If he was loyal to the Taliban before he deserted.
Click to expand...

What would your stance be if the info that says he purposefully went in search of the Taliban is confirmed?

Fern
 
Fern said:
What would your stance be if the info that says he purposefully went in search of the Taliban is confirmed?

Fern
Click to expand...

Then you're in favor in bringing him home and a conducting an investigation? To have him face trial for these alleged mis-deeds?
 
boomerang said:
I'm ready for Biden. First thing, we'll get him checked out for his level of cognitive function. Now the bar is set pretty low for politician's. They can pass at a much lower level than the average person. But I think he'll fail. So, we'll end up with Boehner. A bottle of Scotch and a tanning bed will keep him occupied.
Click to expand...

Should have been done with Reagan at one point, and I even voted for him twice.

:biggrin:
 
Fern said:
To pretend that the fuss is merely partisan is BS.

There are 3 issues here:

1. Negotiating with terrorists on hostages. It's long been our policy that we don't do that. There are varying levels of agreement/disagreement. Some argue that it shouldn't be done at all. Others require that if done it must not be done publicly. Obama publicly overturned this. Disagreement is not unreasonable nor should it be unexpected.

2. Law to inform Congress. Obama did not comply. It is not unreasonable that some object.

3. The price paid was awfully high. So far I've seen nothing that refutes that these 5 were exceptionally high ranking terrorists and very dangerous. It is not unreasonable that some object to paying this price.

I have purposefully left out anything related to Bergdahl (sp?). If, however, it turns out that he purposefully sought out the Taliban and aided them he shouldn't have been recovered. He should have been 'droned' as Obama has done to other US citizens who were assisting terrorists.

Fern
Click to expand...

While I hate to have to prove such a troll poster such as Fern, but it sure would be nice if even once in a while he posted facts and not lies.

Fact #1: The Taliban is not a terrorist organization.

Fact #2 The US has for DECADES negotiated with tons of unsavory people, never heard you complain before

Fact #3 Bergdahl was a POW and is innocent until proven guilty.

So Fern, how about manning up and showing proof that anything I said was wrong?

How about showing proof Bergdahl was "assisting terrorists". While you are at it, link us to the court-martial that found him guilty.

Or is this more disinformation you blindly repeated from the far-right website you read? Amazing how ignorant posters here are.
 
boomerang said:
Time to double down kitty-kat. Whatever you do don't read this because it deals with the rule of law. No "fairness" argument will be found which I understand to be the cornerstone of progressive thought these days.

Bergdahl release: Can President Obama faithfully enforce the laws?

A few snippets from a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey are below.
Click to expand...

You were going to address the proof that Bergdahl is guilty? Or that he shouldn't have been traded as a POW?

Talk about rule of law...you guys have already convicted him without even a trial. What happened to innocent nutil proven guilty?

He isn't black or a muslim, so why are you convicting him without a trial?
 
spidey07 said:
Reports by those watching him he took up arms with the terrorists. That he actively seeked them out after deserting. Obama knew this.
Click to expand...

These the same people that told you Perry would win the Presidency?

Sure looks like Spidey's bigotry is coming out full force once again....just look at his defense of Zimmerman vs already convicting Bergdahl.
 
GarfieldtheCat said:
You were going to address the proof that Bergdahl is guilty? Or that he shouldn't have been traded as a POW?

Talk about rule of law...you guys have already convicted him without even a trial. What happened to innocent nutil proven guilty?

He isn't black or a muslim, so why are you convicting him without a trial?
Click to expand...
A mind is a terrible thing to waste but it's just too late for yours. No great loss. I have convicted him of nothing and even if I had, it holds weight only in the court of public opinion. Your issue is not my issue. Mine is the law that Obama broke by not notifying Congress 30 days ahead of any prisoner releases per the law that he himself signed.

I say in the nicest way possible that you are a near imbecile. You always have been. I had you on ignore for literally years because your every post you made was filled with over the top vitriol swirled with your ignorance. There was no substance worth reading. I will give you credit for you have calmed down but the ignorance is still on full display. You attempt to pick fights based on things that people did not say. You just did it to Fern a few posts back.

You've been shortchanged in the art of human interaction but there is nothing I can do about it even if I wished to. Best of luck to you.
 
Fern said:
What would your stance be if the info that says he purposefully went in search of the Taliban is confirmed?

Fern
Click to expand...

Well... that's a very ugly thing, and quite difficult to carefully digest with civil rights intact. Mostly it depends on the fine details, the pieces of evidence against him are critical for such a determination. At this point the news is all over the place with assertions.

There's the aspect that he is a military member, active in the battlefield. Instead of merely deserting and fleeing the field, he may have actively joined the enemy. They may have held him as a prisoner, not treating him as he might have hoped.

So much we do not know. If the worst case scenario is true, and he is a traitor, then we traded one useless Taliban for 5 dangerous Taliban. Instead of rescuing him a drone strike would have been appropriate. The reason this would even remotely be permissible is due to treason while a military servicemen, while on deployment. Such an action should be punishable by targeting him as an enemy combatant like any other.

The military should still have a due process for making this determination. If they fail to charge and convict him, then I would not approve of him being treated as a traitor, or even a deserter. These designations must have a formal charge and conviction made. If these formal actions have not been completed, then the President was absolutely right in bringing home an American in good standing.

The failure would be in the Pentagon for not properly handling an act of desertion or treason and not processing it. They had 5 years to sort out his status. So... my immediate response is to investigate the Pentagon and demand an answer as to Bergdahl's status. Then demand the evidence against him and why it was not properly handled.

TL;DR:

  • Requires specific evidence.
  • IF traitor, he should have had a drone strike.
  • All other cases, he should have been rescued.
  • President is off the hook if Bergdahl was not a convicted traitor.
  • Pentagon has failed in declaring Bergdahl's status, needs a serious investigation.
 
GarfieldtheCat said:
You were going to address the proof that Bergdahl is guilty? Or that he shouldn't have been traded as a POW?

Talk about rule of law...you guys have already convicted him without even a trial. What happened to innocent nutil proven guilty?

He isn't black or a muslim, so why are you convicting him without a trial?
Click to expand...

Because his release might possibly make someone, somewhere, supportive of Obama in some small way.
 
Oldgamer said:
Wrong on all accounts, the GOP is trying to make a scandal out of every friggin thing. So now that Benghazi has died down they are using the POW as an excuse to create a scandal. They didn't get a 30 day notice, big fucking deal. It is not an impeachable offense, nor is what POTUS did illegal.
Click to expand...

Laughable.... since Obama was hoping to rescue that only POW in Afghanistan and make people forget about the VA.

And do you even realize what Benghazi was all about?
 
row said:
13 year war

2122 American deaths

1 pow

you appear to be semi-lucid, figure it out professor.
Click to expand...

So instead of 2122 dead, we could have had many more boys captured instead, fed and clothed by the enemy at their expense, had more to trade for, and in the end had more boys going home to their families?


The down side is what now?



spidey07 said:
In exchange for releasing 5 extremely dangerous terrorists.

I assume you are in favor of this treason?
Click to expand...

Did I miss the part where these guys had super powers? Faster than bullets? Hulk strength? Ohs noes, it's pajama-clad psychotic goatherders who've spent the last decade rotting in a cage in Cuba! Were all doomed.

If were just making up shit, let's say obama implanted tracking devices in their skin and he'll send drones after them and all their terror buddies in their secret bat caves.
Stop being such a panty wetter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top