Bowe Bergdahl- POW or Deserter?

[wildman]

I'm genuinely curious, why are some here convinced that he did not desert?

Why are you convinced that he did desert? Are you a mind reader?

Sounds like the whole "leaving a letter" story was fraudulent. How else are you going to get to his mental state/intentions?

As I stated in an earlier post, it has been widely known throughout circles within the Army that he deserted. And this was very soon after he bailed. As I have also stated several times, his own platoon mates stated as such. Do you not believe them? If not, why?

How do you even know he deserted?

Per UCMJ awol is leaving, disapearing, not being where you are suppose to be. Plus have the intent to reenter into the military.

for ex. your unit gets deployment notice. you flee to Canada and return when your unit returns from deployment.

Per UCMJ desertion is leaving, disapearing, not being where you are suppose to be. Without having the intent to reenter into the military. Which can be punished by death.

now tell me again how you know he deserted?

 

[darkhorse85]

I'm genuinely curious, why are some here convinced that he did not desert?

Why are you convinced that he did desert? Are you a mind reader?

Sounds like the whole "leaving a letter" story was fraudulent. How else are you going to get to his mental state/intentions?

As I stated in an earlier post, it has been widely known throughout circles within the Army that he deserted. And this was very soon after he bailed. As I have also stated several times, his own platoon mates stated as such. Do you not believe them? If not, why?

How do you even know he deserted?

Per UCMJ awol is leaving, disapearing, not being where you are suppose to be. Plus have the intent to reenter into the military.

for ex. your unit gets deployment notice. you flee to Canada and return when your unit returns from deployment.

Per UCMJ desertion is leaving, disapearing, not being where you are suppose to be. Without having the intent to reenter into the military. Which can be punished by death.

now tell me again how you know he deserted?

Here are some elements of Article 85 of the UCMJ (desertion):

(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.

(a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;

(b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;

© That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;

(d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and

(e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.

It's a grey area but I suppose you could define what Bergdahl did as desertion even if he did have the intent to return to his unit at some point. The hard part would be proving that his dereliction of duty (Article 92) came about because he wanted to avoid hazardous duty. But then again was he ever alleged as a deserter? I know he was kept on Army rosters. sh#t's crazy, yo.

It'll sure be interesting to see what happens down the road with this case.

 

[wildman]

Here are some elements of Article 85 of the UCMJ (desertion):

(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.

(a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;

(b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;

© That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;

(d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and

(e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.

It's a grey area but I suppose you could define what Bergdahl did as desertion even if he did have the intent to return to his unit at some point. The hard part would be proving that his dereliction of duty (Article 92) came about because he wanted to avoid hazardous duty. But then again was he ever alleged as a deserter? I know he was kept on Army rosters. sh#t's crazy, yo.

It'll sure be interesting to see what happens down the road with this case.


I agree it's a crazy deal. It'll be difficult to prove. They have to show he did it with out intent of returning. Or to avoid hazardous duty. Which he was already in Afghanistan so i'm not sure if that would even work.

 

[JJ Husker]

Uhhh maybe I am mistaken but wasn't Obama the presidential candidate that was going to release all of the prisoners from Gitmo?

I don't think that you're mistaken and now he is five prisoners closer to realizing that goal. Progress.

Come on carl, you're better than this, or at least I thought you were.

You are going to act like releasing these 5 guys is actually progress and a desired thing? You've been cheerleading for Obama awfully hard lately, please try to keep it in the realm of reality.

 

[MidnightRider]

For the men of his platoon to state what they did (he deserted) is all the proof I need. Do you have any idea how tightly knit a combat ground unit is? You know EVERYTHING about EVERYBODY because you may have to trust the other person with your life one day. If they say he deserted, then there is no doubt in my mind that he deserted. I don't deal in scuttlebutt, by the way. With the military, you'll probably never get the full story unless it shines a good light on whatever branch is in the limelight at the time. Hell, look at the cluster f#ck surrounding the Jessica Lynch "rescue" for proof of how badly they can screw something up. Its obviously up to you to question what you see in the media, and rightfully so. I don't trust a damned thing they say. When I get info from the knuckle draggers on the ground, then I will, and do, trust that.

Did you really just say "the men of his platoon to state what they did . . . is all the proof I need" and "I don't deal in scuttlebutt, by the way" in the same paragraph?

As knapplc keeps pointing out: you might be right. We don't know that yet and neither do you. Let the system work.

Regardless, I'm glad that he is no longer a prisoner of the Taliban. You?

Yes, I did state that. That is what they reported during the official investigation (that's under oath, by the way) and that is what they are reporting now so why would I not believe it?

I'm not so sure he was ever a prisoner of the Taliban. You?

 

[MidnightRider]

Here are some elements of Article 85 of the UCMJ (desertion):

(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.

(a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;

(b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;

© That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;

(d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and

(e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.

It's a grey area but I suppose you could define what Bergdahl did as desertion even if he did have the intent to return to his unit at some point. The hard part would be proving that his dereliction of duty (Article 92) came about because he wanted to avoid hazardous duty. But then again was he ever alleged as a deserter? I know he was kept on Army rosters. sh#t's crazy, yo.

It'll sure be interesting to see what happens down the road with this case.


I agree it's a crazy deal. It'll be difficult to prove. They have to show he did it with out intent of returning. Or to avoid hazardous duty. Which he was already in Afghanistan so i'm not sure if that would even work.

My prediction is that exactly jack and sh#t will be done down the road. The administration is all in on this one and they won't let it get anymore sideways than it already is. As the CINC, POTUS could easily pick up his phone and say "Yeah, the Bergdahl stuff? Drop that sh*t, we're done here."

 

[MidnightRider]

So it's not impossible (however unlikely) that all the guys in that unit who have spoken out about this situation were a bit short-circuited, in some way.

Um, no.

And who am I throwing under the bus? I am simply stating the facts as they have been explained to me.

I suppose, before you believe that's the situation, you'd like some proof, right?

We're in the same boat, then. Grab an oar.

C'mon now, Knapp. I can't even call that a strawman, more like a wet grass man.

 

[knapplc]

I'm not hip to all the cool labels the kids put on the argument tactics, but I don't think that's a strawman. Not what I would consider a strawman, anyway.

I'm totally serious with that analogy, though. You're telling me you don't buy what I'm selling. That's cool, proof is a good thing.

I just want the same thing.

 

[carlfense]

Uhhh maybe I am mistaken but wasn't Obama the presidential candidate that was going to release all of the prisoners from Gitmo?

I don't think that you're mistaken and now he is five prisoners closer to realizing that goal. Progress.

Come on carl, you're better than this, or at least I thought you were.

You are going to act like releasing these 5 guys is actually progress and a desired thing? You've been cheerleading for Obama awfully hard lately, please try to keep it in the realm of reality.

That was tongue in cheek. Probably should have included a smiley.

 

[carlfense]

Yes, I did state that. That is what they reported during the official investigation (that's under oath, by the way) and that is what they are reporting now so why would I not believe it?


I'm not so sure he was ever a prisoner of the Taliban. You?

Oh boy.

 

[True2tRA]

I think that I've +1ed every BRB post in this thread.

I believe I plus 1'd all of them on the first page as well. Good points BRB.

The people who know the details of this situation made a decision and went with the only choice they could make in my opinion. Obama was in a lose - lose situation no matter what right? It seems no matter what he does he is wrong? He traded some scumbag terrorists for the release of one of ours and guess what? This kid gets to come home, and I bet those five Taliban prisoners are dead already, they just don't know it yet. You all know we are capable of that. We can take every one of these guys out if thats what we choose to do.

The part I don't see many people talking about is what if Obama hadn't done this deal? Boy oh boy could you imagine the way Fox news would have lit his a$$ up for not bringing our soldier home. They'd have spun this thing completely around calling Obama a deserter if he had not done the deal. This kids family could be seeing their son on Al- jizzera (yes Jizzera who gives a damn). Can you imagine how the national media would have painted this kids blood all over Obama's hands for not saving him when he had the opportunity? I can only imagine.

The president did what he had to do and he made the right choice. We don't leave a man behind. Period.

 

[walksalone]

Not to sound like a d!(k but do you really think that we're going to send in Tier I dudes that we've spent millions on in training, without prior recon and fire support? I wouldn't be so quick to armchair this mission, I'm certain these dudes could have brought hell to bear in a heartbeat, if necessary.

Only reason I'm "armchairing" this, is because being in the military, getting deployed, I was taught to look for things that do not make sense, and there's a ton of stuff here, that doesn't make sense.

Well, if there was proper recon then why are they not covering the building behind them, for starters? Why are you sending in "Tier 1" dudes that have no back up?

 

[darkhorse85]

Hagel will be on the Hill today answering questions about the Bergdahl deal. I doubt we learn much.

 

[ZRod]

Hagel will be on the Hill today answering questions about the Bergdahl deal. I doubt we learn much.

Things got a little heated there.

 

[darkhorse85]

Hagel said that they did not know the precise location of where the pickup would happen until about an hour before it happened. Just as I thought. That doesn't give you much time for recon.