Nor am I surprised. Certainly the current administration and the Dems would like to sweep it under the carpet if the President decided to trade five known terrorists for one deserter.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. Because that’s what happens when you elect a President. He, and his designees, are the ones who see sensitive information and analysis. Call it a bug or call it a feature: it’s reality either way.
No, on the contrary – it’s key to the argument. The President is the only branch of government who is a single person. That design exists for a reason. We sometimes scoff at the notion that the President is “above the law.” Nixon’s comment on Frost about how “…if the President does it, it isn’t a crime…” was derided.
But in many cases, it’s exactly accurate. The President gets to do things that, if done by others, would be a crime, because he’s the President and the Constitution vests him with powers that Congress cannot derogate.
I am not an Obama fan. I see plenty of people piling on Obama now for conduct they would excuse if Bush had done it. And I see plenty of people defending Obama who criticized Bush for similar exercises of Presidential power – in fact, one such person is Barack Obama, who as a senator and candidate questioned Bush’s use of similar Article II justifications.
But no matter who is on office, or who criticized, or who changed his mind and when, the truth of the matter is very simple, and it distills down to this: Obama has the constitutional power to do what he did, notwithstanding any act of Congress.
If accusations against a prisoner of the enemy are enough to label them as not worthy of rescue for you, then I’m glad you were not in charge when I served.
Why - was there a government inquiry that found that you had abandoned your post?
Regards,
Shodan
True.
But that doesn’t mean other people can’t make their own assessments. A lot will depend on their prior opinions of the president and their confidence in his judgments. But it’s not like the president settles it.
The point here being that if other independent people who had seen the same evidence reached the same conclusion it would be a lot more confidence-inspiring.
Possibly I misinterpreted your earlier comment. I understood the “But …” to be mitigating the sentence which preceded it (“I don’t believe I would have made the same decision.”) but it now seems that you were referring to your prior paragraphs about whether it was technically legal. I have no opinion about the technical-legal aspects.
No, but if I were taken prisoner, and there were accusations of some sort against me, then I would hope the government would not take those accusations alone (which is all there is right now – accusations… there has been no trial) as reason to treat me as less valuable than any other service-person who was captured.
So I’m glad Obama did not take those accusations into account for Bergdahl. That would have been a violation of his duty.
As pointed out, there is a good deal more than accusations. So your statement that this “is all there is right now” is false.
The President has a duty to obey the law too, and he didn’t do that either.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes! What we need is a special committee to investigate all things Bergdahl. Readable, unredacted documents will be provided. We’ll finally get some clarity to unanswered questions on what ol’ Barack’s ol’ White House was up to. Hopefully no one will go to jail.
The inquiry is an accusation, and not even a criminal one. All it concluded was that he walked away from the base. That’s not even desertion – one must be gone for 30 days (IIRC) for desertion, and he was captured within a day or two. You’re wrong here.
Bricker disagrees with you. I’ll take his legal analysis over yours and Fox News’.
From the current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
“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.”
I’m glad to be vindicated by General Dempsey. Again: “the questions about this particular soldier’s conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity”.
So I was right, unless anyone is arguing that General Dempsey is wrong about military policy with regards to service members captured by the enemy.
And, as General Dempsey states, the Army will not ignore misconduct if it occurred.
If it turns out he is guilty of a crime, then he should be punished. But that does not change in any way the calculus to try and recover him.
Actually it is an inquiry into what might be considered accusations, and, as you noticed, it concluded that the accusations were correct.
No, I am quite correct, and I suspect your flurry of multi-posting is a recognition of that fact, and an attempt to bury it under an avalanche of denial.
Regards,
Shodan
It concluded that he walked off the base. That’s not a conclusion of desertion.
No, but I expect that your insistence on hammering this inquiry is an effort to bury the Joint Chief’s statement that vindicates everything I’ve been saying about the decision to try and recover this service member in an avalanche of misdirection.
If find the quote about the sensitive items curious, but I chalk it up to sarcasm. Deserting with your weapon and NVGs is not “worse” than just plain-old desertion. It’s small potatoes compared to a soldier literally walking away from the FOB and shacking up with the Taliban, willingly or otherwise. I’m certain that the NCO in that story probably just thought he was being a dumbass and gave him a sarcastic answer.
But as to the OP, I don’t think he’s being targeted unfairly. These are problems that the Army has wrestled with for years, and every Soldier I know (and I know a lot) has heard through the grapevine that Berghdal was a deserter. It is entirely expected that there would be tough questions surrounding this.
Indeed. As I said in another thread, if this had been President McCain and Pat Tillman, the GOP House would have already passed another national holiday.
And Democrats would have quietly decried the abuse of power by President McCain* and voted for the holiday anyway.
*Bricker is absolutely right about that, both sides do it and both sides hate it when it isn’t them doing it.
As reported in the NY Times, he left a note behind:
Sounds a lot like desertion.
If it turns out that Bergdahi is guilty he would have to be tried in a military court …
The five terrorist traded for Bergdahi were they ever tried in a military tribunal?
Yet everyone says that they are guilty … It could very well be that soon to be Staff Sgt Bergdahi will be held in a correctional facility waiting trial while the men that were traded live it up in luxury in town homes in Qutar, with full family visits allowed.
I can’t find any reference to a trial for these five men named here:
nm
He walked off his base to start a new life… In Afghanistan. Those are not the actions of a mentally sound person, whatever his politics.