Amazon.com Widgets

Should the U.S. have handled the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl differently?

  • He wasn't worth finding.

    Yes, the U.S. should have handled the release of Sgt Bergdahl different, because he wasn't worth finding. Many people died trying to find the Sgt, when the truth is, the Sgt left the army on purpose. He was a traitor to go work with and help the Taliban. Just ask his father. We should have left him there.

  • Yes, I don't agree with what they did.

    I don't believe we should have ever negotiated with terrorists for his release. I don't believe we should have risked national security for one man who may have deserted his post during battle. I don't believe this will have any positive consequences for the United States and may actually strength the Taliban.

  • No. The U.S. did the right thing by freeing Bowe Bergdahl

    The U.S. government did the right thing by freeing Taliban-held POW Bowe Bergdahl, especially since they understood his life was in imminent danger. The U.S. government has a commitment to these soldiers and it can't just ignore their situation, once captured, no matter what the circumstances might be.

    I would hope the U.S. government would be concerned about every American in harm's way abroad and it would do what it can; it should especially place emphasizing in rescuing U.S. soldiers who have put their lives on the line to defend the nation from enemies.

    Additionally, Republicans who are up-and-arms right now about the circumstances of Bowe Bergdahl's release should be even more vicious and critical of President Reagan's method of freeing U.S. soldiers captured by an enemy state; to free them, he supplied Iran with 1500 missiles and also released hostages.

    I don't want to hear anymore loud-mouthed conservatives defending President Reagan on this issue!

    ( http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/31/1303494/-GOP-Hero-Reagan-Gave-Iran-1-500-Missiles-for-Hostages-Obama-Trades-Five-Guys-GOP-Heads-Explode )

    If Republicans are going to attack President Obama over this issue, they should be critical of every other previous U.S. Administration that has done something like it--or even worse!

  • He was a Traitor.

    Sgt. Bergdahl is a trading. He desserted the US Army leaving a US military base and went to the Taliban. 6 troops died searching for him and all we did was make the world a worse place by releasing 6 of the world's most dangerous terrorists to get this man who has betrayed the US.

  • I don't see that it's necessary.

    If the highest office in the land can't negotiate the terms of release for a U.S. POW, then who does have that capability? The man is commander-in-chief. Two years ago, he told Congress he was going to attempt negotiations for Bergdahl. Nobody objected, then, or demanded specifics. Nobody in Congress was against the idea, back then.

    According to the SCOTUS (2006), we cannot try detainees in a War-Crimes tribunal. That leaves the U.S. Justice System. A couple have been prosecuted, but the vast majority have not. In America, we do not incarcerate people without a verdict. So, Gitmo becomes a very complex situation. What do we do with these detainees? If freeing 5 brings ANY American home, I am for the idea. If evidence is present, I fully support prosecution. It was not properly structured, from the start (for the long-term). We might as well embrace that mistake and move toward a civil solution.

  • What exactly is the alternative?

    I see a lot of arguments saying that because he had deserted the army and was disillusioned with what the war was really about that somehow his rescue was unnecessary. Or that his life is worth less than the lives of any other American soldier. To that I say, what is the alternative? Would letting the soldier die in the hands of the Taliban been a victory for us? Would people then be praising our president because he let a US soldier die in the hands of the enemy when we had the opportunity to save him? Or would they scold him for doing what he did. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I see others saying we should have sent a rescue team instead. To that I say, what if the rescue operation went wrong and even more soldiers were killed in the attempt. Would that have been the better outcome simply because we wouldn't have known about the operation? Lives were lost, but I guess our ignorance of it means those lives don't matter. I think we absolutely did the right thing in this case. This was a decision any of us would have made.

  • No, the government has to protect every citizen

    The president, and the government are an extension of the military and the military has a saying; No man left behind. In the spirit of this, the case of Bowe Bergdah was handle the only way possible. Leaving a human to be beaten, broken and tortured is against humanity, let alone the American values.

  • I think they did what they needed to to get him released.

    I think that they possibly could have struck a harder bargain over the number of Taliban released, 5 to 1 seems a little unbalanced, but overall I think they did what was necessary to get Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl released. They did negotiate to make sure the released prisoners would never be able to go back to active duty, and I think they would have struggled to do much better.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.