Bergdahl deal disgraceful

  • Follow Letters

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is being treated as a hero, and I assume most people are glad for his release by the Taliban. This is purely a political move on the part of the Obama administration, and to those who give only a passing nod to things, it probably will make the administration look good and on top of things!

In the first instance, Bergdahl is anything but heroic. There are a lot of questions surrounding his “captivity,” and I sincerely hope Congress will take these questions on in due time. To begin, Bergdahl didn’t appear to be a good soldier or a good citizen, and disparaged the Army he served in and the country he served. He reportedly expressed sympathy for the Taliban!

Those such as myself who have spent considerable time in uniform will know that he is a deserter in every sense of the word. He quit his post in the presence of an armed enemy intent on taking the lives of his comrades in any way possible!

My belief is that he intentionally turned himself over to the Taliban, or at least went where he knew they would find him.

As for the Obama administration, it intentionally broke the law by negotiating with terrorists, and the terrorists won by obtaining the release of five of their most ruthless and capable commanders, who soon will be back in the killing fields doing their work!

By negotiating with terrorists, the Obama administration now has set a price on the head of every American, particularly those who wear the uniform!

If you are a terrorist, capture an American and negotiate his or her release, apparently you surely will get what you want!

This is certainly one way for President Obama to fulfill his promise to close down the Guantanamo facility! Put the inmates back in the field!

Comments (91) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
jaymai
434
Points
jaymai 06/10/14 - 02:34 pm
2
2
RMSHEFF: "I have no idea of

RMSHEFF: "I have no idea of the relevance of comparing terrorism to the drug war..."

Yeah I know. I will admit that was kinda out there.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 02:58 pm
6
2
Thank you Jaymai for
Unpublished

Thank you Jaymai for answering at least one of my questions.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 02:59 pm
7
2
From the UCMJ "Any person
Unpublished

From the UCMJ

"Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct."

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 03:02 pm
6
2
Simple question Jaymai, yes
Unpublished

Simple question Jaymai, yes or no. Do you believe the President should be prosecuted for the crimes he has committed.

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 03:07 pm
5
0
Boy! Jaymai, little

Boy! Jaymai, little correction. Osama was not the head of the Taliban. Osama was head of al Quada. Mullah Mohammad Omar was/is the head of the Taliban.

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 03:11 pm
5
0
Obama did not nagotiate with

Obama did not nagotiate with the Taliban, he habituated with the Haqqani net a terrorest group with ties to the Pakistani intelligence service.

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 03:54 pm
6
1
I think it was right to get

I think it was right to get Bergdahl back. But once again Obumbler screwed up (sorta like releasing the name of the CIA station chief in Afghanistan) . Bergdahl exchange should of been done quietly and with little fan fare. Bergdahl could receive the treatment he needs, Bergdahl's behavior evaluated etc. I hope Bergdahl recovers and quietly leaved the military. I hope Obama leaves period.

jaymai
434
Points
jaymai 06/10/14 - 03:34 pm
1
6
Pond Life: "Simple question

Pond Life:
"Simple question Jaymai, yes or no. Do you believe the President should be prosecuted for the crimes he has committed."
Simple answer (as if you didn't know by now). No.

jaymai
434
Points
jaymai 06/10/14 - 03:36 pm
0
6
carcraft: "Boy! Jaymai,

carcraft: "Boy! Jaymai, little correction. Osama was not the head of the Taliban. Osama was head of al Quada. Mullah Mohammad Omar was/is the head of the Taliban."

I stand corrected. But you know, all terrorists look the same to me.

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 03:36 pm
6
2
Jaymai....your answer speaks
Unpublished

Jaymai....your answer speaks volumes. You apparently feel that the President is above the laws that he violates.....as does he. Thank you for being honest though.

supercub88
8
Points
supercub88 06/10/14 - 03:38 pm
1
8
RMSHEFF and PONDLIFE

Of course Executive orders are not against the law ( provided in the constitution ), but they are abused and have become a way to get around the law.

RM, The precedent was set long ago..Remember we traded Gary Powers.

The difference is that Osama is known to be the mastermind behind 911 certainly we would not have traded him. Most of the detainees in Cuba have never been charged with a crime.

Who cares that "every military and intel advisor warned against his decision ". They are frequently wrong - EX: Viet Nam… 58,000 dead.

supercub88
8
Points
supercub88 06/10/14 - 03:41 pm
0
3
RMSHEFF and PONDLIFE

Of course Executive orders are not against the law ( provided in the constitution ), but they are abused and have become a way to get around the law.

RM, The precedent was set long ago..Remember we traded Gary Powers.

The difference is that Osama is known to be the mastermind behind 911 certainly we would not have traded him. Most of the detainees in Cuba have never been charged with a crime.

Who cares that "every military and intel advisor warned against his decision ". They are frequently wrong - EX: Viet Nam… 58,000 dead.

burninater
10245
Points
burninater 06/10/14 - 03:45 pm
1
5
The argument that Obama broke

The argument that Obama broke the law in this prisoner exchange is not as simple as some seek to make it.

Here are two opposing viewpoints of legal specialists:

The first is a Constitutional originalist view that a power to oversee specific POW exchanges is not enumerated in the Constitution as a power of Congress.

http://originalismblog.typepad.com/the-originalism-blog/2014/06/the-pres...

The second is the opposing viewpoint that historical interpretation of Congressional power granted by the Constitution would include oversight of POW exchange.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/06/03/more-...

The legality of Congress' requirement in this POW exchange is not settled law: the Constitution does not specifically grant this power to Congress, but non-originalist historic interpretation of Congressional power feels there may be a Constitutional justification for Congress decreeing this power to itself.

Sounds like a job for the Supreme Court -- can Congress allocate this assumed power to itself, or must it be explicitly provided for in the Constitution?

Bizkit
37283
Points
Bizkit 06/10/14 - 03:45 pm
5
0
jamaii that's a straw man

jamaii that's a straw man argument-it's not about me being right. That's pitiful and not even an argument or a retort. You'll need to step up to do better than that.

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 03:48 pm
5
0
Supercube88, We had actually

Supercube88, We had actually defeat the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong when we pulled out. the Tet Offensive was a major loss and the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had shot their wad. It woould take years to rebuild to any effective level they were basically done, BUT we lost the war at home.

Bizkit
37283
Points
Bizkit 06/10/14 - 03:49 pm
4
0
I agree Burn the SCOTUS needs

I agree Burn the SCOTUS needs to examine all this mess. But the deal was years in the making, Bergdahl's parents were informed, but Congress wasn't notified in over a year no less thirty days. I don't know why Obama wants to push all this envelope just to close Gitmo by all appearances.

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 03:51 pm
6
0
Burninater, It is settled law

Burninater, It is settled law until overturned by the Supreme Court or or stayed by a federal Judge. Are you saying that I do not have to obey the ACA because it is in Constitutional dispute?

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 03:55 pm
5
0
I would trust military and

I would trust military and intel advisers before I would trust Eric Holder or Obama, they are both lying pieces of garbage!

burninater
10245
Points
burninater 06/10/14 - 04:01 pm
0
7
Jefferson and the Sedition Acts

"Burninater, It is settled law until overturned by the Supreme Court or or stayed by a federal Judge."
---------
This is actually not the case in regards to a President's requirements to uphold the Constitution. The precedent that a President need not abide by a law that he or she suspects to be unconstitutional is over two centuries old. Jefferson established the precedent in his opposition to the Sedition Act. It is a recognition that it is the Constitution, not an act of Congress, that embodies the Supreme law of the land.

http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=96711306411800712112609800010...

Unfortunately, we private citizens are not granted this interpretive power available to the President.

rmwhitley
5547
Points
rmwhitley 06/10/14 - 04:18 pm
0
0
barak
Unpublished

hussein obama and the left (democrats) are the biggest scandal in American history.

RMSHEFF
19894
Points
RMSHEFF 06/10/14 - 05:02 pm
3
0
Obama is not a dictator or is he...

The president take an oath to faithfully enforce or execute the laws of the land !

Has Obama broken the law by all of his executive orders that change Obamacare by refusing to enforce the very law he rammed through congress?

Has Obama broken the law by refusing to enforce immigration law?

Did Obama break the law when he refused to prosecute the new black panthers for voter intimidation?

We have never had a president who picks and chooses which laws to enforce or not enforce and it seems the laws are applied differently depending on who you are !

burninater
10245
Points
burninater 06/10/14 - 05:38 pm
0
5
"We have never had a

"We have never had a president who picks and chooses which laws to enforce or not enforce and it seems the laws are applied differently depending on who you are !"
-------
This simply is not true.

As I commented above, Presidents have performed such selective enforcement for over 200 years, and it has been established by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional action.

Presidents don't just have the right to do this; they have the DUTY to do this. The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land -- any President that enforces an unconstitutional Congressional Act is violating the obligations of his or her office. Obama is by no means the first President to choose not to enforce a law felt to be unconstitutional, and hopefully will not be the last. Any President that views an Act of Congress as constitutionally valid simply by virtue of its passage is a President that is not executing the duties of the office.

carcraft
30232
Points
carcraft 06/10/14 - 06:01 pm
5
0
I don't think we have ever

I don't think we have ever had an Attorney General trellis the attorney generals from the states they can ignore the laws they don't like. As a parent you pick your fights. Obama easily could have informed Congress. I thinks he acts like an immature adolescent. He is dumping illegal immigrants in Phoenix Arizona. Pay back to Jane Brewer?

KSL
151832
Points
KSL 06/10/14 - 06:12 pm
4
1
Actions of a hateful,

Actions of a hateful, vindictive person.

jaymai
434
Points
jaymai 06/10/14 - 06:28 pm
0
3
I see more facts have

I see more facts have enterred the obamahatefest. Thanks Burninator!

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 06:30 pm
6
1
-
Unpublished

Leave it to the liberals to defend this President's lawlessness by trying the old childish "oh yeah....will this guy did it too" and calling it legal precedent.

" Any President that views an Act of Congress as constitutionally valid simply by virtue of its passage is a President that is not executing the duties of the office."

You know Obama actually signed the bill into law that he violated. Was he for it before he was against it?

burninater
10245
Points
burninater 06/10/14 - 07:05 pm
1
5
"... trying the old childish

"... trying the old childish "oh yeah....will this guy did it too" and calling it legal precedent."
-------
How is that even coherent? The principle Obama is operating under IS legal precedent, and robustly so -- it has lasted over two centuries, and has been upheld by the highest court in the country.

You seek to deny a fundamental aspect of American Constitutional law, as it relates to legal obligations of the executive, to score a political point -- and then accuse others of being "childish"?

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 07:05 pm
6
2
-
Unpublished

I direct violation of the law that he himself signed is legal precedent? What other President has done that, and what court case was it upheld in as legal?

If that were true then the Presidential oath of office is meaningless. Good thing you are wrong.....good thing you don't keep your word about ignoring as well. :-)

Pond Life
17682
Points
Pond Life 06/10/14 - 07:12 pm
5
2
-
Unpublished

You DO know the difference between refusal to enforce a law (the precedent you cited) and directly VIOLATING a law. HUGE difference. NO President has been allowed to directly violate a law, and had that violation upheld in court.

Back to Top
loading...
Top headlines

Subcommittee finalizes plan for city septic tank fee

A city subcommittee on Friday finalized plans to impose a mandatory monthly fee of $14 for three years on approximately 3,500 landowners still using septic tanks when a city sewer line is located ...
Search Augusta jobs