RE: Bergdahl

RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 5:33:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Here are the wonderful peaceful men we released that would never ever harm and American in the future. Butch So like I asked before, why havent the US already tried them ? Fear plain and simple...no jurisdiction wants them because of the cost of added security and the possibility of attacks if they do. On top of this the majority of Americans want them to be tried in military courts... but where to put them if convicted? AND on top of that congress has passed legislation prohibiting civilian courts prosecution and on top of that congress has set very stringent rules for release to foreign governments...AND on top of that NO foreign government will accept them... So they are rotting in Gitmo. I meant what I said above...let them go...all of them... or execute them and be done with it. Butch

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 6:06:29 PM)
Sanity, you might want to research our new mod squad, before wasting electricity. The Idaho perspective might have been interesting, too. Oh well.

subrob1967 -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 8:35:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 FR We don't leave anyone behind... Really Ken? We did not leave any known POW's in Vietnam. The claims that we did have been investigated and found to be untrue, even that site says so. I'd damn well like to get every remains back as well but that may simply be impossible. Bodies rot in a jungle really fast and thoroughly. No Ken, as usual you're wrong again... quote: Now, this document lists 3,753 names. This brings up a question: If there were 2,583 missing at the end of the war, 591 returnees at Homecoming, fewer than 100 early releasees and escapees, that only adds up to 3,200 and something. Where did the other 500 or so come from? There must be some hidden POWs somewhere. Or, at least that's what several MIA "activists" have told me. They use the 3,753 number to "prove" that the "government is lying." Not so fast. The document in question contains, not only the names of POWs and MIAs, but it also contains: bullet The names of civilians -- American and other nationalities -- who were arrested or detained in Vietnam, Laos, of Cambodia. For example, the list contains the names of: bullet Alan Dawson, journalist who remained behind when Saigon fell. He later left Saigon for Thailand. bullet Fourteen Americans and Filipinos who were captured by the North Vietnamese in the Central Highlands in March 1975, moved to Hanoi, then later released bullet Americans, Brits, Aussies, and other nationalities who were arrested for various crimes such as smuggling, violating territorial waters, entering the country illegally, etc. Individuals in this category were arrested in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia as recently as the late 1980s. Examples are: (1) Sterling Brian Bono, an American who was arrested by the Cambodians for illegally entering Cambodia in May 1987; and (2) Donna Long and James Copp, a couple of MIA "activists" who were duped by Ted Sampley and found themselves on the Lao side of the Mekong River in October 1988; they were arrested and held for several weeks in a local jail. bullet The names of servicemen lost in 1975 in the Mayaguez rescue attempt. bullet Names of foreigners who were of interest to the U. S. government, such as Chaichan Harnavee, a Thai, and several South Korean diplomats arrested when Saigon fell. When these names are added to the U.S. servicemen, the number in the list reaches 3,753. So, as with everything else that the "activists" claim, there is nothing to it. The number 3,753 includes more than just American sservicemembers lost during the Vietnam War Apparently it's YOU who did not read the whole source.

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 8:54:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 FR We don't leave anyone behind... Really Ken? We did not leave any known POW's in Vietnam. The claims that we did have been investigated and found to be untrue, even that site says so. I'd damn well like to get every remains back as well but that may simply be impossible. Bodies rot in a jungle really fast and thoroughly. No Ken, as usual you're wrong again... quote: Now, this document lists 3,753 names. This brings up a question: If there were 2,583 missing at the end of the war, 591 returnees at Homecoming, fewer than 100 early releasees and escapees, that only adds up to 3,200 and something. Where did the other 500 or so come from? There must be some hidden POWs somewhere. Or, at least that's what several MIA "activists" have told me. They use the 3,753 number to "prove" that the "government is lying." Not so fast. The document in question contains, not only the names of POWs and MIAs, but it also contains: bullet The names of civilians -- American and other nationalities -- who were arrested or detained in Vietnam, Laos, of Cambodia. For example, the list contains the names of: bullet Alan Dawson, journalist who remained behind when Saigon fell. He later left Saigon for Thailand. bullet Fourteen Americans and Filipinos who were captured by the North Vietnamese in the Central Highlands in March 1975, moved to Hanoi, then later released bullet Americans, Brits, Aussies, and other nationalities who were arrested for various crimes such as smuggling, violating territorial waters, entering the country illegally, etc. Individuals in this category were arrested in Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia as recently as the late 1980s. Examples are: (1) Sterling Brian Bono, an American who was arrested by the Cambodians for illegally entering Cambodia in May 1987; and (2) Donna Long and James Copp, a couple of MIA "activists" who were duped by Ted Sampley and found themselves on the Lao side of the Mekong River in October 1988; they were arrested and held for several weeks in a local jail. bullet The names of servicemen lost in 1975 in the Mayaguez rescue attempt. bullet Names of foreigners who were of interest to the U. S. government, such as Chaichan Harnavee, a Thai, and several South Korean diplomats arrested when Saigon fell. When these names are added to the U.S. servicemen, the number in the list reaches 3,753. So, as with everything else that the "activists" claim, there is nothing to it. The number 3,753 includes more than just American sservicemembers lost during the Vietnam War Apparently it's YOU who did not read the whole source. Didn't you read it? The guy goes on at length to prove there are no missing POW's. Read the damn thing!

HunterCA -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 9:44:32 PM)
I have to admit I haven't read this thread. I just want to mention domken admiitted he is a halfwit on another thread.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 10:27:29 PM)
ORIGINAL: blacksword404 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: blacksword404 The only way I would have made that deal is if I could ensure those Taliban prisoners ended up dead anyway. Here you say you wont keep your word. But I'd keep my word. Here you say you will keep your word. But the second after the terms are met...you are negated as a threat. Here you say, in your best chuck norris voice" you wont keep your word.[8\|] Agreements have conditions and time limits. Do you understand that? No. Agreements may or may not have conditions and time limits. That is why they are called agreements. After all we agreed to is completed, they die. You agree to a prisoner exchange and then when it is over it is kewel to hunt the other guy down and kill him. Is it also ok for them to come hunt this sergent down and kill him?[8\|] This is my second time explaining this simple thing to you. No this is the second time you have tried to get your feet out of your mouth. You like to play word games and misunderstand people on purpose. What I understand is that you feel that it is ok to hunt these folks down and kill them. Now if that is not what you mean then say so. If it is what you mean then you have no honor. Yeah it is just that fucking simple. I won't explain it again. Yeah right[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 10:34:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatDomDaddy Was he? Not if he defected. Nolt if he collobrated. Your ol buddy ace mccain collobrated.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 10:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 FR We don't leave anyone behind... Really Ken? We did not leave any known POW's in Vietnam. The claims that we did have been investigated and found to be untrue, even that site says so. I'd damn well like to get every remains back as well but that may simply be impossible. Bodies rot in a jungle really fast and thoroughly. Didn't bobby garwood show up after all the men had been accounted for?[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/3/2014 10:37:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Just about every news bulletin that ever hit the airwaves. Or did you sleep through all of that for years?? Yes we have found that historically news bulletins are often less than accurate. Consider the case of the "tonkin gulf" incident. The u.s. went to war on that less than accurate "news bulliten" Our BBC is far more reliable than your US nuze channels :) I remain unconvinced that any news organization publishes anything other than what their publisher wishes his/her readers to see.

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/4/2014 7:38:29 PM)
FR This Bergdal affair is really blowing up in the media. I don't watch the cable crap, but when I hit the RealClearPolitics opinion list over my coffee and at lunch, a third of it was on this topic. Sgt. Bergdahl (WTF with pundits refusing to acknowledge his correct rank???) has had the party in his honor cancelled, back in his hometown. We have actual Congressional bipartisanship in the criticism of the President over the deal. The White House started out by admitting they broke the law. I think we have a thing.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/4/2014 8:07:49 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic The White House started out by admitting they broke the law. What law did the white house admit to breaking?

SadistDave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/4/2014 11:47:04 PM)
That would be the law that His High and Mighty Hiney Obama signed requiring 30 days notice to move prisoners from Gitmo. Odumbass wrote himself a little signing statement saying he should be allowed to act without Congress. Unfortunately, signing statements do not have the force of law behind them. Some signing statements are actually unConstitutional, and Presidents simply do not act on them. Now.... while Dems argue that Obama's signing statement should cover his ass on this, the statement itself may be an illegal signing statement as it is a declaration that the executive branch can choose to simply ignore the laws it has sworn to uphold. Fortunately for the Presidential Idiot, this is not the sort of thing that can just be reversed. The deed is done. Unfortunately for him, if the fallout from his little prisoner swap continues to anger politicians on both sides of the isle, it may very well result in more lawsuits against the government and could concievably get SCOTUS involved. That's where he will have the most trouble, since there is already precedent against his particular use of signing statements. The ruling in Clinton v. The City of New York by SCOTUS found Presidential signing statements to be unConstitutional if they amounted to a line item veto. Since President Mom Jeans signing statement invalidates the entire law, it is clearly illegal. -SD-

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 5:28:29 AM)
The use of signing statements by Presidents, originally a rare occurrence, has increased gradually over time, becoming increasingly prevalent starting with the Reagan Administration. The Reagan Administration actively sought to encourage courts to consider signing statements when interpreting statutory law; one key step was an agreement with West Publishing Company to include signing statements in West's U.S. Code Congressional and Administrative News publication, a commonly used source of legislative history. And in fact, two Supreme Court cases decided during the Reagan Administration did make reference to signing statements. All four Presidents since President Reagan have issued signing statements, and increasingly these statements have contained one or more challenges or objections to the laws being signed. President George W. Bush objected to over 700 provisions of law, usually on the grounds that they infringe on the authority granted to the Executive Branch by the Constitution. Some of these objections may imply that the President does not intend to execute these provisions of law. http://www.loc.gov/law/help/statements.php Kind of a "you made your bed" scenario here for Republicans.

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 5:31:06 AM)
Actually the signing statement argues that the amendment to the NDAA is unconstitutional and if it was a standalone bill the President would veto it but since it is attached to the funding for the entire Defense Department he will simply not obey it if it conflicts with his powers as CiC. There is a reasonable case to be made for that and it is very doubtful that even with all the right wings whining that any lawsuits will actually be filed by any members of Congress, the only people with standing on this.

Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 4:42:23 PM)
Doesn't take a genius to figure out how Obama's policy reversal re wheeling and dealing with terrorists has inspired the Taliban (and presumably every other terrorist affiliated group) to seek out more bargaining chips to be used in a manner similar to Bowie Bergdal Gee thanks Barack

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 6:51:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Kind of a "you made your bed" scenario here for Republicans. So then, kind of a, "our values depend entirely on partisanship" scenario for Democrats, Muse? I hope that isn't what you are saying. The White House is changing their story on a daily basis now, AND it has come out that we knew where he was and we could have sent people in to get him. That information adds up to a game changer for me. Here's a fun question. Is the risk involved in releasing the Taliban individuals from Gitmo lower than the risk of casualties in a rescue operation?

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 6:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Kind of a "you made your bed" scenario here for Republicans. So then, kind of a, "our values depend entirely on partisanship" scenario for Democrats, Muse? I hope that isn't what you are saying. Of course that's what I'm saying. First, I've been saying for five years that Obama is Bush Lite. And second, it's pretty obvious that values in Washington depend on partisanship, and hardly uniquely to Democrats. Where have you been the past few decades?

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 7:17:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Kind of a "you made your bed" scenario here for Republicans. So then, kind of a, "our values depend entirely on partisanship" scenario for Democrats, Muse? I hope that isn't what you are saying. The White House is changing their story on a daily basis now, AND it has come out that we knew where he was and we could have sent people in to get him. That information adds up to a game changer for me. Here's a fun question. Is the risk involved in releasing the Taliban individuals from Gitmo lower than the risk of casualties in a rescue operation? Why risk anyone to get him? We had to let these 5 guys go by the end of the year anyway. So we traded them for him now and got him plus some guarantees about where they will go and how they will behave.

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 8:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We had to let these 5 guys go by the end of the year anyway. Says who, and what might Congress have to say about that?

DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/5/2014 9:13:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen We had to let these 5 guys go by the end of the year anyway. Says who, and what might Congress have to say about that? Nothing. They are POW's. When we leave Afghanistan we have to send them back.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625