Note that according to the Board of Elections, there are 1,040 Amherst voters who do not have Photo ID’s and will have to get them by November. This is 5.5% of the voters of Amherst.
We are not in as bad shape as the City of Lynchburg, where 18% of registered voters are without a Photo ID, but we need to work on getting our voters photo IDs.
Come and share your thoughts on how we do this. Please RSVP to nkable@aol.com if you plan to attend the dinner. so we can give the restaurant a count.
Ned Kable, Chair
Amherst County Democratic Committee
Amherst County Democratic Committee
P.O. Box 1411
Amherst, Va 24521
GOP Urged White House To 'Do All It Can' To Rescue POW Bowe Bergdahl
As soon as President Barack Obama told the nation Saturday evening that America's only prisoner of war in Afghanistan had been rescued, Republican lawmakers and pundits began criticizing the administration on how it handled the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.
Many lawmakers have been upset that Obama did not give Congress 30 days notice, as required by law. Others are upset that five Taliban detainees who were being held at Guantanamo Bay were released in return, with some conservatives even accusing the
administration of negotiating with terrorists. (The government of Qatar actually negotiated the deal.) There are also now questions about Bergdahl himself, and whether he initially deserted his post.
"With 29 percent of former Guantanamo detainees having reengaged or being suspected of reengaging in terrorism, the
administration's decision to release these five terrorist detainees endangers U.S. national security interests," said Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.). "It also sets a precedent that could encourage our enemies to capture more Americans in order to gain concessions from our government."
But prior to Bergdahl's release, Republican lawmakers were some of the sergeant's biggest advocates, and repeatedly pressed the
administration to do something -- in fact, everything within its power -- to get him returned to the United States.
A May 22 press release from Ayotte's office read, "As part of ongoing efforts to urge the Department of Defense to do all it
can to find Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and bring him home safely, Senator Ayotte worked successfully to include a provision in the
bill that presses Pakistan to fully cooperate in the search for SGT Bergdahl."
When asked for comment on why she is now criticizing Obama's handling of the prisoner swap, Ayotte's office pointed to her
longstanding views on Guantanamo, arguing that her position is not inconsistent. Her office said the senator backs a policy that includes permanent limits on the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo to foreign countries.
"Senator Ayotte has led efforts in Congress to prevent the release of high risk detainees from Guantanamo, and she never would
have supported trading five dangerous terrorists who are likely to reengage in terrorist activities against Americans and our
allies," Ayotte spokesman Jeff Grappone wrote in an email.
"We have a responsibility to ensure no service member is left behind, which is why Senator Ayotte pushed DoD to find Bergdahl
and to determine whether he could be safely rescued and returned home," he added.
Some lawmakers who have spoken critically in recent days of the Bergdahl deal had appeared, not too long ago, to have endorsed
the concept of a prisoner swap, in which he could be exchanged for Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Take Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). On Feb. 18, 2014, he told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he could support such an arrangement,
albeit reserving judgment for some of the details:
COOPER: Would you oppose the idea of some form of negotiations or prisoner exchange? I know back in 2012 you called the idea of
even negotiating with the Taliban bizarre, highly questionable.
McCAIN: Well, at that time the proposal was that they would release -- Taliban, some of them really hard-core, particularly
five really hard-core Taliban leaders, as a confidence-building measure. Now this idea is for an exchange of prisoners for our
American fighting man.
I would be inclined to support such a thing depending on a lot of the details. [...]
COOPER: So if there was some -- the possibility of some sort of exchange, that's something you would support?
McCAIN: I would support. Obviously I'd have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange
was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.
The day after Bergdahl's release was secured, however, McCain was on the Sunday morning talk shows questioning why the
administration would release the "hardest of the hard core." On Monday, the following day, he stressed that he "would not have
made this deal." If it has been more than a half an hour since McCain voiced his opinion there is a good chance he has a different opinion. Due to McCain's mental condition he is unaware that he has changed his mind.
"I would have done everything in my power to repatriate him and I would have done everything I possibly could. But I would not
have put the lives of American servicemen at risk in the future," he said.
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said the senator's objections lie in the details and that the staff is working up John's latest position and will release it later.
"The details that we know so far are troubling and could enable these hard-core Taliban leaders to return to the battlefield against Americans and our allies and partners next year," he said.
On Tuesday, his office issued a statement, saying the senator had "serious concerns" about a report that the five detainees being transferred to Qatar would be "able to travel freely in the country and, after one year, will be able to leave Qatar, including travel to Afghanistan."
Another outspoken champion for Bergdahl's release was Rep. Rich Nugent (R-Fla.), who wanted the administration to "do everything possible" for his safe return.
"Last year, on the fourth anniversary of Sgt. Bergdahl's capture, on the floor of the House of Representatives, I introduced a resolution in the House calling on the United States to do everything possible not to leave any members of the armed forces behind during the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan. Believe it or not, I had members of Congress come up to me and say, 'I didn't know we had a living POW in Afghanistan.' That was shocking to me," said Nugent, according to a Feb. 24 article in the Citrus County Chronicle.
In a statement to The Huffington Post, Nugent said that for the sake of Bergdahl's family, he was "very glad that our only living POW is back home." He added, however, that he disagreed with how the administration handled the release. Anything Obama does will fail to measure up to the GOP's floating standards he noted.
"But what angers me so much about this situation is that knowing full well that there was strong opposition to a prisoner swap in Congress, the Administration decided to go behind our backs and release the detainees without the notification required by law," he said. We would have investigated the matter and appointed committees to hold a hearing before deciding what to do about Bergdalh.
"As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I look forward to getting answers from the Administration soon about how they intend to ensure that these senior Taliban detainees do not return to the battlefield. Now mind you I am still getting all of my information from press accounts three days later, but apparently the detainees are completely free to move about Qatar however they please and will be free to travel after one year. So while I appreciate the President's assurances to the press that these individuals won't pose a threat to civilians or our troops, you can understand why many of us have been and continue to be skeptical."
In April, Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), along with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), introduced a resolution "to express the sense of the Senate that no member of the armed forces who is missing in action or captured should be left behind."
Toomey has not yet put out a statement. McConnell spokesman Don Stewart said the minority leader was pleased that Bergdahl is
safe but still has questions about the administration's handling of the situation, including the lack of mandated notification and concerns that the Taliban detainees may return to the battlefield.
Sen. James Risch (R), who represents Bergdahl's home state of Idaho, declined to criticize the Obama administration during an
interview with the Idaho Statesman, saying it was not the right time for such comments.
"There will be time to delve into those matters," he said.
He also said that members of the Intelligence Committee, on which he serves, were constantly updated on Bergdahl's whereabouts.
"There wasn't a week that went by that we didn't get a briefing," he added. Usually we get the chance to leak information to our friends in the press but Obama's mishandeling of the matter quashed that, he said.
John Bellinger, who served as a national security adviser to President George W. Bush, said in a Fox News interview Tuesday
that he believed Obama did the right thing in its recovery of Bergdahl. He noted that because the war in Afghanistan is winding down -- U.S. troops will be out by the end of 2016 -- the administration would have had to release the five detainees soon
anyway.
"Sometime in the next couple of years, whether it's in the beginning of 2015 or shortly thereafter, this conflict in Afghanistan is winding down, and we would be required, at least under the traditional laws of war, to return people that we've detained in that conflict," he said. "So it seems in this case, we've gotten -- we traded them for reasonable deal here."
Joint Chief of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey also defended Bergdahl's recovery on Facebook Tuesday, writing that it was "likely the last, best opportunity to free him."
UPDATE: 6/4 -- ThinkProgress notes that Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), another lawmaker who has criticized Obama for freeing
"people who have killed Americans," was also among those pressing the administration to do more to rescue Bergdahl. Last year, Inhofe said of Bergdahl, "The mission to bring our missing soldiers home is one that will never end. It's important that we
make every effort to bring this captured soldier home to his family."
POLITICS at its Worst
A land speed record must have been broken in the time it took to turn the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from weekend newsbreak to full-blown political controversy.
In the three days since the Obama administration announced that it would free five top Taliban officials from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl's release, the topic has dominated a White House briefing, shadowed the president on his trip to Europe and overtaken the cable news circuit.
The War on Terror suddenly had its own fantasy league. On Fox News Monday night, the National Review's Rich Lowry called the swap an "astonishing trade" in which the administration gave up "the top five Taliban guys." Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) called the five released men "The Taliban Dream Team."
On Tuesday, the wave showed no signs of cresting. The Drudge Report had 17 separate items about Bergdahl, 15 of which were above the fold. Bergdahl was being mentioned in 7,200 tweets per hour. "Fox & Friends" host Brian Kilmeade accused Bergdahl's father of looking like a member of the Taliban, because of the long, unkempt beard he grew in solidarity with his son. And former Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) has even called for President Barack Obama to be impeached over the matter.
But the gush of commentary obscured the complexity of the story at hand. The various critiques of the administration all ran in wildly different directions. Some clearly need to be addressed, but many others seem based on flimsy foundations, undone by basic counter factual questions.
Did the Obama administration get fleeced?
This is the most common complaint about the deal. The five Taliban members released from Guantanamo are hardened, top-level officials. Reports suggest that the restrictions being placed on them in Qatar, where they are being sent, will not do enough.
Could the administration have held out for more?
The White House contends that given Bergdahl's failing health, it had to act quickly. And even in that case, they got some concessions. The initial demand from the Haqqani network, according to a Feb. 23 BBC report, was "millions of dollars" and 21 Taliban detainees. On "Morning Joe" Tuesday, The Washington Post's David Ignatius suggested that holding out further might have hurt the administration's position.
"It does seem one-sided, although less so than the exchanges the Israelis have made... so there's this precedent for this," he said. "I think it's useful to ask the reverse question. Suppose he hadn't been released, and it's a year from now, and American troops are getting ready to come home, and you have this American sitting there in ever more frequent propaganda videos from the Taliban. The pressure on the president to act in a much more precipitous way would be enormous. So think about the alternative."
But why release Guantanamo detainees at all?
When critics of the president ask this question, they seem to be suggesting that a risky trade-off could have been avoided had Bergdahl been extracted through other means, such as a military-led operation.
Perhaps so, but as shown by the fact that troops died searching for Bergdahl when he first left base, that's a high-risk proposition in its own right. A top Obama administration official told The Huffington Post that a rescue mission was considered, as were other tactics. But going in with military forces would have put other U.S. soldiers in harm's way and there was no guarantee that Bergdahl would be extracted alive.
When Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday morning that "this was likely the last, best opportunity to free him," the key word was "best."
Is this merely a backdoor method of emptying out Guantanamo?
It's no secret that the president wants the detention facility closed, and The Daily Beast's Josh Rogin reported that Republicans on Capitol Hill are concerned that the prisoner exchange was a means to another end. But can detainees be kept there forever?
Ken Gude noted at ThinkProgress that because none of the five prisoners were "facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions" and because the war is coming to an end, they had to be released anyway. J. Bellinger, former Bush administration lawyer, made a virtually identical point:
In my view, the U.S. would not be able to hold them forever. Indeed, it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan. The Administration appears to have reached a defensible, hold-your-nose compromise by arranging, in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, for the individuals to be held in Qatar for a year before they return to Afghanistan.
Why didn't the White House consult Congress beforehand?
Here, the critics seem to have their strongest argument. The law requires the president to give 30 days' notice before transferring detainees out of Guantanamo. And while Obama issued a signing statement challenging the constitutionality of that provision, his prior history questioning the use of signing statements is fairly well established.
The White House has responded to this criticism in a scattershot manner. On Tuesday morning, Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said that the advance notice would have interfered with Obama's ability to get Bergdahl home.
Because of that, she added, officials had determined that "Congress did not intend that the Administration would be barred from taking the action it did in these circumstances.”
At other points, the White House hasn't even bothered with the legalese, arguing that, in the broadest sense of the word consultation, it had met the requirements. In November 2011, the administration discussed a potential prisoner swap with senior House Republicans. On Feb. 17, 2014, The Washington Post reported the contours of the deal in clear detail. And when talks with the Taliban fell apart, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that the administration was still "actively engaged in an effort to see [Bergdahl's] return."
But discussing something publicly in broad terms is a different than consulting lawmakers in private about specific operations.
The White House seemed to acknowledge this distinction late Tuesday when top officials apologized to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee for not having given them prior warning.
Did Bergdahl deserve to be rescued?
No one has actually argued that Bergdahl should have been left behind, left to endure Taliban-style justice for walking off his post, though The New Republic's Brian Beutler has made the case that critics should provide a price of exchange that they would have found acceptable.
The more illuminating question to ask, instead, is what would have happened politically had the White House sat on its hands and not acted. Some of the very Republicans criticizing the president today were imploring him to do more to free Bergdahl just a few months prior. Some even suggested he pursue any means necessary to get him released. Let's say the White House had waited to act in hopes of a better deal -- and never reached one. What then?
Said the Obama administration official: "Imagine the outrage from Republicans if we had left him there."
Army Still May Pursue Desertion Investigation On Bowe Bergdahl
BRUSSELS (AP) — The Army may still pursue an investigation that could lead to desertion or other charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed from five years of Taliban captivity in a prisoner exchange last weekend, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Tuesday.
Dempsey also told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from his plane that Bergdahl's next promotion to staff sergeant, which was set to happen soon, is no longer automatic because Bergdahl isn't missing in action any longer.
Speaking publicly for the first time about the case, Dempsey said he does not want to prejudge the outcome of any investigation or say anything that might influence a commander's decision.
But he said U.S. military leaders "have been accused of looking away from misconduct, and it's premature" to assume they would do so in Bergdahl's case, despite the soldier's five years as a Taliban prisoner.
Bergdahl was handed over to U.S. Army special forces Saturday in exchange for the release of five detainees at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba detention facility.
Service members who are missing in action routinely continue to be promoted on the same schedule as their peers. But, Dempsey said, "his status has now changed, and therefore the requirements for promotion are more consistent with normal duty status."
As a result, he said, other things needed for promotion, such as proper levels of education and job performance, would now apply. That makes Bergdahl's promotion less automatic.
There are a variety of offenses related to an absence without proper approval, and a number of potential actions could be taken by the military. He could be tried by court martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for desertion; he could be given a non-judicial punishment for a lesser charge, such as being away without leave. And he could be given credit for time already served while he was a prisoner.
Dempsey stressed that any decision would be up to the Army.
He said he has not yet spoken to Bergdahl or his parents since the release, noting that medical personnel want him to come to grips first with his new freedom and status.
Members of Bergdahl's unit and military officials have complained that Bergdahl's decision to leave his base unarmed put his fellow soldiers in danger and that some were killed in missions that included looking for him.
No comments:
Post a Comment