Is Bergdahl being swiftboated?

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

Here is a retired Army officer’s take on this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/379481/why-team-obama-was-blindsided-bergdahl-backlash-ralph-peters

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.

I’m glad that this guy (who isn’t a fan of due process, apparently) isn’t in charge, and General Dempsey is:

“In response to those of you interested in my personal judgments about the recovery of SGT Bowe Bergdahl, the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity. This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him. As for the circumstances of his capture, when he is able to provide them, we’ll learn the facts. Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty. Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family. Finally, I want to thank those who for almost five years worked to find him, prepared to rescue him, and ultimately put themselves at risk to recover him.”

Again: “the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity”.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

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?

You didn’t offer ‘overwhelming evidence’ – you offered solid evidence to indict, but for it to be ‘overwhelming’, it has to have something to ovewhelm: e.g. a defense. With no defense, it overwhelms nothing.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

I’m glad that this guy (who isn’t a fan of due process, apparently) isn’t in charge, and General Dempsey is:

General Dempsey is, due to his position, more of a politician, and has to parrot what the CINC is telling him to say. The guy I quoted has no such restraints.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

You didn’t offer ‘overwhelming evidence’ – you offered solid evidence to indict, but for it to be ‘overwhelming’, it has to have something to ovewhelm: e.g. a defense. With no defense, it overwhelms nothing.

As I said, casuistry is not an argument. If there can be no court-martial, that doesn’t mean the evidence is not overwhelming.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

General Dempsey is, due to his position, more of a politician, and has to parrot what the CINC is telling him to say.

No, he’s actually an honorable soldier who would resign before he’d ‘parrot’ something he strongly disagreed with.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

No, he’s actually an honorable soldier who would resign before he’d ‘parrot’ something he strongly disagreed with.

And you know this how? Beyond reasonable doubt? Was there a court-martial?

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

As I said, casuistry is not an argument. If there can be no court-martial, that doesn’t mean the evidence is not overwhelming.

Your evidence was still not ‘overwhelming’, and there was room for reasonable doubt. As far as Bergdahl, there is lots and lots of room for reasonable doubt – room to fly a 747 through.

[Mr_Quatro]

@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?

Sounds good to me, except these men are killers, they got balls and they want to continue to use them to kill, murder, get even.

The Taliban has a real PR victory over their return … I believe they will continue to use these same men exactly one year from now while we slowly remove our military from the area.

Like they told Bergdahi in the exchange video I saw this morning upon waking, “Don’t come back or we will kill you next time”

They will send the same message to our military upon departing.

by the way for whatever it’s worth that video of Bergdahi being delivered to our special forces on a Blackhawk helicopter really changed my mind.

I’m glad he made it back to our side no matter what he said or did. It’s over it’s a done deal …

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

And you know this how? Beyond reasonable doubt? Was there a court-martial?

I don’t know this beyond a reasonable doubt, because this is personal opinion. My personal opinion should not (and thankfully isn’t) enough to convict, nor is it (and should not be) enough to leave a soldier to the enemy due to allegations and a supposed note.

Out of curiosity, how confident are you that Bergdahl is less worthy than another random soldier of making efforts to get him released? 75%? 90%? 99%?

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

Out of curiosity, how confident are you that Bergdahl is less worthy than another random soldier of making efforts to get him released? 75%? 90%? 99%?

What does that have to be with my hypothetical?

As to your question, I cannot assign percentages because the facts are not in evidence. The army refuses to make public the results of the investigation, and is challenging reporters to try to get it under FOIA. It also made soldiers sign NDAs about it, not that it prevented them from speaking out now, so that kinda backfired. Not ONE of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers that served with him has come out yet in his defense. Many of them came out with condemnations. The fact that there is not one that is defending him says a lot.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

What does that have to be with my hypothetical?

Nothing – curiosity. That’s allowed, right? I even stated it!

As to your question, I cannot assign percentages because the facts are not in evidence. The army refuses to make public the results of the investigation, and is challenging reporters to try to get it under FOIA. It also made soldiers sign NDAs about it, not that it prevented them from speaking out now. Not ONE of Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers that served with him has come out yet in his defense. Many of them came out with condemnations.

Then I think you see the exact problem I had with your hypothetical

The fact that there is not one that is defending him says a lot.

Only a few have said anything at all, so it actually says very little.

[iiandyiiii]

By the way, in 2011, Bergdahl tried and failed to escape from captivity.

This doesn’t excuse any crimes, if he committed any, but it makes me glad that we got him home.

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

Then I think you see the exact problem I had with your hypothetical

No, you don’t. In my hypothetical the facts are actually in evidence.

Only a few have said anything at all, so it actually says very little.

I counted about a dozen. More are coming out every day. Not one came out in his defense.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Terr

And you know this how? Beyond reasonable doubt? Was there a court-martial?

General Dempsey is pretty clearly indicating that if the evidence determines that a court martial would he appropriate, it will occur.

[iiandyiiii]

@Terr

No, you don’t. In my hypothetical the facts are actually in evidence.

Your hypothetical facts leave many unanswered questions – chiefly, how does the accused respond to these charges?

I counted about a dozen. More are coming out every day. Not one came out in his defense.

Please cite – I’ve only read about less than half that.

[Airbeck]

@Terr

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?

If there was overwhelming evidence that you commited a murder, would you be ok with the judge waiving your right to trial and sentencing you immediately because the evidence seems to strongly support your guilt? Would you be ok with your rights being stripped simply because there seems to be convincing evidence of your guilt?

If not, then why do you support this for one of our soldiers? Seems like a horrible attitude to me, which is at odds with the history of justice in this country. You seem to be saying that our soldiers are not entitled to civil rights once deployed. I have a hard time believing that anyone could hold this position, but your words seem to indicate that this is just what you believe. Its pretty astonishing really.

[Shodan]

@iiandyiiii

By the way, in 2011, Bergdahl tried and failed to escape from captivity.

His description of how he was captured doesn’t seem to jibe with everyone else’s. He claims he was captured on patrol. Everyone else says he walked away from his base.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

@Airbeck

If there was overwhelming evidence that you commited a murder, would you be ok with the judge waiving your right to trial and sentencing you immediately because the evidence seems to strongly support your guilt? Would you be ok with your rights being stripped simply because there seems to be convincing evidence of your guilt?

If not, then why do you support this for one of our soldiers?

What judge in what court do you think you are talking about?

Regards,
Shodan

[ElvisL1ves]

The legal argument may be a side issue. There is even stronger evidence that Bergdahl is now mentally ill, whether or not he was before. If before, it may be PTSD induced by his service in a combat zone, as so many other troops have suffered as well. Note that he’s in a hospital, not a stockade.

If that illness was what led him to leave his post, would that make him ineligible to receive help from us now because of it? Would we not be obliged to provide it?

[Terr]

@iiandyiiii

Please cite – I’ve only read about less than half that.

So far:

Joshua Cornelison
Evan Buetow
Matt Vierkant
Greg Leatherman
Josh Korder
Jose Baggett
Josh Fuller
Gerald Sutton
Cody Full
Nathan Bethea

there are also several that are quoted anonymously - apparently scared off by the NDA that the army forced people to sign. I am sure those will come out later.