Ian Cipperly wrote:The guy's background was pretty interesting (pre-military). Seems like an intelligent guy who got disillusioned and then paid for it. It sucks that others were killed because of it, but I doubt that was intentional.
grzegorz wrote:Funny how the right is flipping out without knowing all the facts, reminds me of when they thought Zimmerman was a hero.
As a vet I'm offended by how this POW is being treated, including by those who served with him, his release was for his family probably even more than it was for him.
Had Obama missed this opportunity this would be another Benghazi. Had this been Bush or Reagan it would be considered great leadership.
The U.S. Military Has Committed To Gaining Release Of POWs
Military Code Of Conduct: U.S. Govt. "Will Use Any Practical Means To Contact, Support And Gain Release" Of POWs. A Department of Defense military code of conduct and ethics dating back to 1954 states that the U.S. government has an explicit obligation and responsibility to "stand by" POWs and that the government "will use every practical means to contact, support and gain release for you and for all other prisoners of war" (emphasis added):
As a member of the armed forces of the United States, you are protecting your nation. It is your duty to oppose all enemies of the United States in combat or, if a captive, in a prisoner of war compound. Your behavior is guided by the Code of Conduct, which has evolved from the heroic lives, experiences and deeds of Americans from the Revolutionary War to the Southeast Asian Conflict.
[...]
Just as you have a responsibility to your country under the Code of Conduct, the United States government has an equal responsibility -- to keep faith with you and stand by you as you fight for your country. If you are unfortunate enough to become a prisoner of war, you may rest assured that your government will care for your dependents and will never forget you. Furthermore, the government will use every practical means to contact, support and gain release for you and for all other prisoners of war. [American Civil Liberties Union, accessed 6/2/14]
U.S. National Security Adviser: "We Have A Sacred Obligation" To Bring Back POWs. On the June 1 edition of ABC's This Week, U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice pointed out that the U. S government has a "sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do the must to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle." Rice argued that the government has a responsibility to "do our utmost to bring our prisoners-of-war home":
RICE: Sergeant Bergdahl wasn't simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war, captured on the battlefield. We have a sacred obligation that we have upheld since the founding of our republic to do the most to bring back our men and women who are taken in battle, and we did that in this instance. If for some reason we took a position now in the 21st century, when some of our adversaries may not be traditional state actors, that we would not do our utmost to bring our prisoners of war home, that would break faith with the American people and with the men and women in uniform, so regardless of who may be holding an American prisoner of war, we must do our best to bring him or her back. [ABC, This Week, 6/1/14]
Secretary Of Defense Chuck Hagel: Securing Release Was Necessary To Save Bergdahl's Life. On June 1, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel argued that the administration had to act quickly in securing Bergdahl's release once an "opening" with the Taliban was found, citing concerns about Bergdahl's health:
Believing that his health was deteriorating, the United States acted quickly to save his life after years of work to free him from being a prisoner of war, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Sunday.
"It was our judgment that if we could find an opening and move very quickly with that opening, that we needed to get him out of there essentially to save his life," Hagel said. "I know President Obama feels very strongly about that, I do as well." [CNN.com, 6/1/14]
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/0 ... ign/199536
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) doesn’t think that an apology from the White House goes far enough to assuage congressional concern about President Obama’s decision to ignore Congress in a deal with the Taliban to secure the release of Sgt. Bergdahl.
“I don’t know that an apology is enough for breaking the law,” Paul said. “I’m not sure I’m willing to accept an apology on that.”
White House officials have defended Obama’s decision, pointing out that “unique circumstances” gave him the authority to bypass the statue requiring the administration to give Congress a 30-day notice before releasing or transferring Guantanamo detainees.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests