Please enlighten us with your superior knowledge of the CV’s of Taliban prisoners.
If he was convicted in a court/court-martial of desertion, then probably not.
From a political self-interest perspective, the Senators have to face re-election. This isn’t the best of deals. Bergdahl has been released. That’s a good thing. Five terrorists were released from GITMO that the Intelligence Committee has repeatedly said should not be released because they were dangerous. That’s a bad thing.
There are no court-martials in absentia, AFAIU, so no such conviction is possible. But let’s say the through military investigation determined that it was a desertion.
Sure. The known deserter deserves to be judged and sentenced in US military courts. We don’t farm out our punishment to the enemy.
How would they determine it was a desertion? For one thing, desertion requires 30 days absence – so doesn’t apply if one is captured after a day or two.
It would depend on the investigation, the evidence, etc. I’m not sure how this could be answered. Maybe you can lay out an exact scenario.
They don’t do that; only a court martial determines that.
So you’re willing to sentence someone to permanent exile, or even death, based on an indictment only, even if they wear the same uniform as you with your own flag on it. Got it.
It is a theoretical, remember? The Army has determined that the man has deserted. So - do you “leave him behind” or not?
I don’t think I can answer this, because this doesn’t fit with my experience of how the military works.
You’re describing a fictional military out of the realm of my experience.
I was hoping you would answer my question. A prisoner exchange or exchanging these specific terrorists?
What are CV’s?
curriculum vitae.
There cannot be a court martial in absentia.
Let’s say the man has left a note saying “I desert”, left a video saying the same thing, with a thumbprint on the note to make sure it was him, and has been seen, according to multiple sources, aiding the enemy. There is no court-martial, because the Army cannot get hold of him. So in this theoretical, do you “leave the man behind” or do you trade several high ranking enemy combatants to get him back?
This has nothing to do with “how military works”. As I said, in the theoretical, the man has left a note saying “I desert”, left a video saying the same thing, with a thumbprint on the note to make sure it was him, and has been seen, according to multiple sources, aiding the enemy. There is no court-martial, because the Army cannot get hold of him. So in this theoretical, do you “leave the man behind” or do you trade several high ranking enemy combatants to get him back?
You’re not describing desertion, you’re describing treason. And if he shoots at American soldiers, then he’s an enemy combatant by definition.
He was not shooting at American soldiers. Why are you inventing things that were not in the question? And - don’t you need a court-martial to determine “treason”?
Neither is it possible for this to happen:
If you find you have to resort to imaginary alternate universes to support your dudgeon, doesn’t that tell you to pause and reconsider?
Did ElvisL1ves leave you a note explaining his answer?
No doubt one of the congressional committees investigating All Things Bergdahl will come up with the answer for you.
I don’t understand this question. The court martial is the method by which the army determines if a soldier has deserted. If they haven’t had a court martial, then they haven’t determined anything yet.
Whether or not they face re-election, Obama has more political skin in the game because he is commander in chief and has more personal authority in this matter than any individual member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
In any case, I still don’t understand how you infer from the fact that Feinstein and Chambliss disagreed with the president that they’re right and he’s wrong.