Republicans Are Crying....Again

[IDBillzFan]

and my point, that everyone seems hell bent on ignoring, is that this might not have been a trade at all.

 

This is freaking ridiculous. I mean genuinely freaking ridiculous.

 

The WH called it a swap. The entire world, as a result, is calling it a swap...and a bad swap at that.

 

So your response to this completely Mickey Mouse hail mary idiocy is to, now, suggest that one publication is suggesting is may not have even been what the actual WH is calling it?

 

You are full-on tightly clenched for this president.

[B-Man]

Releasing the Taliban Five: A Choice, Not an Obligation The U.S. can legally keep captured terrorists even after Afghanistan combat ends.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

 

FTA:

 

Senator McCain was being interviewed by Candy Crowley, the Obama campaign savior in CNN garb. As recounted in a Corner post by Patrick Brennan, Ms. Crowley dutifully spun the reeling administration as being between a rock and a hard place, its options limited to: (a) getting captive Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl back now by exchanging the five Taliban commanders detained at Gitmo or (b) being compelled “to release the [Taliban] detainees when U.S. combat operations end in Afghanistan.”

 

Senator McCain countered that this was a “false choice.” That is correct. Even if combat had ceased in Afghanistan, the release of these Taliban detainees would not have been required by the laws of war.

 

My weekend column discussed the Obama fiction that the war in Afghanistan is coming to an end. In reality, the president is engaged in a slow-motion surrender to the Taliban and its jihadist allies that is arbitrarily scheduled to take two years — arbitrarily, that is, unless you think it is the American political calendar rather than Afghan battlefield conditions that decides when combat ends. Now, on top of that fiction, the administration and Ms. Crowley are stacking yet another, to wit: The winding down of combat operations in Afghanistan equals the end of the war on terror, triggering the law-of-war mandate to release all enemy combatants who cannot be charged with war crimes or other offenses.

 

As we’ve been pointing out here for over a decade, combat operations in the ongoing conflict are taking place under a congressional authorization for the use of military force. The AUMF was enacted overwhelmingly a week after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Recognizing that the jihad against the United States is a global one carried out by an intercontinental network of terrorist confederates who do not restrict their operations to one country, the AUMF does not limit combat operations geographically. To the contrary, it authorizes the president to use force against the enemy — essentially, any persons, organizations, or countries complicit in the 9/11 attacks, or that have facilitated and harbored those who were complicit — anywhere in the world where the enemy can be found.

 

 

More at the link:

[Doc]

Releasing the Taliban Five: A Choice, Not an Obligation The U.S. can legally keep captured terrorists even after Afghanistan combat ends.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Well, so much for that excuse.

[birdog1960]

unsurprisingly, it appears few, if any here, actually read the guardian article. read it for the first time and note the comments from us officials in various capacities re AUMF and obama's stated intention to wind it down. then read the human rights lawyers comments. once again black and white aren't the colors of the discussion. while that would be easier and simpler, the questions are painted in various shades of gray.

[B-Man]

Per the New York Times today:

 

FTA;

 

"Even if they were keeping it a secret — the peace talks — and pretending that the trade was just a trade, we could be fine with that,” the Afghan security official said. “But what has happened is worse than nothing: We are made to look weaker, and the Taliban is stronger.”

 

The officials said the Afghan government would have gladly agreed to keep the five men in Kabul, where they would have stayed in guesthouses run by the National Directorate of Security, ensuring that they were both protected and kept from returning to the insurgency. The officials cited cases of former Taliban leaders who live in Kabul under similar arrangements. Their expenses are paid for by Afghanistan’s National Security Council, which gets funds from the C.I.A.

 

“We would have used them to try to lever another approach to peace,” the former official said. “Could you imagine what it would have done to Taliban morale to see the five come to Kabul and have to live under the Afghan government?”

 

“What does this say to every Afghan that has spent their entire adult lives fighting violent extremism?” said the former official, who is pro-American. “What does this say to all the Afghans that have already died or that will die next year?

 

“We find Obama’s language about ‘this is how wars end’ extremely insensitive,” the former official continued. “It ends for Americans. But it’s not ending for Afghans. Their intellectual dishonesty here is astounding,” he said. “If all you want to do is leave, then just say it. We all know it.”

[DC Tom]

Per the New York Times today:

 

FTA;

 

"Even if they were keeping it a secret — the peace talks — and pretending that the trade was just a trade, we could be fine with that,” the Afghan security official said. “But what has happened is worse than nothing: We are made to look weaker, and the Taliban is stronger.”

 

The officials said the Afghan government would have gladly agreed to keep the five men in Kabul, where they would have stayed in guesthouses run by the National Directorate of Security, ensuring that they were both protected and kept from returning to the insurgency. The officials cited cases of former Taliban leaders who live in Kabul under similar arrangements. Their expenses are paid for by Afghanistan’s National Security Council, which gets funds from the C.I.A.

 

“We would have used them to try to lever another approach to peace,” the former official said. “Could you imagine what it would have done to Taliban morale to see the five come to Kabul and have to live under the Afghan government?”

 

“What does this say to every Afghan that has spent their entire adult lives fighting violent extremism?” said the former official, who is pro-American. “What does this say to all the Afghans that have already died or that will die next year?

 

“We find Obama’s language about ‘this is how wars end’ extremely insensitive,” the former official continued. “It ends for Americans. But it’s not ending for Afghans. Their intellectual dishonesty here is astounding,” he said. “If all you want to do is leave, then just say it. We all know it.”

 

Silly Afghans. They don't count. Only Americans matter. [/every single American foreign policy ever]

[Magox]

unsurprisingly, it appears few, if any here, actually read the guardian article. read it for the first time and note the comments from us officials in various capacities re AUMF and obama's stated intention to wind it down. then read the human rights lawyers comments. once again black and white aren't the colors of the discussion. while that would be easier and simpler, the questions are painted in various shades of gray.

 

I read it, the real problem has always been where do house these bad actors, The legality of their classification and lefts incessant desire to close Guantanamo.

 

We know that some of those 5 members that were released have had direct ties to Al Qaeda and the Haqqani Network, classifying them as enemy combatants should give the US authority to keep them indefinitely detained. So I believe the real issue is where do you house them? In my view keeping Guantanamo was the most sensible solution. I never bought into this idea that Guantanamo was a driving force behind recruiting terrorists. What? Because they water boarded a few of these guys? Please.

 

Obviously Israel and it's dispute with the Palestines over the territories, the presence of US forces in their countries and Drones being dropped out of the sky are the main ingredients that continue to spawn these actors.

Edited June 10, 2014 by Magox

[IDBillzFan]

So I believe the real issue is where do you house them?

 

I believe the WH's first choice was Arizona, but try as he might, Obama couldn't figure a logical way to get the bus from Gitmo to Yuma, which surprised everyone because, y'know, he's really smart.

[Nanker]

He tried to LA, but ya know Bush made it impossible. Yeah, that's right. Bush, and Cheney, and Palin, and, and the TeaBaggers.

They're the real threat to Uhmerica the Pretty. The transformation would be nearly complete if it weren't for them and their kind.

[Magox]

Ron Fournier, who I consider to be an honest broker in the field of journalism, who relentlessly went after Bush in his days with the AP and happens to be a supporter of the ACA, at least the goal that it was intended to achieve, has been a constant critic of the president. Fournier is one of those guys that simply has no patience of deception, half-truths and lies along with incompetence. So you can imagine he's had tons of material to work with when covering this administration.

 

The email hit my in-box at 9:41 p.m. last Wednesday. From one of the most powerful Democrats in Washington, a close adviser to the White House, the missive amounted to an electronic eye roll. "Even I have had enough."

Another Democrat had quit on President Obama.

The tipping point for this person was the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl case—not the soldier-for-Taliban swap itself as much as how the White House mishandled its obligation to communicate effectively and honestly to Congress and the public. More than that, Obama's team had failed once again to acknowledge its mistakes, preferring to cast blame and seek cover behind talking points.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-ve-had-enough-when-democrats-quit-on-obama-20140609

 

And this right HERE, is exactly the sort of outright lies that makes his blood boil.

[B-Man]

Hey ! President Obama was right ! Al Qaeda IS on the run.........................................................forward

 

Assault on Mosul: Militants Overrun Key Iraqi City - NBC News

 

The battle for Mosul was a serious blow to Baghdad's attempts to tame a widening insurgency by a breakaway al-Qaida group, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Earlier this year, the group took over another Iraqi city, Fallujah, in the west of the country, and government forces have been unable to take it back after months

[keepthefaith]

I believe the WH's first choice was Arizona, but try as he might, Obama couldn't figure a logical way to get the bus from Gitmo to Yuma, which surprised everyone because, y'know, he's really smart.

 

A yellow submarine would do the trick.

[GG]

Ron Fournier, who I consider to be an honest broker in the field of journalism, who relentlessly went after Bush in his days with the AP and happens to be a supporter of the ACA, at least the goal that it was intended to achieve, has been a constant critic of the president. Fournier is one of those guys that simply has no patience of deception, half-truths and lies along with incompetence. So you can imagine he's had tons of material to work with when covering this administration.

 

 

 

http://www.nationalj...-obama-20140609

 

 

So in effect, Fournier calls him the Rob Johnson of Presidents?

[OCinBuffalo]

unsurprisingly, it appears few, if any here, actually read the guardian article. read it for the first time and note the comments from us officials in various capacities re AUMF and obama's stated intention to wind it down. then read the human rights lawyers comments. once again black and white aren't the colors of the discussion. while that would be easier and simpler, the questions are painted in various shades of gray.

Ah, a grand wizard of moral relativism, and apparently now results relativism, has come to impart his wisdom!

(I was going to do this in a thread, and I may still, but, this is great test case(soon to be object lesson, for bridog), and I can't pass it up.)

 

 

 

To this I merely ask: how does one identify one shade of grey from another?

 

 

 

( The intelligent here just realized bridog is screwed, and how/why. I have it all written out...but, no spoilers)

[ExiledInIllinois]

Ron Fournier, who I consider to be an honest broker in the field of journalism, who relentlessly went after Bush in his days with the AP and happens to be a supporter of the ACA, at least the goal that it was intended to achieve, has been a constant critic of the president. Fournier is one of those guys that simply has no patience of deception, half-truths and lies along with incompetence. So you can imagine he's had tons of material to work with when covering this administration.

 

 

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/i-ve-had-enough-when-democrats-quit-on-obama-20140609

 

And this right HERE, is exactly the sort of outright lies that makes his blood boil.

 

Who would have thought an ex-hockey ref has this much influence. When did he get into journalism?

 

;-P ;-P

 

Sorry... Poor attempt, very attempt @ pulling "a Crayonz."

 

LoL... I actually had to look him up, all that came to mind was the ref... LoL...

[keepthefaith]

Who would have thought an ex-hockey ref has this much influence. When did he get into journalism?

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

Back to the topic of "Who's Crying Now...?"

 

The Party of Blame is at it again, sending a $24B bill to Ted Cruz for shutting down the government eight months ago.

 

Out of ideas, progs?

 

This should be the new logo for the Democrats:

 

[B-Man]

An American hero is saved and Republicans want to cry about it. Good grief.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bergdahl-release-arrangement-could-threaten-the-safety-of-americans-republicans-say/2014/05/31/35e47a2a-e8ff-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html?hpid=z1

 

 

 

The Pentagon Throws the Book at Bowe Bergdahl

It looks like the Obama administration may have traded five high-ranking Taliban prisoners for someone who was worse than a deserter:http://news.yahoo.com/military-selects-rarely-used-charge-bergdahl-case-144326544.html

Military prosecutors have reached into a section of military law seldom used since World War II in the politically fraught case against Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier held prisoner for years by the Taliban after leaving his post in Afghanistan.

Observers wondered for months if Bergdahl would be charged with desertion after the deal brokered by the U.S. to bring him home. He was — but he was also charged with misbehavior before the enemy, a much rarer offense that carries a stiffer potential penalty in this case.

 

Misbehavior before the enemy violates Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/899) and includes grotesquely dishonorable behavior, including running away, “shamefully” abandoning any place that it is his “duty to defend,” “cowardly conduct,” or endangering the safety of his unit through his own “disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct.” The maximum penalty is death, but it’s highly unlikely that the Army will seek to execute Bergdahl. Life imprisonment, however, is much more realistic.

Given what we know about this case, Article 99 is an appropriate charge. As he knew — as everyone knew who served downrange — the military will launch a massive search for any soldier missing in action. Not only is there a moral imperative not to leave a fallen comrade, prisoners in enemy hands would likely be tortured, exploited for intelligence information, then executed (on film) in the most brutal way possible. While the military apparently disputes the allegation that soldiers died searching for Bergdahl, he unquestionably put his brothers-in-arms at immense risk.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

Edited September 8, 2015 by B-Man

[keepthefaith]

 

 

 

 

The Pentagon Throws the Book at Bowe Bergdahl

It looks like the Obama administration may have traded five high-ranking Taliban prisoners for someone who was worse than a deserter:http://news.yahoo.com/military-selects-rarely-used-charge-bergdahl-case-144326544.html

Misbehavior before the enemy violates Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/899) and includes grotesquely dishonorable behavior, including running away, “shamefully” abandoning any place that it is his “duty to defend,” “cowardly conduct,” or endangering the safety of his unit through his own “disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct.” The maximum penalty is death, but it’s highly unlikely that the Army will seek to execute Bergdahl. Life imprisonment, however, is much more realistic.

Given what we know about this case, Article 99 is an appropriate charge. As he knew — as everyone knew who served downrange — the military will launch a massive search for any soldier missing in action. Not only is there a moral imperative not to leave a fallen comrade, prisoners in enemy hands would likely be tortured, exploited for intelligence information, then executed (on film) in the most brutal way possible. While the military apparently disputes the allegation that soldiers died searching for Bergdahl, he unquestionably put his brothers-in-arms at immense risk.

 

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

 

 

Ahh, but the Presidential pardon is still in the toolbox.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ahh, but the Presidential pardon is still in the toolbox.

Does that also apply to the military justice system? I ask because I honestly don't know.