ISTM to be the same issue. A missing soldier might be worth five terrorists. Bergdahl wasn’t, even without a legal conviction. Because he wasn’t just missing - he deserted in the face of the enemy.
Obama negotiating the exchange of the five terrorists for Bergdahl was not a legal proceeding. Saying he wasn’t convicted yet is missing the point.
Regards,
Shodan
It’s not “a different issue”, and it’s exactly the conversation we’ve been having here.
Yes publicly that’s what was said. However if you are going to be the commander talking to gold star mother’s about why their sons were killed trying to rescue a deserter I guarantee it was a consideration during MDMP.
You’re missing my point – it doesn’t matter if there are allegations plus evidence he’s deserted. That kind of stuff cannot, as General Dempsey stated, be considered in efforts to recover him. They’re entirely immaterial, as they should be.
The conversation I’ve been having has to do with whether the allegations and any evidence about desertion should have been taken into account as to what effort and resources to put forward to recover him. I’m saying that, as General Dempsey stated, the military cannot and will not treat soldiers differently in terms of efforts to recover based on allegations or evidence of wrongdoing. It’s an entirely separate issue – missing soldiers are all treated the same.
But it’s reasonable to discuss whether the cost of a missing soldier (all of whom have the same value in terms of exchange, based on this principle from General Dempsey) should be 5 terrorists.
To the extent that I can make sense of what you’re saying, ISTM that you’re differentiating between the price the military should pay in terms of expending “effort and resources”, and the price they should pay in terms of things like trading terrorists. Is this your intention?
FTR, I don’t see any difference. (Perhaps your position is that one is a military matter and the other is political?)
In any event, what actually happened is that terrorists were traded, and to the extent that people are upset about it - which is the subject of this OP and thread - that seems to be what it’s primarily about.
I’m saying that I don’t know what the exact “price” should be for a missing soldier, and perhaps 5 terrorists is too high, but that price (whatever it is) is exactly the same for every missing soldier in enemy hands, no matter what the allegations and evidence say about how they got to enemy hands. Which is what General Dempsey said.
Perhaps it’s a slight sidetrack – I was responding to the point made earlier that US veterans objected to this trade because of the allegations that Bowe deserted, by pointing out that many vets, including myself, believe that it was absolutely necessary that Bowe be treated the same as any other missing soldier in enemy hands.
I’m not missing your point. I’m saying your point is wrong. It matters very much if we trade five terrorists for a missing soldier vs. trading them for a deserter. The evidence is how we know he is a deserter.
Trading the terrorists for him is how he was recovered. He isn’t worth the trade - he is a deserter, even if he has not yet been convicted. Because we know it from the investigation.
Regards,
Shodan
So we disagree. I’m very thankful the military is on my side on this – were it on yours, such that allegations and evidence without the opportunity to defend and explain could result in differing treatment of potential POWs, I don’t think I’d have considered joining. That’s utterly monstrous and un-American, IMO, and could result in innuendo and public emotion and opinion leading to the abandonment of honorable men and women.
Fucking pesky Constitution, always getting in the way of JUSTICE!!!
Bergdahl is scum, and should be executed.
I missed the part of the Constitution where it says “all persons have the right to be traded for terrorists unless he has been convicted of desertion”. It must be in there somewhere - probably right after the part that says soldiers have to read the enemy their rights before opening fire.
Regards,
Shodan
He hasn’t been convicted. You seem to want to base actions on what you suspect without a trial.
Military actions? Actions that might get other people killed? Releasing terrorists to kill others? Yes, you don’t have the luxury to wait for a court decision years later to base your actions on when people’s lives could be at stake. Personally I’m glad they did a swap instead of getting soldiers killed trying to rescue him but the personnel they traded were too important to trade.
Updating this thread:
Intel agents called his debriefing a gold mine of intelligence:
Another reason why it’s always wise to try and get captured soldiers back.
The trial doesn’t establish anything we didn’t already know.
My son wore the uniform with honor. Bergdahl brought shame on it. As proud as I am of my son, that’s how hard I spit on the deserter.
Fuck you Bergdahl,
Shodan
Let the hatred flow through you. So many positive things come from such hatred, and nothing negative.
Yes, yes he did. Which is why he deserves, at least, a dishonorable discharge. For, you know, the dishonor.
I don’t know that he was captured by the enemy so much as he willingly joined them.
Either way, a “gold mine” of intelligence is worth spending some resources to get.