Monday, June 2, 2014

Five ‘High Risk’ Gitmo Detainees Traded For Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- Was He A Deserter? By Larry Elder

Source:  www.freedomoutpost.com
Twitchy confirms Bergdahl deleted this Tweet
By Larry Elder, June 2, 2014

The Pentagon had called the five terrorists being held in Guantanamo Bay -- that Obama swapped for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- “high risk” in 2008. The Washington Times says:

“All five were major Taliban officials. According to Pentagon dossiers leaked by Wikileaks, details on four of the terror suspects reveal:

“Mohammad Fazl was the terrorist group’s former deputy minister.

“Abdul Haq Wasiq was a former deputy minster of intelligence.

“Mr. Khairkhwa was a former heroine trafficker and Taliban governor of Herat.

“Norullah Noori was personally asked by Osama Bin Laden to participate in northern drug wars.”


As for reports that Bergdahl may have been a deserter, the New York Post says the White House addressed the point two years ago: “Why Bergdahl was captured in the first place remained a mystery by the time high-level US government talks began in 2012 regarding a trade for his release. ‘Frankly, we don’t give a s--t why he left,’ one White House official said at the time. ‘He’s an American soldier. We want to bring him home.’”

The question of desertion is why the Army Times headline read: “Military Community Reaction Mixed To Bergdahl Release.”

The strongest comment against the prisoner exchange came from a soldier who claims he was serving with Bergdahl in Afghanistan at the time of his capture -- and assisted in the unsuccessful search and rescue for him.

He says this is what happened to Sgt. Bergdahl:

“You want it from the horses mouth?? Here ya go. We were at OP Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan. It was a small outpost where B Co. 1-501st INF (Airborne) ran operations out of, just an infantry platoon and ANA counterparts there.

“The place was an Afghan graveyard. Bergdahl had been acting a little strange, telling people he wanted to ‘walk the earth’ and kept a little journal talking about how he was meant for better things. No one thought anything about it. He was a little ‘out there.’ Next morning he’s gone. We search everywhere, and can't find him. He left his weapon, his kit, and other sensitive items. He only took some water, a compass and a knife.

“We find some Afghan kids shortly after who saw an American walking north asking about where the Taliban are. We get hits on our voice interceptor that Taliban has him, and we were close. We come to realize that the kid deserted his post, snuck out of camp and sought out Taliban… to join them.

“We were in a defensive position at OP Mest, where your focus is to keep people out. He knew where the blind spots were to slip out and that's what he did. It was supposed to be a 4-day mission but turned into several months of active searching.

“Everyone was spun up to find this guy. News outlets all over the country were putting out false information. It was hard to see, especially when we knew the truth about what happened and we lost good men trying to find him.

“PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA from our unit who died looking for Bergdahl.

Many others from various units were wounded or killed while actively looking for Bergdahl. Fighting increased. IEDs and enemy ambushes increased. The Taliban knew that we were looking for him in high numbers and our movements were predictable. Because of Bergdahl, more men were out in danger, and more attacks on friendly camps and positions were conducted while we were out looking for him.

“His actions impacted the region more than anyone wants to admit. There is also no way to know what he told the Taliban: Our movements, locations, tactics, weak points on vehicles and other things for the enemy to exploit are just a few possibilities.

“The government knows full well that he deserted. It looks bad and is a good propaganda piece for the Taliban. They refuse to acknowledge it. Hell, they even promoted him to Sergeant, which makes me sick.

“I feel for his family who only want their son/brother back. They don’t know the truth, or refuse to acknowledge it as well. What he did affected his family and his whole town back home, who don’t know the truth.

“Either way what matters is that good men died because of him. He has been lying on all those Taliban videos about everything since his ‘capture.’ If he ever returns, he should be tried under the UCMJ for being a deserter and judged for what he did. Bergdahl is not a hero, he is not a soldier or an infantryman.

“He failed his brothers. Now, sons and daughters are growing up without their fathers who died for him and he will have to face that truth someday.”

Sgt. Bergdahl and his family are understandably overjoyed. He was gone nearly five years. But five of the “worst of the worst” at Gitmo released in exchange?

The condition is that the five terrorists remain in Qatar “for one year.” Is this a joke? And what’s the guarantee that they don’t practice their craft while in Qatar? Even if the one-year travel restriction were enforced, what happens after that? Back to terrorism?

Several released Gitmo detainees, according to the Pentagon, have returned to the battlefield only to be recaptured or killed. Certainly, it must have been difficult for Obama to hear the plea from the Bergdahl family. Powerful personal appeals of prisoners-held-hostage led President Ronald Reagan to commit the biggest blunder of his presidency -- arms for hostages deal known as the Iran-Contra scandal.

About Iran-Contra, the Washington Post wrote:

“It was a grand scheme that violated American law and policy all around: Arms sales to Iran were prohibited; the U.S. government had long forbidden ransom of any sort for hostages; and it was illegal to fund the contras above the limits set by Congress.”

In the case of Bergdahl, President Obama may have run afoul of law that requires congressional notification. Washington Post’s Karen Tumulty writes, “The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.”

So, what is Obama’s defense?

Tumulty says: “A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.”

(The Reagan administration argued, too, that the congressional limit on funding the contras was unconstitutional. It brought him little sympathy from his critics.)

If some or all of the “high-risk five,” newly released from Gitmo, return to the battlefield, what will President Obama say to the families of those victims?



Follow Larry Elder on Twitter
"Like" Larry Elder on Facebook

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comment Policy:

The author of this blog will attempt to engage in conversation via the comments section whenever possible and recognize the 24/7 nature of the internet. Moderating and posting of comments will occur during regular operational hours Monday through Friday. Comments submitted after hours or on weekends will be read and posted as early as possible, however admins and/or the author is unable to commit to replying to every comment posted.

This is a moderated blog. That means all comments will be reviewed before posting. In addition, it is expected that participants will treat each other, as well as the author and admin, with respect. Comments that contain vulgar or abusive language; personal attacks of any kind will not be posted. Comments that are spam or that promote services or products will not be posted. It is requested that all comments remain on topic.

The Elder Statement blog does not guarantee or warrant that any information posted by individuals on this blog is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. The Elder Statement blog may not be able to verify, does not warrant or guarantee, and assumes no liability for anything posted on this website by any other person. The Elder Statement blog does not endorse, support or otherwise promote any private or commercial entity or the information, products or services contained on those Web sites that may be reached through links on our Web site.

To protect individual privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include phone numbers, addresses or email details in the body of a comment. Such information will result in removal of a comment.

Thank you for your attention.

The Elder Statement