• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

It looks like congress was trying to infringe on the presidents powers through the defense budget bill. If the GOP doesn't take Obama to court for breaking their law, then I think it safe to assume the statute is probably unconstitutional. Besides I think it's to the GOP's advantage that the court doesn't decide the case because it allows them to continue to falsely accuse Obama of breaking the law. See how that works? lol

Obama signed the damn thing into law! He wasn't worried about it's constitutionality, then.
 
Did you see the story on Bergdahl's father? The man grew a long beard and learned the language while his son was captive, and stated he would go get his son himself if necessary! He actually looked like a member of the Taliban, so he may have tried!

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

There's a lot of "weird" going on with both father and son.

I'm not about to start jumping to conclusions but I suspect that there's a very interesting debrief happening in Landstuhl right now.
 
You won't send out teams to go renegading across no-man's land looking for a deserter.

The Tals used Bergdahl as bait in several ambushes.


No. But if you have some basic information on where to look you're certainly going to do that and it's my understanding that's exactly what happened. From what I've read it seems that the military started by checking in with local elders and that the Taliban guys made demands right off the bat.
https://wikileaks.org/afg/event/2009/06/AFG20090630n1790.html
 
No. But if you have some basic information on where to look you're certainly going to do that and it's my understanding that's exactly what happened. From what I've read it seems that the military started by checking in with local elders and that the Taliban guys made demands right off the bat.
https://wikileaks.org/afg/event/2009/06/AFG20090630n1790.html

You're not going to endanger more men than the security breach might.
 
It's yet to be official, but a lot of folks with more credibility than Bergdahl have confirmed it.

There's even a credible suggestion that not only is Bergdahl a deserter, but possibly a collabarator.

Report: “Many” in intelligence community fear Bergdahl may have been an active collaborator with the Taliban « Hot Air

That is a possibility. But then if he was a deserter then why didn't the intelligence community object to his promotion in absentia to sergeant in 2011? Why would he be in line for another promotion, to staff sergeant, this month? I don't think he is a hero....but...but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.


Wikileaks leaked some classified military memos from the day that Bergdahl disappeared and at that time the only info they had was a Taliban email interception saying he was kidnapped while using a latrine and a report of an American with a camera asking villagers if anyone spoke English and then followed by his subsequent capture because of a sighting of a man with a bag over his head getting escorted away in a white vehicle surrounded by motorcycles.

(CRIMINAL EVENT) KIDNAPPING RPT B CO 1-501 PIR : 0 INJ/DAM - Kabul War Diary


Some info about the Patika Province where Bergdahl was stationed....
http://www.c-span.org/video/?300275-1/us-operations-paktika-province&desktop=
 
Last edited:
Dang......Obummer can't seem to do anything right.......he frees an American 'POW'........and it turns out the dude is a deserter and possible collaborator with the enemy.........he's making Jimmy Carter look good.:3oops:
 
Here we have 6 of the worst terrorists in Gitmo with blood on there hands traded for a deserter whom 6 of his fellow soldiers died trying to find him. This will have to go down as one of the worst most idiotic pathetic moves ever by a US president. What are the chances that most if not all of these guys go back to the battlefield at some point and kill more Americans or our Allies? But hey the president looks good for now eh Obama drones? Pathetic !

Even Jimmy Carter wouldnt have made this deal........
 
That is a possibility. But then if he was a deserter then why didn't the intelligence community object to his promotion in absentia to sergeant in 2011? Why would he be in line for another promotion, to staff sergeant, this month? I don't think he is a hero....but...but there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.


Wikileaks leaked some classified military memos from the day that Bergdahl disappeared and at that time the only info they had was a Taliban email interception saying he was kidnapped while using a latrine and a report of an American with a camera asking villagers if anyone spoke English and then followed by his subsequent capture because of a sighting of a man with a bag over his head getting escorted away in a white vehicle surrounded by motorcycles.

(CRIMINAL EVENT) KIDNAPPING RPT B CO 1-501 PIR : 0 INJ/DAM - Kabul War Diary


Some info about the Patika Province where Bergdahl was stationed....
US Operations Paktika Province | Video | C-SPAN.org

We have word from multiple sources in the military, guys in his unit that say he called them after he deserted & told them he did so.
 
Obama signed the damn thing into law! He wasn't worried about it's constitutionality, then.


Yes, it was very clever how the GOP stuck an unconstitutional statute into the 2012 defense budget bill. Obama had to sign it into law so the military could get paid. But Obama also took an oath to uphold the constitution and that means he isn't obligated to enforce unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Hence, the signing statement.
 
We have word from multiple sources in the military, guys in his unit that say he called them after he deserted & told them he did so.

Do you have a link to your source claiming that Bergdahl contacted his unit after he allegedly deserted? Seems kind of strange the military would give him a promotion if they knew for sure he had deserted.
 
Last edited:
That is a possibility. But then if he was a deserter then why didn't the intelligence community object to his promotion in absentia to sergeant in 2011?

Because the IC has no input into whether or not he is promoted. The rule (it might even be law) is that POW's get promoted non-competitively, automatically.
 
Yes, it was very clever how the GOP stuck an unconstitutional statute into the 2012 defense budget bill. Obama had to sign it into law so the military could get paid. But Obama also took an oath to uphold the constitution and that means he isn't obligated to enforce unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Hence, the signing statement.

The executive branch is not an arbiter of what is constitutional. That's why we have three branches of government.
 
Because most people think it is just fine that the Administration got the guy out of captivity. It just isn't as emotionally volatile as is the VA scandal or, for many, Benghazi. And it doesn't hurt Hillary.

I think it's very emotionally volatile because of:

1) the great sympathy for the prisoner
2) the fear that the released Taliban will kill
and most of all
3) there's the appearance of the (frequently detested) president ignoring Congress, the Constitution, and acting alone. This is a very very frightening thing for conservatives.
 
The executive branch is not an arbiter of what is constitutional. That's why we have three branches of government.

I'm pretty sure the executive branch has studied the constitution and know where their authority lies. But I seriously doubt that congress does. It will be interesting to see if congress takes the issue to court....I'm guessing they won't because they can get more political mileage out of falsely accusing Obama of breaking the law than they can having their statute struck down as unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
Yes, it was very clever how the GOP stuck an unconstitutional statute into the 2012 defense budget bill. Obama had to sign it into law so the military could get paid. But Obama also took an oath to uphold the constitution and that means he isn't obligated to enforce unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Hence, the signing statement.

He took an oath to faithfully execute the laws, too. The Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to decide what's constitutional and what isn't.
 
there are 1000's of people just like these 5 individuals who are killing. 5 more makes NO difference!! again 5 more makes NO difference!!

NONE!!!!!!!

this person will be back with his family and friends, those who love and care about him.

what's your care? politics?
He deserted his post. 6 men directly died in operations to find him.

What do you tell those families?
 
He took an oath to faithfully execute the laws, too. The Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to decide what's constitutional and what isn't.
The congress has the authority to legislate the laws, but it doesn't have the authority to tell the executive branch how to execute the laws....and that is what that statute tried to do.
 
I think it's very emotionally volatile because of:

1) the great sympathy for the prisoner
2) the fear that the released Taliban will kill
and most of all
3) there's the appearance of the (frequently detested) president ignoring Congress, the Constitution, and acting alone. This is a very very frightening thing for conservatives.

A President who blatantly and often violates the law should frighten everybody.
 
The executive branch is not an arbiter of what is constitutional. That's why we have three branches of government.

Under the specious notion of the Unitary Executive, that branch IS an arbiter of what is constitutional, and many other things. Bush brought us the UE, and Barack simply loves it! ;)
 
I'm pretty sure the executive branch has studied the constitution and know where their authority lies. But I seriously doubt that congress does. It will be interesting to see if congress takes the issue to court....I'm guessing they won't because they can get more political mileage out of falsely accusing Obama of breaking the law than they can having their statute struck down as unconstitutional.

There is so much ignorance in this post it is utterly amazing. Thanks.
 
The congress has the authority to legislate the laws, but it doesn't have the authority to tell the executive branch how to execute the laws....and that is what that statute tried to do.

The Constitutions says the president has to execute the laws. Failing to do so is illegal. By your logic, do you still consider Bush a war criminal?
 
Yes, it was very clever how the GOP stuck an unconstitutional statute into the 2012 defense budget bill. Obama had to sign it into law so the military could get paid. But Obama also took an oath to uphold the constitution and that means he isn't obligated to enforce unconstitutional laws passed by congress. Hence, the signing statement.

Earlier in this thread you said that it could be unconstitutional now you are saying it is unconstitutional. Could you post a link that changed this status in your mind? Earlier, you correctly indicated that SCOTUS determines constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, not the President. Sometimes it is incumbent upon leaders to lead. If he objected, he didn't have to sign it, that is one of the cornerstones.

Also as previously discussed, it isn't clear to me anyway, that Obama violated the law in the way he engaged Qatar as the "foreign entity" that will control these individuals.
 
it allows them to continue to falsely accuse Obama of breaking the law. See how that works? lol

Just as a note.

There's no "false" accusation of breaking the law here.

Obama is not the SCOTUS. Obama has zero power to declare something is or isn't unconstitutional and to actually make it so. He signed the bill that the congress pass, which means it IS LAW. It is the law until it's repealed or struck down by the SCOTUS. So if he's violating that law, an accusation that he's "breaking the law" is not "false". Obama is not all powerful, and the executive branch does not have the power to just declare the law as "not the law". He can disagree that it's constitutional and ignore it...but in doing so he'd still be ignoring THE LAW. He, and you, may think it's just to ignore it because you BELIEVE it to be unconstitutional...but until it's ruled as such it IS the law.
 
The "Optics" on this are bad, really, really, bad for Obama. I mean, I used to think he was arrogant, then I thought he was narcissistic, then I thought he was both, and then incompetent, now I just think he's done with this job, he's tired of being President of the USA. I can't believe (But I am forced to believe) that someone this incompetent was elected president not once but twice by the American electorate??

I have one very important question regarding this President. WHO THE **** IS RUNNING THINGS IN THE WH? Ok two Questions. WHO THE **** IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VETTING?

Tim-
 
Back
Top Bottom