Bergdahl to be charged?
We’ve been trying to confirm this all night, but we haven’t been able to nail down the Army. But many news sources, including the Washington Times, are reporting that Bowe Bergdahl, the fellow who went on a walkabout into the arms of the Haqqani Network and took off five years from his military career to hang out with the goat ropers, will be charged with desertion;
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl…is being charged with desertion, retired Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer told Bill O’Reilly on “The O’Reilly Factor” Monday.
Mr. Shaffer, who now works for the London Center for Policy Research, said two separate military sources have confirmed to him that Sgt. Bergdahl’s attorney has been given a “charge sheet,” listing out the articles of the uniform military code that have been violated.
Well, if they are, that’s good. I’m sure somehow the Left is going to make him a victim of the Army, but we’ve known he was guilty back in the early days of his disappearance because of our sources. We kept our traps shut until he was returned to US custody. The Times continues;
“This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” [Mr. Shaffer] said. “Believe me, the Army here wants to do the right thing … And the White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban … The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out.”
I’m guessing that they’re going give him “time served” with the Haqqani as his punishment. I doubt he can get back pay, but he’ll probably burden the VA healthcare system – in the hope that they give him some free pot someday.
I know that some will say that he didn’t expect to be treated as he was when he bolted, but that is irrelevant. His intent was to violate policy and leave the wire in some stank-ass belief that he was letting his soul free or some other sort of mistaken sense of freeing himself from the rigors of military life. The fact is that he broke the law and needs to be punished as an example to the other people who mistakenly joined the Army because they thought they could change the system.
ADDED: As I said initially, we haven’t been able to verify this story and Military Times says that the Army has told them that there have been no charging documents issued;
No charge sheets were available Tuesday, and Boyce said he is unaware of any charge sheets being issued against Bergdahl, adding that the Fox News story “seems to be speculative in nature.” Bergdahl’s attorney Eugene Fidell declined to comment. NBC News, citing an anonymous senior defense official, is also reporting a desertion charge is coming, possibly within the week.
Gen. Mark Milley, commanding general of Forces Command, “is reviewing now the Army’s facts and findings to determine, impartially, any appropriate next steps and possible actions,” Boyce said.
Milley is “actively reviewing the case,” he said. “No decision’s been made.”
Category: Army News
It’s called “desertion” for a reason. And if done during a time of war, it’s supposed to carry some pretty severe penalties.
Why is it, then, that I have very little faith in this Bergdahl item actually receiving the punishment called for by statute? Could it be that a punishment would serve counter to Obozo’s policies?
Or am I reading too much into this?
It will end up being impossible to actually prove Bergdahl deserted. Even the disgusting pictures of him smiling real big while in captivity will not be enough.
C’mon, Jonn–you know you can’t post that picture unless it’s “Man Love Thursday”!
Seriously, I hope he is charged. Not only did he Blue Falcon his buddies, get people killed looking for him in the process, it’ll be a big finger in the eye of this administration, which thought it no big deal to release a bunch of terrorists in exchange for Bergdahl.
Faqheem.
Maybe he can be cellmates with Bradley Manning.
I’m cool with time served, a reduction and other than honorable discharge.
I’d like to see dishonorable, but that ain’t gonna happen.
Negative. If he’s proven to have deserted, his discharge needs to be a Dishonorable Discharge.
Even those with a General(OTH) Discharge and a BCD have entitlement to VA med care for “service connected” issues. And at the VA’s discretion, they can also receive at least some other VA benefits.
Only a DD revokes entitlement to ALL VA benefits. If he is proven to have deserted in a combat zone, he deserves that – plus IMO, at least a few years time.
Hell, if he’s convicted of desertion during wartime personally I’d be OK with him getting the needle. But that’s just me – and that also just ain’t gonna happen.
Stand the sonuvabitch against a post and shoot him. How many men died looking for this fuckstain? Then throw his Dad in federal prison for treason.
If desertion resulting in the deaths of other human beings doesn’t warrant a dishonorable discharge, then what does?
Dang! This isn’t rocket science. Of course, the emperor will likely pardon him, but not sure that he can set the dishonorable aside.
Only a DD revokes entitlement to ALL VA benefits.
Not quite. I am delighted to be the bearer of good news. Look at 38 U.S.C. 5303(a):
“The discharge or dismissal by reason of the sentence of a general court-martial of any person from the Armed Forces, or the discharge of any such person…as a deserter…shall bar all rights of such person under laws administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] based upon the period of service from which discharged or dismissed….”
So if he gets a BCD for *desertion*…or even an administrative separation for desertion…then his VA benefits for the current term of service are kaput. Couldn’t happen to a nicer boy.
(If this is not his first enlistment, then he might still have benefits based on the first term of service. The only way to lose benefits from his earlier enlistment is to be convicted of aiding the enemy, espionage, or another “subversive activity.” That’s 38 U.S.C. 6105(a).)
Alberich…Thank you for your post. “The only way to lose benefits from his earlier enlistment is to be convicted of aiding the enemy, espionage, or another “subversive activity.” That’s 38 U.S.C. 6105(a).)”. In my mind, he did lend support and aid to the enemy.
But whether he gets “convicted” of it remains to be seen.
Hmm. Learn something new daily.
Thanks. That is indeed good news here – presuming, of course, that Bergdahl is indeed found guilty of that offense.
Since Wikipedia says Bergdahl’s prior tour with the USCG before he joined the Army lasted all of 26 days and was terminated by an uncharacterized discharge during IET, he should be due no VA bennies from that tour.
I wish that Federal law mandated loss of all VA benefits for ANY form of punitive discharge, or for a admin discharge in lieu of court-martial.
Well, the good news just keeps on coming, at least in modified form:
VA regulations, 38 C.F.R. 3.12(d)(1), deny benefits for persons who take discharge in lieu of general court-martial…at least if they get an OTH. (Which is usually, though not always, the characterization.)
I like the flexibility that gives commanders because sometimes — probably not in Bergdahl’s case, but in others — the command really does want the accused to keep his medical benefits at least, and can issue a general discharge to make that happen. And sometimes that’s the most important component of a plea deal….yes I’ll plead, yes I’ll do time, but please take the BCD off the table so I can get treatment after I go. It depends on the case.
The statute I quoted you before also bars benefits for a BCD or DD…if it is issued by a general court-martial. (A BCD issued by a special court-martial is a different story. But 38 C.F.R. 3.360 bars medical benefits even for a servicemember who gets a bad conduct discharge from a special court-martial.)
Interesting – and thanks.
FWIW: the VA seems to imply somewhat differently in this document. Or maybe I’m just misreading it.
http://www.benefits.va.gov/BENEFITS/docs/COD_Factsheet.pdf
It’s a good summary and compatible with what I was telling you. The statutory bars start on page 1 and include a person discharged by “sentence of a general court-martial” (p. 1)…regardless of whether it’s a DD or BCD…the regulatory bars are on page 2 and they includes “acceptance of an undesirable discharge to escape trial by general court-martial” (i.e., an OTH discharge in lieu of general CM; same thing in different words).
(A tricky thing is that the statute refers to a person discharged “under conditions other than dishonorable.” But “dishonorable” in VA parlance is not the same thing as a dishonorable discharge at court-martial; and may OTH/BCD discharges will be considered “dishonorable” for VA purposes.)
It doesn’t cover 38 C.F.R. 3.360 because that is specifically about medical benefits (and includes the additional prohibition for persons who get a BCD at special court-martial; a DD can only be issue by general court-martial).
OK – thanks for the follow-up info. Much obliged.
Hondo…I agree completely. I say he deserves the Private Eddie Slovik punishment. Then there’s no debate about benefits or pay or the VA. He deserted in a time of war, in a theater of war, from a front line post. He DESERTED. Period. Good men died looking for his sorry worthless, cowardly ass. What is his and Obama’s answer to their families? Same as always, “Fuck you, you work for me and I can kill you at my discretion”.
He hasn’t served any time. He’s sitting at a desk somewhere, my understanding is. And if he isn’t charged with desertion they have to let him slide which means back pay and designation as a POW with all the benefits that entails. I’ll bet Gen. Dempsey is standing in the Oval Office right now with his thumb stuck in his mouth getting his orders. “I don’t care how many generals you gotta fire, you white midget, get that Bergdahl boy off the hook.”
Listen Hondo, if you remember right when they first got him back he was not allowed to talk to anyone.He was not even allowed to speak to his parents. During this time he was “debriefed”….what was really happening was he was being told exactly what to say when questioned. Bergdahl was told to say that he left his post with the intention to return and had done so many times. He will not serve jail time but will be reduced to e-1 and all back pay and future benefits taken.Dishcharge will be general under honorable conditions.
Ideally I’d like to see him serve some time, but I’d settle for some good old fashion solid wall to wall counseling, a dishonorable discharge and a swift kick in the ass when they boot his dumb ass. Fuck him and his supporters.
Offended by your use of the term “goat ropers” as that is a term used to desigate rural folks in south Texas.
The correct term would’ve been “goat pumpers”
It’s used as a polite way to mention “goat rapers”.
Which is itself a more polite variant than some I’ve heard. (smile)
“He served the United States with honor and distinction.” […] “Sergeant Bergdahl wasn’t simply a hostage; he was an American prisoner of war captured on the battlefield.”
Susan “Benghazi” Rice (1 June 2014 Interview: ABC’s “This Week”)
When did he do that, Suzie? Was that before other men bled trying to find him?
“Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim….” Bergdahl’s father at the White House with The Emperor who, without consulting Congress, traded five terrorists for one traitor. That quote, interestingly, does not appear in the White House transcript of the event. Why not? They were the first words Bergdahls’s father spoke into the microphone, followed, in Pashtu, with “I am your father, Bow.” And that’s where the official transcript begins. Must be another instance of WH transparency. I tell you, our forefathers WERE shooting by now.
All accounts point to a very pissed off WH. The plan was that The Emperor would be regarded as wise, kind, and thoughtful, if not daring, in securing Bergdahl’s release, with the matter of his unilateral action to trade five terrorists overshadowed by the mommy and daddy happy show at the WH. That didn’t go so well. Now, the WH needs to salvage what it can. We we can imagine what’s going on over the tables and secure phone lines today.
The people in the WH would have an easier time of things if they would start acting like Americans who cared about America.
Other than that, I can’t improve on what Jonn said.
I pray that it’s true, but I wonder if B. Hussein 0bama will do with this like they’ve dome with say, Fast & Furious, Benghazi,… NOTHING is ever their fault, I wonder if they’ll try to blame Bush for this?
I’m going to keep my comments on this to myself.
This seems like an odd case of reverse unlawful command influence, where instead of some higher-up commander seeking to hammer somebody, they instead want to make it go away or to push for a quiet plea deal. But if the convening authority ultimately believes a referral of charges is supported by the evidence, the president can always sign off on a pardon or clemency. Not sure that was part of the “hero’s welcome” narrative.
Heh. Of course (and I know you know it well), influence from lower to higher is not “unlawful” at all.
A general court-martial, if that’s where it ends up, is usually convened by the division commander (a two-star general).
If the President wants to kill the thing after trial, or even before it, I bet he can find some higher level general officer who’s “political” enough to do the dirty work for him, without getting any on his Presidential self.
Yes, I know… I was inartfully thinking about the WH, SECDEF, etc exerting pressure on down to the convening authority. Of course this isn’t UCI in the traditional sense, but was just considering the politics of it all if the guy in the story is accurate about all the phone calls going on.
I have seen defense motions where the defense essentially claimed that the E-4 mafia was involved in UCI. That was fun.
Get a rope…
Eddie Slovik could use a new neighboor.
I know of a good disbarred lawyer that can help him out.
I heard that asshole will work pro boner…
he may have seen a “charge sheet” but I will be very surprised if he goes to trial. I strongly suspect he will accept an Article 15, Non-Judicial Punishment and then a UOTHC administrative discharge
That is what usually happens to deserters. Technically if they charged him with desertion in a time of war he would be eligible for the death penalty. They aren’t going to do that
If you’ve got a charge sheet, a real charge sheet, it means your commander is not offering you article 15, but intends to do some kind of court-martial…whether it’s summary, special, or general.
I myself prosecuted a couple of deserters in Iraq and saw them get jail time. So it certainly can happen.
I would think that since it’s been determined he did in fact desert, and if it can be proven that men were killed specifically looking for him, I don’t see any way that he can get out of this with just NJP. Any JAG type folks on here that might give their opinion?
Unless James Branum is the defense attorney, you are correct that most desertion cases do not go to court martial. In the Army, many go through what’s called a Chapter 10–discharge in lieu of court martial. So that certainly is a possibility. However, if this did go to court martial and gets to the sentencing portion, that would be very interesting. Bergdahl’s defense would likely put on a show that he endured enough while in captivity, and the trial counsel could conceivably get into the weeds of all the operations, deaths, injuries, danger, manpower, cost, and detriment to other missions in looking for him.
Of course, if James Branum was the defense counsel (he’s not and Gene Fidel doesn’t give up high-profile cases), the argument would be that the Army is bad and everyone should have deserted.
in the Article 15 he will lose some rank and some pay. HE will waive his discharge board and slink away with a UOTHC.
then, in a couple of years when he thinks people have forgotten, he can apply to the Discharge Review Board to get his discharge upgraded. They can upgrade it all the way to fully Honorable if they wish to. And he will get VA disability benefits for PTSD
take that to the bank
Yeah.
I see that a lot here in the great NW.
And liberal are all for it.
Fuckers quit and then want there fair cut down the road.
Also, if he is declared a “deserter”, does he get to keep his POW medal?
And secure immediate employment w/ All-Points Logistics as their Overseas Liaison.
From my readings on Discharge upgrades (Had to do some research on account of PFCs and LCpls thinking they could just behave for six months and get an Honorable), you have to be able to prove that your previous discharge was undeserved. That won’t be happening.
Relevant link.
I was a JAG in Desert Storm and later on sat on the Discharge Review Board in DC. I know that was a while ago, a long while. But I am sure they have greased a deal already. This will go away quickly and quietly now
As Jonn pointed out, hopeful the Army will do the right thing and stand up to Obummer and his henchmen.
I would be delighted to be wrong
I am unaware of any procedure to take away a medal once its been given
Here is a recent story on that.
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2015/01/18/misconduct-award-revocations-army/21740615/
He certainly can have that bit-o-ribbon taken away, in fact it aught to be automatic upon conviction.
http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/pdf/r600_8_22.pdf
See page 8, section 1-30 paragraphs a. and c., and section 2-9 paragraph e.
Dear bodaprez,
The truth about Bowie Bergadahl is that he deserted his post in a combat zone.
The problem is that you can’t handle the truth.
Please find another job where your idiocy won’t affect quite so many people’s lives.
Ta ta, and thanks for all the comedy.
Moi-meme.
I saw this interview last night and while I have yet to find or see other media reports, I found Col. Schaffer’s statement to Bill O’Reilly pretty compelling.
Punishment? Hmmm….I must admit the I’m somewhere between the “needle, rope and the post” mentioned in comments above. How about we send this dickweed back to Afghanistan with a Charlie Hebdo cartoon t-shirt on and see what Bergdahl’s newest extended family would do?
While a court martial could lead to imprisonment, defense and military officials tell NBC News it is likely Bergdahl would be given consideration for the 5 years he spent in captivity and be permitted to leave the Army with a “less than honorable discharge.” If accepted, Bergdahl would be denied as much as $300 thousand in back pay and bonuses, and reduced in rank to at least Private First Class, the rank he held when he disappeared from his outpost in Afghanistan
that is what NBC is reporting
that is an Article 15 and an administrative discharge
ThunderB…Please help me out Sir. If he is charged and convicted in any way, for desertion, how could he then be given credit for time he spent, not in captivity but in a desertion committed by his own choice? I guess I’m missing something but I admit I know little of any of the law, especially military, UCMJ law.
I would have written sooner, but I’ve been out shoveling fricking snow….in the NY Post:
“The network said that while a court-martial could lead to imprisonment, defense and military officials say it is likely Bergdahl would be given consideration for the five years he spent in captivity and be permitted to leave the Army with a “less than honorable discharge.”
If accepted, Bergdahl would be denied as much as $300,000 in back pay and bonuses, and reduced in rank to at least private first class, the rank he held when he disappeared from his outpost in Afghanistan.”
http://nypost.com/2015/01/27/bowe-bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion/
Less than honorable?? Could that include a “General” discharge or could it also be Dishonorable?
Reduced in rank to PFC – what in the hell happened to a reduction to his service entry rank of Pvt. E-1?
I smell a pardon by POTUS since it seems that Bergdahl’s father (sympathy beard included) and Barack are soul-mates.
Regardless of the method used to boot his ass, it’s to be hoped Big Army at least takes away the POW medal he’s disgracing.
e. Any person convicted of misconduct or a criminal charge by a U.S. military tribunal, or who receives a less than honorable discharge based upon actions while a prisoner of war, or whose conduct was not in accord with the Code of Conduct, and whose actions are documented by U.S. military records is ineligible for the medal. The Secretary of the Army is the authority for deciding eligibility in such cases. Cases involving questionable character of service or misconduct during captivity will be processed through the receiving command channels to HQ, USAHRC, AHRC–PDO–PA, Alexandria, VA 22331–0481, for coordination with the Repatriation and Family Affairs Division and final decision by the Secretary of the Army.
Army says the reports are false. I just updated my blog. This is why I opted to wait.
they have transferred him to a medical command
that means his chain of command is in the medical field
do you really think they have the sack to take away his medal
no, no they will not
IMO that Army is saying its false because they don’t know what’s going to happen yet
they have offered the 15 and are waiting to Bergdahl to accept it or turn it down and demand trail by Special Court Martial
its a joke
like getting a prking ticket for murder
ThunderB…In my mind, unless pressured by council or higher military authorities behind the scenes, Bergdahl could really muddy the waters by refusing an Article 15 and forcing a court martial. it all depends on what he’s convinced will be in his best interest, which is what he has done since before he walked away from his post.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-be-charged-desertion-officials-say-n294466
NBC News article cited by ThunderB.
“The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return.”
Looks like they may be setting it up to give him a slap on the wrist so Obama cab save a face.
ArmyATC…You gotta be kidding. “The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return.” So he just deserted with the intend of an Aussie walkabout and someday at his choosing, he’d just walk back to post. This is bullshit.
…it happened in Hurt Locker.
😉
(a) Any member of the armed forces who–
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;
is guilty of desertion.
intent to stay permanently away is one of the elements of the offense of Desertion
if they are not claiming he intended to stay permanently away, it isn’t Desertion
They may just be charging him with AWOL
I read the reg to mean any one of the three listed situations will earn you a desertion, not that all three have to be proven.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
You are correct, Jacobite. (Except that it’s a statute, not a regulation.)
Desertion with intent to shirk is usually the easiest to prove.
Can we say Bobby Garwood? I knew you could.
That’s a strange story there. Ralph Macchio played him in the movie. Wonder who will play Bo? Nice name you got there.
no Desertion requires the intent to remain permanently away
show of hands
who thinks he intended to return?
Can you cite a source for your position on that?
I mean your position that ‘intent to remain away’ is required.
I vote…NAY!!!
That would be a “no”. The clause above is an OR clause, meaning that the offense of desertion can be completed any one of three different ways. The second method – e.g., desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service – does not require proof that the accused intended to remain away permanently. From the Manual for Courts-Martial, 2012, pages IV-10 to IV-11, describing the elements of the crime defined under Article 85, Desertion:
The description in the MCM on p. IV-12 of desertion with intent to remain away permanently gives more details. But for that form of desertion, it is not necessary to prove intent to remain away permanently – only the elements listed above need be proven.
No, I’m not a lawyer. However, one of our resident current or former JAGC officers – I believe it was either Alberich or JAGC, but I could be wrong – brought this to my attention previously. Prior to that, I was under the mistaken impression that ALL desertion convictions required the government to prove intent to remain away permanently.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf (Warning – doc is over 800 pages).
Bingo.
Intent can, and usually is, inferred by the fact finder. It is rare for someone to state, “I intend to blah, blah, blah” and then commit the crime intended. That is different from the prosecution proving that, say, Bergdahl was in fact absent from his unit w/o prior authorization for the minimum time required for desertion.
There is no “minimum time for desertion.” (That’s a common myth but a myth nonetheless.) You can be, and people have been, convicted when you were gone less than 2 hours. The intent, and not the length of time, determines guilt for desertion.
Happily, as I note below, desertion with intent to shirk is very easy to prove…because if the guy was already with his unit in a combat zone, he knew the unit was doing “hazardous duty or important service.” And if he left them on purpose…the intent is proven.
Hondo is, of course, correct.
To prove desertion with intent to shirk is very easy…you just have to prove that he knew about the “important service” (combat zone duty counts for sure) and then went away (or stayed away) on purpose.
ThunderB
Whether I or anyone else thinks he intended to return is irrelivent. What only matters is what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and I’ve always believed that the government’s burden of proof for desertion in this case would be to high a bar to reach.
I’ve thought for a long time that he would be potentially charged with desertion (that still would have to go through the Article 32 process) with the idea/hope that he would accept an article 15 for AWOL. This would then give the Govt. and out for paying him all the extra money that he would otherwise be owed at a POW.
Also, my understanding is that he has not been awarded the POW medal.
IMHO this is just the first semi-public part of the legal dance to finish this thing quietly.
I wonder if B. Hussein 0bama has a pardon in the works for him if things don’t go the way he likes, that or some General or two will suddenly have to retire for not doing the wannabe Emperor’s bidding.
It is my opinion that the pardon was in the works before the deal was made for the trade. These clowns are terribly misguided, spoiled brats, but they are not stupid. They almost always are prepared at least three plays ahead for multiple contingencies.
Never underestimate them. They operate from an alternate universe but are clever and devious. Both require intelligence.
there are cases since 2009 that you can be charged under sub 2 as commenter Jacobite noted
I was incorrect
its still bullshit
Reuters says that he will be charged with desertion:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bowe-bergdahl-to-face-desertion-charges-nbc/ar-AA8DpYm
However, their link is to NBC, and there is a disclaimer that their source has not confirmed it yet.
Court Martial convening authority who would prefer the charges is Gen Mark Milley. Sounds like a stand up guy on paper. Is he?
I hope this explains something but it’s probably clear as mud. I only wrote this post because can you imagine what my inbox would look like if I ignored the story? That’s why I started the post with that proviso.
Do I think that Bergdahl deserted? Yes, given the information I have that comes from people who know more than me.
Do I think that Bergdahl was worth 5 terrorists? Yes, any American is worth more than 5 terrorists.
Do I think that Obama had another more viable option? No, I think he did the only thing he could do. However, he was left with this single, distasteful option because of Bergdahl’s actions. Bergdahl is the criminal here, not the President. The President’s job is to do the best to save the lives of every single American that is humanly possible, and that’s what President Obama did. This is not the President’s fault – it all rests on Bergdahl. And that’s who should be punished and the President and his handlers need to make that distinction and stop looking at it like a political landmine.
The only way this can turn out is for Bergdahl to be punished…and he needs to be punished by this administration because that’s who has been harmed here.
Above all, I’m glad that Bergdahl didn’t get his head chopped off on a YouTube video, but, because I’m glad of that fact, that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be punished by the US government who won’t chop his head off.
That is well spoken.
I only want to add that I hope he does hard time for this. Because once he gets out he is going to be a hero to the antiwar Left, the Islamic community, or, if he plays his cards right, both. Once he gets a ghostwriter to do his memoir for him, he’ll have money coming in, even if there are no tv/movie rights…and the fame will bring him plenty of “female attention” (if he goes the antiwar-hippie route) or at least an arranged marriage (if he goes the other).
We can’t afford to have a man who does this be showered with such rewards as an incentive to others…so he should lose the rest of his youth before he gets to reap them.
Jonn,
My gram is giving you kudos in heaven! Because it sucks to support this President with all he HAS done to fuck things up. Right is right and you laid it out succinctly.
I agree with you on all points. We did not need another American beheaded and he should certainly have consequences.
“The President’s job is to do the best to save the lives of every single American that is humanly possible, and that’s what President Obama did.”
Well I suppose that depends on how you look at it.
With all due respect to your opinion, I think the case can be made that he did the exact opposite.
I believe he put additional American lives at risk both directly by the physical act of releasing 5 known bad guys, and indirectly by means of the message their release sends to our enemies.
I believe justice, the interests of the US military, and the interests of the Nation as a whole would have been better served if he had been left to rot in the bed he made for himself.
I tend to agree. That’s the rationale behind the concept of not negotiating with terrorists as a matter of policy.
I’d have had no issue with an attempt at a rescue. I do have an issue with freeing a hostage via essentially paying a non-financial ransom – which is precisely IMO what we did in this case.
Agreed.
If anyone were to work out the lost man-hours, lives, material costs and operating expenses that are a result of those five being released, I’m betting it starts to make the $100 million or whatever ISIS and the rest try to demand to release hostages look GOOD.
I still wouldn’t want it paid, mind you. But if anyone better-educated than I am would be interested in a guesstimate, I’d be interested in seeing it.
I’m totally with Jacobite on this. And didn’t we pay them something like a $5 billion ransom on top of the 5 terrorists we released?
Listen Bergdahl, if we’d have realized what a gigantic overflowing shitbag you were, we’d have left you in the Afgan mountains, where you evidently wanted to be. We fucked up royally and you’re back here now, and in order to save face, the President is basically letting you get off Scott free. Tell ya what, SERGEANT. At LEAST eight people lost their lives looking for you. Here’s an M-9, one round, and some privacy. Do the right thing. **SLAM** **opens door** Just don’t do the right thing on the carpet. ** SLAM**
On NBC now so probably legit
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-likely-be-charged-desertion-officials-say-n294466
My money is on a plea deal of some kind, one that probably has no time or “time served” and a DD or less than hon. But don’t cry for Bo folks, the libs will give him a book deal and some favorable tv interviews, then, if we are lucky, this turd will slip into obscurity until the next time a America service member becomes a POW, then I’m sure CNBC will trot him out as a paid expert talking head on the whole thing.
They just need to walk him out to a courtyard at Leavenworth, tie him to a pole, and give him a blindfold and a last smoke.
…to be followed by a movie directed by Michael Moore, with Seth Rogan playing Bergdahls part.
“Do I think that Bergdahl was worth 5 terrorists? Yes, any American is worth more than 5 terrorists.”
If that statement, a paragraph unto itself as presented, had been penned by anyone other than our host, a shitstorm of rebuttal would have resulted. This matter of Bergdahl is a hot-button issue; yet, look at the paucity of comments and the time gaps between Jonn’s comment and the few responses, compared to those that preceded the comment. I have no doubt that some of you, as I, were immediately inclined to respond but that discretion and etiquette prevailed. None of us would be barred for disagreeing with him. Speaking for myself, if I haven’t been barred to date, it’s unlikely to happen. Now to the 64000 dollar question: Do you agree that any American is worth more than five terrorists? If Charles Manson were whisked away by terrorists, would it still be true? How about if it’s limited to any American service member? Hell, let’s say it was a confirmed war hero, rather than a mixed-up malcontent, who was snatched. Would the deal be okay then? I could go with other examples but the horse is dead and I don’t want to beat it. Obama authorized a negotiation with terrorists. He claimed he did so because no American soldier is ever left behind. That is patently false. More important, if one looks to his talk after Bergdahl’s release—the odd one with Mr. and Ms. Bergdahl at the White House, one sees that Obama spoke much more about “a son” than a soldier. In other words, the official explanation (no soldier left behind) is a suspect narrative. So, it would seem that any American in the hands of terrorists is eligible for swap now. That jibes with Jonn’s statement, but I think it’s horrible, horrible policy.
No, I don’t believe ‘any American’ is worth more than 5 terrorists.
I also don’t think this ‘trade’ represented 1 American for 5 terrorists. While my next comment may seem like a bit of hyperbole, I assure you it’s not.
I believe this ‘trade’ represents saving one American life at the potential future risk of losing another 2996 Americans at the hands of either those released and others like them, or because others like them have been emboldened.
There is absolutely nothing in this whole stinking deal that I agree with or consider to be in America’s best interest. Obama sent absolutely the wrong message to the world, and especially to our enemies. Again.
The worst of it is, I think that’s the message he intended to send.
I agree that any American is worth much more than any 5 terrorists. The only exception to that might be folks like Bill Ayers and other Americans who like to blow things up, killing innocent Americans. However, that is not what we are talking about here.
That said, just because I think any American is worth more than 5 terrorists doesn’t mean that I am willing to trade as if there is some equivalence between them. As others have said, it’s just bad policy and this bad policy will cost many more Americans lives in the future.
Gee, ain’t this transforming America into an impotent shadow of its former self wonderful?