He shouldn’t be treated any differently because of the accusations against him. If he was treated differently for other reasons, that might be bad too, but the accusations of desertion should absolutely be immaterial to any efforts to get him released.
True, it seems like there might have been an implication that leaving base was ok in general, just that there were rules to protect sensitive equipment. After all, soldiers are allowed occasional leave, etc. So are we dealing with a soldier who made an arguably poor personal choice to take leave when it wasn’t such a hot idea, or did he actually desert, violating a specific order to remain on base?
I’ve known about Bergdahl’s captivity for years now, and as long as I’ve known about it there has been murky information on what he was doing and why he was doing it when he was captured. There has (long before his release) been a lot of speculation on if he was deserting or maybe even trying to join the Taliban, when it was confirmed he had made an escape attempt early in his captivity I remember that being a point against the theory that he had defected.
If they ultimately decide Bergdahl’s actions constituted a crime and they decide to prosecute him (I view this as supremely unlikely for political reasons) then we’ll probably get some level of disclosure. But if that doesn’t happen I suspect the military will keep most of this story firmly buried.
Historically? Hundreds, if not thousands. Heck, in the Civil War, we had a clearly defined exchange rate for prisoner swaps: one General was worth sixty privates, a major general was fifty, and so forth.
When I was in Afghanistan in 2004, there was a short period of time when you were allowed to leave the base. I believe it was Saturday mornings from 0900-1200 local. Where we were allowed to go was closely controlled. We were only allowed to go to the market. I never participated, so I don’t know how easy it would have been to slip out or for the Taliban to slip in.
What about the six soldiers that died searching for Bergdahi? They were innocent too. They were just following orders to find a comrade that left his post while on duty, leaving his weapons behind and wandering off base.
They didn’t ask any questions about why he left … they just followed orders to search for him and died in the process.
President Obama’s trip to Afghanistan for his secret visit to cheer up the troops on Memorial Day seems a likely connection to this release deal.
Like all of the other stories coming out of Washington and the White House the rest of this story has yet to be revealed.
Waiting for the other shoe is becoming normal from bin Laden to Benghazi.
If soldiers died looking for him, it’s tragic, but it has nothing to do with whether or not the President and military leadership should try and get him released.
He may be accused of desertion, but unless and until he’s convicted in court, the President and military leadership have absolutely no choice but to treat him like any other soldier. As they should.
Are you suggesting that if a soldier is accused of a crime, then he’s on his own if he’s taken prisoner?
I’m not suggesting anything … I am out and out saying that there is something wrong with six men coming home in a body bag for doing there duty to search for him, plus the rest of the story has yet to be told on why he deserted his post while on watch.
I was in the military and stood many topside watches with a 45 strapped to my side guarding a nuclear submarine with 16 missiles on board while it was tied to the pier or a submarine tender.
What if I had left the gun and its holster on the quarter deck by the sail and just walked off towards Rota, Spain complaining about the way my country was getting ready for war. On top of that six shore patrol die looking for me and five years go by with my President feeling so sorry for me he arranges a trade of five of the worst enemies of the state in exchange for my freedom?
Did you hear that they are even going to promote Bergdahi to Staff Sargent when he returns stateside next week?
So by having the ratio flipped, you agree with me that this not a normal prisoner swap.
Of course there’s something wrong with it. But any alleged wrongness of Bergdahl’s actions have nothing to do with whether we should try and get him released.
I was in the Navy too, and a submariner, just like you, though I was an SSN sailor.
That would be bad, but until you have a trial and face your accusers in court, you should be treated like any other sailor who had been captured.
This has nothing to do with trying to arrange for his release.
He was accused of desertion. Maybe he did. But until he has a trial and a chance to face his accusers in court, then I will reserve judgment. And I’m very, very glad that the President and military leadership did not take any alleged crimes into account when deciding whether to secure his release.
If a soldier or sailor is accused of desertion, and then is captured by the enemy before he can go on trial, then he/she should be treated like any other soldier or sailor in terms of efforts to secure his/her release.
Are some seriously thinking that Obama should have said, “As, fuck him. Some people have accused him of desertion. Let the Taliban keep him.”?
It sure seems like some people are thinking that, unfortunately.
As a veteran, I’m thankful that the President didn’t have that thought.
No, not particularly. The practice of exchanging common soldiers for military leaders is well-established. The actual rate of exchange is basically economics. This guy was literally our only POW. Scarcity inflates value.
The scarcity is one-sided. He might be their only prisoner of war, but the United States has thousands of PFCs.
Shit, there are millions of children in the country. Let’s just pave over the next one stuck in a well. :rolleyes:
I’m not the one making the economics argument here. Take it up with Miller.
On that note, am I the only one who saw a photo of the father and assumed it was the son, and wondered why the hell he hadn’t shaved off his Taliban beard yet?
Five terrorists for one human being. Sounds like a fair trade.
I disagree with this.
A decision on whether to trade terrorists for someone is not a trial. There’s no innocent until proven guilty here. Whether it’s worthwhile for the country as a whole to sacrifice for this man’s freedom is absolutely dependent on what his history is and how he came to lose his freedom.
That does not mean - as some strawmanners in this thread have been suggesting - that any allegations of a crime should be treated as accurate for this purpose. But the military has the ability to investigate this without the guy’s presence, and the “right to confront his accusers in court” is what’s “absolutely immaterial” to this issue.