Did the US made the right decision?

1. 81

   dailytop10posted 10 years ago

   Did the US made the right decision?
   
   I just read a news about swapping five Guantanamo detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahi and I have mixed feelings. Part of me is happy that he can once more enjoy the company of his loved ones. However, I can't stop but think of the possible terror these five men might do after being released. Is one life worth putting millions in danger? Share your thoughts!
   
   

   replyreport
2. 61

   Superkevposted 10 years ago

   If he wasn't a coward deserter then it might have been arguable after 5 years that it was worth it.
   
   However he is a deserter and a lot of good men died trying to find him. He should be brought up on charges under the UCMJ and court martialed and at minimum sent to a military prison for a very long time.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I saw today where CNN reports six soldiers died trying to find him after he walked off; and also that our government has already decided not to pursue charges. I hurt for the families of the rescue team; they died in vain for Bergdahl's actions.

      replyreport
   2. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Almost certainly more. Those six were directly involved in the search, soldiers report that Taliban attacks increased greatly after he deserted. Lord knows what intel he gave them they later used to kill our troops.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      True and he did not even want to come home I am sure. He does not love America and I only hope he will face charges!

      replyreport
3. 80

   bethperryposted 10 years ago

   dailytop10, like you, I am happy that he is returning to his loved ones. But there is much about Bergdahl's particular case that I am not altogether comfortable with, starting with the fact he admitted to fellow soldiers that he went over to Afghanistan with the intent to help the Afghan people. And then the fact he willingly left his post.I've known a few POW's in my lifetime, and not a one of them willingly left his post. His father has also expressed sympathy for the detainees at Guantanamo - certainly not a crime, but where the heck is the empathy for Americans and others, worldwide, who have been victimized by the Taliban? Also, as this exchange falls on the heels of our gov's latest vow to pull troops out of Afghanistan, one can't help but wonder about the convenience in timing. Some say it was an exchange talked about for a couple of years, but Bergdahl was taken five years ago; couldn't our country have sent special forces to rescue him before now? With the President's acclaimed killing of Bin Laden, one would think a rescue mission could have at least been attempted. And then there's the fact the exchange was ordered without Congressional approval. This can't sit easy for many Americans. When we put all these considerations together with the knowledge that five terrorists will probably be back to their old hunting grounds in a year or so, yes I have mixed feelings, too. I suppose all we can do now is remain hopeful Sgt. Bergdahl is well -physically and mentally- and keep our fingers crossed that the release of these five Talibans won't come back to bite us all in the butt.

   replyreport
4. 0

   SassySue1963posted 10 years ago

   The Taliban has declared this a "huge victory". This man voluntarily left his post and then his father leaves tweets sympathetic to the Taliban (quickly deleted I might add).
   The entire process was an Unconstitutional and illegal action by our President.
   Other members of the military died trying to find this soldier who left of his own power.
   There is nothing good here at all.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      sure there is! Good for cons: politically:https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BpTiBJeCUAAcsHb.jpg  Money from every tragedy. Con-Way.Did you know before Obama got him, R's were pushing him to do everything he could to free Berghdal?Did u know that? Pathetic

      replyreport
   2. 58

      Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So what to what anyone did, this is now and our country is being put in danger by our own leader who was raised as one of them!

      replyreport
   3. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So what? Just as I suspected....Alfred E Neuman syndrome.What, me worry?Blame it on the other guy,Not me.I'm looking right at YOU.Who started this d*m war in the 1st place?Who gave blessings?Mirror mirror on the wall....youze.Take some responsibility

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A question: If your child, a solider, had been captured, and a prisoner swap was offered by the opposing country, would you want to wait 30 days before your son or daughter was release?  I do not think you would.

      replyreport
   5. 0

      SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Seriously? So if my child, a criminal, was in jail and I did not want to wait for a trial I should arrange a jail break? I might not want to wait, but I would understand the wait to adhere to the law.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Sassy Sun, you are mixing apples and oranges. We have our laws, other countries have their laws and rules. Sometimes, they do not exactly mesh, then the President has to act accordingly. If he had not brought the solider home, he would be blamed.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So what foreign law was compelling Obama to act and break the laws of his own country, you know, the one he 'leads'? And why, pray tell, would another countries laws matter a whit to the POTUS??

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I stand to be corrected, the the "law" everyone is referring to is H. R. 3304. It is an House Resolution. I could find no action on this by the Senate or any presidential signature. Maybe there is a law. I would like to see the citation.

      replyreport
   9. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Really not difficult to find, try Google, he is your friend: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off … nt-hr-3304

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Thank you, found it, you should read it. Section 1035 sets forth some guidelines that conflict separation of powers clause of the constitution . You do not like Obama. I voted for McCain. I took Obama over Romney. Seems like the GOP-Race card at work

       replyreport
   11. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Really, that's what you've got? It's because he's black? Well, half black anyways lest you forget. What it IS however is he did not inform congress as the law demands he do. Period.

       replyreport
   12. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Yes---this was extra-legal and unconstitutional at best, and at worst, an act that has empowered international terrorists AND put the lives of virtually all Americans at risk for kidnap and ransom by terrorists---foreign and domestic.

       replyreport
   13. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       How many Americans kidnapped after Bush released 500 gitmo detainees? Anyone know?

       replyreport
5. 93

   peeplesposted 10 years ago

   I am very happy he has been returned to his family. In my mind it is irrelevant whether he walked off on his own or if he was taken. He was a US soldier that wanted to come home. This whole concept that in order to be an American we must agree with our military tactics and government is BS! Our military is forced to do many immoral things. Do we expect that to never bother them?
   I find it odd that we talk so poorly of the Taliban when their actions are no different than much of our own USA government. The difference is we as Americans are taught that it's ok for us to go around dropping bombs on everyone else but when those people do it, then it is wrong.
   What those 5 men do might be bad, but I'm sure no worse than what our own government will do. People should get informed about how many innocent people die at the hands of our government while everyone is being directed by our media to focus on other things.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Express10posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Very well said, I have to agree.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      peeples, there is much truth in what you say. There are also a lot of military personnel that die (are sacrificed) for wars that benefit petty political endeavors. The circumstances surrounding this exchange is a reminder of this, not a contradiction

      replyreport
   3. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      He is a deserter, period. In past years such actions in time of war meant the death penalty. He joined the military on his own, he was not drafted. Exactly who were we bombing on 9-11-2001?

      replyreport
   4. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      In the last 5 years alone our drones have killed over 2000 people, with an estimated 500 to 1000 of those being innocent people. That's not counting the 20+ other countries we have bombed, But because we are the USA we are right and all others wrong.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      20+ other countries? Me thinks you are very uninformed.

      replyreport
   6. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Superkev, Thank you because now I know what my next hub will be. You are the one that is not informed. Our country constantly bombs other countries.

      replyreport
   7. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Cool, name all 20 countries and then list the reason they were bombed. I triple dog dare ya. You are going to have to go back a long ways my naive friend.

      replyreport
   8. 93

      peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Actually it's all been since the end of  WW2! Lots of bombs means it will take a couple days to get the article written.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      He endangered the lives of every soldier there by his actions. That isn't about agreeing with anything - no you do not have a right to do that. Six other soldiers lost their lives as a direct result of his actions. No he had no right to do that.

      replyreport
   10. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       There is still zero 100% evidence on that. I'm not saying he did or he didn't but I'm saying until he admits it I will assume innocent until proven guilty!

       replyreport
   11. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Actually: Bergdahl disappeared on June 30, 2009. A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that the evidence was "incontrovertible" that he walked away from his unit, said a former Pentagon official who has read it." http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/

       replyreport
   12. 80

       bethperryposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I could see him rushing forward with a confession in a Perry Mason-world. But unfortunately in the real one, there aren't too many criminals that eagerly come forward with confessions. Just say'in.

       replyreport
   13. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       He left his weapon and his kit at the FOB. He mailed some books and additional uniforms home to his parents. Kids in the vill told of an American walking unarmed and asking where the Taliban where. He is a deserter and a traitor.

       replyreport
   14. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Even if he walked away as I said in my original statement I will think no different. Americans should mot be required to agree with the wars and horrible things we make our military do.

       replyreport
   15. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       he can disagree. he cannot simply ignore the oath he took when he voluntarily joined up and endanger the lives of his entire platoon. he is accountable for those lives lost. and no he is not worth endangering more lives if those 5 rejoin the fight.

       replyreport
   16. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       He was not 'required' to do anything. He joined the military voluntarily and he violated his sacred oath. He is responsible for a MINIMUM of 6 deaths.

       replyreport
   17. 58

       Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       What about the four in Benghazi that Muslims killed and Obama did not even allow help to go to? They were guilty of nothing. Strange he has a conscience and a heart when it come to 5 hardened criminals of the same nationality of his father and brothe

       replyreport
   18. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It was a CIA outpost. CIA let them die. Stevens was anti-Zionist: Enuff said. And just WHO gives orders in the military? The higher-ups, yes? It is a DUTY to protect fellow soldiers. Unless you're Tillman, then you kill him. USA USA USA

       replyreport
   19. 0

       Sal Manilaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The world is a tough arena to play in.  What our country says and does may be two different things, at times.   I spent 20 years in the military and the view is much different than from the safe, "cheap seats", at home.

       replyreport
   20. 37

       ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       This.  While I have no love for the Taliban and the way it treated people, I agree with the sentiment about the US govt and the acts of violence committed in our name very much.

       replyreport
   21. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       How can you say that terrorists responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent people globally---who exist to terrorize civilians and destroy everything that you know---do things that are "no worse than what our own government will do"? How?

       replyreport
   22. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You just described our gvt.

       replyreport
   23. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Answer my question: How can you claim that the actions of the US are analogous to those of terrorists? Who taught you this false equivalency?  What evidence do you have that enables your acceptance of such nonsense?

       replyreport
   24. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       JFK, MLK, 9/11.
       Evidence--you won't believe.
       Patriotism--we not on same page.
       News-Flash: You no better or right than me.
       To me--your beliefs are the conspiracy.

       replyreport
   25. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       mbuggieh, please google "how many people has USA killed with drones and in wars" and read. We've killed far more than the Taliban. I have no respect for them,but we shouldn't act like USA is any better when it comes to killing.Numbers prove we aren't

       replyreport
   26. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Perhaps you should consider why we have killed these people and why they killed OUR people. Frankly, some people need killin', these folks qualify.
       
       Like they say: Don't start nuthin' won't be nuthin'

       replyreport
   27. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Please read up. Most of the times we have bombed countries they have done nothing wrong except protect their land from our big businesses. Mostly the A.U.F.C. Most of our killing is outside of the "big" wars.

       replyreport
   28. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You can't count wars and soldiers. How about we count civilians. ""The Taliban are responsible for nearly 90 percent of all civilian casualties, according to ISAF statistics." That's just currently in Afghanistan but there is a difference.

       replyreport
   29. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Why shouldn't we count wars? We make up any excuse we can to invade other countries! We always stick our nose in everything. So yeah wars should count, especially when we lack the ability to know when enough is enough.

       replyreport
   30. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       When you liken it to murder, then you count civilians, not soldiers. And then you have to count wars for the other side as well. You don't get to skew statistics just to make a point.  Terrorists take far more lives, most of them civilian.

       replyreport
   31. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       skewing statistics is when murder stops being murder simply because one side feels those "murders" were needed! We'll never agree. I'm okay with that.

       replyreport
   32. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       No you want to count soldiers on opposing sides as deaths by the US but ignore the same from the other side to say ours are greater or equal. That is skewing statistics.And completely ignoring the obvious difference between a soldier & a civilian

       replyreport
   33. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       A soldier is just someone paid to follow orders, including murdering innocent and guilty people.

       replyreport
   34. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       A soldier is an ARMED someone trained in combat and aware they are a target. A civilian is someone going about their day, unaware they are being targeted and usually unarmed. Vast difference. Soldiers died btw so you would be free to defame them.

       replyreport
   35. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Say what you want about them but they DO kill innocent people. I come from a military family. I'm quite aware what they do. Most of the time they are following blind orders that many don't even agree with. Justify killing all you want. I won't.

       replyreport
   36. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Your comment: peeples: "A soldier is just someone paid to follow orders, including murdering innocent and guilty people." is not only uninformed, but shameful and speaks volumes of the ideologies that form your "thought" and politics.

       replyreport
   37. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You've yet to provide anything to back up your ludicrous claims. Do you have any sources? links? Or are you just spouting rhetoric with no basis in fact? Are there bad soldiers who kill innocents? Yes. Is it the norm? No. The Taliban target innocents

       replyreport
   38. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_c … present%29  http://youtu.be/Pc7dmaQw-8s Just a couple since this space is limited. Again I feel no need to agree with you or for you to agree with me!

       replyreport
   39. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       And I already provided you with the information that over 94% of the civilian deaths in Afghanistan are contributed to the Taliban. Discounting your claim against the US military. It isn't about disagreeing, it is about truth, which you are lacking.

       replyreport
   40. 93

       peeplesposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       And you are blinded by false statistics the government force feeds you. I will end my side of the conversation. My views nor yours will change per this conversation so it is pointless. Feel free to have the last word!

       replyreport
   41. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Running away merely means you have no leg to stand on. It is a tactic those without truth use all the time. Not the government - the UN - their statistics. Proven incorrect again.

       replyreport
   42. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Why we there in 1st place? Taliban kill civilians...why you care? Number one killer of people is guns...more than all wars put together.Those people are civilians too. Face it: killing is all politics too.You justify anything if it fits your beliefs.

       replyreport
   43. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       SassySun1963:
       All solders are not armed. My brother was in the Air Force, outside of basic training he never handled a gun. My best friend was in Thailand during Vietnam. He fixed things. He did not carry a gun. You have a stereotype view of soliders

       replyreport
   44. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       just came across this: peeples is right. Justify it all you want...truth hurts
       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5jEi6DOACY

       replyreport
   45. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       This issue is not as simple as many are making it out to be. Read the following link from FactCheck. It offers some valuable insights.
       http://www.factcheck.org/2014/06/sortin … -pow-swap/

       replyreport
   46. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I never said anything about the negotiating with terrorists. As for the law part - your own link says the following: "Whether the White House’s interpretation is correct remains a matter of debate in the legal community." He's on shaky ground.

       replyreport
   47. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       My point in providing the link was to show that the issue is not as black and white and some, including you, try to make it and there is a lot of terminology in laws, briefings, etc. that can have an impact on understanding what was actually required

       replyreport
6. 0

   Sal Manilaposted 10 years ago

   I am sure Sgt. Bergdahi is very pleased with this.
   This is a debacle that doesn't quite fit anywhere.   
   It could be construed as a "prisoner exchange" but this is not an, "army v army" scenario. To the untrained eye, neither Bergdahl or the GITMO dwellers are POWS.
   
   To the same untrained eye, this looks like a case of we just paid a ransom for kidnapee (I just made that word up, all rights reserved).
   
   If It works for the Somali pirates then why not the Taliban?   If they make a movie about this I wonder if Hanks will play Bergdahl?
   
   Bergdahl certainly has  some 'splainin' to do at a Courts Martial and hopefully we will find out the outcome while we still remember what happened.  As for the country and our soldiers overseas?  We just passed Jimmy Carter's administration for the weakest administration bragging rights and our military personnel are even in MORE danger.

   replyreport
7. 80

   lovemychrisposted 10 years ago

   Most def glad he's been released. War on terror is BS from the getgo.
   "Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld knew the "vast majority" of prisoners captured in the so-called War on Terror were innocent and the administration refused to set them free once those facts were established because of the political repercussions that would have ensued."--Wilkerson
   ****I'm embarrassed by all these arm-chair "patriots" . Know nothings. trouble makers. And war mongers!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I served 8 years in the USMC, still want to call me an 'armchair patriot"? I bet you never even considered serving your country.

      replyreport
   2. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Who's talking to you? I do serve my country... by exposing the traitors here in her midst. Don't take it personal..unless you're one of them. No matter: I'll leave it to those who saw it 1st hand. Not that you'll listen, but enough of us will.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Those who saw it first hand? They're all saying he's a deserter, not a hero. There you go. First hand account.

      replyreport
   4. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not talking about him when I say traitors in our midst. If you want to focus your wrath on him: have a party. He's a fish...I want the sharks.

      replyreport
   5. 58

      Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Guess the big O had to get his brothers set free somehow behind everyones back, be looking over your shoulder cause they are planning our deaths this minute no doubt with a little help from their friend. O well the books will be out about this commy

      replyreport
   6. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Unless he kills 3,000 of us at once then 4,000 in combat: don't worry....elBushbo still holds the record. You left out some slurs, lady. You forgot pinko f*g.

      replyreport
   7. 58

      Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It is no secret and you nor anyone can deny it. Muslim father, stepfather and commy mother; that is who he is! In charge of America and people like you are not that blind so I can only guess about you.

      replyreport
   8. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Oh come on--you know what it is! You people labeled me from day one: America hating anti-semite. That's what I've had to deal with from the goon squad. So, Ill call you an America hating Islamophobe. Nice, huh?

      replyreport
   9. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I am embarrassed by those who have never served their country; fail to understand the intent terrorism; use language like "armchair patriots"  and who are, in fact, know-nothings who for some reason unknown to me hate my country.

      replyreport
   10. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       True--I do hate your country. But I love mine. Didn't recognize it from 2000-2008. Slowly coming back.

       replyreport
   11. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Aren't you glad you live in a free country where men and women have died in domestic and foreign wars to protect your freedom of speech; even your freedom of speech to claim that they were criminals killing innocents for a corrupt government?

       replyreport
   12. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Uhhuh.....just like you all do now! and they weren't fighting for me. Smedley Butler, General US Marines: "War is a Racket. I fought to make war profiteers rich"

       replyreport
8. 0

   Larry Wallposted 10 years ago

   An American solider has been returned home. Five people who have not been tried were released.
   
   If the American solider was a deserter or did anything to endanger his comrades, violate our security or any similar act, then he should be tried and punished in accordance with the laws of the government and the procedures associated with military justice.
   
   Innocent until proven guilty is not an empty phrase, regardless of how much evidence may allegedly be available, due process for all, even people we do not like, is something that separates the United States from much of the world and has help to maintain our civilization.
   
   I know there have been abuses of due process, going back to Abraham Lincoln and probably before that and is continuing today because of provisions in the Patriot Act. We need to work to fix the system and while doing that we must remember that our system of justice was intended to apply to all people.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      They don't need to be tried, they were found taking up arms against the US while wearing no identifiable uniform nor belonging to any legitimate military force. As for the traitor, in another era he would be facing a firing squad, and rightfully so.

      replyreport
   2. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I was only speaking of the U.S. solider and true he may had been executed by a firing squad in the past, but there would be court martial proceedings first. It we want to preserve the freedoms we all cherish, they must be applied equally.

      replyreport
   3. 58

      Pollyannalanaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      My point is clearly we have a Muslim running our country and I am baffled that even the Republicans will not say so! We all know it that have an ounce of sense.

      replyreport
   4. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I have seen no credible proof that President Obama is a Muslim. That is the same as playing the race card. Regardless of his skin color or religious beliefs, he is bound by the laws. Congress and the Courts are to maintain the checks and balance.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yet time and again he ignores that very fact and does as he damn well wants. And nobody calls him on it.

      replyreport
   6. 37

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I completely agree Larry, very eloquently stated and so true.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Yet he continually ignores the laws & the Constitution. Harry Reid is not going to let anything onto the Senate floor to stop him.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If we are going to play the blame game and that what this thread has been about, then both chambers of Congress have done more harm than any president through their petty party politics, undeserved seniority and a system of rules to hide behind.

      replyreport
9. 55

   Jonathan Robarposted 10 years ago

   I do not believe this was a good decision. We base ourselves on not negotiating with terrorists, due to past results.
   Example, in mid-1939 Hitler moved onto Poland. everyone was very upset and fearful that Germany may attack their homelands as well. However, Hitler spoke with Britain and more of Europe explaining that he was simply attempting to reunite the Germans that were living in half of Poland, and that if he could do so willingly he would not take over any more of Poland or attack anyone. President Roosevelt knew not to negotiate and attempted to reason with Britain and fellow European allies not to agree to Hitler's terms. However, they would not listen and allowed Hitler to possess half of Poland willingly. I assume you all know what Hitler did next.
   After that everyone learned one lesson, not to negotiate with terrorist.
   
   In a political stand point Obama's action in making this "negotiation" without any form of consult with congress or any other form of government displays is lack of respect of our government system. His actions was not that of democracy or of a president, but a dictator that answers to no one.

   replyreport
   1. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      His actions were also illegal as he is required by law to notify congress 30 days in advance of any Gitmo detainee transfer. This is a law that Obama himself signed.

      replyreport
   2. 55

      Jonathan Robarposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      exactly, Obama's actions until now have been on the border line. However, this action could have the means of having him impeached.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Obama will not be impeached over this--it is neither treason or high crimes--bring a solider home, regardless of what he did, is a responsibility that cannot be ignored. Holding prisoners in Gitmo is not right either.

      replyreport
   4. 61

      Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So a president who breaks the law and circumvents congress time and again is just 'no big deal' huh? There was no exigent circumstance here. For 5 years they housed and fed him, now, suddenly, he's in danger? Hardly.

      replyreport
   5. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      How would you know? What knowledge you privvy to? Do tell.

      replyreport
   6. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Lincoln suspended the right of habeas  corpus in the Civil War, FDR imprisoned Japanese Americans during WWII, Kennedy gave us the Bay of Pigs, Nixon Provide Watergate and you are mad because Obama made a prisoner exchange without notifying congress?

      replyreport
   7. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not to mention AUMF(2001) and the Patriot Act(2003)...which were promptly used to attack a nation which had NOTHING to do with 9/11, and secured the true end of our 4th amendment rights. PRISM, etc. Bush Good Patriot, Obama Evil Muslim. BLAH!

      replyreport
   8. 0

      mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And as noted in another comment: It is very easy to criticize the US and the US government from the cheap and safe seats stateside.

      replyreport
   9. 80

      lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Look who's talking! If you equate my criticizing Bush with criticizing the whole US gvt....what do you say about yourself, and others like you--who criticize Obama on daily basis?

      replyreport
   10. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You are perfectly free to criticize anyone you want. Don't let the fact that are almost always wrong in between spouting your conspiracy theories deter you. In the US one is free to be as utterly stupid and ignorant as you care to be.

       replyreport
   11. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       OBVIOUSLY! Look at the results of the 2010 midterms....Hey Boehner....where are the JOBS JOBS JOBS???

       replyreport
   12. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Stuck in committee in the democrat controlled senate run by Dingy Harry.

       replyreport
   13. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       RIIIIIIIGHT.That's why your guys jumped on the jobs bill, didn't they? Boy-they were SO hyped to join Obama on that. That's why their 1st legislative act was anti-abortion legislation. lot o jobs in that huh? DOIYYY

       replyreport
10. 60

    lorrainedauphineeposted 10 years ago

    No they did not make the right decision. The administration has put more Americans in jeopardy with these 5 released Taliban leaders. The administration has gone against the rule of never negotiating with terrorists. They did not consult with Congress according to the law and have put America at risk. Do you think these leaders will return home and forget about their experience at Guantanamo for the last several years and just forgive us? Unlikely. News is now coming out that this young man may have been a deserter, has converted to Islam and became friends with his captors. This swap is a disaster. The precedence has now been set that American's can be captured and used as ploys to free Islamist terrorists. Sad day for all Americans.

    replyreport
    1. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       ummm,Congress was URGING him to release Berghdal for 5 years. Of course they knew.And they kept the operation secret for the safety of that man-you know, the American soldier prisoner of war. All of Gitmo will be freed. Finally, that blight will end.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       They were urging the Administration to obtain his release. They were not urging him to trade prisoners nor to break the law to do it. They have not condemned him coming home, only the Pres. breaking the law.

       replyreport
    3. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Bulloney. They have called him a traitor, a deserter, and compared his father to the Taliban and Muslims-their catch-enemies of the decade.Just as they question Duckworth's loyalty and called Cleland a coward. Despicable! Oh yes, "draft-dodging prez"

       replyreport
    4. 73

       Kathleen Cochranposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       All of Gitmo will not be freed.  When it is closed those remaining will be transferred to facilities on the mainland.  They are not POWs.  They are detainees not affiliated with any country's military.  US may hold them forever.

       replyreport
    5. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I think Carter and Reagan negotiated the release of the hostages held by Iran. That was after a failed military assault by the U.S. We negotiated with Khrushchev about the Cuban missile crisis. There are all sorts of terrorists.

       replyreport
    6. 73

       Kathleen Cochranposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       300 TOW Missiles - that's what Reagan paid Iran in 1986 for 3 hostages.  Immediately after they were released Iran took 3 more.  Reagan's favorability dropped to 15 percent, but by the time he left office the country had forgotten all about it.

       replyreport
    7. 0

       SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You are talking people on the street, I am talking the GOP. They have not said he should not have been brought back. they have questioned the manner and means.

       replyreport
    8. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Ohhhh Kkkkk. So--they were all there in office when Bush released 500....where was the "furious outrage" then?

       replyreport
    9. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       This is not a simple as partisan politics as those from the Left and those who fail to grasp the reach of international terrorism suggest. Laws were broken; Congress intentionally circumvented; terrorists empowered. Not politics, but reality.

       replyreport
    10. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Yes--by the Bush administration! And what has been done about it? You all would love to just move on.....I want Justice!

        replyreport
    11. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        chris - it would be nice if you could join us in the year 2014. If you are so upset over anything Bush did - unless you are a hypocrite - you should be doubly upset by this Pres.'s actions.

        replyreport
    12. 0

        Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I do not think Obama broke the law. Congress cannot command the president and I think the word shall and not will was use. Any lawyer will tell you that shall is not binding, it is a preferred possibility. It was a minor infraction at best.

        replyreport
    13. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Um dude. Yes Congress makes laws and the President is subject to those laws. By law - passed by Congress - he must notify them 30 days prior to any release at Gitmo. He broke the law.

        replyreport
    14. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Do you mean to say Bush notified them 520 times 30 days in advance? I highly doubt it....let me guess, this is a new law made just for Obama by this congress, right?...cause you know: "you white, you allright!" You black...get back.

        replyreport
    15. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        This was a law that Obama signed in to being. Yet another epic fail lovemychris. So, yeah it was a special law for Obama by Obama LMAO.

        replyreport
    16. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        so, Obama made a law all by his lonesome? I thought congress made laws? And so, did Bush notify congress 520 times before he released, or was he allowed to do as he pleased? How many Americans kidnapped after Bush released gitmo prisoners? waiting.

        replyreport
    17. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Nope, but Obama signed it dimwit. He had the choice what to do, guess which one he chose? So. yet again, fail.

        replyreport
    18. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        So, just as I thought...a new law for Obama, while Bush was free to do as he pleased. Black and white, in'it? Oooooh, now that those 5 are released...they will cause far more damage than the 520 of Hero Bushman. USA USA USA.

        replyreport
    19. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        LOL, you really haven't the first clue do you? LOL
        
        Like Einstein said “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.” You certainly are stark proof of that.

        replyreport
    20. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        In other words....I'm right, and you know it. Bush did whatevah he wanted..you didn't care. Obama sneezes, you scream impeach. There's a word for that. Figure it out.

        replyreport
    21. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        There's a word for you sure enough, starts with ess-tee and ends with upid. You just don't have the brain power to understand, it would be like explaining relativity to a sparrow. No matter how well I explained it your brain just isn't big enough.

        replyreport
    22. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        uh huh...you and your superior intelligence.....funny all you cons think you're superior. Just remember your book: pride goeth before a fall. And patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. We all are equal. Try and comprehend that if you can.Heart

        replyreport
    23. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        what meaning do you expect your delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinion to have with us? What fantasy do you hold that you would believe that your tiny-fisted tantrums would have more weight than that of a leprous d

        replyreport
    24. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Ooooh, big words. You using mommy's dictionary? Look up this word: Heart. You seem to be lacking one. USA USA USA

        replyreport
    25. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        The law did not exist then - this is Obama's law - I say that because he signed it willingly. Which also means he was clearly aware of it. Can't say he only found out like everyone else from the news.

        replyreport
    26. 0

        Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        This has turned into the most Childish discussion I have seen on Hub Pages. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and can express it and even give incorrect information. It is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. We have not been successful.

        replyreport
    27. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Oh, it cut me off, here's the rest -- leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle, waiting for the bite of the snake?

        replyreport
    28. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        So, the Law was not around during Bush's release of 520. But the law on torture was. What do you say about that? And I'm glad you are ok with releasing 500, but get outraged about 5.Can you see this makes zero sense? Hence, the name-calling begins.

        replyreport
    29. 0

        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        What is this supposed to men "lovemychris":
        
        "And patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. We all are equal."
        
        Does patriotism preclude equality?

        replyreport
    30. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Release and a prisoner trade are two different things. Try to keep up, moving kinda fast here okay?

        replyreport
    31. 0

        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        The only way Obama and Hegel can possibly justify this apparently shameless exchange is IF (and I strongly doubt this) they are able to extract useful information from Bergdahl; information they could not extract had he remained with the Taliban.

        replyreport
    32. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Oh please!There never should have been a Gitmo at all.It's dumb Cheney playing war games because he never went to a real one.Macho crap/Cowboy crap.Bush released 520 "dangerous to American security prisoners"-NO consulting congress. NO impeach. And?

        replyreport
    33. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        HAHA, there should not have been a Gitmo because it's "dumb". I guess that's what passes for logic and critical thought among lefty conspiracy theory spouting progressives. SMFH

        replyreport
    34. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Uhm: Cheney is dumb. And a draft-dodger--something youuze crucified Clinton for.Yes-Gitmo is dumb and evil.You do know we were paying for prisoners, don't you? "Just find me one--I don't care if they're guilty" 2 bil worth of 1 dollar bills..Bremer

        replyreport
    35. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Seriously man, what color is the sky in your world?
        
        Sorry, but I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

        replyreport
    36. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        suit yourself. Keep believing your fairy tales, and ignoring the truth:
        "1st shipment of cash to Iraq April 11, 2003—consisted of $20 million in $1, $5, and $10 bills"
        http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/feat … ions200710

        replyreport
    37. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        chris - you should read your own link. It wasn't for prisoners. It was to pay for services & keep the Iraqi govt running. We didn't track it - and it was the Iraqis who mismanaged it.

        replyreport
    38. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        What does 1 dollar pay for?  "Iraq's Missing Billions" - Starring Alan Grayson & 363 Tons Of Dollar Bills (2006)"--http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RZVAFssWtoI

        replyreport
    39. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Other than to say that the Iraqi mismanaged the funds, I don't know what point you're trying to make. First, it was Iraqi money from frozen assets so it wasn't a payment. Second, it was the Iraqis who mismanaged it (or stole it) not us. Point?

        replyreport
    40. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        WRONG. It was Bush adm who mishandled funds...Waste,mismanagement and fraud. Haliburton, KBR, Panorama, Blackwater: THAT was greed and corruption..big time. Overchargging, breaking the law by making shell corps to hide money.It was USA.Iraqfollowlead

        replyreport
    41. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Wrong. Read your own link. Expand your mind get over your Bush vendetta. Join the rest of us in the here & now. Regardless, past wrongs do not excuse current wrongs. That isn't how it works. If someone commits a crime, you can't excuse yours.

        replyreport
    42. 0

        mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Exactly.Whatever may or may not have happened in past administrations or with past US Secretaries of Defense is entirely unrelated to any current problem and actions. Obama is not right because you deem Bush wrong or vice-versa.

        replyreport
    43. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Watch the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZVAFssWtoI. Nobody can talk because of GAG ORDERS. It makes ALL the difference. Bushco still walks free, and YOU want to crucify Obama. Not 2 sets of standards...one. NO ONE is above the law...even Reps

        replyreport
    44. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        lol please stop. you're only embarrassing yourself. gag orders are just that, an order. where is the copy of such an order? nowhere because it does not exist. besides, irrelevant to events in the here and now.

        replyreport
    45. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Only an imbecile could say that Iraq is irrelevant to the here and now. Tell that to the moms and dads that lost sons and daughters. Tell that to the dead Iraqis. And forget that your gvt caused it, profited from it, and never paid. Dis-honoring USA.

        replyreport
    46. 61

        Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        When someone uses a whack job and wife abuser like Alan Grayson to try to bolster their already weak argument, that's an automatic fail.

        replyreport
    47. 0

        SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Hussein caused both by invading a country & then not complying. google is your friend. It is irrelevant in this topic of what Obama did. Smoke & mirrors you use to deflect from this disaster of a President Syria has WMDS btw. Had them all the

        replyreport
    48. 80

        lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Complying with what, the central bankers?Nothing had anything to do with us, save profits for Chevron and Exxon, and Judeo-X-tian neo-cookery world domination fantasy.YOU may not remember AbuGharib,but I sure as he!! do. Stain on Good name of us all!

        replyreport
11. 60

    Deborah Judgesposted 10 years ago

    Obama broke the law and yes, he singlehandedly. without caring for Americas future safety, put every American at risk of being a victim of terrorism! If those men cause harm to come to any American I believe Obama should be arrested and charged as a conspirator!

    replyreport
    1. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       From your lips to God's ears. I think one day the truth will come out about Obama and there will be much explaining to do, along with some people going to jail.

       replyreport
    2. 80

       lovemychrisposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Get in line. Me 1st. Bushco.

       replyreport
12. 0

    mbuggiehposted 10 years ago

    The evidence that was available 5 years ago AND the evidence that persists today strongly indicates that this was yet another wrong decision by President Obama; wrong on several levels including being entirely wrong in terms of releasing any of the terrorists held by the US.
    
    I must say that understanding what the President or his staff was thinking is very difficult---particularly in terms of the Rose Garden "ceremony" that was orchestrated to announce the release.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       How long should we hold terrorists without providing the benefit of trial and due process. Even the Nazis had their day in court. I contend many people do not like Obama and will find something wrong with everything he does. I'll let ponder that.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       They were due to be tried by a military tribunal and IIRC Obama put the kibosh on it and wanted them tried in a civilian court like a common murderer. The American people told him no way in hell and it has been in limbo ever since. IIRC again.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       mbuggiehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Those held at Guantanamo Bay are "enemy combatants" and the US Supreme Court determined during WWII that the cases of enemy combatants are NOT properly decided in criminal courts, but military tribunals. We need tribunals to decide these cases.

       replyreport
13. 73

    tsadjatkoposted 10 years ago

    
    
    To begin with the US did not make this decision. As usual the Obama regime made this decision without consent of congress and without consent of senior military leaders who are “outraged” over President Obama’s decision.
    
    Sure you can debate whether it was a good deal for whatever humanitarian reasons but you can't debate that it was right to break the law to do it. Obama was wrong because he broke the law to do it.
    
    You can debate 'till the cows come home the pros and cons of such a deal but tell me how it is right for the president to break the law? And by the way this is not the first time he has positioned himself as above the law.
    
    Shepard Smith asked Judge Andrew Napolitano whether or not the Taliban prisoner exchange was legal under the NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute.
    
    The judge explained that the swap was illegal because taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without giving Congress 30 days notice.
    
    However, Napolitano goes a step further by pointing out that Obama has provided material assistance (human assets) to the Taliban, which has been identified by Congress to be a non-state terrorist organization. This is a crime punishable by imprisonment of 10 years to life, which covers all Americans–including the President.
    
    Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/judge-napolitano-...
    
    Maybe the real question here should be why are we going to allow this president to continue to be above the law? Who does he think he is, Steven Seagal? Well, I give his performance a thumbs down!

    replyreport
14. 58

    Bubblegum Jonesposted 10 years ago

    The only thing I have to say about this is what would you think if this young man was your son?

    replyreport
15. 81

    Alphadogg16posted 10 years ago

    I think the Government was in a no win situation and would have been criticized either way. If we didn't do anything there would have been people calling out the Government for not acting on it.

    replyreport
16. 59

    TB Bullockposted 10 years ago

    I am glad that he was returned, and I know that his family is exponentially more satisfied with the decision than the average American likely is, which is what ultimately matters. If our positions were reversed, I know that I would not wish to entertain the notion that my own country might leave me behind. However, it seems as if we could have performed the exfiltration and subsequently exterminated the five terrorists that were exchanged as soon as the recovery team was sufficiently clear. The fact that there was even a negotiation seems somewhat ridiculous, as this could have been the perfect opportunity to set up an ambush in which a significant number of enemy combatants could have been eliminated and Sergeant Bergdahi could have been returned home alive, which would have been something of a double victory.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       If you negotiate in good faith, you do not turn around and kill five people. That would just re-escalate the conflict and cost more lives. I am glad our solider was returned home, despite any misdeeds he may have done and no one else died.

       replyreport
    2. 59

       TB Bullockposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       They will keep trying to kill us, lacking  an honor system and a concept of the benefits resulting from the hypothetical secession of hostility and violence. I agree that retrieving our man takes priority, but 5 less terrorists is always a good thing

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       In our position as a world leader, we are require to abide by self-imposed restrictions. Making a deal and then turning around and killing five men would be murder, not war, but murder. If the position had been reversed, and our people were killed...

       replyreport