I never suggested the troops around him suggested he was having a breakdown. Would they know it if he was? Would you?
Wouldn’t you want to know if he actually deserted or had a mental breakdown? Or would you prefer that he die in the arms of the enemy rather than admit to having a breakdown? Or would you prefer that he die in the arms of the enemy before you would admit that he had a breakdown?
That’s an awfully funny definition of “was never”.
I got along with most of my fellow sailors and officers when I was in the Navy, but there were a few I hated, and a few that hated me. Were I captured, I would hope that the reports of these few that hated me would not be taken into account at all if the President is trying to decide whether to get me released.
And there were a few guys on my submarine that nearly everyone hated. But even for those guys, were they captured, the hatred and dislike of their fellow sailors should not have been taken into account one iota in any decision to try and get them released.
A Rolling Stone article from two years ago indicates that the White House agrees with some of those here:
yes.
Why don’t you ask the parents of those killed looking for him and see what they think. They’re not happy.
to answer your question, yes I’d like to know. Based on the information that’s come out he should be put on trial.
he never acted in the capacity of the rank. What is difficult to understand about this.
There was no mention of hatred. They said he talked about walking across the border to Pakistan which was close by. On the night of his disappearance he asked if he could leave camp with his gun and night goggles. Where is the hatred in these statements?
Now if comes out he was a CIA spy on a mission then the situation changes. As it stands now this whole thing needs to be explained.
Was going to link that, but I see you’ve gotten there already. For me, there’s more than enough evidence floating around, and had been, long before the exchange took place—anecdotes from people in his AO or who got caught up in the hunt for him—that he at the least was guilty of Unauthorized Absence from his unit. Whether he met the full criteria of ‘deserter’, I don’t know, and I’m not sure that it could be proved up to UCMJ standards. FWIW, I think it entirely possible that Bergdahl thought he made a terrible mistake five minutes after the Taliban grabbed him, as most of the repatriated US deserters to North Korea later admitted. Even if villagers interviewed by the first searchers for him stated that he was looking for the Taliban. But by then, it’s too late.
Way more than enough evidence though to not want to trade for him: the Taliban’s ambassador to Pakistan, a Taliban territorial governor, a founder of the Taliban, and two others of similar importance. You’re going to hear from these five guys again, as long as the US has people in that part of the world. Hopefully the Taliban purges them as possible turncoats or other security risks as soon as the Qataris misplace where they left those five guys. Or the Qataris/Taliban miss whatever hypothetical tracking device one or all of them have on, and a missile sends those five to the 72 virgins they’re waiting for.
Sam Stone, bad to morale or not, I can’t see Obama having a meet n greet with the Bergdahls, only to turn around and have the military give Bowe a court-martial and jail time. Honorable Discharge and an NDA prohibiting him from disclosing until November 2016-ish is my guess as to what will happen to him.
But hey, the VA’s off the front page for the time being, right? Mission Accomplished.
What are your and the troops qualifications for making this determination? Professional examination? or Hearsay?
What are their qualifications? Based on this assumption George Zimmerman should be in the Taliban’s hands or dead by now. No? Do we now base guilt on the feelings of the parents or relatives? What country do you live in? I live in the USA, innocent til proven guilty.
Well on that we agree; If there is evidence to support that he is guilty of deserting his post I think he should be tried. If there is evidence that he was mentally unbalanced I personally would suggest treatment not death or imprisonment. What would you suggest? It might just be me but I would not suggest, under any circumstances, that he be held by the Taliban til he is dead. Would you?
Hey Saint Ronnie traded weapons with terrorists, at least in part to get some prisoners released, where is the GOP fucking outrage over that shit? Huh? Read a few articles that aren’t on Fox and you’ll realize that we actually have a long history of “negotiating with terrorists”.
No, you don’t get a pass on this, this is simply more IOKIYAAR and nothing else.
The GOP could give two shits about America in general and the American serviceman in particular. They’re a bunch of pansy-ass, wanna-be chicken hawks who balked during their time to serve but are perfectly happy to send your kids off to die in the name of the Holy Profit (praise be It’s name). But then God forbid we actually take care of them after they get home. No, that’s ENTITLEMENTS or BIG GOVERNMENT and needs to be cut so millionaires can pay a few dollars less in taxes.
This is probably a dumb question, but I’d like clarification.
Since Congress has not yet declared war against the Taliban, how do you know when the war starts and ends?
the normal qualifications all people have for recognizing mental problems. So far nobody associated with him has made such a claim. You on the other hand are asking for proof for your opinion based on nothing. He could have been a Taliban spy too but there is no indication of it.
No, we base trials on information provided. That’s how guilt or innocence is determined as well as the mental state of those accused. To date there is no evidence he had mental problems and you’re asking for proof to the contrary.
The information so far indicates he willfully abandoned his post in an attempt to cross the border into Pakistan. This was based on what he told the people around him. If he talked about deserting the Army and tells people he’s going out for a walk then this should be considered when determining how many lives to risk retrieving him.
rant.
Doesn’t make it not true. I particularly love the fact that you’re ignoring that Reagan did it too. So did GWB.
You do know he’s dead don’t you? maybe you could keep your topics in this century. Because when you go on a political rant about Republicans and “big government” you should at least acknowledge the Tea Party that started in opposition to Republicans who voted for excessive spending. If you listened to talk radio you’d know they attacked Bush and members of Congress over this.
So there are cases where we have negotiated with terrorists throughout our history. In what should be a shock to absolutely no one, people on the right using this to smear Obama are using selective memory and selective facts.
We can very well debate whether this negotiation was appropriate, but the very premise of this thread seems silly since we’ve done it all the time.
The big question that I have about this probably deserves it’s own thread, namely does it make sense that we would do so much to bring back an alleged deserter.
Although I have to say that anyone who complained about Obama’s ability to “kill US citizens” (which is a complaint I have seen from the right and the left) really shouldn’t take the side that this guy wasn’t worth trying to get back since he was still a US citizen. If those people think that Anwar al-Awlaki didn’t deserve to be targeted by drones then certainly to be consistent they should at least have wanted Bowe Bergdahl to not be held captive, right?
No. Your revisionist history is wrong. There was no Tea Party when Republicans ran up the debt. They formed in 2009. I wonder what happened right before that…
Please start another thread if you wish to debate this because it is not the topic of this one and it will be a joy to tell you how wrong you are without cluttering up this perfectly cromulent topic.
Sorry no, you don’t get to jump into this with your bullshit and then tell me to take it somewhere else. The Tea Party formed and was supported by conservative talk shows specifically ranting against REPUBLICAN spending money. They ran against Republicans in primaries over this, not Democrats. What happened before that was a shit ton of Republicans voting up the debt. You’re invited to start your own thread.
This whole thing started with a rant about Reagan 30 years ago and he took a bunch of criticism over negotiating with terrorists. This isn’t a prisoner exchange because there is no formal war or country with which to exchange prisoners WITH.
Excessive spending like security for the embassy in Libya and funding for the VA. Right. The Tea Party is the real Americans and those folks dying over seas (or after they get back home) are just sucking off the government tit. Got it.
Edited to add: Shit. John_Stamos’_Left_Ear has it right. Take it to another thread. It’s a hijack here.
They are not (as defined by the American government) POWs. They are “illegal combatants”, a term made up by the U.S. that confers absolutely no rights. They aren’t criminals, because then we’d have to do silly stuff like charge them and give them fair trials. And they aren’t POWs, because then we’d have to do silly stuff like give them quarters comparable to allied troops and not torture them.