Then charge him and put him in a General Court Martial. But let's wait till he is back.

But hasn't been used in probably at least 7 decades.

I think the military is going to have to do a VERY thorough exam on him both physically and mentally.

And there's this: 'Most of the skills he taught us we already knew,' he said. 'Some of my comrades think he's pretending to be a Muslim to save himself so they wouldn't behead him.'

Congress would have had to declare war legally for that to apply. The US has not declared war since 1941. They could just give him a summary non-judicial punishment and have him do 7 days extra duty then discharge him.

i cant believe that the national security advisors havent weighed out all of the options here already

I really doubt the army would try for a death sentence considering they haven't done so since 1945.

to be able to face charges and participate in legal proceedings.

Is that anywhere official? He because President twice and nobody said a peep about it. Are we 100 percent sure of this?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?*


* Google this if you don't know.

I didn't have to google.

There has to be more to this.

The Obama admin can't be that stupid.

[img][/img]

I honestly don't see The President going on a happy photo op with the parents of a so-called "deserter" after releasing 5 taliban to get him back. I can see Bush doing something this dumb but not Obama.

[IMG][/IMG]

but what was this kid doing while in captivity, and how is this gonna play during the midterm elections? I would just tell everyone to lay low and stay quiet for now

unless we have enough evidence to bring them to trial on a specific charge--after 10 years, that's unlikely. And even if Bergdahl is officially found to be a deserter, that doesn't mean we leave him in Afghanistan forever if we can arrange his release. We bring him home, and he faces the music when he's able. He's an American soldier, still.

even if he was training the enemy in Pakistan? and what if the taliban was holding a gun to his head to get info out of him? (or to help them in the war)

to provide that information. The difference between Bergdahl and past POW's is that he was completely alone, no fellow soldiers for either comfort and support or to serve as eyewitnesses to his conduct.

Last edited Tue Jun 3, 2014, 08:11 PM - Edit history (1)

feels like their hand was forced

I don't know if the accusations against this guy are true or not. The military will deal with this under great scrutiny.

I just don't think it's a good idea to condemn him or question the alledged details of his release. There may be more going on than any of us know about.

Though I'm willing to wait to see what comes out in the months ahead. I know someone who is closely connected with the case that believes he's in some hot water. The person wasn't able to given any specifics (if they did they'd find themselves in hot water as well), but I know the person well enough that their connection with the case is real. I hope for his sake it isn't true or that it involves mental health issues that are bad enough that it would prevent the military from doing anything.

...accusing this man of this that and the other. Whatever else 'the truth' turns out to be, it seems safe to assume he's had an awful 5 years, and his 'safe return' has turned into a free for all. 'Trauma' doesn't even begin to cover it. I keep waiting for the headline that says they've found him dead by self-inflicted means.

of course his father was the Director of the CIA at the time, so that probably kept Dubya out of the brig.

So if the SCOTUS appointment to the presidency can desert and get away with it, Bergdahl should get off too.

His fellow soldiers noted he would stare at the mountains and talk about going to China; he sent his personal effects home:

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl intentionally sneaked away from his forward operating base in Afghanistan just before he disappeared in 2009, and that may not have been the first time he left the post without permission, according to officials familiar with the military’s internal investigation.

“We have no indication that he intended to leave permanently,” one government official familiar with the probe told Military Times. Several soldiers in Bergdahl’s unit told investigators that Bergdahl had previously talked about a desire to leave the base unaccompanied and may have done so and returned unharmed at least once before the night he disappeared, the official said.

An internal military investigation concluded in 2010 that there was little doubt Bergdahl walked away from his unit before he was captured. That investigation, known as an AR-15-6, remains classified and has not been released publicly, but several officials familiar with it have disclosed its results under condition of anonymity.

Reports about the internal investigation come as the Pentagon is facing mounting pressure to treat Bergdahl as a deserter, a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS08/306020047/Dempsey-Army-may-still-pursue-charges-against-Berghdal

he has mental health issues. The military has a duty if he does to identify and treat soldiers with mental health issues and take them out of combat if that's where they are. It is sad that it isn't happening. Getting into two wars and stretching our military has not helped the situation. I have to wonder if those coming back from combat are given the adequate resources. Given some have spent years in combat it is possible for some ticking timebombs with guns to be out there untreated.

(Keep in mind I'm not blaming Obama, I think Congressional funding is purposely low because they refuse to fund it.)

credit, please make sure and do that, will ya...

Make sure you make it look like Obama owed the guy money and this was his way of paying him back...

It certainly killed the VA reporting in the media

Last edited Thu Jun 5, 2014, 05:04 PM - Edit history (1)

now its a contest of who can posture the hardest for a court martial among the wingnuts

Even for 100% pure innocents, we didn't negotiate. It's the official policy of the US. Now we do for deserters?

Google "Iran-Contra affair."

You do not know Bergdahl is a "deserter." The Army did not find him to be one. He has not even been charged.
All the facts publicly known now point to this being a troubled young man who just wandered off and was captured by the Taliban. You know, the same Taliban Reagan called "freedom fighters" and who he trained and armed to the teeth. Bergdahl, who came from a small Idaho town, probably had PTSD after seeing the horrors of war, including seeing an Army vehicle run over an Afghan child - as reported in Rolling Stone.

Yet you do not deem fit to not give this man, who has endured 5 years of hell in captivity, the benefit of the doubt. Shameful post. As shameful as the Fox News fueled wingnuts phoning death threats to Bergdahl's hometown officials for welcoming home a "deserter."

It was an illegal and impeachable act. What benefit of the doubt? Right now there are only accusations toward him, but let's just say he was a model soldier, and look past the fact that his father is a proven extremist. Five high-ranking terrorists were released. You just don't do that.

Even the NY Daily News had this on the front page, going so far as to say the President violated his oath to the Constitution. And the Daily News is no Republican rag by any means. I'm sorry, I have always supported Obama but this is inexcusable.

And not a peep from the Right. Take your vile RW talking points elsewhere. Try reading progresive media instead of the Daily News.

There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about what Obama did. He did not give 1,500 missiles to a country we have an arms embargo on. He did a POW swap, a legal process we have done since the days of our founding fathers. That is how McCain got out of Vietnam. The war in Afghanistan is about to end. We would have had to send these 5 Afghan Taliban home anyway under the rules of the Geneva Convention.

Your post is shameful. You even smear the poor man's father. Disgusting.

How about all the Democrats that I work with who were outraged?. One said she couldn't believe what the President did. Another said what was he thinking, and thank God this didn't happen in 2012. Now, these people are by no means far left, but they are loyal Democrats who voted for Obama and against Grimm. Same thing for me, except that one time I voted for Bloomberg in 2005, which I regret.

So we have to release them anyway? Do you think that will happen? I find it highly unlikely.

You are making shit up. Your "friends at work" are not Dems. Dems want everyone out of GITMO who was not charged. No one, Dem or GOP, cried scandal when Bush released over 500 detainees over the course of his presidency.

You make no attempt to defend your outrageous smear of this poor vet's father. Your posts copy Fox News talking points. You do not address any of my points about why this is a good deal, other than to say you "find it unlikely" Obama will abide by the Geneva Convention. You seem to be fine with these detainees stuck in GITMO, uncharged, for the rest of their lives. GITMO, and what we are doing to the detainees there, has been a great terrorist recruiting tool. The less detainees we have there the better for our and our troops' security.

I am guessing the only reason you regret voting for Bloomberg is that he ended up putting all that money in gun control measures.

Does Dianne Feinstein know it was a "faux" outrage? Does poster number 7 of this very thread know it? My friends at work are certainly Democrats, they are just mainstream. I'll give you that that are not far-left. They (and I) enjoy the Daily News and NY Times (we hate the Post and Fox). They knew they were voting for Obama long before the Republican primaries. It didn't matter who won the nomination, Obama was a safe bet. Same here, although I supported Clinton in the 2008 primaries.

I voted for Mark Green in 2001. After that, I initially thought Bloomy did a very good job (my apologies), so I voted for him in 2005. Has nothing to do with guns, NYC is an anti-gun town. It has to do with him being a nanny state moron.The whole smoking tirade was over the top, but trying to ban large sodas was insane.

As for the guy's dad, the charges are true. Have you seen what he said on his Twitter before he took it down? I have heard other stuff, but haven't seen it in print so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. But if it's true, it's just insane.

As for the "poor vet," we'll have to agree to disagree. Apparently, he may have caused some deaths after he wandered off in the initial search and rescue missions. And who wanders off in Afghanistan anyway? Not the sharpest tool in the draw.

I'm sorry if all of this offends anyone. I really like it here, and I'm sure we all would agree on 9 out of 10 things. Not just this one.

Feinstein was pissed at not being told, she wasn't pissed at the deal. Feinstein gets pissed anytime she feels excluded from inside info--its all about her bruised ego here. She thinks the secrecy implied she would leak it and she sees that as an insult to her character. But these plan have been pretty public knowledge since about 2011, just the timing was secret. I think Feinstein is losing it and needs to be replaced by a progressive senator befitting the great state of California.

You don't talk like a Dem, and you do not appear to have the values of a Dem. A Dem would not use terms like "nanny state moron"--that is so Palinesque.

Talking about Bergdahl's dad serves no purpose other than to smear the man. I give Bowe the benefit of the doubt. The army says there is no evidence he intended to desert. He left twice before and came back. The fact that you have the company of a few posters on this site in spewing vile GOP talking points does not exonerate you.

I challenged poster 7 in another Bergdahl thread. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5050431 I got no response. I didn't get much of a substantive response from you either. You just offered red herrings: his dad's an extremist, Feinstein is whining, "friends at work" agree, etc.

I've been a lurker here for years. I remember when some town in SF or Oakland banned (or tried to ban) Happy Meals. Many here strongly disagreed, and I heard the term a lot then. To a lesser extent, many disagreed with banning plastic bags, and used the same term. Bloomberg is notorious for being a nanny. I'd say Big Brother but I don't want you to say "that's what the Ron Paul nuts say." Maybe "moron" wasn't a nice thing to say, but living here for 12 years of his arrogant administration wasn't easy. "Stop and Frisk" was a disgusting policy.

I never claimed to be far left or even very liberal. I consider myself a regular Democrat, and will continue to vote that.We're a big tent party. We have to branch out because we need each and every one of us to get out and vote for Democrats. I like my new Mayor, and think his views are about where mine are. I think he's way better than Gov. Cuomo.

I guess the Daily News doesn't exonerate me either? I assure you that it was on Wednesday's cover.

But your Bergdahl statements are disgusting.

Maybe we should just move on to a topic we agree on. I see you know a lot about NYC politics. Let's work on getting Grimm defeated.

Reagan left office in Jan. 1989. The Taliban did not even come into existence until the early 90s.

Those were Afghan Mujahideen (Muj) freedom fighters who Reagan was meeting with because they were fighting the Sovs, and the US was arming and training the Muj. After the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan, a civil war between the various factions broke out pretty much immediately - because the only thing they hated worse than the Soviets were the other Muj factions. Eventually the various Muj factions made nice and formed one group...which we now know as the Taliban.

It says he was meeting with the Taliban. So it is a lie. Period. The Mujahideen became the Northern Alliance which fought the Taliban.

limited exposure to outside world
grew up without tv
home schooled
thought he was going to help the afghan people
appears to have mental issues

He enlisted because the military will take anyone.

I'm glad the trade was made.
if he faces charges , I hope they take in all factors involved.

He was older than most of generations of prior military members,

However almost everyone in my unit in Nam was 23 or less. I was a 4 stripe Sgt at age 22 My Lt was 23. None of us would have left our weapon, our flak vest and went on a frolic outside the wire. The people who searched for this infant are rightly pissed they had to go out and some got killed looking for his hanging ass.

This person apparently went AWOL from his base on some kind of mushroom hunt. He is an idiot nothing more. In the long run nothing will be done to him. His legacy among the military types and others of a like persuasion will be that of a modern day "Hanoi Jane"

For whatever services as "fair" in a military trial. Still he did go AWOL which allowed his capture, he needs to answer to that.

I've not served, but I know many who have. And service in an active combat zone messes people up. So I don't think is unusual if he couldn't hack it and bailed, which is much better than staying in and cutting ears off or some other psychotic shit. But still its a crime in his service and he should answer for it.

I just hope he doesn't get thrown under the bus, he should answer to proper justice, and if that means he's acquitted, I'm fine with that. If that means he's charged with AWOL and gets whatever punishment there is for AWOL, I'm fine with that too. I just want it to be legal and fair.