# Is Bergdahl being swiftboated? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 2, 2014, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840 "2014-06-02T15:34:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/381 "2014-06-05T03:16:07Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > In my hypothetical, overwhelming evidence, so yes. Once again, overwhelming what? Who or what is being overwhelmed by the evidence. Please explain what you mean by this phrase, as it seems that you are using this term as if it has some special legal meaning whereas your hypothetical is outside of any system of law. This seems contradictory. > [@Terr](#): > > What exact cite are you expecting? I must have missed it. Post #355 you were asked for some sort of proof of your claims regarding UMCJ jurisdiction in light of the apparent and inexplicable certainty of your statements on the subject. I then echoed this request in post #359. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/382 "2014-06-05T03:23:24Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Exactly how does a US citizen seize the book copies abroad? The whole point is that you cannot “strip” someone of the right if you’re not in a position to extend that right to him. You cannot “strip” someone of the right to face his accusers if that person is not physically present. That’s the absurdity of the claim. > Yes, he is under military jurisdiction for the purposes of extending any UCMJ protection if he is physically present. No, he is not under military jurisdiction for those purposes if he is not physically present. You cannot possibly extend the protection of facing your accusers to someone who physically is not present to face them. That’s the absurdity you and Airbeck are pursuing. That is why you bring him home. So that he will be present, and therefore able to exercise his rights under the UCMJ. By saying he is not worthy of attempting to bring home due to the accusations against him you are advocating leaving him behind BECAUSE of what he can’t defend himself against. You’re saying fuck him let him die over there, without any concern of due process regarding what you are condemning him for. You are saying hang him before the trial because you personally are so convinced by the evidence you’ve seen in the media that he must be guilty. Its absolute batshit insane territory at this point that you can’t see how wrong you are on this. Is anyone arguing on your side in this thread? What does that tell you. Do you know any synonyms for absurd by the way? You are really abusing that one, especially since it applies much better to all of your posts. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/383 "2014-06-05T03:25:42Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Once again, overwhelming what? Who or what is being overwhelmed by the evidence. Please explain what you mean by this phrase, as it seems that you are using this term as if it has some special legal meaning whereas your hypothetical is outside of any system of law. This seems contradictory. Overwhelming. As in “[very great in amount](https://www.google.com/search?q=overwhelming)”. > [@](#): > > Post #355 you were asked for some sort of proof of your claims regarding UMCJ jurisdiction in light of the apparent and inexplicable certainty of your statements on the subject. I then echoed this request in post #359. The “proof” of my claims is simple logic. You cannot extend a protection to a person that you don’t have physically present when that protection involved being physically present. You cannot read Miranda rights to someone you haven’t caught. You cannot give someone the right to face an accuser if he is 10,000 miles away. It is absurd (or, if you prefer, stupid) to suggest that by not paying the price of five senior Taliban commanders for Bergdahl because of his comrades’ overwhelming (yes, “very great in amount”) allegations of desertion, you are somehow “stripping” him of the right to face his accusers. Yes, any time he is in US custody he is given that right/protection by UCMJ. When he is not, that right cannot be extended to him. Simple logic. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/384 "2014-06-05T03:28:57Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > That is why you bring him home. So that he will be present, and therefore able to exercise his rights under the UCMJ. And there it is again. The claim that there is an obligation to “bring him home” (no matter the cost, right?) for the express purpose of extending some rights to him. That’s the absurd (or stupid, if you prefer) part. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/385 "2014-06-05T03:47:00Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And there it is again. The claim that there is an obligation to “bring him home” (no matter the cost, right?) for the express purpose of extending some rights to him. That’s the absurd (or stupid, if you prefer) part. You condemn a man because he was accused of something, advocate leaving a soldier behind held captive because you heard something you didn’t like about him, and I am being absurd. Who do you think you are convincing here? You are on an island right now. Noone is arguing on your side. Every other poster in this thread right now is trying to talk sense into you. Can you not see that? I think we may be done here. You are simply repeating yourself ad nauseum at this point and calling everyone absurd and your only backup for your extreme viewpoints on military law is your ‘logic’. We may be reaching the point of diminishing returns here, if we didn’t blow by it like 20 posts ago anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/386 "2014-06-05T03:53:14Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Who do you think you are convincing here? You are on an island right now. Noone is arguing on your side. Who is “noone”? Didn’t see him. And I think I see one person arguing your side (that is, that by refusing to pay a high price for Bergdahl US would be “stripping” him of his rights). Oh, look, teh stupid is spreading. ---
**Author:** ![garygnu](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/garygnu/32/2924_2.png) [@garygnu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/garygnu)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/387 "2014-06-05T03:56:34Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > …[snip]… > The “proof” of my claims is simple logic…[snip]… This is the US military we’re talking about. Simple logic doesn’t necessarily apply. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/388 "2014-06-05T03:57:27Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Who is “noone”? Didn’t see him. And I think I see one person arguing your side (that is, that by refusing to pay a high price for Bergdahl US would be “stripping” him of his rights). Oh, look, teh stupid is spreading. Yup. There it is. Juvenile insults. Ok, finished with this conversation now. Have fun. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/389 "2014-06-05T04:18:34Z")
I’m just glad to see that **Terr** has changed his mind on the Zimmerman thing, and agrees that courts are an unnecessary formality when we have lots of people agreeing on someone’s guilt. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/390 "2014-06-05T04:27:25Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Who is “noone”? Didn’t see him. And I think I see one person arguing your side (that is, that by refusing to pay a high price for Bergdahl US would be “stripping” him of his rights). Oh, look, teh stupid is spreading. “Noone” is a valid, if nonstandard, spelling of “no one.” However references to other posters by the phrase “teh stupid” is out of line for Great Debates. Knock it off. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/391 "2014-06-05T04:48:12Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > “Noone” is a valid, if nonstandard, spelling of “no one.” If by “valid” you mean “incorrect”, then yes, it’s “valid”. Or, as urbandictionary puts it, “Most commonly used by people who acquired their literary skills in online chat rooms.” ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/392 "2014-06-05T04:58:55Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > If by “valid” you mean “incorrect”, then yes, it’s “valid”. > > Or, as urbandictionary puts it, “Most commonly used by people who acquired their literary skills in online chat rooms.” I like that’re you’re a prescriptivist when it comes to language, but apparently not when it comes to constitutional protections–I admire the flagrant inconsistency. ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/393 "2014-06-05T05:13:03Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Overwhelming. As in “[very great in amount](https://www.google.com/search?q=overwhelming)”. > The “proof” of my claims is simple logic. The simplest, even. ---
**Author:** ![Rick\_Kitchen](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rick_kitchen/32/522_2.png) [@Rick\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/394 "2014-06-05T05:50:28Z")
I love that Terr uses urbandictionary as an authority for his claims ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/395 "2014-06-05T12:17:20Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Overwhelming. As in “[very great in amount](https://www.google.com/search?q=overwhelming)”. > The “proof” of my claims is simple logic. You cannot extend a protection to a person that you don’t have physically present when that protection involved being physically present. You cannot read Miranda rights to someone you haven’t caught. You cannot give someone the right to face an accuser if he is 10,000 miles away. It is absurd (or, if you prefer, stupid) to suggest that by not paying the price of five senior Taliban commanders for Bergdahl because of his comrades’ overwhelming (yes, “very great in amount”) allegations of desertion, you are somehow “stripping” him of the right to face his accusers. Yes, any time he is in US custody he is given that right/protection by UCMJ. When he is not, that right cannot be extended to him. Simple logic. It’s a wonder that they even bothered to look for him in the first place. With the overwhelming, very great in amount allegations of desertion from his comrades, I wonder why the army didn’t just consider him a lost cause and leave him to his fate. I’m not as well versed in military law and procedures as you seem to be, though. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/396 "2014-06-05T12:20:16Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > It’s a wonder that they even bothered to look for him in the first place. With the overwhelming, very great in amount allegations of desertion from his comrades, I wonder why the army didn’t just consider him a lost cause and leave him to his fate. I’m not as well versed in military law and procedures as you seem to be, though. **Terr** does not seem to be familiar with US military law and procedures at all, nor does he appear to be familiar with the US military traditions of duty and commitment. ---
**Author:** ![Loach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loach/32/350_2.png) [@Loach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loach)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/397 "2014-06-05T13:08:17Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > [Retired General McChrystal](http://news.yahoo.com/mcchrystal-on-bergdahl---we-don-t-leave-americans-behind--that-s-unequivocal-193638795.html), who has no political reason to carry the President’s water, agrees with General Dempsey: I happen to think that Dempsey said exactly the right thing and agree with McChrystal. I’m not sure why the civilian side of the leadership didn’t consult with their top military adviser before the statements and press conferences. If they had let Dempsey handle the announcement in a more measured manner and left the president out of it I think most of the kerfluffle wouldn’t have happened. As for McChrystal not being beholden to the president, I have heard his name mentioned (along with a bunch of others) for the top job at the VA. I have no idea if the author was pulling that out of his ass or had real information. I think its unlikely but I think he would be a good choice for several reasons. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/398 "2014-06-05T13:22:05Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It’s not because “someone alleged”. EVERY soldier who served with him at the time that talked to the press said he deserted. Including his squad commander. Not one soldier that served with him contradicted that. > Then you have no idea what “literally” means. I am saying that under the circumstances, US government has no moral obligation to get him back, and ESPECIALLY if it costs giving up five senior enemy combatants. A deserter for five high enemy commanders is not a good trade. And NOT getting him back does not mean “stripping” him of any rights. Which is what you’re claiming. So what? Maybe he’s just unpopular. Maybe he’s an asshole. Unpopular soldiers have the same rights as popular ones. Asshole soldiers have the same rights as non-assholes. Maybe he’s a deserter, maybe he isn’t. That’s why the military has courts. But his guilt or innocence is entirely separate from the matter of what should or should not have been done to secure his release. Until he is court martialed, tried, and convicted he has the same expecations of assistance from his comrades as the truest and bluest soldier out there. You can argue about whether the deal was appropriate, but you have to separate that from heresay from his fellow soldiers. And as an aside, you don’t win any points by snarking over the use of “noone”. All of us have our spelling quirks, sometimes we even make grammatical mistakes. None of that should detract from the argument and it makes you look quite petty when you focus on it. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/399 "2014-06-05T13:36:07Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > So what? Maybe he’s just unpopular. Maybe he’s an asshole. Of course. All the soldiers from his unit that talked to the press say he’s a deserter - because he was “unpopular”. Pull another one. > [@](#): > > But his guilt or innocence is entirely separate from the matter of what should or should not have been done to secure his release. No, it is not. Someone who deliberately walks off and goes out seeking Taliban is not the same as someone who is captured in battle. Just not the same. No matter how many times you say he is. And should not be treated the same. > [@](#): > > And as an aside, you don’t win any points by snarking over the use of “noone”. All of us have our spelling quirks, sometimes we even make grammatical mistakes. And sometimes “we” double down on the mistake by claiming that it is a “valid” spelling. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840/400 "2014-06-05T14:05:09Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I think a lot of people are overestimating the worth of those five guys. It isn’t like they were irreplacable to the Taliban. Whatever they knew when they were captured is now out of date. They’ve been passed over by other people who weren’t on hiatus for years. It’s not like anything they knew how to do was particularly hard to come by. If they escape Qatar and went right back into the terrorism business, what would they be able to do that others couldn’t? Some answers here: [Afghan Taliban Say they Won Big with Bergdahl Swap](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/02/afghan-taliban-say-they-won-big-with-bergdahl-swap.html) > [@](#): > > Mullah Mohammad Fazil, is looked to as a great field commander at a time when those have been in short supply. He is a former deputy defense minister and was in charge of all Taliban troops in northern Afghanistan when the United States launched its invasion in late 2001. He also had a reputation for cruelty in a particularly cruel conflict. But Fazil’s release is “the best news I have heard in at least 12 years,” says Khan. “His return is like pouring 10,000 Taliban fighters into the battle on the side of jihad. Now the Taliban have the right lion to lead them in the final moment before victory in Afghanistan.” > [@](#): > > “Regardless of where they are, the liberation of Mullah Fazil and Mullah Norullah will give new spine to the Taliban so they can make war more aggressively,” says Akhond. > [@](#): > > As for the supposed guarantee that the five Guantanamo inmates will not rejoin the Taliban, that’s taken as a joke. “As soon as they arrived in Qatar they rejoined the Taliban,” says Khan. “We don’t care about U.S. conditions and obstacles.” > [@](#): > > an Afghan army colonel, who asked not to be named, said the deal was a slap on the face of Afghan government. It is “like freeing hungry wolves and will bite hundreds of Afghans.” > While it is true that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has freed Taliban prisoners in the past, none have been as senior as these. “If we released all the rest of the Taliban who are in Afghan jails it would not have as much weight for the Taliban as these five who were released by the United States,” said the colonel. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-bergdahl-being-swiftboated/689840.md?page=21)