I continue to be surprised at a recurring theme in this thread: that the rules and process by which the military makes decisions should resemble that used in a court of law. This notion is wildly at variance with my military experience.
I don’t see how a philosophy of “We’re not allowed to take action until all facts in question have been proved beyond reasonable doubt” could possibly be workable for a navy ship or an army company.
The evidence you describe is not “beyond reasonable doubt”, least because he has had no chance to respond. Perhaps it’s very close to beyond a reasonable doubt, but I’d still have questions which couldn’t be answered without a trial or court-martial.
Of course the military takes action. But in this specific case, with a soldier captive of the enemy, the oath I took when I was in the Navy, my duty, and the commitment I made require that I treat him just like any other soldier.
If you were in the military, I’m seriously surprised if you think we would value a captive of the enemy any less just because of allegations and a supposed note.
Just because a soldier is located overseas does not mean that they are no longer an American citizen right? Or are you claiming that being on assignment away from the US means that you lose your rights as a citizen? You can’t be claiming that can you?
Whatever he’s done or not done, he’s one of us. That help any?
Again, if I did what the man in the hypothetical I presented did, I would definitely not expect my government to do anything else but leave me to rot and die. It’s would be a perversion of “justice” to expend other soldiers’ lives or to release high level enemy commanders for someone like that.
The man in the hypothetical removed himself from the reach of court-martial, and gave up the “chance to respond”. Claiming that because of that, he is still “one of us” is as I said, perversion of the code of honor.
What you presented did not suggest he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Says you, but the hypothetical evidence you offered does not suggest this beyond a reasonable doubt.
The evidence you suggested is more than enough to indict, I believe, and your hypothetical soldier should definitely be tried/court-martialed.
Its perverse to suggest that our soldiers should be stripped of their American civil rights simply because they have been accused of something.
Not until he is returned. So the question is, someone against whom the weight of evidence of desertion/treason is THIS high, do you expend soldiers’ lives, military effort and/or release high ranking military combatants in order to get him. I say no.
Good thing it isn’t your call then. Would you volunteer to be the one that lets the parents know that we will not be trying to save their child in your tortured hypothetical?
In your hypothetical, which does not provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt, I would expend the exact same effort to retrieve him as I would any other US servicemen, which is what my oath, duty, and commitment to my fellow servicemembers would have demanded.
I don’t exactly have a choice. Neither does the Chairman of the JCoS, and I’m thankful that he doesn’t share your view.
If it was my task to do so, I would do so, and with no moral qualms.
Apparently there is. It’s OK to ask for a clarification to prevent misunderstanding.
Here is a retired Army officer’s take on this:
Exhibit A: Ms. Rice. In one of the most tone-deaf statements in White House history (we’re making a lot of history here), the national-security advisor, on a Sunday talk show, described Bergdahl as having served “with honor and distinction.” Those serving in uniform and those of us who served previously were already stirred up, but that jaw-dropper drove us into jihad mode.
…
Both President Obama and Ms. Rice seem to think that the crime of desertion in wartime is kind of like skipping class. They have no idea of how great a sin desertion in the face of the enemy is to those in our military. The only worse sin is to side actively with the enemy and kill your brothers in arms. This is not sleeping in on Monday morning and ducking Gender Studies 101.
But compassion, please! The president and all the president’s men and women are not alone. Our media elite — where it’s a rare bird who bothered to serve in uniform — instantly became experts on military justice. Of earnest mien and blithe assumption, one talking head after another announced that “we always try to rescue our troops, even deserters.”
Uh, no. “Save the deserter” is a recent battle cry of the politically indoctrinated brass. For much of our history, we did make some efforts to track down deserters in wartime. Then we shot or hanged them. Or, if we were in good spirits, we merely used a branding iron to burn a large D into their cheeks or foreheads. Even as we grew more enlightened, desertion brought serious time in a military prison. At hard labor.
No moral qualms, or no morals period?
How would you expect the parents to react? How would your parents react if it was you?
My parents would stand behind me no matter what. That is what parents are supposed to do. They would do so even if I was the worst kind of traitor or a serial killer. Parents’ love is unconditional. What does that have to do with whether the military and US government should expend enormous effort and pay a huge price to get back someone against whom there is overwhelming evidence that he’s a deserter and possibly a traitor?
Same reason the Royal Navy sent an entire fleet halfway around the world to find the Bounty mutineers. To bring them to justice. And because they were their own.