It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Barack Obama, Bowe Bergdahl and trading terrorists. Why the hate?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I love how its always obamas fault for everything, i also love how the right wings nuts keep on saying the usa has never made deals with terrorist.

False but why use facts its way easier to bash him and repeat like parrots.

Iran/contra affair ring a bell to anyone

Cant wait for you guys to vote for jeb bush




posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: daaskapital
The attitudes presented by yourself and others are absolutely disgusting!

I really don't care what you think of me. But guess what ... here's what I think right back atchya ... I find the fact that you are letting Obama off the hook on this to be disgusting. He is not the king of America. No POTUS should be breaking the law ... NONE of them. Obama let FIVE terrorists with blood on their hands go free all in exchange for one soldier who deserted his post; caused Americans to die; and who said severely bad things about America and joined the enemy.


I'm not letting Obama off the hook. Rather, i am providing potential reasonings as to why the White House did what it did.


Obama let FIVE terrorists with blood on their hands go free all in exchange for one soldier who deserted his post


Obama let FIVE suspects with unconfirmed reports of blood on their hands go free all in exchange for one soldier who disappeared under unknown circumstances.

His disappearance may have resulted in the deaths of American soldiers, he may have said some bad things about your country, but no one knows if he actually joined the enemy. You don't know, and i don't know. The only people who would have any idea right now, are those debriefing him.

The Taliban may have said that he joined their ranks, and helped them train recruits through bomb making and the such, but they are known for such propaganda. Bowe Bergdahl was an infantry man. I don't think he was a specialist in bomb making....

You are just regurgitating a perspectve without any care for the situation at hand. Hell, you have even called for Bergdahl's death in this thread. A pretty disgusting action, considering you have no idea what happened to him.


NO 'BUT' ... Obama broke the law. PERIOD

The law is in place for a reason. Obama had NO RIGHT to go around it. And now, because of Obama's actions, the terrorists will think that they can take American hostages and get their terrorist buddies released from prison. Obamas actions will cause more Americans to lose their lives ... cause more terrorist actions to happen.



Obama may have broken the law, yes, but have you actually looked at the White House's reasoning though? When Obama signed into law, the The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, he approved a signing statement claiming that he has the power to override the specific legislation when needed...that legislation included the law of providing congress a 30 day notification before the release of Guantanamo Bay prisoners.


President Obama set aside his veto threat and late Wednesday signed a defense bill that imposes restrictions on transferring detainees out of military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. But he attached a signing statement claiming that he has the constitutional power to override the limits in the law.

...

Despite his objections, Mr. Obama signed the bill, saying its other provisions on military programs were too important to jeopardize. Early Thursday, shortly after midnight, the White House released the signing statement in which the president challenged several of its provisions.

For example, in addressing the new limits on the transfers from Parwan, Mr. Obama wrote that the provision “could interfere with my ability as commander in chief to make time-sensitive determinations about the appropriate disposition of detainees in an active area of hostilities.”


www.nytimes.com...
www.documentcloud.org...



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: snarky412
but still it would seem does it not, that this version completely dismisses the original version that he was intoxicated, dismisses that he left with two other individuals, And was handed over to the Taliban.
But was it of his own accord? the updated version completely diminishes all avenues that could have been explored and sold it to the people as a desertion and now the majority want him tried,convicted and executed without even finding out what happened, just gulping up the story, whats the motto oh yeah "Deny ignorance".
This updated statement is almost like a damage control statement. One problem i would like to point out with this is that Bergdahl could speak Pashto so he would have been using both languages and he would have been easily able to ask for the necessities if this statement were true.



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   
a reply to: PLAYERONE01


One problem i would like to point out with this is that Bergdahl could speak Pashto so he would have been using both languages and he would have been easily able to ask for the necessities if this statement were true.


According to reports-- yes, once again reports-- his English, supposedly, is not that good anymore and the father has since learned Pashto to be able to communicate to his son easier

What baffled many people was his father's remark in Arabic at the WH Rose Garden speech


At the end of the brief event, the soldier’s father, Bob Bergdahl, recited the most frequent phrase in the Koran — “Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahim” —which means “In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.”

After Bergdahl finished his statement and his praise for Allah, Obama hugged him. Read more: dailycaller.com...


Not to read too much into it, that is a tad bit odd
Actually, this whole situation is odd and the timing to boot also

I'm glad he's released but I hope his former words of being 'ashamed to be an American' doesn't come back and bite us in the azz years later on down the road

Sounds like he had/has a lot of compassion for the Afghanistan's, which is fine, but he should have gone through the proper channels to get out of the service instead of deserting his post
Then he could have gone back and helped the people there-----however NOT the Taliban, and that is what has some people very upset

Still remains to be seen how this all unfolds
He will have a tough road to recovery trying to readjust to his new life here in the US
Just hope he doesn't wig out and do anything harmful to the American people later on, like some kind of shooting in the name of Allah



posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LarryLove
'… five murdering terrorists … .' What did they perpetrate?


A reversal in America's policy of not negotiating with terrorist which in turn made the world more dangerous.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

That's what we get for jailing terrorists in the first place.

There's so much reverse psychology employed in dealing with terrorism ... that you wind up losing your grasp on getting the job-at-hand taken care of effectively.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Holding them at Gitmo was a controversial decision at the time but that action, to me, makes sense. Aside from those directly involved in 9/11 (not gonna debate the ins and out / theories on 9/11), who did violate US law, the remainder did not. Since we had congress declare the war on terror anyone captured is not required to be charged. They can be held as POW's until such time as hostilities end or an agreement is made to exchange / repatriate.

The push by some to hold them in the US as opposed to a military base would have allowed civilian authorities to get involved. The military court system is different yet still subordinate to the US Supreme Court rulings. I don't believe or really support the notion that an enemy combatant in another country is subject to US domestic law when captured on foreign soil. To me that's a military function and not civilian.

The treatment of captured individuals on both sides reminds me of the Revolutionary war. The treatment of captured British Officers were in accord with international standards / rules of war and conduct. The Americans (or whatever you want to label them at the time) were not afforded the same courtesy.

The US feeds, clothes, allows access to the military court system including defense attorneys..
The groups were are fighting just cut their heads off and posts the video to Al Jazeera.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ANNED
i do not believe he was a deserter. The Taliban claims he was taking a dump at the Observation post latrine when they grabbed him

A radio intercept of the Taliban was translated and give this account. and this is part of wiki leaks posting in 2009


1- LOL THEY KNOW WHERE HE IS BUT THEY KEEP GOING TO WRONG AREA. .

http://__._/afg/event/2009/06/AFG20090630n1790.


Can I just ask, is LOL a popular acronym among Afghan people? I mean I'm a Westerner and even I cringe at it's use...



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:56 AM
link   
a reply to: djz3ro

I am just guessing but it was a transcript and using the term LOL could be acceptable in order to convey the person was laughing during the conversation.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

A singing statement does not override the law. A signing statement is where the President determines how the law is enforced / applied.

If Congress passed a bill that outlawed the sale of Apples, the President can sign the legislation while nothing in a signing statement that the law will only be applied to certain apples.

For others using the "yes he broke the law but" argument.

The only criteria given was an exigent circumstance. In this scenario the administration cited the soldiers health as the reason for failing to notify congress.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: LarryLove
'… five murdering terrorists … .' What did they perpetrate?


A reversal in America's policy of not negotiating with terrorist which in turn made the world more dangerous.


But it wouldn't be the first time a trade with a 'terrorist' has occurred irrespective of the mantra 'we don't do deals with the enemy'. To my knowledge Carter was definitely trading during the Iranian hostage crisis. Then there is the Iran/Contra mess.In short, Obama has done nothing new nor reverse any kind of foreign policy hard line that hasn't already been done by previous administrations.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LarryLove

Someone else brought up iran as well.

In the case of Iran we were dealing with the Iranian government and not a terrorist group how has no home country / government. As I said then that situation was political since the hostages were released the moment Reagan took office. The speculation was Reagan somehow manipulated the situation to use it against Carter during the elections and that the hostages would be released once Reagan took office.


This group of Taliban is just that, a terrorist group doing their own thing. So there is a difference between the 2 situations.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: snarky412
cool, it looks like things are starting to unravel at some points with the official story. I urge everyone to study this a little more closely before hanging him out to dry so to speak, I as i said earlier feel there is far more to this.
check out Dahboo's latest :



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 03:36 AM
link   
a reply to: PLAYERONE01

There definitely is more to it. We could start by being realistic in saying the CIA didn't make the Taliban. The CIA had waved goodbye and wished them all well...very foolishly...well before the Taliban formed in the early 90's.

Having left the nation in chaos with little more than good wishes and a handshake was almost as bad, but Afghanistan was in civil war all through the 90's and right up to the day of 9/11. It just changed to international war after that.

They'll likely be back at war among themselves within a year or less of our actually leaving too, IMO.

The photo with Reagan are some of the Mujaheddin when they were being supported to oust the Soviets, following their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. A period before the law of unintended consequence sentenced us all to serious time, IMO.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
what I 'see' is the selective exercise of the rule 'Nobody left behind...

in one case , at Benghazi, an Ambassador was left behind deliberately in a sticky situation

in this case, a former soldier held 'prisoner', was quickly traded for 5 high-level military tacticians so that at the USA troop pull-down this year...a controversial " POW" was not going to be 'left behind' in this instance

what is noticed is that Bergdahl is likely sympathetic to the Muslims, i.e.: 'Stockholm Syndrome'...(and this opportunity came right amidst the current VA veteran's crises)
where as in Libya, Stevens might very well have become a loose cannon & ratted out the dark-ops of the guns/ammo/sex traffic he was part of ...

see...no race issues
edit on rd30140178928403542014 by St Udio because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcathdra

Thanks for the information. You seem to be one of the only members capable of clear thinking in this thread, haha. Thanks for your civility and approach to discussions at hand.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: daaskapital
Obama let FIVE ]suspects with unconfirmed reports of blood on their hands go free all in exchange for one soldier who disappeared under unknown circumstances.

Dude ... get real ... they were murdering terrorists.

he may have said some bad things about your country, but no one knows if he actually joined the enemy.

There is no 'may have said' about it. He said it. And common sense .. of course he joined the enemy.

A pretty disgusting action, considering you have no idea what happened to him.

We know exactly what happened to him. It was his choice. And the fact that you refuse to call what Obama did and what this guy did disgusting ... but you like to toss it at me, a person pointing out that Obama broke the law ... dude THAT is disgusting.

Obama may have broken the law, yes, but ...

Again .. no 'BUT' .... he broke the law. He signed the law in and announced that it was unconstitutional so he wouldn't follow it. My god .. that's absurd. If it wasn't constitutional then he shouldnt have signed it ... and you can't just willy-nilly follow the law. The POTUS isn't above the law.

originally posted by: daaskapital
seem to be one of the only members capable of clear thinking in this thread,

Thanks for the insult to everyone else. *shakes head*
Frankly, it's your thinking that doesn't seem clear on this thread.

edit on 6/3/2014 by FlyersFan because: wording



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
This situation, worked on for 4 to 5 years, just happens to occur at the peak of the VA fiasco? Simply a political move that didn't go quite the way the administration hoped it would be. They have been saving this one for years.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

If there was consistency, I'd agree with you.

We still have a Pakistani doctor in prison (remember, the one who helped us get Bin Laden?)

We still have a marine in jail in Mexico that our state department is doing nothing about.

I agree that prisoner exchanges have gone on since Moses was a young man.
It happens.

The reasons behind it are inconsistent, not coherent. And I think that is why so many are upset.



posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

Text of POTUS Oath of Office

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.v


'I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States ... BUT ... only if I feel like it.

The oath doesn't say 'but only if I feel like it'.

He's supposed to follow the law. He swore to. No 'BUT' in there ....




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join