It seems after a lengthy investigation Bowe Bergdahl is finally being charged with desertion, which in my opinion based on what I have read about the case, seems completely appropriate. Does this change anyone’s opinion with regard to the prisoner swap that took place in order to free him? I’m completely disgusted that the exchange ever took place and that several potential terrorists were traded for this worthless guy who they should have let just rot over there, as far as I am concerned his captivity was apt karma for the foolish choices he made.
Maybe I should have posted this in a different place like Great Debates, I guess a Mod can decide.
Until the investigation was completed, he was a member of the armed forces and deserved the military having his back.
Maybe there was no way to complete the investigation without him in US custody
I don’t think we can go around locking up all “potential terrorists.” I’m all for emptying Gitmo and especially for it if it gets one of our guys free. Getting him back for prosecution or for celebration doesn’t matter, just get him back and figure it out. It sounds like that’s what happened.
Be that as it may I don’t think we should have negotiated with terrorists for his release by releasing other terrorists, if there had to be compensation for them it shouldn’t have been fellow terrorists as it sets a bad precedent and if a trade of others had to take place I think it should have been a 1 for 1 deal, not several for the price of one.
I’m ok with what we did to get him back. He is an American citizen and had not been found guilty of any crime.
I’d also be ok with him being shot as a deserter if found guilty.
Eta: there’s already been plenty of precedent that we’d trade to get our people back. Plus, you think it’s never cross their minds that they would want to capture an American soldier?
Taking this a step further, how would anyone feel about his sentence being reduced or commuted (if convicted of desertion) due to his having served such a long time as a POW?
I’ve got no dog in this fight, just interested in whether people think this is a mitigating circumstance.
I’d say given that six other soldiers died searching for Bergdahl that he richly deserves an execution, But somehow I doubt he will be sentenced to death:
Shot as a deserter? I just saw a news video about the charges. The US Army officer announcing the charges stated that those chargers–which included desertion–carried a maximum penalty of incarceration for life. So, you’d be okay with extra-legal punishment?
Being abandoned behind enemy lines to presumably be tortured and eventually murdered is not the penalty prescribed by the UCMJ for desertion. Bringing him back was the right thing to do, whether he’s guilty or not, and if he is guilty, then now he can be given the punishment he deserves.
IIRC, desertion is only punishable by death during a state of war.
If they’re going for life in prison. if he’s found guilty he should spend life in prison. If they decided to seek the death penalty, if he’s guilty, he should be shot.
Article 85 (c) says “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.”
The issue is if they considered that during a time of war.
But yeah, whatever the Army decides to try him under, should he be found guilty, he deserves the maximum sentence.
Negotiating with terrorists is always wrong because it encourages more hostage taking in the future. If our European allies had the guts to hold the line and not pay ransoms when their citizens were captured, terrorist groups would never have the money to get off the ground.
Now, negotiating for a deserter who decided that he didn’t want to be affiliated with the military any more is adding insult to injury. As far as I’m concerned, he made his bed and he should have had to lie on it.
At the time his freedom was negotiated, he had neither been convicted of nor charged with desertion. Is the mere possibility of desertion sufficient to merit abandoning one to his fate?
Hell, who even needs a trial if we know he must be guilty, right?
Pretty cool with how everything went down, actually. Absolutely disgusted by the attitude of the OP.
The USA has strayed pretty far from its principles in the past few decades, but that doesn’t mean we get to abandon all of them. We do NOT leave our personnel to rot in enemy custody, even if we think we don’t like the individual very much and have good reason to believe we want them to rot in OUR custody. If we think one of our guys has been naughty, WE subject them to OUR justice system, and impose OUR penalties as appropriate.
The OP and others of its ilk are symptoms of the moral sickness that is destroying this country. Our justice system is NOT founded on karmic retribution, but examination of evidence and application of prescribed remedy. “Potential terrorists” deserve to stay in a hellhole like Guantanamo with no trial? How American is that? A US Soldier is worthless and undeserving of a fair trial? As a veteran I say this thread is definitely in the wrong forum.
This veteran is fine with the efforts made to retrieve him, and fine with the charges brought against him. Due process and trial will determine whether he committed any crimes, and the possibility that he might have committed crimes should not have been (and was not) a factor in whether or not we expend effort and consider exchanging prisoners to retrieve him.
I’m okay with things as they are. Like others here, I feel that he was not yet charged (much less found guilty at trial) with wrong-doings and even if he were I’d say that it’s still our responsibility to bring him back as a US citizen to face US military justice rather than outsourcing our penal system to the Taliban.
Certainly I’d rather have us seek out the return of a not-yet-guilty deserter than have us say “Eh, leave him to rot” and decide later that maybe he didn’t desert after all.
Bergdahl, like every American, had the right to be presumed innocent while he was rotting away in the hands of the Pakistani Taliban. The idea that we would doom him to spend out his years being beaten, starved, chained, and subjected to who knows what else, simply on someone’s suspicion that he did something wrong, is a profoundly disturbing idea.
To such people, I’d just ask, how can one claim to have any commitment to American principles of justice if you are so ready to doom a fellow American to death by torture based on rumors and innuendo about his actions?
Oh the guy that longingly fantasizes about killing all his coworkers and driving his ex-wife to suicide is disgusted by my morals? How quaint. :rolleyes:
So, OP, since I’m not that guy, let me rephrase the question; are you OK with the idea of abandoning a US citizen and serviceman to torture and death at the hands of the enemy on the basis of the unproven accusation that he may be in that situation because of a personal moral failing?