more like o bomb a he released a few terrorist/killer in extange for only one of our solders WHAT IS HE THINKING!the number one rule in america is we do NOT negotiate negotiate with terrorists!! (i heard this from my mom when she was reading the news) what are your thoughts on this edit:sorry i ment do not but typo said do

Local Mods : Shouldn't this go in News/Debate/Logic?

kirbmanboggle : Could you try to fix your post up a bit first. "We do negotiate negotiate with terrorists" kinda contradicts what you just said

kirbmanboggle : Well, it might not be the best idea ever but it's better than giving away tons of money with the crisis that's going on.

kirbmanboggle :

It's a lot more then that even. Not only did the Terrorists get some pretty good "team captains" back on their side, but all we got is one guy who may be a deserter. I don't know the whole story, but It seems to me that this would be the case.

Although it is bad enough that we traded, SIX guys for only ONE of our own.

Fox News seems the most credible news source covering it.

America is finished.

BOOM BOOM

Image upload: 596x372 totaling 29 KB's.

From this thread, the trade seemed almost too stupid to be true, so I looked it up. It was true. But I found out that this thread was biased, so I checked out both sides of the controversy.

So now, I have a few questions for those against the trade, since that seems to be the dominant opinion. I will force everyone to think. >=D

1. Why do you assert that those 5 detainees are terrorists?

What if they're not, would you change your mind? What about if they were utterly worthless to us?

2. Since you make the claim that we were negotiating with terrorists, who do you think that we were negotiating with?

Do you think that we haven't been negotiating with such groups for decades?

3. Does his likely desertion mean that he shouldn't have been saved from captivity?

Some things to think about. And answer obviously.

EideticMemory : I have some answers and counter questions.

1. Why would a known terrorist organization want those 5 detainees if they where not part of the (said) group?

2. The trade was made with the Taliban, and the 5 detainees had ties/connections with top tier leaders such as Mullah Omar and (deceased) Osama bin Laden

3. We have obviously engaged in negotiations with the terrorist group before, but never on such a large scale. Never for such a bad deal either (which brings us to the last question)

4. No one deserves to be captured and held by the Taliban, although, did the 5 soldiers who were sent out looking for him deserve to die? Will the unknown soldiers and Iraq citizens who will die and/or watch helplessly see their friends and family be recruited and/or die because we gave the Taliban some leaders and members back? Who in the world decided that 1 soldier who caused 5 fellow soldier's deaths and has accusations that he is a deserter/traitor was worth 5 Taliban members and the unknown amounts of pain and grief they will cause in the future?

Here is another question. If Obama thought it was such a good idea, why did he not follow the law and go through the Congress like he was supposed to? He claims "the deal had to be made fast" etc etc. What was the Taliban going to do? Kill their only chance of getting their members back? Their best connection with the enemy? No, they would keep him alive in hopes of striking a deal. Obama had all the time in the world...

Slythion : Interesting reply, I like it.

1. But were we dealing with a known terrorist organization to begin with? (Look at #2)

So if we weren't in negotiations with a terrorist organization, then doesn't your reasoning fail?

What do you think they were held in Guantanamo for? What if you found out that they were held for over a decade for informational purposes, so they're probably of no use? Would you change your mind?

2. We made an agreement with the Afghan Taliban, not the Pakistan Taliban. While the difference might seem small, the State Dept distinguishes the two. One (Pak Taliban) is considered a terrorist organization and the other (Afghan) is not. So we weren't dealing with a "terrorist organization". In fact, we're looking to open talks with them, because we want their cooperation in Afghanistan.

If they had connections, and they were in Guantanamo, wouldn't you think that they would have debriefed for every last detail in the decade+ they were imprisoned there? What if they were of no use to us, couldn't we use what's worthless to us to save a man's life?

3. This is also smaller than the scale of the Iran-Contra affair, which was just that. Negotiating with terrorists in a captive situation.

4. That question could be flipped around. Wouldn't the five men have died for nothing if we didn't save Berdahl?

-------

Obama had all the time in the world...

The administration had reason to believe that Berdahl's health was deteriorating. Wouldn't that pose a time restriction?

This is some interesting new information (for me). I was not aware of the difference, and if indeed that was the case, I am still left here wondering why Obama felt the need of secrecy about the exchange to the rest of the government. If we where detaining those individuals for information, what was the information about? If it was about the Pakistan Taliban, why the need to detain them? Unless they were unwilling to give the information, i see no need to hold them, especially for as long as they did.
   From what I know now:
1. The unknown variables are what determines whether this was a good trade off. The way they handled the trade made it unclear as to if it was with or against terrorists. The exact positions, rankings, groups, and connections the "detainees" had is also unclear. The actions of Bergdahl himself. Did he desert his post?
2. I would also like to point out that the 5 soldiers who died trying to retrieve Bergdahl happened before any of this. Meaning they died before it was known that Bergdahl was a prisoner. They died for the sole reason that Bergdahl was nowhere to be found. Whether or not he deserted the army or not is unknown, although likely.

Perhaps you can help me out here also. Why was there a need for a "trade" if we are working with the Afghan Taliban. I would assume we should be on good terms with out allies, so I see no need to trade members. Let alone detain members of our ally forces.
   To much is unclear to me for me to make a permanent decision, although I am glad Bergdahl is back home, I am not proud of the accusations surrounding him or the price tag of his return.

The unknown variables are what determines whether this was a good trade off

That’s precisely the conclusion I’ve reached. Most of the big reactions (for and against) to the trade off seem more political than logical. There’s really no way to tell whether this was a mistake at this point. That’s why I posed those questions. Those strongly opposed to the trade seem misinformed about the trade itself.

But since there was reason to believe his health was deteriorating, a decision needed to be made.

While it’s still unclear whether he was a deserter (it really sounds like he was), he’s still an American citizen and a soldier, which is why it seemed politically correct for the administration to save his life.

Why was there a need for a "trade" if we are working with the Afghan Taliban

They’re not a terrorist organization, but that doesn’t mean they’re our allies, far from it. As I said, “We’re looking to open talks with them”. We haven’t had agreement-making discussions with them since 2012. We seek only cooperation. And that won’t happen unless we open talks.

As for why they were arrested in the first place?

In the Afghani Civil War (1992-96), the US interfered and we sided the opponents of the Taliban, so they were the enemy and taken as prisoners of war (POWs). They haven’t been accused of terrorist activities against the US of any sort.

price tag of his return

*Important - This seems like the most important part of this whole controversy. Think about it. If the price tag isn’t as high as people make it out to be, then that changes the entire way you can think about this.

And I’m about to claim that the price isn’t high. Not at all.

People are getting so wrapped up about the ratio of 5:1. They think that 5 prisoners of war are being traded for one dude, who may have deserted. The math doesn’t seem to add up.

But these 5 guys are probably worthless. That Civil War was over a decade ago! We’ve probably taken all the information they have to offer that could even be useful. There’s no point in keeping them.

Do you know what we do when we have prisoners in Guantanamo Bay that are useless?

We release them. That’s right.

In fact, our last two presidents, Obama and Bush, have together released over 700 Guantanamo bay prisoners to other countries.

So 5 dudes, who:
- aren’t accused of being terrorists by the US
- were taken as prisoners of war for a war that ended a LONG time ago
- were held for over a decade and probably have nothing useful to give us
- would probably be released anyway

That seems worthless.

One guy, who might be dying, but also might be a deserter.

Might also be seemingly worthless, but life is life? (and he’s an American citizen / soldier)

What I’m trying to say is that the exchange itself was trading two non-impactful things.

The reason why we’re doing it to open up talks.

So there's a relatively small price tag and little reason for people to be riled up over this trade. If anything, they should be riled up about the REAL terrorists associated with Al Qaeda that are being released for "good behavior".

EideticMemory :  I guess I should have done my research instead of letting the media spoon-feed me specific information lol. Although the trade itself does not seem to be a bad decision, the way Obama handled it was not very smooth. I still don't see the reason for breaking the law and keeping it secrete from Congress. And the question still remains, does Bergdahl even deserve to be trialed for deserting his post after living in supposedly harmful conditions? What are we to do for the families of the 5 soldiers that were killed when sent out looking for him? Whoever is on clean-up duty in the White House has a lot of work to do.

Slythion : lol, now that I compare the two, I find it funny how much the media warped the story.

Media-
We negotiated with terrorists to give terrorists to terrorists. Not only that but we gave 5 terrorists for 1 deserter.

Facts-
We negotiated with an non-terrorist organization to trade five worthless non-terrorist prisoners of a 90s war to save a possibly dying soldier who was allegedly a deserter.

Slythion : Obama broke no law. This was a highly sensitive military situation (POW trades always are)... Congress has no part in that. They can weigh in on it if invited to do so, and I am sure that some of them did... but there is no law that says Congress must be informed. The POTUS is first and foremost the Commander of our armed forces, so it was his call.

And you could argue that he should have informed Congress as a curtsey, but since time was an issue do you really think that he had the time for the dithering that would have taken place (basically what is happening now) and the potential threat it would have posed to national security? I don't think so.

Elara : I don't know if these are reputable sites, but it seems like everywhere I go they say the swap was illegal:

"A federal statute states that the secretary of Defense must notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of prisoners from Guantánamo Bay. The law allows Congress to have a say on whether the detainees could be a threat to national security."-http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2014/0601/Obama-s-Bowe-Bergdahl-prisoner-swap-Was-it-illegal

"He knew very well that he was required by law to give us 30 days' notice and he didn't do it."- http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/politics/bergdahl-swap-legality/

"The law seems clear. Section 1035(d) of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) says the president "shall notify" Congress "not later than 30 days before the transfer or release" of any Guantanamo Bay inmate."- http://www.vox.com/2014/6/9/5786834/obama-law-bergdahl

Again, I don't know if these sources are accurate but it definitely seems like there is a law in place. As for the time issue, I am certain that someone could have notified Congress at least before the trade, and not after. 

I personally don't see what's wrong with this. Terrorists aren't afraid to kill people if they don't get what they want (As probably most of you know). This may seem harsh but I pretty sure I'd rather release a few terrorists back to them in exchange for one of your soldiers (I'm Canadian, not American) than have just a couple terrorists and a dead American Soldier. Have you ever heard the classic "We never leave a man behind?".

But honestly, who gives a care that he broke the law to get an AMERICAN CITIZEN (One of your people) back being held as a prisoner by terrorists. He's going to be free and out of danger. All the media seems like they don't care at all that he's part of your country and they only want to bash Obama. How about we all just calm down and be happy that this was the decision made.

Slythion : I will look in to that. Usually there are loopholes for highly sensitive situations because plastering your plans out in the open for actual terrorist groups to see could be a rather bad thing.

MoblinGardens : I suggest reading several points that EideticMemory pointed out. We basically covered everything that was wrong and/or you have questions about. 

Elara : Agreed. I would find it hard to imagine that this (possible) law is completely cemented as there are most likely going to be situations that arise that we would need to handle without following the law. The question is if that Bergdahl trade is one such situation. 

I think it is one of those murky grey areas of legality that basically comes down to a judgement call. What if Obama had sent the Secretary of Defense to inform Congress and they act like children like they are prone to do... screaming and posturing no matter what their actual opinions are just because they have to oppose everything that the President does on principal... which drags the process out? All of the sensitive information would be splattered across the internet for all to see. Then some actual terrorist group, maybe the Pakistani Taliban or even Al Qaeda get this information and take Bergdahl to try and get their own guys back instead? And then the public would be pissed and it wouldn't matter if he was a deserter or not... and rather than blame Congress for being petty or the media for putting the information out there, they would blame Obama for letting it happen. Dollars to donuts, people would be saying he should have just done the trade and not gone to Congress at all.

Catch 22: damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Sword legion :
Fox news is never credible. If you believe anything they say you deserve to be lied to.