The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[DaddyTorgo]

Jon and I agree on this...hmm...

[SFL Cat]

POLITICAL RANT OF THE DAY: Okay, when I first heard of Bergdahl’s release, I thought, “finally, this administration has done something right.” Then I started getting into the details…

First, Obama broke a long-standing American policy and negotiated with known terrorists. In exchange for Bergdahl, we released five (count ‘em, five) dangerous Taliban fighters to Qatar. Obama promised, “The Qatari government has given us assurances that it will put in place measures to protect our national security.” However, when you view the ‘prisoners’ arriving in Qatar, it doesn’t take much imagination to see them back on the battlefield engaged in jihad against ‘the Great Satan’ (that would be the West) soon.
BREAKINGâž™ 5 Gitmo Terrorists Arrive in Qatar “With No Sign They Are – Under Custody” (Video) | The Gateway Pundit

Second, many legal experts have said Obama broke the law in the way this swap was transacted…so I’m thinking they should broadcast this information on the news ASAP otherwise BHO will never find out about it. Oh wait…they did. Jeffrey Toobin: Obama ‘Clearly Broke the Law’ on Bergdahl | Mediaite

Third, It’s starting to look like Bergdahl wasn’t captured, but rather he defected. I find it disturbing that soldiers in his unit were made to sign NDAs about details of his ‘capture.’ Despite this, some have come out and said with 100 percent assurance that Bergdahl wasn’t captured but went AWOL. They have called him a deserter at best, and possibly a traitor. A lot of the soldiers who served with him are pissed too, saying they lost at least six soldiers in efforts to recover him. Questions swirl after Bowe Bergdahl's release - CNN.com

Fourth: Then there are the bizarre tweets by Bergdahl’s father (who appeared with Obama at the White House when the swap was announced), that were later deleted. Bowe Bergdahl’s Father on Twitter: “I Am Working to Free All Guantanamo Prisoners… ameen” | The Gateway Pundit

Maybe, it’s just me, but that looks like something a Taliban might post…only in Arabic rather than English. Then the bizarre White House press conference, where Bergdahl’s father spoke in Arabic. What was that about? POW’s dad praises Allah at suspicious Rose Garden press conference with Obama - BizPac Review

Last: According to Fox News, U.S. Intelligence had concerns about Berdahl being a Taliban collaborator. Allegedly, there is a classified file on Berdahl. Sources: Intelligence community investigated Bergdahl’s conduct | Fox News Suddenly, the timing of the Obama administrations’ ‘accidental’ outing of the CIA station chief in Afghanistan during his surprise visit to the troops just a week before this swap doesn’t seem so ‘innocent.’ One thing is for sure…this whole thing smells to high heaven.

I'm now patiently waiting for the news conference where Obama reveals that he watched the news and discovered that Bergdahl isn't the hero his administration touted him as. He'll then proclaim that he is madder than hell and say, "If they had put this on the news sooner, I would never have pulled the trigger on that trade."

[RainMaker]

Out of all the stuff floating around, I wouldn't put much on the Dad's tweets. It may have been a way of communicating with them and a parent is likely to say anything to get their kid back safe. There's a long history of communicating through newspaper ads back in the day and I'm guessing Twitter is the new medium.

From the articles I read the Dad seemed like a hardcore Christian who homeschooled his kids. He was a former Pastor. I doubt he's some Muslim convert or whatever conspiracy is being floated around.

[Edward64]

I think I read somewhere he started doing a bunch of research on Afghanistan after his son's capture/disappearance and that influenced him.

Unless there is something to him being a radical prior to the incident, I would cut him a break. I know I would have gone a little nuts if that had happened to my family. I personally wouldn't give a flip what people said about my son being a deserter etc. and I would have done everything I could to (1) keep him alive and (2) communicate with him.

Admittedly I would have shaved after knowing the son was alive and before participating in the press conference with the President.

[sterlingice]

Well, at least Fox News won't have to do too much to create new graphics for their latest thing to get overly worked up about, trying to bring down Obama, and then show faux outrage when no one else gives two craps because it's not a big story in the grand scheme of things. There's a lot of letter in Benghazi that can be reused for Bergdahl

SI

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"Held captive" versus "collaborating" is two different animals.

Proof needed. Even desertion does mean collaborator. The military does not have him classified as a collaborator.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... so much so that I didn't even remember the scumbag's name when it first re-entered the news. No Blackadar, there was not "massive cries" because the military community has known for years what this p.o.s. was. Repeatedly I saw the phrase "should be shot on sight" in reference to this guy, both at the time of the original desertion and once he reappeared this week. And those aren't comments from keyboard jockeys, those were from people not only in the field at the time but in his area of operations AND familiar with the circumstances on a personal level (i.e knew people in his unit, etc).

There may well be cases where the points you made are perfectly valid, this specific case simply isn't one of those.

Yeah, right Jon. I call bullshit. You damn well know that WHEN it leaked that Obama had a chance to get one of the military back in a swap and didn't, it would be front page news. Faux News would be running that angle 24-7 for a month about how Obama should be impeached for that. And you know what? In this case, they'd be right to do so. You don't leave one behind.

The guy was classified by the military as captured. Period. End of story. The military has an obligation to retrieve its captured soldiers. Some bureaucrat in an office doesn't get to decide which one gets left with the enemy and which one doesn't. You get them back and then you evaluate their conduct. What happens if this guy had a mental illness that caused this action brought on by the war? What happens if he just went AWOL trying to get home? You don't leave someone to die. You bring them back and then take the appropriate action.

Maybe this guy does need to go to Leavenworth for a few years. If the facts support a court-martial because people died due to his actions, then I'm all for it. If he was truly a collaborator and gave away military secrets, then he deserves to be punished accordingly. Maybe he needs psychological help. Maybe he has a sleepwalking problem. But you don't puff up your chest and say "shoot him on sight" because you *think* you know what happened. The only one who knows what happened is him. And you FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED before you condemn a soldier to death by leaving him with the enemy.

Though I will say that this is enlightening. In a case like this, we really get to see how much some people who want to wear the flag on their shirt, claim that our soldiers are "heroes" and beat that patriotic drum don't really give a damn about the men in uniform. It's nice how this exposes the fact that most of it is just bullshit lip service.

[CU Tiger]

For me and many, many others he lost his hero label when he laid down his weapon and walked away.

Frankly, in my eyes he quit being a soldier at that point and we had no obligation to retrieve him. Even as much as I detest the current administration, however, I would prefer him executed in this country as opposed to their's simply because we can at least stop the flow of information.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You bring them back and then take the appropriate action.

Hey, you've hit the part that I have zero confidence in happening on the current watch.

Though I will say that this is enlightening. In a case like this, we really get to see how much some people who want to wear the flag on their shirt, claim that our soldiers are "heroes" and beat that patriotic drum don't really give a damn about the men in uniform. It's nice how this exposes the fact that most of it is just bullshit lip service.

This worthless p.o.s. stopped being a "soldier" as soon as he took that stroll.

[Blackadar]

Again, it's good to see how much some people really give a damn about the troops. As usual, it's the ones who are the biggest chest-thumpers about how much they love the troops are the ones who, when push comes to shove, don't really give a rat's ass about 'em.

[CraigSca]

So, a person can't take into account a soldier's actions and must cover the entire military with a blanket of unconditional love? That makes no sense.

I'm supposed to light a candle in the window for guys like Timothy McVeigh lest I be called a hyprocite?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

So, a person can't take into account a soldier's actions and must cover the entire military with a blanket of unconditional love? That makes no sense.

I'm supposed to light a candle in the window for guys like Timothy McVeigh lest I be called a hyprocite?

You don't leave someone behind. Ever. You don't leave him over there, making family worry for years without resolution. You don't pre-judge him without getting his side of the story. You don't get to decide that because he walked off that he's "no longer a soldier" or a "POS" until you know all the facts. Which you don't. You bring him back, get the full story and then make a judgement. It's not about "love". It's about respect. That's the minimum amount of respect any soldier deserves.

And fuck your strawman. Try again.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

You don't leave someone behind. Ever. You don't leave him over there, making family worry for years without resolution. You don't pre-judge him without getting his side of the story. You don't get to decide that because he walked off that he's "no longer a soldier" or a "POS" until you know all the facts. Which you don't. You bring him back, get the full story and then make a judgement. It's not about "love". It's about respect. That's the minimum amount of respect any soldier deserves.

And fuck your strawman. Try again.

See this is further proof of the pussification of our military IF this mindset is widespread (can't remember if you are a vet or not TBH)

In talking with a mentor and korean war vet earlier this subject came up. Typical old crotchety man, but a true American hero and someone I admire. His take on all of it. 'See this is where the internet and knowing too much hurts everyone. Was a time when a soldier laid down his rifle and walked away and he got shot in the back of the head. Poor guy. Died defending his country. family got a medal to hang above the fireplace. Those who saw it happen got de-briefed and reminded what they saw. His memory is sacred forever as a hero and the mission isnt compromised."

I dont get to have an opinion of Bergdahl because I never met him. Absent that I will take a collective opinion of those who have. They all think he is a piece of shit. I'll accept their conclusion.

Now for your "chest thumping" tirade...you point to me and Jon as we are the only two to respond to your previous post.

So please go dig up where I thumped my chest about American soldiers being universal heros. I think I have been more critical than most here about the notion that the military turns a POS into a fine upstanding citizen. It does convert some, it hides others and exaggerates others still.

[tarcone]

Is there a precedent set trading 5 for 1, when the one is a deserter? Or trading any or one?
Are we trading potential threats to the united States so we can put deserters on trial?
Im not sure this is a case of leaving one behind. It sounds like he left on his own. Thats not leaving one behind. He chose to stay behind.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Out of all the stuff floating around, I wouldn't put much on the Dad's tweets. It may have been a way of communicating with them and a parent is likely to say anything to get their kid back safe. There's a long history of communicating through newspaper ads back in the day and I'm guessing Twitter is the new medium.

From the articles I read the Dad seemed like a hardcore Christian who homeschooled his kids. He was a former Pastor. I doubt he's some Muslim convert or whatever conspiracy is being floated around.

Even if he was pandering to his son's captors in his tweets (which have since been deleted), why the recitation of "Bismillah ir-Rahman ir-Rahm,” (In the name of Allah, most Gracious, most Compassionate.) at the White House press conference? At that point, the deal is done and his son is safe. If he's the hardcore Christian that the media is portraying him, I don't see that happening.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Is there a precedent set trading 5 for 1, when the one is a deserter? Or trading any or one?
Are we trading potential threats to the united States so we can put deserters on trial?
Im not sure this is a case of leaving one behind. It sounds like he left on his own. Thats not leaving one behind. He chose to stay behind.

He was never discharged from the military, nor charged with desertion. Absent either of those situations, there are no special considerations to consider.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Good to know the next election will be fought on substantive issues, then.

Like how Obama got elected both times.

[Blackadar]

The questions about this particular soldier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity.

-General Martin Dempsey

[albionmoonlight]

[edit]--political argument post deleted after further consideration.

[Arles]

So, in essence, the argument for this is we are supposed to treat all soldiers equally regardless of how they act? One guy leaves his post, puts down his weapon, endangers his own fellow soldiers and walks out of the facility. We are supposed to then treat this guy exactly how we would someone who was captured after an attack and fought to keep his fellow soldiers from harm?

That's BS. There are consequences for your actions. I don't care if this guy is a secret double agent for the Taliban, big nature enthusiast who got bored of fighting or simply didn't like the meal served that night. Once he left his post and put his fellow soldiers in danger, he lost all credibility. What if it turns out that when he got captured, he gave intel that lead to targeted attacks that killed other soldiers?

At the end of the day, he put everyone around him at risk by making a selfish act. Firemen, police, military - when you join one of these groups, you make the decision to put the community above yourself. if that's not something you want to do, don't join. Last I checked there's no draft and all service is voluntary. The reason our system works is because of the brave people that enter these arenas. To say that we have to treat this deserter with the same respect and reverence that we do to the true people that serve is an insult. I can't believe Blackadar and others actually feel that way.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, in essence, the argument for this is we are supposed to treat all soldiers equally regardless of how they act? One guy leaves his post, puts down his weapon, endangers his own fellow soldiers and walks out of the facility. We are supposed to then treat this guy exactly how we would someone who was captured after an attack and fought to keep his fellow soldiers from harm?

That's BS. There are consequences for your actions. I don't care if this guy is a secret double agent for the Taliban, big nature enthusiast who got bored of fighting or simply didn't like the meal served that night. Once he left his post and put his fellow soldiers in danger, he lost all credibility. What if it turns out that when he got captured, he gave intel that lead to targeted attacks that killed other soldiers?

At the end of the day, he put everyone around him at risk by making a selfish act. Firemen, police, military - when you join one of these groups, you make the decision to put the community above yourself. if that's not something you want to do, don't join. Last I checked there's no draft and all service is voluntary. The reason our system works is because of the brave people that enter these arenas. To say that we have to treat this deserter with the same respect and reverence that we do to the true people that serve is an insult. I can't believe Blackadar and others actually feel that way.

He hasn't been charged with desertion. He even received a promotion while in captivity. I haven't seen where the UCMJ says that desertion exempts you from rescue. As long as you haven't been discharged, you are still a soldier. Even if he had been charged with desertion, a discharge wouldn't happen until after the court martial.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by molson

The desertion angle was pretty well known. It almost sounds as though he may have been trying to join the Taliban, though probably anything like that was from a place of immaturity/mental illness, rather than a real thought-out plan. As for punishment for that though, what do deserters even get these days? Certainly not the firing squad. Do they even get five years? It seems like "credit for time served" and looking the other way is appropriate here, and it looks like that's what's going to happen. Still, he'll have to live with that (which I'm sure beats living the way he has been living), and he's not exactly going to be considered some hero by those in the military, and by those with military families. His act resulted in 5 terrorists being set free and the deaths of at least 6 American soldiers that went looking for him.

Fellow soldiers call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter, not a hero - CNN.com

I think this is the most reasonable response I've seen. I'm not calling for the guy to be drawn and quartered. He very well could have realized his mistake and suffered a great deal in captivity - I don't know. So, at this point, I don't have a big need to see this guy suffer any more. I just don't know why we decided to take such drastic actions to free him or think it's even remotely applicable to label him as some kind of hero.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, in essence, the argument for this is we are supposed to treat all soldiers equally regardless of how they act? One guy leaves his post, puts down his weapon, endangers his own fellow soldiers and walks out of the facility. We are supposed to then treat this guy exactly how we would someone who was captured after an attack and fought to keep his fellow soldiers from harm?

That's BS. There are consequences for your actions. I don't care if this guy is a secret double agent for the Taliban, big nature enthusiast who got bored of fighting or simply didn't like the meal served that night. Once he left his post and put his fellow soldiers in danger, he lost all credibility. What if it turns out that when he got captured, he gave intel that lead to targeted attacks that killed other soldiers?

At the end of the day, he put everyone around him at risk by making a selfish act. Firemen, police, military - when you join one of these groups, you make the decision to put the community above yourself. if that's not something you want to do, don't join. Last I checked there's no draft and all service is voluntary. The reason our system works is because of the brave people that enter these arenas. To say that we have to treat this deserter with the same respect and reverence that we do to the true people that serve is an insult. I can't believe Blackadar and others actually feel that way.

As for your "what ifs", what if he was a CIA plant who infiltrated the group? What if he had a mental breakdown? What if he was prone to sleepwalking? All you know is that this is an active US soldier who has been listed as captured. That's all anyone knows until they speak with him.

I can't believe that you're so judgmental that you'd let an active US soldier who has been captured rot in a foreign hellhole without knowing the entire situation.

Actually, I can believe that.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

He hasn't been charged with desertion. He even received a promotion while in captivity. I haven't seen where the UCMJ says that desertion exempts you from rescue. As long as you haven't been discharged, you are still a soldier. Even if he had been charged with desertion, a discharge wouldn't happen until after the court martial.

Taking the steps taken here to get him back had consequences in the short term and potentially the long term. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a true leader to say that those consequences are not worth the risk to get this soldier back - especially considering his selfish actions put other troops in danger from the start.

I'm not saying they should have run his name into the group with court martial proceedings, but I do think it was a poor decision to take the steps they did to try to rescue him.

[NobodyHere]

How easy/hard would it be to actually prove a desertion charge? It sounds to me like he left his post and was captured. Could his lawyers argue that it was always his intent to comeback in a short period of time? I'm not sure how long it was after he left his post until he was taken. Maybe they just stick with an AWOL charge?

I've known several people who had AWOL charges against them and had nothing more happen to them than a SILT (Seperation In Lieu of Trial). Granted they didn't walk off their post in the middle of a combat zone.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

As for your "what ifs", what if he was a CIA plant who infiltrated the group? What if he had a mental breakdown? What if he was prone to sleepwalking? All you know is that this is an active US soldier who has been listed as captured. That's all anyone knows until they speak with him.

I can only go on what has been reported and none of this has been shown to this point. What we know is that he left his post voluntarily (endangering his fellow soldiers) and walked out of a military facility he had sworn to protect. Until other mitigating factors show, I see no reason to create them just to "feel better" about a poor decision to trade for this guy.

I can't believe that you're so judgmental that you'd let an active US soldier who has been captured rot in a foreign hellhole without knowing the entire situation.

If other evidence comes out that he was James Bond or some kind of triple agent who infiltrated the Taliban, I will certainly change my tune. But, I find the odds of this extremely unlikely given the actual information we have seen to this point. Heck, maybe Elloit Rodger had seen information that that his roommates and two random co-eds were going to do a massive terrorist attack in California and the reason he killed them all was to prevent it. I find both scenarios (yours on Bergdahl and the above on Rodger) equally unlikely. So, there's no reason to make up a strawman to support a seemingly bad decision

Actually, I can believe that.

Given what you apparently believe above, I'm sure you would believe just about anything if it supports your argument.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Taking the steps taken here to get him back had consequences in the short term and potentially the long term. I don't think it would be unreasonable for a true leader to say that those consequences are not worth the risk to get this soldier back - especially considering his selfish actions put other troops in danger from the start.

I'm not saying they should have run his name into the group with court martial proceedings, but I do think it was a poor decision to take the steps they did to try to rescue him.

Any rescue attempt has consequences. Are you saying, that absent any current desertion charges against him, that nothing should have been done, and just hoped he got released, no strings attached? What would have constituted acceptable steps to follow for his release, and how do you know that they hadn't been tried over the past several years since his capture?

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

I can only go on what has been reported and none of this has been shown to this point.

Right, and that's where you should stop. You don't know the situation. So you think that only part of the story is good enough to condemn this guy to further mistreatment by the Taliban and outright abandonment by the USA? Let me ask you this Judge Judy, even if we had 100% proof the guy went AWOL of his own volition, how long should he remain in the hands of our enemies and subject to their whims, torture and and interrogation? How long should his family be allowed to twist in the wind not knowing if their son/husband/father is alive or dead? Should we just abandon him and not give a shit if they decide to trot him out on camera and shoot him in the head because we'd already washed our hands of him?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

Any rescue attempt has consequences. Are you saying, that absent any current desertion charges against him, that nothing should have been done, and just hoped he got released, no strings attached? What would have constituted acceptable steps to follow for his release, and how do you know that they hadn't been tried over the past several years since his capture?

I'm saying that when you take into account all information:
1. He left his post willingly.
2. He left the facility willingly and walked into the enemy's hands.
3. The danger involved in trying to rescue him when you don't really know his motives or reasoning.
4. The precedent you create by trading prisoners for him and potentially encouraging more kidnappings/desertion from sympathizers.

This was a poor decision. When you make these kind of high-leverage, future impacting decisions as a military/leader, it makes sense to take all the information into account. Ignoring part of the data to support an overall "doctrine" (any step must always be made to get any soldier back) is exactly what the muslim extremists do (all infidels must be killed regardless of whether they are actually family, children or innocents).

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Right, and that's where you should stop. You don't know the situation.

So you can speak your opinion about leaving no stone unturned to bring back this guy without "all the facts", but those who oppose cannot say a thing because "we don't have all the facts". Seems like a double standard....

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

So you can speak your opinion about leaving no stone unturned to bring back this guy without "all the facts", but those who oppose cannot say a thing because "we don't have all the facts". Seems like a double standard....

The difference is that you would leave the guy to rot and die in a foreign hellhole. I'm interested in bringing him back, getting the facts and at the very least bringing closure to the issue for his family. See the difference now?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

I'm saying that when you take into account all information:
1. He left his post willingly.
2. He left the facility willingly and walked into the enemy's hands.
3. The danger involved in trying to rescue him when you don't really know his motives or reasoning.
4. The precedent you create by trading prisoners for him and potentially encouraging more kidnappings/desertion from sympathizers.

This was a poor decision. When you make these kind of high-leverage, future impacting decisions as a military/leader, it makes sense to take all the information into account. Ignoring part of the data to support an overall "doctrine" (any step must always be made to get any soldier back) is exactly what the muslim extremists do (all infidels must be killed regardless of whether they are actually family, children or innocents).

The Pentagon did a full investigation regarding his disappearance and capture, and I'd trust their decision making over those of pundits over the course of action to take regarding a rescue. It hasn't been until he was actually rescued that you are hearing push back that he shouldn't have been rescued.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

The difference is that you would leave the guy to rot and die in a foreign hellhole. I'm interested in bringing him back, getting the facts and at the very least bringing closure to the issue for his family. See the difference now?

Not really - I'm pretty sure those who made the decision had all the facts. Just because we don't doesn't mean the military brass was equally in the dark. And, given what has been reported, it was a bad call. If the military didn't know what was going, that brings up a whole other host of issues. But, I have faith that they are not that incompetent and decided to bring this guy back knowing full well what he had done to get into the situation he unfortunately found himself in.

Hey, if they knew he was being held down the street and had a way to extract him without major risk, go for it. But trading other high level prisoners to get him, no thanks.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Pentagon did a full investigation regarding his disappearance and capture, and I'd trust their decision making over those of pundits over the course of action to take regarding a rescue.

So, you would trust the pentagon to admit that he deserted (if that was the case) after they made numerous massive concessions to get him back? Perhaps they knew he deserted but still got him back hoping that the positive press from a "boy coming home" would outlay the negative of his initial short-sighted actions. If that were the case, this is still a bad decision (even after their full investigation). I'm sure more information will continue to trickle out and we will know more as time passes. At this exact moment, the administrations decision to trade prisoners for this guy appears just as short-sighted as his decision to leave his post.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

The Pentagon did a full investigation regarding his disappearance and capture, and I'd trust their decision making over those of pundits over the course of action to take regarding a rescue.

The more I think about it (without reading or hearing literally anything in the media about this - I seem to be in some sort of media-bubble), this is where I stand. If the Pentagon felt it was worth bringing him back then that's okay by me.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, you would trust the pentagon to admit that he deserted (if that was the case) after they made numerous massive concessions to get him back? Perhaps they knew he deserted but still got him back hoping that the positive press from a "boy coming home" would outlay the negative of his initial short-sighted actions. If that were the case, this is still a bad decision (even after their full investigation). I'm sure more information will continue to trickle out and we will know more as time passes. At this exact moment, the administrations decision to trade prisoners for this guy appears just as short-sighted as his decision to leave his post.

The investigation happened several years ago.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Arles

Not really - I'm pretty sure those who made the decision had all the facts. Just because we don't doesn't mean the military brass was equally in the dark. And, given what has been reported, it was a bad call. If the military didn't know what was going, that brings up a whole other host of issues. But, I have faith that they are not that incompetent and decided to bring this guy back knowing full well what he had done to get into the situation he unfortunately found himself in.

Hey, if they knew he was being held down the street and had a way to extract him without major risk, go for it. But trading other high level prisoners to get him, no thanks.

You're talking out both sides of your mouth here you realize?

You say that you don't think the military brass was in the dark about it, but then say "given what has been reported it was a bad call."

So maybe we the public don't have the full story - but doesn't that mean that maybe we should lay off the high-and-mighty opining about it, since we acknowledge that we likely don't have all the facts. We're just bloviating for the sake of having something to say at this point.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

The investigation happened several years ago.

Read what I said again:
Perhaps they knew he deserted but still got him back hoping that the positive press from a "boy coming home" would outlay the negative of his initial short-sighted actions.
Just because they "did an investigation years ago" doesn't mean that it resulted in him not being culpable for leaving his post. I'm not sure how often the government assigns soldiers a "deserter status" when they've been captured, but I'm guessing it's not very often. The point is the people that make this decision knew why he left and if it's for the reasons that have been reported (he didn't agree with the war), then this is a bad decision.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

You're talking out both sides of your mouth here you realize?

You say that you don't think the military brass was in the dark about it, but then say "given what has been reported it was a bad call."

I'm saying that the military probably knew that he voluntarily left his post (bordering on desertion - depending upon how it's classified), but made the decision to trade other prisoners to get him back anyway. They were betting on the idea that getting a POW back home would outweigh the circumstances involving his disappearance and result in this being a net win for them. That was a bad decision given what we know at this point.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Arles

Read what I said again:
Perhaps they knew he deserted but still got him back hoping that the positive press from a "boy coming home" would outlay the negative of his initial short-sighted actions.
Just because they "did an investigation years ago" doesn't mean that it resulted in him not being culpable for leaving his post. I'm not sure how often the government assigns soldiers a "deserter status" when they've been captured, but I'm guessing it's not very often. The point is the people that make this decision knew why he left and if it's for the reasons that have been reported (he didn't agree with the war), then this is a bad decision.

So it is a bad decision to bring a soldier back to face punishments spelled out in the UCMJ if he is indeed a deserter? Or should punishment be outsourced to terrorist groups? If it turns out he wasn't a deserter, is it still a bad decision? All of the accusations you are basing your opinions are are hearsay at this point. He hasn't been charged, and there has been no court martial. Even if he is eventually charged and found guilty of desertion, that can't happen until he is brought back. If there was enough evidence to try him in absentia, that would have already happened.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by cartman

So it is a bad decision to bring a soldier back to face punishments spelled out in the UCMJ if he is indeed a deserter? Or should punishment be outsourced to terrorist groups? If it turns out he wasn't a deserter, is it still a bad decision? All of the accusations you are basing your opinions are are hearsay at this point. He hasn't been charged, and there has been no court martial. Even if he is eventually charged and found guilty of desertion, that can't happen until he is brought back. If there was enough evidence to try him in absentia, that would have already happened.

Exactly my larger point that I was trying to make cartman.

Arles - everything from you is hearsay and emotionally driven. It's bloviating and spouting-off for the sake of having an opinion without any fact to back it up. It's the same thing the media at large are doing.

The Pentagon undoubtedly has more facts about the case than CNN/Fox/MSNBC - can we all agree on that? So how about (in this instance - not arguing in all instances so don't go there) we acknowledge that they have a more complete picture of the situation and STFU instead of trying to gin up controversy just for the sake of ratings?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

So it is a bad decision to bring a soldier back to face punishments spelled out in the UCMJ if he is indeed a deserter?

It depends on the cost. If it involves returning other high level terrorist prisoners to get him back, then it very well could be.

Or should punishment be outsourced to terrorist groups? If it turns out he wasn't a deserter, is it still a bad decision? All of the accusations you are basing your opinions are are hearsay at this point. He hasn't been charged, and there has been no court martial. Even if he is eventually charged and found guilty of desertion, that can't happen until he is brought back. If there was enough evidence to try him in absentia, that would have already happened.

People get too wrapped up in the punishment. As Molson said, I'm not even sure he deserves additional punishment. I can take the most Pollyanna view on this and say he just had a bad day, got pissed by his commander and walked off his post to get some air. Then, he got captured and held for years. Even in that situation, the fact that he left his post means that he is partly responsible for his being in captive. Add that to the precedent of having "caved" to a cost of multiple terrorist prisoners to get him back and I think it would have been a better decision to pass on the deal. And that's not even acknowledging the possibility that he somehow defected or did something more sinister.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Exactly my larger point that I was trying to make cartman.

Arles - everything from you is hearsay and emotionally driven. It's bloviating and spouting-off for the sake of having an opinion without any fact to back it up. It's the same thing the media at large are doing.

The Pentagon undoubtedly has more facts about the case than CNN/Fox/MSNBC - can we all agree on that? So how about (in this instance - not arguing in all instances so don't go there) we acknowledge that they have a more complete picture of the situation and STFU instead of trying to gin up controversy just for the sake of ratings?

Even if the pentagon comes out and says that he did not leave his post and was actually kidnapped while sleeping (highly unlikely, but possible) - do you think it was a good idea to begin the precedent of trading multiple high level terrorist prisoners for one POW?

[Arles]

Maybe the focus should be less about his actions and more about the cost of getting him back and if this is something we want to begin moving forward. I tend to think that his actions play a part, but given we don't know all the facts I am ok just looking at the cost.

[cartman]

The US has a long history of bargaining with terrorists and rogue states. This isn't something that is new or groundbreaking.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by cartman

The US has a long history of bargaining with terrorists and rogue states. This isn't something that is new or groundbreaking.

Ding ding.

At the end of every war we've done a prisoner exchange. What's the problem this time?

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Ding ding.

At the end of every war we've done a prisoner exchange. What's the problem this time?

because we traded 1 for 5 and there are other reported POWs there we didnt get back?

[Arles]

So, the war's over?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

because we traded 1 for 5 and there are other reported POWs there we didnt get back?

Who are the other POWs from Afghanistan? I thought Bergdahl was the last one. Between Iraq and Afghanistan there were remarkably only 10 POWs taken, and Bergdahl was the last of the 10 to be returned.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Arles

So, the war's over?

32,000 troops in Afghanistan is supposed to be drawn down to fewer than 10,000 by the start of 2015. What would you call it? A temporary lull?

[JPhillips]

The new precedent would be allowing a living service member to remain in country after hostilities end. We do our best to leave no one behind regardless of the circumstances of their capture or death.

edit: As the chair of the Joint Chiefs said:

Questions about this particular soldier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover any U.S. service member in enemy captivity.