Defense chief defends Taliban prisoner swap before Congress

Comments (20)
Simplerman wrote:

I sincerely hope this swap is an extremely clever intelligence operation, because if it is what it seems like then they should all be prosecuted and/or impeached.

Jun 11, 2014 10:58am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

Can we swap ol’ Chuck for another prisoner?

Jun 11, 2014 11:14am EDT  --  Report as abuse
User21 wrote:

-
every-1 involved in this should know that upon an impeachment hearing they will be called up for as a witness and to give testimony,
-
just like when Watergate broke, nothing happened right away, but when people close realized they could also be implicated that’s when the truth started coming out,
-
we are headed towards impeachment, as we all think it is appropriate given the flagrant violation of the law,
-
no P is above the law, and we certainly do not live in a dictatorship,
-

Jun 11, 2014 11:22am EDT  --  Report as abuse
sabrefencer wrote:

of course, he would say this…who else in the face of Putinism, Iran and nukes, China moving aggressively, would agree to cut back our military forces, in the face of such aggressive and expansionist moves?..he should be impeached, along with Obama, holder, for putting this once great nation at risk by zero foreign policy, disregarding our laws, IRS, VA, Immigration, etc etc….add Kerry in there too, as he puts us all at risk, of sleeping forever, listening to his nonsense…

Jun 11, 2014 11:38am EDT  --  Report as abuse
User21 wrote:

-
watching this hearing, and Hagel just admitted the P broke the law!
-
and it is fitting to say this:
-
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!”
-
those close in all of this, better start thinking about themselves, as they might end up in jail,
-

Jun 11, 2014 11:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
unionwv wrote:

“…the pledge to recover service members in captivity is “woven into the fabric of our nation.” – U.S. Defense Secretary Hagel

So is the rule of law.

Contrary to administration claims in this case, compliance with the law was NOT an intractable impediment to the recovery of Bergdahl.

Jun 11, 2014 11:55am EDT  --  Report as abuse
User21 wrote:

-
here is why the P must be impeached
-
because if we don’t, every time going forward terrorists & countries will seek out and demand similar deals,
-
this unravels our position of no negotiation, and our ultimate security
-

Jun 11, 2014 12:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

all I can hope for is, your time is running out in your current position, for incompetence!

Jun 11, 2014 12:45pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Overcast451 wrote:

“hurt trust with Congress”

In order to hurt something – it must exist first.

Jun 11, 2014 1:03pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SaveRMiddle wrote:

Sadly, Chuck can’t share his true opinion so……his public stance has no value.

Jun 11, 2014 2:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

@yubamary

I think you are right and, you are not alone who is “disappointed”. The ‘legislators’ write laws that benefit only the few . . . They even pass laws that protect ‘selected few’ that violate our rights set in our constitution all the time. They call it “immunity”. However, the average ‘sheep’, ‘by and for’ whom the constitution was written, have therefore no recourse whatsoever.

Yes, it’s “disappointing”, to say it mildly !!!

Jun 11, 2014 3:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
PaulBradley wrote:

P.S. Just want to voice agreement with getting POW out . . . Just wonder, if those who criticize it, ever served in combat and faced the possibility of becoming a POW . . . I think you would make a ‘different sound-bite’ !!

Jun 11, 2014 3:18pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

I’ve heard some people mention that these released prisoners could very well return to fighting… wow, ya think?

Do you mean that, after 10 years of brutal imprisonment, they still haven’t learned to love the old Stars & Stripes? All that torture we put them through and they still hate America? Crazy, just unfathomable.

So I guess we shouldn’t be expecting any postcards from them, eh?

Jun 11, 2014 4:04pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SR37212 wrote:

Actually Paul, Me and my two brothers along with my Dad all served in combat. The propaganda you claim comes from the people that served with him. The REAL propaganda is coming from the White House and their apologists.

If I am part of the ‘hate Obama bunch’ I was also a part of the ‘hate Nixon bunch’ too. Both men broke the law and Obama needs to be held accountable. The supporters of Obama breaking the law are the same type people that defended Nixon when he broke the law.

Jun 11, 2014 4:06pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
elsewhere wrote:

The importance of the five who went to the middle East are now placed to enter the insurgence in Syria and Iraq which will threaten Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Anyone else feel a major, or world, war in the future? Hagle and Obama were extremely stupid to do this.

Jun 11, 2014 4:58pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SKYDRIFTER wrote:

Get it straight!

Okay, the Qatari’s negotiated with the Taliban & Haqqanis; not “Hagel.” (What’s the difference?) Bergdahl was a “POW?” No, the U.S. doesn’t do POWs; just “Missing; Whereabouts Unknown.” (But Americans aren’t supposed to know about the HUGE difdference.) Yes, Bergdahl was a “hostage,” the negotiations have secretly been going on for years.

1. On the day of his capture, Bergdahl was last reported as “… an American with a camera; looking for someone who spoke English” – per U.S. intelligence intercepts. That may speak to a fool; but not a “deserter.”

2. He was taken hostage/prisoner by the Haqqani network; not the Taliban.

3. While selectively cooperative with the Taliban, the Haqqani network is NOT “Taliban.”

4. The Haqqani network wasn’t listed as a terrorist organization until 2012.

5. The Haqqanis would ONLY have released Bergdahl for compensation – they had no stake in the Taliban prisoners. Who paid what price to the Haqqanis remains to be discovered.

6. If the U.S. had any reason to believe Bergdahl was any kind of deserter, he would NEVER have been promoted to sergeant, during his captivity.

7. Just as Jessica Lynch was prohibited from speaking to her having been raped and sodomized by the Iraqis, Bergdahl’s “silence” may be reasonably regarded as being a function of political duress. Bergdahl is 100% entitled to “innocent, until proven guilty.” Politics aside, his release is a blessing to all of America.

8. The unmentioned question goes to why the SEALs and Delta Force didn’t make every attempt to gain his release; from the very beginning.

9. The pertinent law holds the Secretary of Defense accountable for notifying Congress of the intended Gitmo prisoner release; not the President. As technicalities go, Obama gets a free ride. However, if there is any justice remaining in the Cosmos, may this “prisoner exchange” dwarf Watergate.

10. Whatever their prior history, the “Gitmo Five” were bred as potential threats to the USA during their captivity – what else could possibly be expected; along with EVERY Gitmo prisoner.

11. What are the details of this “prisoner exchange;” that took a tremendous amount of coordination and time – who were the inside players?

12. America would do far better to focus on the assured destiny of “Afghanistan” and Iraq” to go the way of the Viet Nam War. What should “Americans” then think, say and decide? In the meantime, Bergdahl richly deserves a break.

Jun 11, 2014 5:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
REnninga wrote:

Quoye: “Angry Republican lawmakers reacted skeptically”
… Yeah, right.

To paraphrase Bill Shakespeare, from ‘As You Like It’:

‘All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players.
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts” …

… Determined of course on how his polling is tracking in his reelection campaign, and how much on-camera time his pretense of outrage will buy him, and how it will play with his base.

“Congressional outrage” = Political Theater. Nothing more, nothing less.

Jun 11, 2014 5:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bravo-six wrote:

@unionvw

““…the pledge to recover service members in captivity is “woven into the fabric of our nation.””

good call, chuck is transparent. If this were the case, there wouldnt be a marine sgt detained in a mexican prison, which could be argued is just as dangerous. Not to metnion I bet a “swap” here wouldnt coust 5 heads of a terorist cell.

Jun 11, 2014 6:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse

Bravo-six, the marine in jail in Mexico has nothing to do with is, he is not a POW, he broke the law in a sovereign country and should be held accountable. If a Mexican army member was here on vacation and broke one of our laws would not you want him prosecuted?

Jun 11, 2014 7:41pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bravo-six wrote:

@USAPragmatist2 wrote:

Bravo-six, the marine in jail in Mexico has nothing to do with is, he is not a POW, he broke the law in a sovereign country and should be held accountable. If a Mexican army member was here on vacation and broke one of our laws would not you want him prosecuted?

Oh really, and what laws did he break in Mexico exactly? Can you prove it ? Please cite evidence and sources. Furthermore, this goes hand in hand with what you have been arguing all along. He deserves a proper and fair trial correct? Then why is he in jail? Why is he failing to be properly represented by his government? You do realize everytime a law is broken in America by lets say an alien from Mexico, that the Mexican consulate is contacted right? doesnt seem he was given much of a chance does it?

Regardless who is detaining said SGT. it doesnt matter exactly who does it. Ultimately, there is nothing being done about it!!! No representation, no action, NOTHING! Also I think we can all agree Mexico’s prisons are dangerous and therefore pose an imminent threat on health, welfare and possible life. Due to the nature of corrupt individuals and cartels who run rampant in their system with little to no force in place to refrain them from conducting heinous crimes. Therefore in determining those factors it also is in complete alignment with the justification on the PRESIDENTS behalf of why the deal with BOWE was made in the first place.

No troop left behind- You dont seem to be familiar with the espirit de corps, the fraternity and brotherhood that comes with being in the service. I also dont expect you to understand either, yet, choosing to act on one instance of a single soldier alone when there are several cases of detained Americans globally that face just as much threat as BOWE is extremely hypocritical, there is no significant track record of him ever having troops welfare in mind. Or else he wouldve actually made good on his promise in the first place to do something about the VA hospitals right? While millions suffer with PTSD and numerous veterans commit suicide on daily basis.

Not to mention sir, you are forgetting one key fact, it is completely irrelevant if these terrorists that were traded will be part of a larger scheme to draw in more terrorists to them once they are free and be engaged by a drone strike. The end result is with this single action, he has provided them with incentives to kidnap and endanger more American lives and has put them at risk (military and civilian) worldwide.

Jun 12, 2014 12:37pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.