I'm obviously not an expert on the Gitmo prisoners and who is a viable threat. But I agree with you in the sense that this 'exchange' only encourages others to do the same. Kidnap a citizen, get what you want. I wouldn't threaten to shoot the prisoners either, it's likely to be counter-productive (ie lead to revenge on a more accelerated scale), but nor do we negotiate with them like this.

Gil said:

when Bergahl signed on with the army he knew the risks he was taking. My preference is to "hard core" it. "We will shoot the 5, not release them, unless Bergahl is returned. If we end up shooting the five and you shoot Bergahl, that's five to one, but we will not release terrorist leaders who have their followers running around murdering and raping God knows how many people".

Yes, he knew what he was getting into when he volunteered/signed up.

That being said, however, he is one of ours and we never leave one of our own behind. I haven't been actively following this, so I don't know all the facts, but how did he manage to 'disappear from his base'? Why on earth didn't they shoot him, as they have shot so many of our soldiers, rather than keep him alive?

I know my opinion is going to be in the minority here, based on the posts I've already read, but I'd like you to just hear me out here. Yes, we'd be trading five Guantanamo prisoners for one American. The five who are targeted for release are 'powerful' figures in their organization--but we have their names, their faces, their fingerprints, their retina scans, heck, I'll bet we even have their DNA samples. They will never be able to board a plane to enter American airspace again, so that eliminates the possibility of these five ending back on our soil. The world knows who they are; they will not be able to set foot in any western country after they are released.

Releasing them will also get five more prisoners out of Guantanamo and get us closer to shutting the military prison side of Guantanamo base--something that a lot of people want, we're just undecided what to do with those already there.

Gil says we should shoot them...but they are extremists, that's what they want, to be martyred and die for their cause. To deny them that would be a subtle psychological victory, an indicator to them that we don't consider them a threat anymore, and being returned to their fellows in chains by the 'infidels' will indicate to others that while they may not have respect for us and our lives, we have respect for them and their lives. It gives us the moral high ground. If their treatment in Guantanamo has been humane, they may have a different view of us once they leave letting their fellows know that we aren't the barbarian infidels we're made out to be--and one also has to remember that their own fellows may be afraid the Guantanamo detainees are brainwashed and are likely to commit an 'honor killing' on the five, removing them from the equation altogether.

Don't forget also that we would be getting back an American soldier. One of ours. Who has been their captive for a while, and could have valuable information on where the main body of the Taliban are located, what their troop strength is currently, whether they are still a serious threat in terms of armament, personnel, and numbers. One of the things taught in Army SERE school is intelligence gathering while a POW, how to appear to cooperate with the enemy in order to gather as much intel on the enemy as possible before escape or release. I'm sure he has a lot of intel he can give us...and once we have that we could send a drone strike on their location(s) and hit their main camps and supply posts, and end the threat altogether.

Also don't forget that he is someone's son. If this were your son, you would want him back, whatever the price.

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one? Or do the needs of the one outweight the needs of the many? That's the question here. I am in favor of this trade.

In spite of the rhetoric spouted by politicians, we do negotiate with terrorists. Bring Berghal home. He is one of ours.

Amanda: "Do the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few or the one?" Yes they do.

You sound obviously military. I take it that's OK with you to send in a force to rescue one that loses three.

How's this for a sweet deal to the Taliban: Release this soldier in good health and we won't carpet bomb your entire city and every smelly tent within 20 miles.

I wonder if lawmakers would 'fret,' would hesitate for even one second, if Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were their son. Do whatever must be done to bring our warrior home!

Jim Spence. Negotiating would not be a good thing for him at this point and this close to election. Maybe it is the human in him that understands that this is someone's son, father, husband or brother. If it were your son, what would you want the President to do. Unlike many of the posters on here I have actually served and seen combat on three different tours. Regardless of what people say I want to come home and be with my family just like you. Is it worth it to send in an armed rescue team to lose more to get me? We never leave soldiers behind, period. We even go back years after to reclaim their remains if need be. Many of you want our soldiers home just as I do however when a chance is being worked for one soldier you complain. We negotiate with home grown terrorist everyday and that is why we have negotiators on every police force in the country. Do you know the unspeakable things they are probably doing to break him? Until you have been to School of the Solider on Fort Benning you will never understand. We were put through various types of torture the enemy can do to us and many of us broke. The things was we knew these were our own comrades doing this to us and they could only go so far but the things they do are not something many of us are accustomed to. At some point you actually beg for them to kill you and then they really turn it up. Until you have served our country or have a loved one held hostage please keep your drivel to yourself.

Esprit De Corps.

Sgt Berghal is now a pawn in larger chess game - to get the Taliban to the table. He has been held since 2009. Now, someone in Washington has come up with an idea of how to get him back.

This is a complicated issue. Sure, I say bring him back - we leave no one behind. If these five militants sit in a tent in Qatar, how dangerous will they be? Qatar is our ally, I'm sure we will be able to keep a close eye on those guys.

One US soldier for five Taliban leaders - unfair. Our man is worth at least ten of them!

We should have negotiated peace with Taliban 10 years ago when we were in a very strong position after the war. Instead we created a puppet regime of Karzai-the-crook and his gang of 40 thousand thieves. Now we are reaping the rewards of our own stupidity.

@Max: There is a lot of truth to what you posted!

@ Gil-2872519 I understand what you're saying but we don't have to be "barbarians" just because they are.

Sgt. Bergdahl has been in captivity for more than three years now. How do we know he hasn't succumbed to the Stockholm Syndrome by now and converted to Islam? He has a nice Middle Eastern looking beard in that photo. He may be a Muslim extremist himself by now. I'm not saying that is the case; I'm just suggesting a possibility.

G-Man-3467407

Jim Spence. Negotiating would not be a good thing for him at this point and this close to election. Maybe it is the human in him that understands that this is someone's son, father, husband or brother.

So, G-Man, was he any less a son, father, husband or brother in June of 2009 when he was captured, or since then?

You can spout all your bravado at your bleeding-heart Liberal friends you want, this is typical political pandering and you know it. You're telling me we would send our best extraction units in to get a terrorist in his home but we won't do the same for one of our own in captivity? I would say these priorities are a bit fu**ed up, wouldn't you?

This is pure politicalization in an effort to give more false impressions of Barrack Husseins incompetence. If this were happening under Bush's presidency there would be daily outrage and anger from the lamestream media. There would be day counters on all the network broadcasts about how long Sgt. Bergdahl was held. You remember CNN's death counter when Bush was in office, right? Funny how that feature has disappeared when Barrack Hussein was elected, especially since twice as many troops have been killed in Afghanistan under Obama than under Bush.

I thank you for your service but it doesn't exclude you from being impartial. You and I know this is election campaign fodder. No more, no less.

Tcbaker25: Go into a boxing ring and be the "nice guy".

I dont care anymore we're doomed..

I would do the trade in a heart-beat for our soldier - Immediately after I gave the 5 Taliban Leaders frontal lobotomies. Then I would make this standard procedure for ALL terrorists caught, we obviously can't keep them forever in our prisons, so it would be lobotomy prior to checking-out!

Gil said;

I take it that's OK with you to send in a force to rescue one that loses three.

I'm not looking at it in terms of basic numbers. These are humans we're talking about, and you can't reduce humanity to an equation. That's an unrealistically simplistic view of the entire matter.

That being said, no, I'm not in favor of sending in a military force to reclaim him unless there is absolutely no other option. Force should always be the last resort. If the opportunity is there to resolve this diplomatically, we should take that opportunity, do everything we can to use those avenues before resorting to violence. Their modus operandi is to use violence to achieve their goals; its up to us to be 'better' than they are and use diplomacy first. Use peaceful methods to achieve our ends, thereby disproving their assertion that we are 'violent infidels'.

I'm looking at it in terms of gains versus loss. Pursuant to my post above:

Gains:

1) Empty five more cells in Guantanamo bay. 2) Get one of our soldiers back in return. 3) Gain useful information from our soldier about where they are hiding, where he was being held, what their troop strength and armament looks like. 4) And we can take the moral high ground and claim a psych victory over the terrorists.

Possible gains:

1) Locations to fine-tune our drone strikes and make them more effective. 2) The moral high ground could result in a possible terrorist reversing their views on us as the infidel and sow doubt in the ranks, thus weakening their resolve. 3) Their own force may decide to shoot them altogether,not knowing if they have been brainwashed to be a sleeper agent for the US, so they could die and we would not be responsible.

Losses: 1) Five more prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay.

Possible losses: 1)They rejoin their forces and continue to spread their message of hate.

I am not going to count another possible terrorist attack as a 'possible loss'--I believe the information we stand to gain will negate that possibility by giving us the location of their various camps and armament depots, and we can conduct a preemptive surgical strike to take out their weapons for no further loss of American life.

Mickey said:

Sgt. Bergdahl has been in captivity for more than three years now. How do we know he hasn't succumbed to the Stockholm Syndrome by now and converted to Islam? He has a nice Middle Eastern looking beard in that photo. He may be a Muslim extremist himself by now. I'm not saying that is the case; I'm just suggesting a possibility.

Part of a soldier's training is in how to seem to acquiesce to the demands of one's captors, how to seem compliant and non-resistant, while gathering intel to give to your debriefing team once you escape or your release is negotiated by your government. If shaving your head and growing a Muslim beard will help you seem to be a non-threat to your captors and make them think you have converted, thereby allowing you to possibly move more freely around their camp and be in a better position to observe and report later--this soldier is a sergeant, he knows this. His goal is to stay alive, gather intel and, if escape is impossible, to wait for his negotiated release, at which time he can give us all the intel he's gathered during his captivity.

No matter what we don't leave anyone behind. Make what deals you need to. If we don't release these guys there are still plenty of militants in Afghanistan. Releasing a few will not make any difference. Things will go on the same if we let them go or not.

Amanda: Please, please, tell me that you are not speaking from the Pentagon.

And I thought we don't negotiate with terrorist, go Obama

Jim Spence said:

You can spout all your bravado at your bleeding-heart Liberal friends you want, this is typical political pandering and you know it.

This is about one soldier's life, and five prisoners. It's about doing what's best for all, weighing the gains and losses, balancing what we'd lose versus what we'd gain. You really want to make this about politics? President Obama knows he's in a close race. He knows this is going to be a controversial decision and one that could potentially lose as many voters as it could gain. I'm of the opinion he's just looking at doing what is right.

You're telling me we would send our best extraction units in to get a terrorist in his home but we won't do the same for one of our own in captivity? I would say these priorities are a bit fu**ed up, wouldn't you?

You're missing something here. Force should always be the last resort. We spent years hunting for Bin Laden through the Middle East with no success--we invaded several countries looking for him, with no success. When we sent in the SEAL team to take him out, it was the quickest way to end a conflict that had already gone on too long and cost too many lives.

We haven't exhausted every available avenue to get our soldier back yet. When we exhaust every available avenue, then we send in the black ops teams.

Gil said;

Amanda: Please, please, tell me that you are not speaking from the Pentagon.

No, I'm not speaking from the Pentagon. I'm not military. Wanted to when I was younger, but life rarely ever goes the way you want it to.

We are taught once caught to do whatever it takes to stay alive. We are taught how to give fake information with a touch of truth to make it seem valid. You are taught that when you work in a bank how to become human or build a bond with your capture and they are more likely to let you live.

@Jim Spence I do concede this has a political look to it however if you read the article fully it said they have tried negotiating with them in the past. It is just now coming to the forefront or just becoming newsworthy I guess. Even in bad relationships we are taught compromise and communication. We should be open to all avenues when dealing with extremists. I honestly believe if we knew where he was we would go and get him, but since we don't we are playing the only card available to us. I would love to see my comrade home with his family and to the parade he deserves for 3 years of unimaginable horror. It is like living on death row with a day to day sentence.

Esprit De Corps.

@Amanda. We well orated to the masses. Your point is very valid and very well thought out. I agree with you as the Hunt for Osama was too long and to tedious. If we brought him here to face justice, they the cry would have been why not just put a bullet in him and let's be done with it. Why are we wasting our tax dollars on this scum? Now that it was executed (not by who they wanted to be executed by) we are in an uproar over pictures to show the validity of the claim. As though Osama or any high Taliban official would not have posted a webcam image calling it a falsehood the infidels are spreading about his demise. We are damn if we do and damn if we don't. What irked me the most about the claims were that they called into question the work carried out by Seal Team 6. When they questioned the validity they also questioned them as though they have a reason to lie for the President.

Esprit De Corps.

We do negotiate with terrorists and all other manner of shady individuals worse than terrorists. You've been watching too much TV.

GMan said;

the Hunt for Osama was too long and to tedious. If we brought him here to face justice, they the cry would have been why not just put a bullet in him and let's be done with it. Why are we wasting our tax dollars on this scum? Now that it was executed (not by who they wanted to be executed by) we are in an uproar over pictures to show the validity of the claim.

There is no way to please everyone, in a country with 312 million people. It's absolutely impossible. So what you have to focus on doing is what is right. I am of the opinion that the burial at sea was the best thing that could have been done. Parading the body through the streets would make us no different than a barbarian putting an enemy's head on a pike. Killing someone, for whatever reason, should never be a cause for celebration, but a time for reflection and a hope that in their next life they will do better deeds, make better choices, become a better person.

jimspence- since you obivously hate and disrespect Pres. Obama, thinking he is desparate and pathetic, i'm sure if he did the opposite- like announce that they were not going to trade prisioners you would of been on Obma's case about leaving one of ours behind- your typical of the right wing and always pick the opposite of what he does. it says they have been having talks and made offers since this happened. they know we have to find some peace accord with the taliban if we ever want to leave afaganastan in peace. i agree with G-man, if they knew where he was i could see a misson of Seals to get him out but this seems to be only way. and G-man- thanks for your service to keep our country safe-

Someone said "how convenient, three months to the election and we're negotiating with terrorists". I wish that were true that we just started to negotiate with terrorists. Facts are we have been doing it all along in this administration. Most of the pictures look photoshopped so who is to know if any are real. No word at all and suddenly a batch of pictures? Hmmmmmm. We send money to the Palistinians, we welcome the Muslim Brotherhood to our Whitehouse, there have been secret negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan all the while they were killing our troops. Where have you people been??? Could this be a ploy to make the people he "promised" last time that now he is really going to close Gitmo or worse and excuse to let the rest of the prisoners there go back to plan more attacks on us? You have to suspect this sudden news, especially with the flipping in the wind on anything and everything lately in a desperate attempt to get re-elected. I say Promises, Promises and just go away.

You want our soldier back then grab a few of thier Taliban leaders and make them trade for him.

Do the trade but implant the 5 with GPS trackers! Once we get him back home send in a drone. They would be like RAAAIIIIIDDD!! *poof*

maninfla1

Save your veiled concern for someone who will believe you, I don't.

I bet you didn't even know, or if you did it was only when an article like this was posted somewhere, about Sgt. Bergdahls capture. Otherwise it hasn't been a thought. But I bet you know all about Mitt Romney's dog or his hair cutting prank in high school that the Washinton Post could find intriguing enough to write a 5,000 word article about.

By the way, aren't all you Barrack Hussein worshippers constantly demanding we slash hundreds of billions of dollars from the evil "military industrial complex"? The military is one of the 18 Enumerated Powers mandated on our government, but you'd rather spend more on your sacrosanct entitlements and social programs that are no longer sustainable.

Like I said, it seems your liberal priorities are a bit messed up.

myspellcheckerisbroken

In spite of the rhetoric spouted by politicians, we do negotiate with terrorists

You won't even allow them (politicians) to wallow in their own hyprocrisy.........your a hard guy to please spellchecker..........expecting them to be honest.

spence- i knew all about this soldier since the first day it was in news, unlike you i dont just watch one station(fox) and i could give a crap about romney dog or school, i'm an independent and i make my voting decisions on what i read on all tv stations, i watch Fox (then i go in bathroom and vomit) and turn on a respectable channel, like disney is more reliable. i dont worship Pres. Obama(i'm not as friendly with him as you so obivously are to be able to call him by his first name) but i do have respect for him as President of the U.S. which you dont have. and by the way he is not cutting funding from the military that was agreed to by all your repub. frieds in congress when they would agree with anything Obama was proposing. and again like all you righties you blame Obama for your screw ups just like congess will do and renig on the sequester deal they made, which makes us look really good in the eyes of the world, which you dont care about either i did 20 active dty, so dont tell me about how much the military has to have there 600 billion to stay fit, that money is to pay off all the republican friends who own companies which will get or have military contracts.

and you dont know a dam thing about my priorities but i can sure tell about how screwed up you are, maybe you can get your head out your butt soon and join rest of humanity. and you know, i have wasted to much time on an azz such as yourself.

I doubt, very much Gil, that you would say "let him die" if he was your son, father, daughter, brother, etc. It's easy to be heartless when you have no stakes emotionally in something. I'd love to see you stand in front of his father and say..."it's ok, let him die... he doesn't mean as much as me and everyone else does." I doubt very much you'd have the balls or the courage to do that....because you're one of those backseat drivers... you sit at your computer ....having NO emotional stakes in something...and you spout your heartless crap like it's wisdom...when reality it shows that you're nothing but a weak little boy.

Spence....too bad you don't realize that it's impossible to really listen to anything anyone has to say...when they spout it with such anger and hatred as you do. I'm not liberal... I'm not conservative... but I thank God there are "bleeding heart liberals" in this world....to counteract "heartless conservatives" like you. If there were only people in the world... like you....this world would be filled with nothing but anger and hatred.

A preferred strategy of the Islamic crazies. They like to capture an individual and keep him in captivity for years while dangling occasional photos and videos of him in captivity.

They do this because they consider our compassion for a single individual to be a major weakness and because they assume somewhere down the road they can broker something for his release. Otherwise, if after years in captivity they no longer see any value in him, his headless body could turn up pretty much anywhere.

We in the west would mourn his passing while the sons of the moon god will rejoice.

Soldier held in captivity by the Taliban for years. What to do. What to do. What do the Taliban require to release him exactly? For the US to leave the country? We can do that. We are going to do that, right? OK. We'll leave upon receipt of our soldier. We'll pack up and head on out. We just went in, we can just move out. Sounds good to me. Oh, and about Guantanamo? Will anyone take these people? The UN perhaps has a solution. The present administration says we will go to war or not go to war based on their opinion, not the opinion of our own Congress (that's the representatives of the People of the US, supposedly). I don't see any problem. Give us our soldier back, save the lives of all our other soldiers (70% of their deaths have happened in Afghanistan since Obama took over - fact). There is no need of our military to be there any longer. Give him back. End the war. Give the Guantanamo 'detainees' over to the world to do with as they see fit. This is where we wash our hands of interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. On to fixing our own problems - the internal war of Americans against Americans.

Of the 1,912 U.S. military personnel who have died in the Afghanistan war so far, 1,343 have died since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009. Those are US government military casualty statistics. If your panties get tied in a knot, look it up.

But I'm not saying this administration killed anyone. 'Word is out' the previous administration was the only one who killed anyone.

Amanda-2017567

I'm of the opinion he's just looking at doing what is right.

OK, I’ll ask it again. Why wasn’t it the right thing to do in July of 2009, or 2 years ago, or 1 year ago?

Come on, you know this is just going to be another political football played by Barrack Hussein to benefit HIMSELF, not Sgt. Bergdahl. Just as finding Osama wouldn’t have happened without Dr. Shakeel Alfridi, who since then has become a footnote and forgotten in a Pakistani jail. Without him, and other intelligence, we would still be looking for Osama. In the meantime, instead of helping him Obama just gives billions more to Karzai and his corruptocracy.

tz-3189354

I'm not liberal... I'm not conservative... but I thank God there are "bleeding heart liberals" in this world....to counteract "heartless conservatives" like you

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Oh yeah, thats a real convincing argument about your "neutrality".

Now go away, you're bleeding all over the floor.

Jim Spence said:

OK, I’ll ask it again. Why wasn’t it the right thing to do in July of 2009, or 2 years ago, or 1 year ago?

According to various articles I've looked at, we've been negotiating for quite some time now. They were not willing to talk terms with us. Now they are.

Come on, you know this is just going to be another political football played by Barrack Hussein to benefit HIMSELF, not Sgt. Bergdahl.

Whether he is doing it for political reasons or not, the benefit is still going to be to Sgt. Bergdahl because he will be home, back in the States on friendly soil.

Just as finding Osama wouldn’t have happened without Dr. Shakeel Alfridi, who since then has become a footnote and forgotten in a Pakistani jail. Without him, and other intelligence, we would still be looking for Osama. In the meantime, instead of helping him Obama just gives billions more to Karzai and his corruptocracy.

Yes, Dr. Afridi helped us out. And at the time he did so we offered him asylum but he decided to stay in his country and try to effect change. yes he was jailed And in case you missed it, we are leaning heavily on the Pakistani government to get him released. however, he is a citizen of their country and chose to violate their laws about a private citizen helping a foreign power, and we really don't have a right to meddle in another country's affairs. recently the UN tried to tell the US to return Native American sacred lands to the Native American people. We said ''you can't tell us what to do.'

We cannot castigate another nation for doing the same thing we are.

Amanda-2017567

recently the UN tried to tell the US to return Native American sacred lands to the Native American people. We said ''you can't tell us what to do.

We cannot castigate another nation for doing the same thing we are.

The UN is not a nation and has no people. Nothing it tells any sovereign nation to do is baseless unless they agree.

Jim said;

The UN is not a nation and has no people. Nothing it tells any sovereign nation to do is baseless unless they agree.

I never said the UN was a nation. The point I was trying to make was that a foreign governing body attempted to tell the US what to do and we said, basically, "It is our country and our rules. We will do what we want within our borders."

Pakistan did the same thing regarding Dr. Afridi, so the only thing we can do is accept their ruling.

I think readers should do a little bit of research on the circumstances surrounding then SPC Bergdahl's "capture". He had decided that he had had "enough", left his rifle and sensitive items on his rack, and then decided to walk off the firebase and make it home alone. He deserted his unit. After a few days the Taliban rolled him up. U.S. Soldiers have already risked their safety in the hours and days immediately after he was discovered missing. He didn't face UCMJ for his actions, because he wasn't present to answer to the charges. Since he didn't have "no favorable actions" in his file, he made points and was promoted for time served in grade. That's why a guy who should have been dishonorably discharged is sitting as a SGT in Pakistan. He can't be busted down if he's not around to literally face the charges. This is also why his name is not on every Soldier's lips in Afghanistan.

He was most likely promoted due to his status as missing in action. Much like with deceased Soldiers they are posthumously promoted, and so are Soldiers who are MIA for a set amount of time:

1–18. Soldiers categorized as missing

a. For the purpose of this paragraph, a Soldier who is declared missing is categorized as beleaguered, besieged, captured, detained, interned, missing or missing in action. Excluded are personnel who are in an AWOL, deserter, or dropped-from-rolls status.

b. The promotion authority for promoting Soldiers declared missing is HRC, RRC/Army Reserve GOCOMs, or Director, Army National Guard (further delegated to the State Adjutant General (AG)). The CG, HRC maintains oversight responsibility for all Soldiers determined to meet the criteria of paragraph a, above.

c. The TIS and TIMIG requirements will not be waived to determine eligibility for promotion or promotion selection when Soldiers are officially declared missing. Time absent will be included in any service computation used to determine eligibility. In the event it is later determined that a Soldier died prior to an effective date of promotion, the promotion will not be revoked.

(1) Once declared missing for a period of at least 60 days, Soldiers (PV1 through SGT) will be promoted through the grade of SSG upon attaining full eligibility for each grade (without waiver). The promotion authority may, as an exception to policy, authorize accelerated promotion based on chain of command input provided the Soldier was otherwise eligible.

(2) Once declared missing, Soldiers (SSG through first sergeant (1SG)/MSG) who meet established eligibility criteria for consideration by a promotion board will be included in the zone of eligibility for that board for Regular Army and USAR Soldiers. ARNG Soldiers will continue to compete for promotion as though they were present and will be eligible for selection against valid vacancies. If not selected, all Soldiers remain eligible for continued consideration until they no longer meet the eligibility criteria.

And that bit of info is taken direct from AR 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions.)

I hadn't heard about this story either until today. But judging by the fact that he's still alive, jimb's account makes more sense than him being captured and taken off the FOB (which would be almost impossible because all TCN/LN movements on and off a FOB are monitored.

No exchange should ever be made for five psycho militants to one American soldier. First, I would tell the head a$$hole that such an exchange is not going to happen even if the head pig put his mother on the corner.

Secondly, I would inform them if the soldier is harmed or killed we will send the heads of those five militants back to him in a close basket with bacon shoved in their mouths.

The U.S. should never desert a soldier on the battlefield if it can be helped. But how did this guy become a prisoner in the first place? I am hearing that he deserted his post. Does anyone know how he came to be a prisoner.

Lastly, as a free people, are we willing to allow tens, hundreds, and perhaps thousands of Americans and/or innocent civilians to be slaughter for cutting a deal with the devil. Ask yourselves, why are these five pigs so special to the head militant pig. The answer is obvious, their skills and leadership are valuable to him..

The problem we have with the enemy is they don't fear us more than death. That mindset needs to changed in the most barbaric fashion we can perform on the enemy. Unfortunately, we are suppose to be civilized with the enemy. There was a time in our history when we were not. During the Revolutionary War, the British were repulsed at the way the rebels were killing their officers on the battlefield. They thought it was uncivilized and not according to the rules of war or European military decorum. The revolutionary leaders stated to the British that such acts will continue as long as hostilities continue. The British view of the colonist were such that they considered them barbarians. Needless to say, this technique did have a demoralizing affect on the enemy and help decide many battles.

You've obviously watched "The Patriot" too many times.

If we devolved into barbarism it wouldn't hurt them one bit. All it would do is prove the fundamentalist point of view that we're nothing but monsters who want nothing less than total subjugation and destruction of them and their way of life.

ZenFreedom - I did see the flick you're referring to but that is not where I got my facts. The History Channel discussed one of the main targets of Colonial Sharpshooters were British Officers. Because without them, order within the enemy ranks would be deeply affected in battle; hence, the enemy would falter or break in confusion.

As for resorting to barbarism in combat that is how battles have been successful and wars won. If we are going to act like Caesar then be Caesar; do the unthinkable or stay the hell out of war altogether. You must never try to fight a clean war, they never succeed in final resolution of a conflict. That is what gets you a Viet Nam, Korea, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." (Bertrand Russell)

Hey, also on a side note- this is what happens when you don't fight wars to win them. Ever since our battle policies have been hijacked by the idiot moonbat "let's be nice to the terrorists" crowd, our war record has been abysmal.

Not only would they begin scheming and plotting but how much intel have they gained over the past serveral years about the U.S. that they can use to their advantage. I have to wonder why our Pakistani allies aren't helping us rescue this young man. We give them billions and they don't help us at all.

The IDIOTS in Washington dc better make sure this man is alive! Before they release those STINKING SCUMBAGS,they better ask to see this man in person!!

Everyone is missing the part where it says they are nervous about even moving these prisoners because it will be done with very little security ...this sounds like a very strange way to get our guy back...i think they will take him on the road we wont get our soldier back and they will have their five back to help them continue to reak havoc on us and anyone else that doesnt believe goats are special...!!!!!!

Is this the same guy who walked off the base into enemy hands?

Jack - When you go to war, yes, go in to win and then get out. But must we war with everyone? Another poster said our tactics of warring with restraint have given us a bad war record. I understand that, too. But restraint should exist in starting all undeclared wars. When it comes to an absolutely, positively, unavoidable declared war, no restraint. We'd live in peace the vast majority of the time. Our own government mantra is that their need to control overrides our freedoms. In my opinion, that is also the root of our government's war problem - the need to control the internal affairs of other countries overrides their autonomy. We have a bullying problem in this country and wring our hands questioning what brought that on. If we're paying attention, we should be fully cognizant of where that stems from.

wlee-950886,

Yes, indeed. It is the very same pogue who left his rifle and gear on his rack and deserted his unit.

You have to wonder what special kind of moron decides that they can Desert their unit and then make it back to the states from a war zone...

4 billion a day spend what you do not have what a great place to live.i go over .85 cents and i am charged 37.00 just think if i go over 4 billion every day?????

@joe, you have a misconception of the matter here. If you have 3 guys holding a plane and passengers hostage, demanding money. We don't deal in matters like this. This started back in the 80s when the terrorist were Lybian which was ruled by Khadafi. They actually started out as Bank Robbers with Automatic weapons. than became known as a group called Hydra ( had a 7 headed cobre, for a symbol) that went into aircraft hijacking. they were paid a few times but the "No dealing with Hijackers Rule" came into play. This a Hostage situation.

The situation right now is a full blown war situation. Sgt Bergahl is a POW (not a hostage). I hope this helps to see the difference.

As for the Taliban, they have a real big issue, internally and publicaly (world wide), as they said they would wipe Christianity off the face of the earth and make all America Islam. This is probably why they say there are inconsistancies in what we say. To make peace with us is making them eat a very large Crow. The Taliban are not good political negotiators but right now they are between a rock and a hard place. Tuff decission here, eat crow or go for the last man standing gig.

As for Wacky Khabafi, since the 80s he harbored the terrorist of the times, threatened the US, and was nothing but a big pain in our Butt for years. He was never a friend to the US but at a point in time he was very quiet for a lot of years. When Saddam invaded Kuwaitt he was the first one to run to the US about the matter. I was lol here. He was an evil leader like Saddam and why you people were crying because his Butt got done in is beyond me. I was cheering when I heard he went down. There are lots of events that happened 30 years a go and I can't remember them all but I guess most of you were born in the 80s or there abouts.

It's strange the only thing remembered here is the words "we don't deal with terrorist."

Taliban are terrorists, not a country that we are at war with; therefore he is not a POW, he is a hostage and we do not negoiate with terrorists. This has always been our Policy and if Obama changes this policy, good luck in his reelection bid!!!

@Mike: Yes 4,000,000,000 dollars per day. Obviously, you bought into that Romney add. Have you asked how much of that four billion is to cover the costs of eight years of Bush?

One reason President Obama is falling behind in unpacking his full wardrobe is because he is still doing laundry for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

If I eas that Sgt. , I would not accept the release of those Gitmo criminals just so I can go home. That is a violation of the Code of Conduct that all servicemembers live by...."I will not accept favors or special rights at the detrament of others". Again Obama is spitting on and showing disrespect for everything that our fore fathers fought for. President Obama is the WORST president that has ever been elected (that came from former President Carter by the way).

Roger White

That figure is based on figures released by the CBO not Romney. You better do some research instead of drinking the Liberal Kool- Aid

@Festerhawg: Romney is using it in his campaign ads. It's not for me to research that figure. Did the Romney campaign do the research? No. Should they have? Yes. But, I guess our politicians are not in pusuit of the truth, they are only in pursuit of their aspirations.

I do not care who released those figures. And I am anything but a liberal. After Labor Day, I intend to do plenty of research to determine who the best candidate is for the Oval Office. I do not believe a word coming out of anyone's ads. I will decide for myself based on what I reveal from my research of the candidates.

You mistook me for an Obama supporter. Oops - huh?

We do NOT negotiate with terrorists! Plain and simple. roger white, what research needs to be done. obummer has done everything this term to appease his master soros. Time for this country to pull in that last piece of thread to get us back to being a country we once were.

@Festerhawg: That soldier also takes his orders from his superiors, he is duty bound to follow those orders, EVEN IF IT LEADS TO HIS RELEASE FROM CAPTIVITY - ironic, isn't it?. And to whose detriment would his release be?

As far as Obama being our worst president, well, that is former President Carter's opion though I doubt the veracity of that statement. If we list presidents from best to worst, I would put Harding on the very bottom, tied with Bush II.

@Gabriel: And who will be the masters Romney will serve? Wall Street buddies I suppose. We've been there and did that. I hope for the day we Americans revolt and put in the Oval Office someone from the middle class whose only allegiance is to the man and woman on the street, on the farm, in the factory, in the hospital, in a school, in an unemployment line. Boy, am I dreaming!!!

The first president I can remember is LBJ, and there were people that said he was the worst, people that said Nixon was the worst, and people that have said evey pres since was the worst. There were people that thought Lincoln was the worst. I don't know who the president is going to be 50 years from now, but I guarantee there will be people claiming that he/she is the worst.

Roger, President Obama spent 6 - 8 TRILLION in his first six months in office! Bush II did not even come close to matching that in 8 years!

I think Obama has done a great job and obviously one of the best Presidents we've ever had, and for that reason we should send him on a very long vacation he's earned it.

“They don't care about peace, they only care about furthering their corrupted ideals.” Really? So attacking a sovereign nation then imposing your political philosophies not an attempt in furthering a corrupt ideal… Right!!

@LordPryinc: Trust me, it pains me greatly to say this, but in the strictest sense of the word, the Taliban are not terrorists. Terrorism, in any derivative form, is such a fluid word. Though they fight like terrorists and even will use insurgent militants for their cause, they are not definitively terrorists. So, due to semantics, our adminstration can negotiate with them.

Martin, 9/11 remember, that's why we attacked a SOVEREIGN NATION. Some of you have a short memory

Martin speaks truth.

wlee: Uh, didn't someone attack a sovereign nation back on 9/11? How is your memory?

@Wallace: I'll bet they already did!

Why do we have to deal with terrorists? Over one American. We all are doomed. I don't care anymore either.

LKRRagging: @7 I appreciate you comment. I had forgotten to mention that it is US policy not to negotiate w/ terrorists, which the Obama administration, in a sign of weakness, seems to want to totally ignore.

We cannot negotiate with terrorists.

I'm confused with your comment as to my reference to "barbarians". If I was not clear, and I think what I said was that if they act like barbarians, then we should do so as well. The Roman empire only lasted as long as it did by recruiting barbarians to fight other barbarians. There is a lot to be learned from history.

Actually the roman empire fell because of barbarians. That and internal strife caused by foreign ideas, and internal corruption.

Corey: I said "The Roman empire only lasted as long as it did by recruiting barbarians to fight other barbarians". Please, I write carefully, and have at thing about people pitting words in my mouth. I never said that barbarians did not cause the downfall of Rome. Please read more carefully.

Sorry for the spelling. I was out the door and didn't have the chance to proof read or spell check.

Bush wasn't fit either, but then Obama didn't start EITHER war. If it was a member of YOUR family, you would be all for whatever it took to get them back, but since he isn't, screw him and let him rot there. You people are really special. You all want the draft dodger in office. I'm sure HE"LL do a fine job. All you need worry about is where the NEXT war will be. Pakistan is supposed to be our ally, so why is he being held in Pakistan? Why was Bin Laden taken out in Pakistan? WHY are we giving BILLIONS of dollars we supposdly don't have to Pakistan when they harbor AND fund the very people we are fighting against? Obama inherited the problems the Republicscum caused and yet he's the only one you blame. Like i said, you people are really SPECIAL. NOT.

Gil-2872519

Corey: I said "The Roman empire only lasted as long as it did by recruiting barbarians to fight other barbarians". Please, I write carefully, and have at thing about people pitting words in my mouth. I never said that barbarians did not cause the downfall of Rome. Please read more carefully.

I believe Corey's point was that the barbarian presence or infiltration in the Roman Army was one of the causes of the downfall of Rome. I think his point was valid. Your argument implied that the barbarian presence was a good thing for the Roman Empire. His argument disagreed and maintained that it was one of the causes of its eventual downfall. No need to attack his reading skills.

Ohio, 9/11 started the Afghan war not Bush. You do remember 9/11 don't you. When you're done shinning Obama's shoes you might want to research that

One US Soldiers life is worth way more than 500 of these Pigs any day

Carl: Each one of those "pigs" can get out at least one suicide bomber (that's 5) and kill 20 people or more each (that is 100+). damons, unstated, mathematics are indisputable.

I wish you people would get on the same sheet of music here. We want to get rid of the terrorist in Gitmo or we want to keep the expense and inconvience of housing and feeding them? You all don't seam to understand the difference between taking someone hostage and a battle field situation. A hostage situation is a we don't deal rule. When your Military is fighting it is a war situation and has different rules. As for Sgt Berdahl he is a POW, not the same thing. Hostage Situation (holding people and demanding some form of ransom) and War (POWs) two entirely different things. Al qaeda and Taliban two different groups that coexisted seperatly but were forced to unite due to the invasion of Afghanistan and clumped under the title of Terrorist. To me the Taliban are Colateral Damage that happens while trying to get to the goal Al qaeda.

6dogs Great post!

This will not be a precedent in that POW exchanges if they do so for Sgt Bergdahl. This has occurred in previous wars/hostilities, such as WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam etc. Even Israel, trades many PLO, Hezbollah Et Alia for even just 1 Israeli soldier. The bottom line is America takes care of its own. In doing so, we maintain the the commitment to each soldier, sailor, marine, coast guard - both men and women!

Defensor Fortis

I have to agree that the his life is worth thousands of these scumbags but we can not start making deals with terrorist because once we do its like feeding a wild animal. They will start kidnapping more and more people for ransom or deals. It will become a way of life and a typical custom. Are you sure that's what you want Mr. President?

6dog, and look at Israel when they've traded prisoners, more were kidnapped, sorry but we don't negotiate with terrorist, I believe that's what we've been calling them, so why the change all of a sudden

They could close Gitmo at any time than the prisoners would have to go else where. If you live in a penatenury town they could move them there. It would cost more to house them there though. Than Al Qaeda Sleeper Cells would move there to get their buddies out. there is always the possibility that they could Drone attack the apartments that these Cells are renting. My only problem here is we always have elections getting in the way of business. The plan of exchanging prisoners is going to happen even if Romney(God forbid) gets into office. There is a town (name eludes me) that was full of terrorist in Iraq that needed to be taken out at the time of Bushes Reelection and was procrastinated on because they did not want blood on Bushes hands at that point in time and it probably caused more deaths to do this after the campain just for a win.

Bill H-1430012-- The only one sucking up to Isreal is ROMNEY. Why do you think he went over there? Are you mad because he didn't donate to Romney? I definitely wouldn't hold THAT against him, or are you just a total A**HOLE? Easy question, one or the other, or probably both.

Ohio Bob, have you read the honor code, keep it civil

Most intelligent post of the day....Maybe we could even invite Karzai to a "celebration" with LIVE FIREWORKS in one of the fields for an up close and personal experience.

Nuke pakistan, they have been hiding everyone of them from the beginning. That's where all the money comes from. They let us do our thing so they can keep an eye on us to keep the taliban informed. Without pakistan they will go out of business!!The whole problem is we don't fight wars, the politicians play games with our troops. Can't do this, can't do that!!! The longer they keep the war going, the more money they make! More population control!! Obama is doing this because it is an election year! Get smart people, this man will do anything for a vote or a contribution to his re-election or pocket!!!!

@ Tim

Follow the money and follow the dope. All of the opium goes thru Pakistan and onto foreign ports. A majority of the government and intelligence people in Pakistan are compromised with drug money which is why they and the Taliban have a love-hate relationship. The Taliban doesn't want the drugs, but, they like the money and the safe havens and the support. Bush was stupid enough to try and convince the sheeples that Pakistan is our pals. Even Hillary has been that stupid, and Obama is stupid for hiring her. I think Obama is trying his best, but, he is clueless.

No wonder your sneezing all the time having to live with yourself. We'll see how you like it when you take that unemployment check for Chinese Language lessons and buy a Plane ticket to China if Romney becomes President. Would you like a little dog with that rice? Or do you just like Ramen Noodles?

Hey 6Dogs...

...at least Romney is NOT the one that has borrowed more $$$ from your aforementioned Chinese than both Bush's, Clinton, and Reagan COMBINED.

...Romney is NOT the one that has the poorest record in Presidential History on Economic Recoveries. Both Reagan & Clinton could School this soon to be unemployed Obarma.

...Romney has a track record of success. The millions he inherited were DONATED to Charities, the millions he's made were made by taking broken businesses and either closing them, merging them, or making them better. The clown Obuma has zero record before his COLOSSAL FAILURE.

by the way, I'm an Independent, and was one of the IDIOTS that voted for the soon to be unemployed Obuma.

@Allergic, Clinton gave bush a country with1% to the good and all debts could have been paid off but the truth of the matter here is Bush to a +GDP and ran it to a -10trill. Pay attention here when/if Romney becomes POTUS he will make you eat your own words.

If your talking about his company, they ran companies into bankruptcy and than outsourced to jobs to China. If you listen real close you can hear the voice of Donald ( go and get it made in China) trump coming out his lips.

Now, what other rediculus, retorical remarks have you got. Like I asked do you like dog meat? I spent 13 months stationed in the the Orient and know what they like for fine dinning.

6Dog, talk to Obama's job czar about China, then talk to Finland and other foreign countries that got some of our stimulus money. What other failures does he have to do to make you open your eyes

Allergic

You must be allergic to yourself. You wrote:

"Thank "Allah"* he'll be ordering a Moving Van to the White House in mid November."

Even if Romney does somehow buy enough votes to put him in office, Obama won't be moving out until mid-January, genius.

If mitt ever becomes POTUS he will immediately start looking for the next third world country to throw up against the wall and shake them down. That's really all repub presidents ever do. Look for some technologically repressed nation to go bully to make jobs all of their civilian contractor cronies.

You're on the right track as to our giving 'status' to the Taliban. Suddenly we are treating them like 'statesmen.' ? Next thing you know, they'll be wanting an embassy on Pennsylvania Avenue.

scott-3539770--Yet he's FAR better than who we had, and who you all want next. But then that sure wouldn't take much, would it.

And what happened to our policy of going after those countries who harbor and support terrorists ? Why then are we in Pakistan ??

Would love to have the Sgt. released, but the terms of his release are only a ploy for more terrorism - and if the U.S. did negotiate his release by allowing the release of top Taliban officers.....it would be a travesty. Then again it is election time, so his release, regardless of the fact that the Taliban would "win" in this exchange, would be a feather in someone's cap. Not good. No negotiating but this man should be freed. Will this be another reason for the Navy SEALS to go to work again? Too many lives have been lost, cannot afford another mistake to be made trying to save or kill anyone. My prayers to his family and thoughts and hopes for a safe return unconditionally.

I would think that we could use Odummer for a bargaining chip, why not. He's muslim and just as nutty as they are. He would fit in so perfectly over there, I'm sure he's been completely trained in their ways during his upbringing (you know, those years we know nothing about). Dale, that's a perfect idea.

No they are not. You aren't far off tho. Iran is bringing them to Venezuela and Chavez is allied with Castro. The Russians are not bringing any at all, altho, some are Russian-made. China is letting them pass thru the Panama Canal now that they control it. It's just that Chavez is a paranoid nutcase and it's a "Boyz and their Toyz' thing. It isn't of any concern and certainly no secret. They off-load them in Caracas in plain view.

fyrboss-- Your're right. We need him for 4 more years to straighten out the Republicscum FU'S.

The Mexican drug cartels kidnap Americans in towns near the Rio Grande all the time. Yet, we do not call them terrorists, and, we do nothing about it. We cannot protect our own citizens and borders, yet, we stay in Afghanistan 90,000 strong protecting the poppy fields and now we negotiate with terrorists. Just ask anyone in El Paso or Laredo.

No no no, the only terrorists around now are the "homegrown/domestic terrorists". These guys are demoted to militants and American citizens are now the threat in this election year.

All comments have Merit... But oh How that would change ...if it were YOUR SON....