You seem certain this is what happened, but you shouldn’t be. There is evidence he left the base on his own, but we don’t know why, we don’t know where he intended to go, and we don’t know other circumstances that might be relevant.
swiftboat: when those who stay tell politically inconvenient truths about those who left
Sure they are.
Congress has every right to forbid the President from ordering his troops to torture, because torture is not part of the power to make war.
But they cannot tell how how to handle POWs that are captured on the battlefield, because those decisions ARE part of the power to make war.
That’s like 10 people. That’s a lot. Good enough for me to ignore the constitution, as it should be for all right-minded people.
Also, I have millions of people who say Zimmerman murdered that innocent black child, and that’s a lot more than 10, so let’s execute him too.
Terr:
I’m not going to discuss whether anyone had a moral obligation to do anything, because I don’t believe we share an agreement on how to identify and analyze moral obligations.
But from a perspective of the law:
[ol]
[li]Did the President have the legal power to do what he did?[/li][li]Is Bergdahl entitled to constitutional protections of any stripe now that he is in our custody?[/li][/ol]
Questionable - he himself claimed for years that he has no power without Congress to release Guantanamo prisoners, and he did break the Defense Authorization law on notifying Congress while doing what he did.
Of course. Did anyone question that?
At what time and for what reason did he regain his constitutional rights that you earlier said he was not entitled to?
Can you specify, exactly what constitutional right did I say he was not entitled to earlier?
Your position is that having a POW exchange made to free them isn’t a right a solider possesses, but rather a policy decision that the President can make or not make. Therefore, using unproven allegations to inform this decision-making process are not an infringement on a right, the way it would be if, say, the soldier were confined to federal prison on the basis on an unproven accusation of a criminal act.
Is that accurate?
You want the federal government to treat him as though he was guilty of desertion without affording him a fair trial. Question for you: is that permitted under the 6th amendment or not?
I thought we were talking about Constitutional rights, but anyway - yes, that’s correct. Having a POW exchange made to free them isn’t a right a soldier possesses. If you think otherwise, cite?
No, I don’t. If the federal government treated him as though he was guilty of desertion, he’d be shot, or in military prison for a long time. What I don’t want is trading five senior enemy combatants for someone for whom there is very strong evidence of desertion. Since such a trade is not a “right”, not trading them for him is not a violation of any right.
No, I don’t; just making sure I had your argument straight. Your reasoning seems sound enough - having one’s POTUS decline to make a POW exchange isn’t equivalent to being denied a trial - though I personally would support a reasonable exchange for an accused deserter, or a convicted one (in some strange scenario where the soldier was convicted in a court, then wound up captured by the enemy).
Would you trade prisoners in exchange for a captured POW who had never been accused of desertion?
McChrystal started a “consulting firm” after he retired. He’s a lobbyist without having to register as one.
And as far as leaving people behind is concerned there is no logical connection between that statement and releasing dangerous terrorists. That is the point of contention.
Depends which prisoners. I would trade prisoners for a captured POW who had been accused of desertion as well - again, depends which prisoners. The “price” for the deserter would be a lot lower.
Not when you bring up allegations and supposed notes. That has nothing to do with whether or not we should try and get him home, nor on how valuable we consider him with regards to a trade. Just as General Dempsey and McChrystal have said.
That’s about as ridiculous a statement as it gets.
There are two POWs. One walked off the base looking for Taliban. The other fought off the enemy for hours in a remote outpost and was the sole survivor of that battle, taken prisoner. You can only trade one of them. Which one is more “valuable”?
You keep saying this, but there are only allegations at this point. We don’t know the circumstances, and we won’t know with any kind of confidence until (at the very least) he’s been debriefed, and possibly not until a trial/court-martial.
As far as the decision-making process as to whether we consider him trade-worthy, these allegations are totally immaterial.
It’s just amazing that you still don’t get this. You say “he walked off looking for the Taliban”… but there’s no way you could possibly know this beyond just a suspicion.