I'm 23, I would assume I'm still considered the youth of America. And I can tell you I don't have a problem with complying with laws. However there are laws on the books I just don't agree with and I choose not to follow them. I think the prohibition of Marijuana would be a good example. Or speeding, there's this highway that connects rural Skiatook,Ok to Tulsa, and the speed limit is a lowsy 50 mph, I choose to ignore it and go about 65-70. But not because the president can't follow the laws, I just feel like I'm wasting time..By JIM KUHNHENNWASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House has apologized to key lawmakers for not notifying them in advance about the exchange of five Taliban detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl (boh BURG'-dahl).
Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Democrat and Republican respectively on the Senate Select committee on Intelligence, said White House officials called them Monday to say the lack of notification had been an oversight. Feinstein said she received a call from Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken.
The White House did not immediately comment on the calls.
The White House damage control comes as Republican lawmakers accused the White House of putting U.S. service men and women at risk by releasing the five top Taliban members being held in Guantanamo in exchange for Bergdahl.
Does this President think he is above the law? What kind of example is he setting for the youth of America? Is it just comply with the laws you want to like me?
I wish we could trade 5 Bergdahls for an Andrews.
Yup. It's the taters.I drove though this guy's home town before. Nice little place. Interesting that Ezra Pound is also from there.
They been at Gitmo for five years and no charges have been filed - what are we to do, detain them forever? If there was evidence they were bad dudes, then charge them.I disagree. You bring him home if you can, if the price is worth it. By returning these particular men to the battlefield with the war still ongoing, you are virtually guaranteeing that other American soldiers will be brought home in a casket.
I disagree. You bring him home if you can, if the price is worth it. By returning these particular men to the battlefield with the war still ongoing, you are virtually guaranteeing that other American soldiers will be brought home in a casket.
Ultimately, this is not about Bergdahl and what he did or didn't do. It's about the price the Administration paid, the fact that they ignored the requirements set forth in the law--requirements that were designed to prevent this very kind of act--and the fact that we took this action at a time when the war is still ongoing. This is not a post-war prisoner transfer.
I believe there are going to be 10k American troops still there in 2015 and then 2500 there in 2016. Plus, I am sure no one here would be surprised to see one of, if not all 5, release a video by the end of the year of their presence in Afghanistan.if i am not mistaken, they are being held in qatar for a year. also, combat troops are being pulled out of afghanistan by the end of the year.
I heard Secretary Kerry arguing this weekend that "we don't leave Americans behind." Well, okay, but the price paid is the question. If the Taliban had demanded (an extreme example to make the point) that the US dismantle the Department of Defense, most would argue that the price was too high. In this case, I think most Americans look at this price (5 particularly bad Talibs) as too high.I disagree. You bring him home if you can, if the price is worth it. By returning these particular men to the battlefield with the war still ongoing, you are virtually guaranteeing that other American soldiers will be brought home in a casket.
Actually, prisoner of war exchanges have been going on for a long time, including exchanges while the war is still going on. Heck, we (the Allies) exchanged a few thousand prisoners with the Nazis during World War II.Ultimately, this is not about Bergdahl and what he did or didn't do. It's about the price the Administration paid, the fact that they ignored the requirements set forth in the law--requirements that were designed to prevent this very kind of act--and the fact that we took this action at a time when the war is still ongoing. This is not a post-war prisoner transfer.
If he's back on active duty but hasn't spoken with his parents, something is weird there.According to this story, not back with his unit (no way that wouldn't be big trouble), but back to active duty status. Actually, just how much he actually works is another matter, also. That will be at his supetvisor's discretion, also, of course.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-bowe-bergdahl-returned-to-regular-duty-20140714-story.html
Investigation of his actions is still yet to come. Army refuses to say if he has spoken to his parents.
There's a whole lotta weird there...If he's back on active duty but hasn't spoken with his parents, something is weird there.
Good catch. Not "his" unit, in the sense of the unit he deserted, but a unit.According to this story, not back with his unit (no way that wouldn't be big trouble), but back to active duty status.