Bergdahl is a deserter/traitor who last week should have been rescued by the President, who once rescued should have been left behind this week. Like I have been saying, the rules America swears by are all swept aside when the President of Damned if I do and Damned if I don't does anything. Movies have been made touting how America leaves no soldier behind. They forgot to mention only if he/she has proven themselves worthy. If not, fuck 'em.

What's the thought if Bergdahl is a deserter/traitor???

If he is, the military can bring charges,

But if he is a POS I frankly hope
he gets the firing squad.

They only executed one, because the problem was growing and Eisenhower wanted to "set an example".

With only a couple of exceptions, the United States stopped executing deserters after the Civil War. Why? Because even in the 1800's they were enlightened enough to realize that it's an inappropriate and barbaric punishment to mete out for cowardice.

Might decide to do that on his own. That's my concern about this.

There are a lot of nuts in the US

and live with the taliban .

then us peons and our generations must understand that if we dare leave we will be killed - 'national interests' (interests of the 1%) and all that stuff.

Desertion isn't treason...it's cowardice.

In the many reports and statements about his conduct, all of which are of unknown reliability, no one has made allegations of cowardice.

We have stories about him thinking U.S. troops were not acting aggressively enough, and other stories stories suggesting that he thought U.S. troops were TOO aggressive, indiscriminate and cold in their actions. But nothing suggesting cowardice.

Even mentioning Leavenworth is far too premature here. The investigation may conclude there is no justification for even non-judicial punishment, much less a court martial.

that should have been clearer. The poster I responded to wanted to hang him, I was arguing that the appropriate sentence if convicted of the worst presumable infraction would be incarceration and loss of benefits of service.

They don't execute people for desertion anymore, probably wouldn't unless one deserted to join the enemy.

It may be conscience after seeing war crimes.

or any charges that he was deserting or AWOL. The military and his platoon mates knew about that

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014819538

Yes, doing that in Afghanistan was exceptionally stupid but its also entirely possible.

I agree

Comments on other blogs that suggest Bergdahl by legal definition can't be charged with desertion, he was, when captured AWOL. You must be gone for thirty days before you are considered a deserter. Don't know if that is actually true, but if so, then Bergdahl may not be charged or severely punished. Time will tell.

You can also be immediately considered deserted if:
*you have declared your intention to not return.
*refuse to return if captured while AWOL or attempt to flee capture or return.
*attempt to join another branch of the uniformed services without disclosing your current military status.
*attempt to join another nation's service, whether friendly or foe.

(As far as we know, none of those apply to Bergdahl. He's still likely be charged with a lesser charge unless the Taliban kidnapped him from his post...which is a possibility frankly.)

Pvt. Eddie Slovik was only deserted for minutes (He refused an assignment to a forward rifle position, wrote up his intents to desert, walked several miles to a rear base and presented them to an enlisted cook.) when he was arrested and after a brief court-martial days later sentenced to death for desertion, the only US soldier executed for the crime in the 20th century. The insane thing about it was that from the moment he declared himself deserted to the cook, to the MP that arrested him, to the hearing board...they all begged him to just abandon his desertion and return to his unit. He refused, thinking he'd only get a prison term. Then having been sentenced, he was offered lesser sentence if he'd return...and refused because he was convinced that his sentence, like those of other enlisted personnel charged with the same crime, would be commuted.

No article 85s or 86s have been filed and most of the crap in the news is bullshit.
So why not be happy he's home before you put a gun to his head based on no knowledge about what actually happened?

Pres. Obama is darned if he does, and darned if he doesn't. That is the long and short of it.

for waking up in the morning! LOL!

Can't take credit for that sarcasm/joke.....heard it somewhere else, but still, some nuts feel that way!

The next time I read about them stoning or beheading some one.

We can try to educate people on the technicalities but it is a huge uphill battle to try and convince people we didn't just fight a war in Afghanistan because the Taliban were terrorists people will have to unlearn what they have been taught for the last 12 years.

Technically the author is right in the court of public opinion it is a huge loser. The fact that the white house didn't foresee this leaves me wondering what is going on over there.

would have been exploited a lot more, ignoring the effect the death in captivity would have had on everyone who knew him. That being said yeah I hate the Taliban and cringe when I think what women have to endure there. But America is getting out. And I'd rather the USA had some sort of relationship with the Taliban than none at all when they leave.

And of the two I personally prefer the the option they chose. The blow back from this should have been obvious.

I expect our relationship to be little more than lip service from both sides quite honestly. Sadly once again Afghanistan will slide back into mid evil times where women are kept out of schools and warlords will rule the countrysides with an Iron fist.

All of the money and lives we spent there will have been for nothing.

to use the country as a terrorist training camp.

doesn't take away from how bad the taliban is but the reason we went had nothing to do with the taliban's horrible treatment of people.

They were protecting them.

But really we went there because shrub wanted to, or probably more correctly because Cheney wanted to.

the russians were run out, and we had to show the world that we could do something they couldn't.

This offer has been on the table since 2009, and the administration declined to agree to it until now, and they seem to have done so now with some sense of urgency. It could be his health, the winding down of the war, changes in the arrangements for the what was to happen to the five Taliban leaders--who knows? It could also have had something to do with divisions within the Taliban. He was held by the Haqqani group, which some analysts regard a tribal faction rather than a part of the Taliban, so it may be that there was some danger of this offer being withdrawn imminently.

One of the videos reportedly was shown to legislators in the classified briefing today, and they were told of concerns that the value to the Taliban of continuing to hold Bergdahl was declining, raising fears for his safety.

when things like this break. Snowden? The VA? Politics is politics first. There was no altruism here in my opinion, my perception is that the US, internally has already designated him a deserter and didn't find his release all that importan in 2009. Why now? Because they needed a distraction. Had another administration carried this out it would have been called such even here and we wouldn't be seeing all the faux patriotism. IMO.

that some previous negotiations failed....Taliban withdrew, because the pending releases were leaked to the press.

has to be some of the dumbest shit I've ever read. I guess Kaplan has to hedge his otherwise supportive article. I also guess he'll have a fit over Boehner saying "We rejoice!" over Bergdahl's return, huh?

anyway because of International Law. So they were released earlier under the
condition they be held away from Afghanistan/Pakistan for same amount of time and we get our American back.

The only real win the Taliban got is the one the Republicans are giving them by Swift Boating our own POW and pretending these five bad guys are going to hit the ground running, killing our soldiers left and right like they'd been on vacation for all these years. A stay in our own Cuban specialized "camp" is not good for anyone's health.

I don't buy into someone is a hero or a coward. Brave or cowardly. Kids join the military sometimes (oftentimes?) with stars in their eyes before they even know themselves. Not everyone can put a bead on a human being, or even an animal and kill it, extinguish it. Granted he shouldn't have been in the military. But a lot of kids don't know that until it's too late.

We now arrest people who make a joke about hijacking in an airport as terrorists, but we are going to claim that the Taliban are not terrorists? Why?


I approve of bringing Bergdahl home, but I do not go along with to try to redeem the Taliban in order to justify the Bergdahl deal. That is as unnecessary as it is untrue.

anyone cared to arrest them. That was my point about arresting people under our terrorism laws for making a joke in an airport.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition

The exchange was the right thing to do. Attempting to rehabilitate the Taliban in order to justify it is as unnecessary as it is heinous. It's plenty justifiable on other grounds.

Setting fire to girls faces or cutting off their noses to keep them in line are not acts or terrorism under US law, but making a joke in a US airport is? Are you kidding? Shame on you for saying that is not terrorism.

The fact that they have not been officially designated as a terrorist group is only a further shame on those who do not designate them. A pile of garbage is still a pile of garbage, even when political considerations prevent people from officially designating it as a pile of garbage.

Also laughable: The notion that a"political faction" within a country (Afghanistan) that fires on soldiers from another country who are present in that country at the invitation of the government of that country are somehow not terrorists.

Teabaggers are a political faction in the USA. So, if they go to the UN and start firing at Arabs, they would not be terrorists?

Of all the bs that gets spewed in misguided attempts to help protect Obama, rehabilitating the terrorist Taliban has to be at or near the bottom of heap. I shudder to think what might be next.

the fact remains, the Taliban has NOT been declared terrorists, they are "enemy combatants." Should they be declared terrorists? Yeah, I think so. I'm suspicious of the reasoning behind why they haven't been declared such. Perhaps Bush and Company could not go to "war" with a terrorist organization but could with "enemy combatants?"

And remember, at one point, the U.S. considered the Taliban to be "allies." That too may play a role on why they have not officially been declared terrorists.

Remember When Reagan Met With Taliban Leaders In The White House?

Posted on April 20, 2009 by KayInMaine

No? Here’s a picture of the meeting between Reagan and the ‘freedom fighters’ (which is what Reagan referred to the Taliban as back in the 80?s and also considered them to be no different than America’s Founding Fathers)…



Nice huh? The American Taliban (today’s republic party) is going batshit crazy with the idea President Obama shook hands (and received a book! The nerve of that ‘dictator’!!!) with Hugo Chavez, you know, the guy George Bush labeled an enemy of America without any proof as to why. Anyway, Newt Gingrich is now claiming that republicans never meet with dictators (especially the Russian ones!) or the bad guys (nor do they shake hands, kiss, bow, or look them in the eye to see their soul!). Uh huh.

-snip-

http://whitenoiseinsanity.com/2009/04/20/remember-when-reagan-met-with-taliban-leaders-in-the-white-house/

They don't say they are not interested in arguing, then proceed to repeat arguments they made in a prior post and then add a bunch of pointless makeweights. If you really mean, you don't want me to reply, too bad. And one almost sure way to get me not to reply to you is for your to stop arguing with me.

I've already responded to your point about the bogus official designation. I see no reason to repeat myself and that point, even if you saw fit to repeat yourself.

That we considered the Taliban allies decades ago is also bogus--as well as totally irrelevant and downright silly.

At the same time that we considered the Taliban our allies, we considered Bin Laden our ally as well. He later became US public enemy #1, as well as terrorist #1, and he now sleeps with the fishes. Germany, Japan and Italy were our bitterest enemies WWII and are now our allies. That's how global politics goes; and none of it has a thing to do with whether the Taliban are terrorists or with the Bergdahl exchange.

You can put boogie man Reagan away as well. Once both Obama and Hillary named him as one of their ten most admired US Presidents in all of US history, waving him around lost its potency. And he, too, has nothing to do with whether the Taliban are terrorists.

Point is, the Taliban fit the US definition of terrorists and then some; Anyone who denies that is a liar. And anyone who denies it in some totally unnecessary attempt to justify the Bergdahl exchange is, IMO, an especially cynical liar.

The truth is that we have negotiated with terrorists before this, the Taliban are terrorists, we did negotiate with them and that was the right thing for us to do in this instance.

I think what Mr. Kaplan doesn't understand is in a backward way he has given credit or legitimized a terrorist organization as a legitimate government. I guess Mr. Kaplan ranks right up there with the Saudis, Pakistan and the UAE. Legitimate governments commit acts of war; terrorist organizations commits crimes. People may say that the USA has declared war on terrorism, but that doesn't mean 9/11 was an act of war. It was a crime. The White House even recognizes the Taliban as a terrorist group and note that the Taliban was added to the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT) by executive order in 2002. And, evidently Mr. Kaplan thinks Gitmo holds prisoners of war and not detainees. Actually, I don't really care what you want to call an American held by a terrorist group. I think attention should be made to how the US government negotiates; present and the past. Especially with organization that they list as terrorist groups.

as part of an effort to save people from terrorist attacks. The USG is the recognized government of the US.

The Taliban is not the recognized government of Afghanistan and Bergdahl has been held hostage as a bargaining chip.

(We could go to the height of 75,000 feet above sea level and debate whether Bush was actually the recognized government of the US and whether Karzai was actually the recognized government of Afghanistan, but I am just not in the mood for that kind of game on this thread. I am pretty sure my meaning is perfectly clear. )

Who are these Muzzies?