Bowe Bergdahl- POW or Deserter?

MidnightRider said:
carlfense said:
darkhorse85 said:
MidnightRider said:
A classified document exists detailing an investigation into this that was conducted immediately upon his disappearance. That investigation found, without a doubt, that he deserted. All the talk of him being a POW is bs. He is a deserter. He left his brothers to join the enemy. He was supposed to be manning a guard post but instead, dumped all of his sensitive items, grabbed a compass, a diary, a knife and some water and proceeded to walk away. These are facts. I know dudes that had boots on the ground the next day whom were intimately involved with both the investigation as well as the recovery efforts. Another fact; men died, unnecessarily, looking for this POS. He neither deserves, nor will he get any sympathy from me. He is an enemy sympatyhizer, plain and simple. He deserves to be tried and punished and, now that all this feel good bs has blown up in the admins collective face, he will be. They will have no choice. Since we are not technically at "war," he won't be eligible for the firing squad. Too bad, really...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't count on that. If he gets court martialed I'm almost positive there will be some way he's found unfit. That's if it even gets to a court martial. Chances are slim, I'd say.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if he wasn't court-martialed but he won't be put to death . . .
Click to expand...
Correct. Since we have not officialy declared war, firing squad is off the table as I understand the requlation. Here's an excerpt of the UCMJ:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 85. DESERTION

(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;

is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

© Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Note: For specific details concerning this offense, including elements of proof, maximum punishments, and detailed explanation, see Punitive Articles of the UCMJ.

Oh, and the Talis that we released? Baddest of the bad. No question. I suppose I should be stunned that these guys ever saw the light of day again but I'm not. That's disappointing unto itself and speaks volumes to the state of this country today.
Click to expand...
The president would also need to approve of the execution, I believe. I don't think that would happen either.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SMDH.

BpTvWpUIAAAZdJM.png


So many more at this link: https://twitter.com/MattBinder

That'd be the 180 degree flips that I mentioned . . .
default_facepalm.gif


More here: http://gawker.com/angry-conservatives-forgot-their-old-angry-tweets-suppo-1586150981?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_twitter&utm_source=gawker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

 
Last edited by a moderator:
JJHusker1 said:
TAKODA said:
wow! sometimes I am just astonished at what is the new norm!
Click to expand...

TAKODA said:
JJ, I am sorry to say that you are speaking to some deaf ears about your feelings here!
default_throw.gif
Click to expand...
Please elaborate Takoda.

I don't get the feeling that I am that far off base from what others feel here. Maybe yesterday a little bit but since I have moderated my position even carl
default_thumbsup.gif
thinks I'm ok.
Click to expand...
[SIZE=10.5pt]You are right on according to how I view it (if he is indeed a traitor or deserter) would not have cost the lives of other Americans and or give in to terrorist demands to get him back, but it appears those thoughts/feelings are (or were at the beginning of the thread) few and far between. That was what I was saying. If I am unaware of other important factors, then my bad but if truly deserted and truly aiding the enemy, I have no need to rethink my thoughts. (Unless this is all propaganda) which we know never happens. [/SIZE]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TAKODA said:
You are right on according to how I view it (if he is indeed a traitor or deserter) would not have cost the lives of other Americans and or give in to terrorist demands to get him back, but it appears those thoughts/feelings are (or were at the beginning of the thread) few and far between. That was what I was saying. If I am unaware of other important factors, then my bad but if truly deserted and truly aiding the enemy, I have no need to rethink my thoughts. (Unless this is all propaganda) which we know never happens. [/size]
Click to expand...
This is a bit rambling, but I think I agree with it. There's so much we don't know yet, it's hard to work up too much concern at this point.

1. Did he desert, or was he out of it in some way, like Albert Blithe in Band of Brothers?

2. Are we closing down Gitmo, and were these dudes going to be released soon anyway?

3. What is Qatar going to do with these guys? I haven't heard anything about the security in place for them, whether they're going to be released eventually, nothing.

4. Is this all some plot/ploy by the Administration?

5. Why now?

There are about 100 ways this could turn out OK and 100 it could turn into a disaster. Likely the outcome will be somewhere in between, so until we know anything, I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach.

 
knapplc said:
TAKODA said:
You are right on according to how I view it (if he is indeed a traitor or deserter) would not have cost the lives of other Americans and or give in to terrorist demands to get him back, but it appears those thoughts/feelings are (or were at the beginning of the thread) few and far between. That was what I was saying. If I am unaware of other important factors, then my bad but if truly deserted and truly aiding the enemy, I have no need to rethink my thoughts. (Unless this is all propaganda) which we know never happens. [/size]
Click to expand...
This is a bit rambling, but I think I agree with it. There's so much we don't know yet, it's hard to work up too much concern at this point.

1. Did he desert, or was he out of it in some way, like Albert Blithe in Band of Brothers?

2. Are we closing down Gitmo, and were these dudes going to be released soon anyway?

3. What is Qatar going to do with these guys? I haven't heard anything about the security in place for them, whether they're going to be released eventually, nothing.

4. Is this all some plot/ploy by the Administration?

5. Why now?

There are about 100 ways this could turn out OK and 100 it could turn into a disaster. Likely the outcome will be somewhere in between, so until we know anything, I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach.
Click to expand...
Whaaaaaaaat?
default_willy_nilly.gif


 
carlfense said:
MidnightRider said:
Oh, and the Talis that we released? Baddest of the bad. No question.
Click to expand...
In what way?
Click to expand...
Here is a brief description of who we unleashed upon the western world:

—Abdul Haq Wasiq, who served as the Taliban deputy minister of intelligence

—Mullah Norullah Nori, a senior Taliban commander in the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif when the Taliban fought U.S. forces in late 2001

—Khairullah Khairkhwa, who served in various Taliban positions including interior minister and had direct ties to Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden

—Mohammed Nabi, who served as chief of security for the Taliban in Qalat, Afghanistan, and later worked as a radio operator for the Taliban's communications office in Kabul

—Mohammad Fazl, whom Human Rights Watch says could be prosecuted for war crimes for presiding over the mass killing of Shiite Muslims in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001 as the Taliban sought to consolidate their control over the country.

 
darkhorse85 said:
MidnightRider said:
carlfense said:
darkhorse85 said:
MidnightRider said:
A classified document exists detailing an investigation into this that was conducted immediately upon his disappearance. That investigation found, without a doubt, that he deserted. All the talk of him being a POW is bs. He is a deserter. He left his brothers to join the enemy. He was supposed to be manning a guard post but instead, dumped all of his sensitive items, grabbed a compass, a diary, a knife and some water and proceeded to walk away. These are facts. I know dudes that had boots on the ground the next day whom were intimately involved with both the investigation as well as the recovery efforts. Another fact; men died, unnecessarily, looking for this POS. He neither deserves, nor will he get any sympathy from me. He is an enemy sympatyhizer, plain and simple. He deserves to be tried and punished and, now that all this feel good bs has blown up in the admins collective face, he will be. They will have no choice. Since we are not technically at "war," he won't be eligible for the firing squad. Too bad, really...
Click to expand...
I wouldn't count on that. If he gets court martialed I'm almost positive there will be some way he's found unfit. That's if it even gets to a court martial. Chances are slim, I'd say.
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if he wasn't court-martialed but he won't be put to death . . .
Click to expand...
Correct. Since we have not officialy declared war, firing squad is off the table as I understand the requlation. Here's an excerpt of the UCMJ:

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 85. DESERTION

(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;

is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

© Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

Note: For specific details concerning this offense, including elements of proof, maximum punishments, and detailed explanation, see Punitive Articles of the UCMJ.

Oh, and the Talis that we released? Baddest of the bad. No question. I suppose I should be stunned that these guys ever saw the light of day again but I'm not. That's disappointing unto itself and speaks volumes to the state of this country today.
Click to expand...
The president would also need to approve of the execution, I believe. I don't think that would happen either.
Click to expand...
No question. With the political animals that have habitated DC for the last few decades? Suicidal.

 
carlfense said:
Here is what Sen. McCain said in February:

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.
Click to expand...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/03/bowe-bergdahl-release_n_5439644.html?1401826016

I'm sure no one will be surprised that he is singing a very different tune now. Someone needs to tell these GOP congresscritters that they don't have to reflexively turn 180 degrees just because President Obama agreed with them. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...
So you're ignoring the fact where he said - twice - that it would depend on the details? To say nothing of the part where he said his previous opposition was based on who the exchange would be for which could be applicable here as well.

Edit: and the part where they cut the video right after he said the first "depending on a lot of the details" where McCain could have clarified it further.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Couple things...

1. When has it become ok to trade suspected terrorist or "enemy combatants" for american service members?

2. If this soldiers loyalty is in question, why are we getting him back?

 
Mavric said:
So you're ignoring the fact where he said - twice - that it would depend on the details? To say nothing of the part where he said his previous opposition was based on who the exchange would be for which could be applicable here as well.

Edit: and the part where they cut the video right after he said the first "depending on a lot of the details" where McCain could have clarified it further.
Click to expand...
Read it again. You're either willfully ignoring the gist of the entire statement or you're spinning like a top. Possibly both. (or genuinely missed the point I suppose?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense said:
tschu said:
There is probably no right answer, but Obama's decision to trade for him had an eye on international politics and relations as well as tying up all loose ends in Afghanistan, rather than just "should we rescue him or not because he might be a deserter"
Click to expand...
That's a good point. I wonder how much of a role our withdrawal from Afghanistan played in this? It was reported awhile back that Karzai had been negotiating with the Taliban over a peace agreement . . .
Click to expand...
Sounds like you were on the right track tschu.

This paints a fuller picture: http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/analysis-talks-bergdahl-release-had-wider-goal

 
Back
Top