US Politics: we are all liberals, we are all conservatives

[Trebla]

Yeah, conservatives are roaring mad about Obama freeing that traitor Bergdahl. They've voiced that on Twitter after it was announced. The beauty of the internet is that you can see what people said before hand and lo and behold, many of the same conservatives were screaming for Obama to free Bowe Bergdahl.

http://gawker.com/angry-conservatives-forgot-their-old-angry-tweets-suppo-1586150981

A special note is some Congressmen don't know that deleting Tweets don't scrub them from the face of the Earth. ;)

[Suttree]

2. What are you talking about? Do you understand that not giving you an answer that you agree with is not ignoring it? You posted a bunch of personal feelings that Bethea had about the case like it was some big gotcha. You understand the difference between him laying out the facts of the Bergdahl case (in which I saw nothing I disagreed with) and his personal feelings about Bergdahl and how he chose to forgive him? I said I find it admirable and there is nothing to agree or disagree with when it comes to his personal feelings and how he chose to make his peace with the situation.

No idea what you are on about here but per usual you are doing one hell of a job of avoidance. The facts around what we can attribute those soldiers deaths to, your absurd fabrication about "zomg we negotiated with terrorists for the first time!!!" and the other Limbaugh esque(starting to suspect he's your "source") soundbite lines you have been trotting out are bs. As for the personal feelings/forgiveness you'll have to point out where I even brought that up. Maybe your confusing me with someone else?

I have a real life too,

You don't say.

Outside of that I have some direct connections to the Army and to the SF community. You can believe or not believe that I might know a thing or two about this case from my real life. I could give two fucks. If I told you how I know these things, would you believe me anyway? Probably not, and I wouldn't, for many reasons.

Convenient that, good strategy to keep things as vague as possible. Certainly makes the huge gaps in your knowledge of this situation easier to gloss over.

Seems to me like it is hard for some of you to listen to any sort of opinion outside your sheltered little bubble.

Christ give over with this nonsense it's already been addressed. Out of curiosity thought what part of the country do you live in? The above is beyond rich given your beyond insular rants.

By all means though go on making more excuses for ignoring all the info that doesn't align with your "insider narrative".

[The Notorious]

Yeah, conservatives are roaring mad about Obama freeing that traitor Bergdahl. They've voiced that on Twitter after it was announced. The beauty of the internet is that you can see what people said before hand and lo and behold, many of the same conservatives were screaming for Obama to free Bowe Bergdahl.

http://gawker.com/angry-conservatives-forgot-their-old-angry-tweets-suppo-1586150981

A special note is some Congressmen don't know that deleting Tweets don't scrub them from the face of the Earth. ;)

And hey, let's review where right wing thought was on Bergdahl just a few short months ago, when Obama was evil for letting a POW rot in Afghanistan, none of the right wingers felt it necessary to mention Bergdahl's DIRTBAG SHITBIRD DESERTER status, and Bill O'Reilly wasn't calling Bergdahl's father a stealth Muslim traitor... before it's all scrubbed from the Internet:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/obama-to-leave-us-pow-to-rot-in-afghanistan-after-withdrawal/

The comments are priceless.

:laugh:

Yes, the comments are priceless! :rofl:

[MerenthaClone]

I love, love, love how you can't get over that Bergdahl isn't, and shouldn't, be considered a deserter when it comes to whether this was a "good trade" or not. "5 mid-level guys for a PFC deserter indeed." He's a Sgt now, incidentally. And just that. Unless, of course, you're back to supporting being tried in absentia. But you said you aren't, so instead, you just wish that everyone had acted like he'd been tried in absentia, which is somehow even worse.

Good going.

[Galactus]

:laugh:

Yes, the comments are priceless! :rofl:

I especially like the "You'll never see Obama do this!" post, followed by four photos of Obama doing precisely that...

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

To be fair, 5 high ranking prisoners, including former chief of Taliban armed forces, for a pfc/sergeant with a spotless record seems like a very a lopsided trade in normal circumstances. Of course it's not normal circumstances since these guys have been in out of the loop for more than a decade and the conflict is winding down.

[DanteGabriel]

To be fair, 5 high ranking prisoners, including former chief of Taliban armed forces, for a pfc/sergeant with a spotless record seems like a very a lopsided trade in normal circumstances. Of course it's not normal circumstances since these guys have been in out of the loop for more than a decade and the conflict is winding down.

I guess it bears repeating: noted terrorist appeaser Benjamin Netanyahu traded over a thousand prisoners, including almost 300 convicted murderers, for one Israeli soldier last year.

[Fez]

I guess it bears repeating: noted terrorist appeaser Benjamin Netanyahu traded over a thousand prisoners, including almost 300 convicted murderers, for one Israeli soldier last year.

And I thought that was incredibly, incredibly stupid move, but I'm not Israeli and it seems like it was a reasonably popular decision over there, so whatevs; its what the people wanted.

[DanteGabriel]

And I thought that was incredibly, incredibly stupid move, but I'm not Israeli and it seems like it was a reasonably popular decision over there, so whatevs; its what the people wanted.

Once upon a time, bringing back Bergdahl was what the right wing wanted, it seems. And I think the policy of bringing all soldiers home, even the potentially flaky or AWOL ones, is pretty important.

I agree with you to some extent -- just the sheer scale of a 1000 to 1 trade is pretty incredible. I can't fully condemn that move because I am ignorant of all but the broadest strokes of what's going on in Israel. But I think citing the Israeli trade can at least provide some perspective on the 5 to 1 deal for Bergdahl. Plus all the additional factors like trying to wind down Afghanistan, cooling off the war against the Taliban, Bergdahl being the last POW left, etc.

[The Notorious]

To be fair, 5 high ranking prisoners, including former chief of Taliban armed forces, for a pfc/sergeant with a spotless record seems like a very a lopsided trade in normal circumstances. Of course it's not normal circumstances since these guys have been in out of the loop for more than a decade and the conflict is winding down.

Why is it a lopsided trade when those guys gonna be release any way in a few months? It's like the US got a pretty good deal here, wouldn't you say so bearshin?

[Mudguard]

Why is it a lopsided trade when those guys gonna be release any way in a few months? It's like the US got a pretty good deal here, wouldn't you say so bearshin?

Can you provide a source that backs up your assertion that the 5 high level Taliban prisoners were going to be released in a few months anyway? I find this hard to believe.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Not a few months, but when combat operations in Afghanistan end, the US has no international standing to hold folks from a war they no longer are waging.

[The Notorious]

Not a few months, but when combat operations in Afghanistan end, the US has no international standing to hold folks from a war they no longer are waging.

What IheartheartTesla said, and also this guy:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/06/02/3443719/the-case-for-negotiating-for-bergdahls-release/

The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detaineesthat the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

[Mudguard]

Not a few months, but when combat operations in Afghanistan end, the US has no international standing to hold folks from a war they no longer are waging.

I don't think those international laws are applicable here since we never officially declared war on anyone. Also, the "war on terror" doesn't necessarily end with our withdrawal from Afghanistan. It could go on indefinitely.

Regardless, has the governments actually said that they are just going to release everyone they are holding in Guantanamo? No trial for alleged crimes?

[maarsen]

My dog has a chip inserted into him so that she can be returned to her loving home if found wandering. Should I wonder if a RFID chip has been installed in the released prisoners?

[Mudguard]

What IheartheartTesla said, and also this guy:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/06/02/3443719/the-case-for-negotiating-for-bergdahls-release/

This guy doesn't represent the American government. Just because we pull out of Afghanistan doesn't mean that the "war" or conflict with the Taliban/terrorists is over. There was never any official declaration of war anyway, so those international laws are irrelevant. I find it highly unlikely that we are going to just release all prisoners taken captured in Afghanistan.

If you can cite an official source in the military or from the Obama administration that agrees with this, I would find it much more persuasive. I'd also be shocked. Can you imagine the negative press from just releasing all these prisoners before the November elections? It would be political suicide.

[Jon Sprunk]

If you can cite an official source in the military or from the Obama administration that agrees with this, I would find it much more persuasive. I'd also be shocked. Can you imagine the negative press from just releasing all these prisoners before the November elections? It would be political suicide.

Probably not. Then again, I never thought Gitmo would still be holding "enemy combatants" without trial or legal recourse this far out either.

I guess detaining people indefinitely is more political feasible than releasing them after war operations in their home country are over?

[all swedes are racist]

My dog has a chip inserted into him so that she can be returned to her loving home if found wandering. Should I wonder if a RFID chip has been installed in the released prisoners?

Not a bad idea actually, except RFID chips are only traceable over pretty short distances. Maybe some sort of cybernetic Lo-Jack?

[The Notorious]

This guy doesn't represent the American government. Just because we pull out of Afghanistan doesn't mean that the "war" or conflict with the Taliban/terrorists is over. There was never any official declaration of war anyway, so those international laws are irrelevant. I find it highly unlikely that we are going to just release all prisoners taken captured in Afghanistan.

If you can cite an official source in the military or from the Obama administration that agrees with this, I would find it much more persuasive. I'd also be shocked. Can you imagine the negative press from just releasing all these prisoners before the November elections? It would be political suicide.

The 2001 authorization specifically mentioned the Taliban.

As for official sources, well nobody went on record but the Guardian already covered the proposal Taliban prisoners release back in 2012.

[Mudguard]

Probably not. Then again, I never thought Gitmo would still be holding "enemy combatants" without trial or legal recourse this far out either.

I guess detaining people indefinitely is more political feasible than releasing them after war operations in their home country are over?

I could see them releasing low level enemy combatants still being held, but leaders like the 5 traded for Bergdahl? Hard for me to imagine just freeing them. Those types will either be tried by the US, or they will be eventually transferred to some other prison. But I could easily see the government holding some of the prisoners for a much longer time. If we can justify drone striking a US citizen on foreign soil for being an "imminent threat", it should be trivial for the government to justify continued detainment.