Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Tuesday, June 3, 2014

Bergdahl Held Prisoner By Haqqani, Not The Taliban?

According to this article in Human Events:
...While it is almost universal for the media to describe this deal as a prisoner swap with the Taliban, the Washington Post article on the five released detainees very gingerly brushes past an important fact, about fifteen paragraphs in: Sgt. Bergdahl was not a prisoner of the Taliban. He was captured and held by the Haqqani terrorist network...

[...]

Which makes the content of this prisoner swap even more suspicious, because only one of the five released detainees, Mohammed Nabi Omari, had strong ties to the Haqqani network (and also to al-Qaeda.) Thor wonders if the White House is breaking the law not only to grab a front-page “Obama saves captive American all by himself” media coup, but to conceal other aspects of the deal, such as a cash payment to the money-obsessed Haqqanis...
More at the above link. Read it!

The Haqqanis and the Taliban are not exactly the same group.  The Haqqanis do, however, have strong ties to Al Qaeda.

On February 5, 2014:
The US Treasury Department has added three senior Haqqani Network leaders to the list of Specially Designated Global terrorists today. The designations highlight the Haqqani Network's continued support of al Qaeda, as well as its members' ability to travel to and receive funding and aid from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Saidullah Jan, a senior commander and financier; Yahya Haqqani, a senior leader involved with "military, financial, and propaganda activities"; and Muhammad Omar Zadran, a military commander, were added to the US' terrorism list.

Both Saidullah and Yahya are directly linked to al Qaeda. Saidullah traveled to Saudi Arabia to raise funds, most recently "in late 2013." Yahya "coordinated the transfer of supplies from the United Arab Emirates" to another Haqqani leader. Top Haqqani Network leaders are known to travel to Saudi Arabia to fundraise for both the network and al Qaeda.

The Haqqani Network is a powerful Taliban faction that operates in eastern, central, and northern Afghanistan, and is based in North Waziristan in Pakistan. The terror group has close links with al Qaeda, and is supported by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate. Sirajuddin is the operational commander of the Haqqani Network and leads the Miramshah Shura, one of four major Taliban regional councils. The US added Haqqani Network to list of global terror groups in August 2012.
Clearly, the Obama administration has negotiated with Islamic terrorists.

Additional reading: Does The Obama Administration Know the Difference Between The Taliban and Haqqani Networks?

59 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What really pisses ME off among MANY other things about this situation is the fact that nobody has made any mention about these heros who died trying to find this SOB deserter.
    Here are their names, just in case anyone is interested.

    PFC Matthew Michael Martinek
    Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss
    SSG Clayton Bowen
    PFC Morris Walker
    SSG Michael Murphrey
    2LT Darryn Andrews
    But instead we see his Father wearing that HIDEOUS Taliban style beard and praising Allah and promising more Gitmo detainees to be released! I would like to know what ever happened to "we do not negotiate with terrorists."? But now that we did and our President has set a precedent, look for more of Americans to be captured and held prisoner, so that Mr. Lair, Liar, Pants on Fire to make more of these swaps, for more Guantanamo prisoners, until Gitmo is empty and O’blabber can keep his promise and close it.. This whole situation is smelling worse by the day

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for listing those names.

      Are their families furious about a deserter being dubbed as one who served with honor?

      Delete
    2. Not negotiating for hostages went out with Ronnie Raygun.

      Hi father got the beard style from your heroes on Duck Dynasty. Are they Muslim?

      Let's look at this exchange:
      1. Five Taliban who were guilty of ... well they were never charged.
      2. They have been milked of any intelligence they have.
      3. Any position they held has been long since filled. These guys are obsolete.
      I other words, they're useless.

      On the other hand we have someone held by the Haqqani for years who may have useful intelligence that we can use as the Afghanistan fiasco winds down.
      Seems like a useful exchange.

      Delete
    3. I am not going to defend what you mentioned about Ronald Reagan. However, I must mentioned that Reagan publicly expressed regret.

      Besides, this post is now about Reagan, but about this Bergdahl deal that the Obama administration engineered. Furthermore, Obama and his minions are defending the action publicly and lying about the nature of Bergdahl's service (or so it seems right now).

      FIVE TERRORISTS FOR ONE PERSON WHO MIGHT HAVE INFORMATION IS NOT a useful exchange.

      Is Robert Bergdahl a Muslim? I don't know. But he has sent out tweets that indicate that he is an Islamophile of sorts. And he also spoke Arabic at the Monday photo op (aka press conference) in the Rose Garden.

      It is the height of folly to believe that the five released jihadists will not quietly work and organize while they are "contained" by Qatar. And "contained" for only one year at that.

      Delete
    4. I'm amazed at the power the word "terrorist" or "jihadist" has/
      It can stop all reasoning, bang. Dead in its tracks.

      These prisoners were never involved in any action against the U.S. Never.
      Even the chief military prosecutor supported their release.
      But label them and all reason can stop. It's self defeating.

      Is Robert Bergdahl a Muslim?
      I don't know. I suggest you listen to today's Democracy Now! podcast which carries an older interview with him and a profile.
      My take is that he isn't but he is a principled, decent man who holds a lot of views which might be most closely labeled Quaker.

      May I also point out that the recidivism of prisoners released from Gitmo is low and it isn't clear that there is any current activist group that lacks much more experienced leadership than these five would offer.

      There's a lot of noise surrounding this release (YES, some orchestrated by the administration) so it's a good time to hold back on the labels till some facts are digested.

      Delete
  3. Bergdahl was a damned deserter and not a hero, the word “hero: should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as his name.
    The Obama administration claimed they had to circumvent the law because they were afraid that his health was so deteriorated he would die, that is a DAMNED lie. Did he or his health look so deteriorated, did he look emaciated at all, did he look like someone who was about to die? Both he and his Father are Taliban sympathizers. Bottom line is that he went AWOL and is a deserter, A TRAITOR!
    The Dimocraps are lying scum ALL of them, every one of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John,
      Bergdahl was a damned deserter and not a hero, the word “hero: should not even be mentioned in the same sentence as his name.

      I strongly agree!

      Frankly, I don't care about the health of a deserter.

      As for Bowe Bergdahl's father, those tweets he sent out prove just what kind of "American" he is. **grrrrrr**

      Delete


  4. SO THE TRAITOR IN CHIEF VIOLATED THE LAW?

    And what in the HELL is congress ever going to do about that? Since when has Congress held this President accountable for anything? Never. There is no law he cannot break. There is nothing in the Constitution he cannot violate. At least Obama is consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Israelis did a prisoner swap, at 1000 to one, for Gilad Shalit, and it hasn’t caused more Israelis to be captured.

    Was the right in high dudgeon when we swapped during the Vietnam war?

    The right wing outrage seems a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday the Army may still pursue an investigation into the conduct of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was recently freed after nearly five years of being held captive in Afghanistan.” —Washington Post

    May pursue? May? Every second lieutenant knows the UCMJ requires an investigation. DoD Instructions and regulations require an investigation. The question isn’t whether Bergdahl’s behavior should be investigated —it is rather, whether there anyone in the Obama administration who isn’t a clown.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sadly, I'm used to tin stars like Dempsey equivocating....I can say definitively that 15-6 investigations were started within a day of Blackfoot Company's PERSTAT [personnel status] being reported the morning PFC Bergdahl walked off to find himself. Statements were taken, personal effects inventoried, etc....

      The only moves ahead now are his debrief, convening a new 15-6 investigating officer to collect any collateral statements since the intital, and to convene the Article 85 hearing.

      Hopefully they can shoehorn that in between his 'heroes' welcome and requsite photo ops.

      Delete
  7. Don't worry. This morning, Obama tells us these guys we let go are no threat to us or he'd not have released them to Qatar :-)
    And our LIVES are in HIS hands? Oy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pssst, z, they are going to organize a group of elite spec-ops for a night drop over Santa Monica to attack and convert you to Islam.

      It's frightening.

      Delete
    2. Bad things are going to happen now that Uncle Bammy released those people. They may not target Americans, but they will kill or injure innocent people. Ordinarily, I would suggest that Ducky’s out of hand dismissal is astounding, but we are all used to the duckster by now. After all, he is a leftist, strongly suggesting (among anyone paying attention) that Ducky has no problem with Islamic beheadings, suicide bombers getting on school buses in the morning and destroying children. Moreover, yes, it was all Bush’s fault. I have to conclude that Ducky would feel right at home in the old Soviet Union or as a mass murderer in Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution. After all, it’s all good with him.

      Delete
    3. No Sam, it draws on the experience we have with others released.
      They have not become combatants.

      Since Afghanistan is absolutely going to devolve when we finally pack up it is pretty far fetched to believe they will have anything to do with tipping the balance one way or another.

      Yes, I have a problem with the killing of innocents whether its by Taliban or U.S. drones.
      However, that doesn't resolve us from the responsibility of articulating just what these military fiascoes have accomplished other than increasing militancy.

      What is has to do with Mao is beyond me. But keep at it Sam.

      Delete
    4. "...it draws on the experience we have with others released.
      They have not become combatants."

      I'd be interested to see where your data comes from, because the latest publicly available DNI report on GITMO recidivism [through 2013] is 16.6%.

      So, some of "they" absolutely have become combatants. Again. Now for various reasons, I'm not terribly concerend about the effect that these five will have against US interests...but let's try and stay factual, no?

      Delete
    5. Okay, CI, let's take your figure, though I've generally seen it closer to 8% but let's take yours.

      So one of these guys gets back in the game. ONE. Now please tell me what unfilled need he represents to Haqqani or whomever.
      Just what scenario do you have that has one person tipping the balance in any way whatsoever?
      Remember, these guys were never charged with anything. Most of them just backed the wrong warlord.

      You're concerned, yes. But since these five have NEVER threatened U.S. interests how would one of them going rogue mean anything?

      Please, I'm curious.

      Delete
    6. Ducky, I'm not even sure that you read what I wrote. You don't have to take MY recidivism number, it comes from the DNI. I clearly stated that these five are NOT going to pose a tangible threat to US interests...so please don't invent where I've stated such. The QST, Haqqani and HiG don't pose a transnational threat to the US homeland, and quite frankly, I give less than a damn what happens to Karzai's rump Kabul regime after we leave.

      But let's not be disengenuous and make absurd claims about recidivism. The number from AFG based detention facilities is even higher. And by "never threatened US interests" you are apparently unaware of Noori's command of Taliban forces against US units.

      If you're interested in the lifespan of the Karzai regime, these five will at some point be reintegrated back into their networks. Their prior positions make this an inevitability....unless any of them have become Quakers while at GITMO. Please bear in mind that the public is only seeing the unclassified details of the these five biographies.

      Delete
    7. Additionally, Obama made his signing statement against Section 1028 of the 2013 Defense Appropriation bill, claiming that he believed it infringed on his powers as Commander in Chief......but....in order to be in compliance with Section 1028, all he had to do was claim that the action was in the national security interests of the United States. He did not make any such claim.

      So while I think signing statements are an abuse of executive power, regardless of who makes them, he willfully violated the section, when he could have easily been in compliance.

      Delete
    8. No, I read your stats, CI. Obviously unimpeachable but I'm still interested in the power you give one individual who may or may not go rogue. You're a little sketchy on that.


      So much political posturing on this.

      But regardless, it was going to be difficult to withdraw with a soldier being held prisoner regardless of the circumstances and the Haqqani thinking we are unwilling to negotiate.

      Not the first time a withdrawal had to be negotiated.

      The less political bullshit surrounding it, the safer the troops will be.

      Delete
    9. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    10. Where it may seem that I'm a 'little sketchy' on this, is because I'm not going to do social network analysis on any of these guys on an open forum. Again, please bear in mind that the public only has the barest of biographic details on these five.

      Delete
  8. It is likely that Bergdahl is mentally disturbed—and it would appear to be a genetic affliction.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Thor wonders if the White House is breaking the law "

    No, that's not possible. B.O. is exempt from all established law! Is everyone ready for his 3rd term?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Breaking that 30 day law?

      His reasonable signing statement said the law limits unconstitutionally limits his authority as commander in chief.
      Won't know until the court rules on the matter if it is ever adjudicated.

      As for a third term -- keep talking up the likes of Ben Carson or Ted Cruz and you'll get Hillary.

      Delete
  10. If a Republican President did exactly what Obama did here, there'd no no rightwing outrage over it.

    I call hypocrites!

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since Republican Presidents are NOT exempt from the law it's very unlikely that one would do anything that our current Fraud-In-Chief has done and gotten away with!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Signing statements are new to Obama?

      Who knew. In fact he has issued fewer than recent presidents (including, You Know Who).

      Delete
  12. I think that we should have traded Obama for the Sgt., that is if they would have taken him. Even if Bergdahl is proven to be a deserter, we would have made-out on the deal.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Bergdahl Left Note Behind After Deserting Saying He Was Disillusioned With The Army, Opposed War In Afghanistan – Update: Report Says He Renounced His Citizenship"

    Did B.O. and his band of idiots know any of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HERE is the link.

      Did B.O. and his band of idiots know any of this?

      If not, they should have!

      Delete
    2. I will say that simply knowing his whereabouts at various points in his 'captivity', doesn't translate to presenting a viable rescue scenario. I would much rather give back five goat fornicators than lose a JSOC guy or two. Especially in light of the 'prize'.

      Delete
  14. How to you spell 'hypocrite?' GOP!

    Conservative bloggers were for Bergdahl release until Obama did it
    http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/03/conservative-bloggers-were-for-bergdahl-release-until-obama-did-it/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahem. Certain facts had not yet been revealed.

      Typically, the GOP does support the military. Nothing wrong with that, IMO.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete

  16. Bergdhazi! Bergdhazi! Bergdhazi!
    I hesitated to post anything about Sgt. Bergdahl's rescue because all the facts are not known. That, however, doesn't stop the right from accusing the Obama administration of all sorts of traitorous motives and other foolish speculation. This is how they operate: "If President Obama did it, we're against it! It's wrong and facts be damned!
    Oh, and SUPPORT OUR TROOPS! Except when the Kenyan Commie Nazi Usurper America hater supports them!

    Until more is known about the situation, I will believe what this man has to say, for now, and not the yahoos out there who think they know the facts:

    I’d like to ask those “Holier than Thou” Republicans, What would you have done about the POW? Let him rot? Shoot him right between the eyes? Hit him with a predator drone?
    Knowing he was in bad health,had been held for 5 years,is a US soldier who we do not leave behind as the US pulls out of Afghanistan late this year..what would YOU have done?
    Waste 30 days letting congress know? Let him rot? Let's hear it since Obama who is the CIC didn't do it YOUR way what would YOU armchair warriors done?

    ReplyDelete
  17. In response to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him.

    As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred.

    In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. Finally, I want to thank those who for almost five years worked to find him, prepared to rescue him, and especially President Obama who worked so hare to put this together.

    Furthermore, I think you republicans only hate him because he was freed by a democrat president who showed he has the balls to do what you didn't think he could and you are taking cues from your republican leadership and REFUSING ONCE AGAIN to admit that President Obama has done well.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Welfraud Queen,

    "I’d like to ask those “Holier than Thou” Republicans, What would you have done about the POW? "

    See my comment above @ 5:11: PM EDT.

    ReplyDelete
  19. According to first-hand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, he ditched his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera, and a diary.


    At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika Province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.

    Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops -- from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad, to the larger group that comprised the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division -- told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.


    Many are flocking to social media, such as the Facebook page "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero," where they share stories detailing their resentment. A number of comments on his battalion's Facebook page prompted the moderator to ask for more respect to be shown

    "I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on," said former Sgt. Matt Vierkant, a member of Bergdahl's platoon when he went missing on June 30, 2009. "Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him."
    ""I’d like to ask those “Holier than Thou” Republicans, What would you have done about the POW? ""
    We should have shot the son of a bitch a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Welfare Queen presumes that Bergdahl was a POW. He was not a POW if he deserted in the face of the enemy and joined the enemy in opposition to US military action. Can you say death penalty? Well, of course, that's only true in an American administration.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Obama hugged the deserting Bastards Father Robert Bergdahl after he praises Allah.

    Any Questions? I think the People have just about had it with this douchbag.and his followers, like the one on the Progressive blog.

    ReplyDelete
  22. The Liar In Chief broke the very law that he signed into force that requires the notification of Congress 30 days in advance of any Gitmo Detainees being released. And then he runs of out of the country as he does after every other one of his scandals break..

    ReplyDelete
  23. I’m trying to imagine why anyone would call themselves “Welfare Queen,” as if it were something to be proud of. Way too many scumbags in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Today's topic is just one more sign that this fraudulent administration is finally falling apart! Those who put B.O. in office were, at best, naïve. Those who still support him are certifiably mentally ill!

    ReplyDelete
  25. No, just an administration trying to make the best of a bad situation.

    We're going to declare this over in less than a year and that would have necessitated the release of these five according to a former Gitmo prosecutor since they are in there with no charges.

    Is it better to establish negotiations with Hagaani and manage the release of Bergdahl or do we play it the JonBerg way and get nothing?

    ReplyDelete
  26. "We're going to declare this over in less than a year "

    We might but you can bet [they] aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  27. WE DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS!!!!!!! There is a good reason for that. Contrary to what the duckster thinks, it DOES INDEED end up costing American lives!

    ReplyDelete
  28. One of my former students asked this question on Facebook: "Why would they try to rescue a deserter when they wouldn't even help an ambassador and three security officials?"

    ReplyDelete
  29. More information is coming out.

    First, the five released were not terrorists. They were Taliban fighters but never participated in terrorist acts. As a result they would be scheduled for release as enemy combatants around the end of the year when we hopefully wrap up this fiasco.

    Second: The reports of deaths directly attributable to searching for Bergdahl are being contradicted. There has been a rush to judgement here.

    Of course Bergdahl and his family are "other" and it's easy to ridicule and condemn them.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Today, we get the latest churn. DefSec Hagel states that the White House was one hundred percent behind the swap of Bergdahl for five high value operational targets. Convenient. But last time I checked, we still prefer to function as a Republic. Congress was not given thirty days notice (so this news could also be debated by the American public) and the White House did not have the decency to even personally notify the Speaker of the House after the deal was cut. They notified a senior aide. The swap was an unlawful order. I have to note the following: As a Naval officer I was taught that I had the right to disregard an unlawful order. I could not be punished for doing so. The transfer not only violated rules governing the relationship between the POTUS and Congress, it also violated military law and tradition.

    Can't make this stuff up.

    Tammy Swofford

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Obama stated in 2007 (emphasis mine):

      "While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability. I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law.

      And what has happened with the swap of five Taliban chiefs for one PFC?

      The signing statement that set the stage for the Bergdahl release was attached to the fiscal year 2014 National Defense Authorization Act. It put statutory restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees, notably a provision that requires the administration to inform appropriate members of Congress at least 30 days before the prisoners are moved.

      [...]

      In his signing statement, Obama said plainly that he would disregard the statutory restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in certain circumstances...


      I fail to understand how even the staunchest Obama worshipers can defend what he has done.

      Furthermore, if it is true -- as I read this morning on the web -- that soldiers were under a short-on-sight-Bergdahl-the-deserter, the outrage against this lawless POTUS should boil over.

      Delete
    2. Tammy,
      It seems to me that the White House is in full damage-control mode. This is the strongest damage-control mode that I've seen from the Obama administration. So far.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective