Bowe Bergdahl, Sole Afghan POW

[Rip]

Yeah, I'm sure no one did that at the time.

Regardless, I'm sure there will be plenty of information to come out now. Or is it your intent that he should have been tried in absentia and denied the legal protections and ability to speak in his own defense that any one of us would be afforded in any other circumstance?

Somehow I doubt we will be seeing him get the punishment he deserves no matter if he deserted. He should face a firing squad. I suspect he is more likely to get a medal and a parade while true heroes like Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, and 2LT Darryn Andrews will be forgotten/ignored by the masses.

[GreenGoo]

If it was to release a hero I could swallow it. But giving 5 top guys up for a deserter is silly.

Was wondering who was going to post it.

Just as even scumbags deserve due process, American military personnel deserve to be rescued. Even if they weren't particularly enthralled with being in the military. Heh.

I won't say I don't have some feelings similar to Rip's. It's just that "leave no man behind" should apply to all men, not just ones we like.

That said, Rip, don't be generating outrage on your imaginary "what will happen"'s. We'll see. The media and his parents and absolutely the military are all giving the desertion aspect plenty of attention. It may get white washed, we'll see. But the fact that we already have a pretty good idea that he simply walked away from his base shows that a white washing isn't going to be without some stains. Try not imagine the worst case scenario and base your current outrage on things that haven't happened yet. And in my opinion, won't happen.

[LawBeefaroni]

He's undergoing heavy debriefing right now and hasn't been allowed any outside direct contact yet. He'll probably stick to the appropriate story after "reintegration counseling."

And if I understand it correctly, his unit signed NDAs prohibiting them from discussing his...departure.

[Kraken]

The media and his parents and absolutely the military are all giving the desertion aspect plenty of attention. It may get white washed, we'll see.

I hope they aren't stupid enough to spin him into another Pat Tillman or Jessica Lynch hero myth.

I still stand behind my earlier post: This swap was probably part of a larger agenda that we don't know about. One does not trade pawns to make the other pawns happy.

[Isgrimnur]

Desertion isn't treason. And the last time someone was executed for desertion was during WWII.

Although over 21,000 American soldiers were given varying sentences for desertion during World War II, including 49 death sentences, Slovik's was the only death sentence that was actually carried out.

And I hate to break it to you, but desertion is not now nor has it ever been extremely uncommon.

Even with the recent increases, less than 1 percent of the Army's active duty force of 507,000 soldiers desert, according to Army data. That compares with 3.4 percent of the 1971 force that fought the Vietnam war, Maj. Anne Edgecomb, an Army spokeswoman, said Tuesday.
...
And even with a sizable boost in the rate of prosecutions, the overwhelming majority of cases still are handled through administrative discharge. Some 5 percent of cases go to trial, Edgecomb said.
...
Army statistics include the following:

—Desertions rose steadily from about 1,800 in budget year 1998 to about 4,400 in the budget year ended Sept. 30, 2001.
—After the Sept. 11 attacks, desertions trended down for three years. There were roughly 4,000 in fiscal year 2002, 2,600 in 2003, and 2,450 in 2004.
—Desertions rose in 2005 and 2006 and appear to be slightly higher again in the 2007 fiscal year that started Oct. 1. They went from approximately 2,700 in 2005 to 3,300 last year and are at about 1,700 for the first half of this budget year.

Let's see how long our society holds together if we start shooting service members by the thousands per year.

[Pyperkub]

Dockets:
Fazl
Mohammad Nabi Omari
Khairkhwa
Wasiq
Noori

These weren't just average Joe Taliban that were released. They were the worst of the crop. Commanders from the early days of the conflict that:

1. Stood up the Taliban in Afghanistan, pushed women out of schools and into full covered Burkas, whipped them for violations, executed fellow muslims for not being as fundamental as they were, destroyed world heritage sites that didn't fit their world view (Buddhist statues), burned, pillaged, and ruled through horror and the fist. Had no problems killing men, women, and even children that didn't strictly obey them.

Then no doubt some cut their teeth in the mujahideen fighting the Soviets under US direction and funding.

I skimmed the one on Fazl - I don't see that he was actually charged with anything (just a recommendation to continue to detain him), though I did see that he was wanted for War Crimes by the UN - I'm curious as to why we wouldn't have been able to have the UN try him. I did see this:

If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with ACM
elements participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.

But if we are leaving Afghanistan (and are there any other Coalition forces there?), then if we accept that the Taliban will still be there, then what?

[GreenGoo]

Let's see how long our society holds together if we start shooting service members by the thousands per year.

Volunteer service men. I'm not sure if that makes it better, worse, or the same, but imagine what a great enrollment ad it would make. Volunteer for service, and if you change your mind, we shoot you!

[Carpet_pissr]

It's my understanding that the witnesses to his desertion were asked to sign NDA's AT THE TIME, or shortly after his desertion. I could understand (but not condone) if the NDA's were recent, as a result of the swap, but why in the world would they do that at the time?

The simple answer is "we didn't want it getting out that someone had deserted because: morale", but I bet this kind of thing happens a lot...so is it common practice to have people in the know about any desertions, sign NDA's?

Weird. And potentially disturbing.

[Grifman]

That said, Rip, don't be generating outrage on your imaginary "what will happen"'s.

Unfortunately, this is SOP for Rip. He gets all worked up and outraged about things that haven't happened, and oftentimes don't happen. he just loves to attribute actions and motivations to people for things in the future that he has no idea will happen or not. He did the same thing in the Ukraine thread.

[Grifman]

And I hate to break it to you, but desertion is not now nor has it ever been extremely uncommon.

True but I consider desertion on the battlefield in the face of the enemy a lot more serious than desertion back home in the US. What he is supposed to have done is very serious. I'm not saying he should be shot but if true, there should be a consideration of additional consequences for his actions.

FYI, just a note of interest, the German army in World War 2 shot over a division's worth of troops for cowardice, desertion, etc, a total of over 15,000.

[LawBeefaroni]

FYI, just a note of interest, the German army in World War 2 shot over a division's worth of troops for cowardice, desertion, etc, a total of over 15,000.

The NKVD had a representatives in nearly all units to enforce Orders 270 and 227.

The first article [of order 270] directed that any commanders or commissars "tearing away their insignia and deserting or surrendering" should be considered malicious deserters. The order required superiors to shoot these deserters on the spot. Their family members were subjected to arrest.

The [227] order also directed that each Army must create "blocking detachments" (barrier troops (заградотряд, заградительный отряд)) which would shoot "cowards" and fleeing panicked troops at the rear.

Not that we should be striving for Soviet or Nazi-style morale mitigation methods.

[gameoverman]

Deserter or not I think it's against our moral code to deliberately leave troops behind, prisoners of the enemy. All efforts must be made to free them and bring them back home. I think a volunteer has the right to expect that.

Assuming he is a deserter, any action regarding that should happen after he's brought back. The decision on whether to pursue that or not is up to the leadership who have final say in the matter. If you support the mechanism that sends these guys into war in the first place, why wouldn't you support it when it decides if this guy gets further punishment or not?

[Canuck]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

[msduncan]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

They were partners with Al Qaeda more than any other government or group in the world. They harbored them, assisted them, supplied them, and helped them escape US military assault.

Would you care to let me know how they aren't by extension terrorists? Or are they some sort of glorious freedom fighters to you?

[msduncan]

Deserter or not I think it's against our moral code to deliberately leave troops behind, prisoners of the enemy. All efforts must be made to free them and bring them back home. I think a volunteer has the right to expect that.

Assuming he is a deserter, any action regarding that should happen after he's brought back. The decision on whether to pursue that or not is up to the leadership who have final say in the matter. If you support the mechanism that sends these guys into war in the first place, why wouldn't you support it when it decides if this guy gets further punishment or not?

If he is or was a deserter, then the weight of his freedom seems completely off balance with the freedom of 5 top level commanders of what many of you were pronouncing (at the height of the Iraq war) the "real" enemy in the Al Qaeda/Taliban cooperative.

What has happened to change your mind? Allow me, please: Obama did this. Thus it's ok. Boom. That's pretty much where it begins and ends.

[Combustible Lemur]

Deserter or not I think it's against our moral code to deliberately leave troops behind, prisoners of the enemy. All efforts must be made to free them and bring them back home. I think a volunteer has the right to expect that.

Assuming he is a deserter, any action regarding that should happen after he's brought back. The decision on whether to pursue that or not is up to the leadership who have final say in the matter. If you support the mechanism that sends these guys into war in the first place, why wouldn't you support it when it decides if this guy gets further punishment or not?

If he is or was a deserter, then the weight of his freedom seems completely off balance with the freedom of 5 top level commanders of what many of you were pronouncing (at the height of the Iraq war) the "real" enemy in the Al Qaeda/Taliban cooperative.

What has happened to change your mind? Allow me, please: Obama did this. Thus it's ok. Boom. That's pretty much where it begins and ends.

Is there any reason to believe the military was cut out of the negotiations? If not, Obama, based on intelligence advisement and probable recommendation by the Pentagon and or Cia, did this.

We vote these men into power, we give the military the power of life and death for nations. We can Monday quarterback all we want, but I doubt this wasn't thought through by the people we pay to think it through, well other than bypassing Congress which may or may not be disturbing.

Sent courtesy of the Galaxy.... note2.

[Kraken]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

They were partners with Al Qaeda more than any other government or group in the world. They harbored them, assisted them, supplied them, and helped them escape US military assault.

Would you care to let me know how they aren't by extension terrorists? Or are they some sort of glorious freedom fighters to you?

The Taliban are an Afghan political faction -- and former government -- with whom we violently disagree on some fundamental principles. Peace will not come to Afghanistan by annihilating the Taliban. That is not possible. Peace will come by integrating the Talib back into the political process. Negotiations are a good thing if we want to shape that reintegration.

Why this could be the start of something big.

[Canuck]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

They were partners with Al Qaeda more than any other government or group in the world. They harbored them, assisted them, supplied them, and helped them escape US military assault.

Would you care to let me know how they aren't by extension terrorists? Or are they some sort of glorious freedom fighters to you?

While I admire your simple 'you're with us or you're a terrorist' logic I still fail to see how that makes them terrorists. The US has also assisted terrorists, coincidentally some of the same people that actually are considered terrorists of the US now rather than formerly being terrorists of the Soviet Union. Does that also make the US a terrorist state?

[msduncan]

Bergdahl's tweet to the Taliban spokesman a few days before his son's release:

[Apollo]

...What has happened to change your mind? Allow me, please: Obama did this. Thus it's ok. Boom. That's pretty much where it begins and ends.

Well, look at it this way: At least Obama didn't sell the terrorists weapons in exchange for their prisoner and then divert those funds to support an illegal insurgency in Central America the way your old buddy Reagan did.

[Cortilian]

I usually avoid posting in threads like this because I pretty much like to play games and I come here to get away from the realities of daily life and internet arguing is just pissing in the wind. As a combat vet the people advocating what was done to secure this guys release really surprises me. For all accounts Bergdahl is at least a deserter, at worst he is an enemy collaborator and cost US lives during the search for him. I wouldn't have given a bag of rice to recover the traitorous sonofabitch. The President is required, by law, to give 30 days notice prior to the release of any prisoners and he refused to do that. I'm not going to rail on Obama because he has shown that his respect for the law goes only as far as is convenient and I expect nothing more from him but I am just really surprised at the acquiescence here for what was done to secure his release.

Oh well, my rant is over. Hopefully he gets what is coming to him, a long rest in a military penitentiary.

[Grifman]

Bergdahl's tweet to the Taliban spokesman a few days before his son's release:

I suspect he'd say anything to get his son back. Whether he really believes that is another thing, you should probably know that.

[Grifman]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

Since they started attacking purely civilian targets. Do I really need to provide examples like the following:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1222805/vanco ... ghanistan/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/taliban-a ... dow-state/

[rshetts2]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

Since they started attacking purely civilian targets. Do I really need to provide examples like the following:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1222805/vanco ... ghanistan/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/taliban-a ... dow-state/

When they start dropping nukes on cities killing millions like the good Ol' US is guilty of, then get back to me. No government has clean hands and quite honestly the US is guilty of some pretty extreme atrocities. Now Im not condoning any of the actions taken by the Taliban but we need to quit holding up the US as some bastion of perfect moral justice, because our hands are as bloody as anyone's. Remember, we invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around. To them WE are the terrorists.

[DD*]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

Since they started attacking purely civilian targets. Do I really need to provide examples like the following:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1222805/vanco ... ghanistan/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/taliban-a ... dow-state/

When they start dropping nukes on cities killing millions like the good Ol' US is guilty of, then get back to me. No government has clean hands and quite honestly the US is guilty of some pretty extreme atrocities. Now Im not condoning any of the actions taken by the Taliban but we need to quit holding up the US as some bastion of perfect moral justice, because our hands are as bloody as anyone's. Remember, we invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around. To them WE are the terrorists.

Wow, that is about the stupidest post I've seen on OO in a long time. Can we please move this to R&P where jackassery reigns?

[Isgrimnur]

The President is required, by law, to give 30 days notice prior to the release of any prisoners and he refused to do that.

And it was clear when that law was passed that he was going to ignore it. It's not like signing statements haven't been used before in the same manner.

Today I have signed into law H.R. 3304, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014." I have signed this annual defense authorization legislation because it will provide pay and bonuses for our service members, enhance counterterrorism initiatives abroad, build the security capacity of key partners, and expand efforts to prevent sexual assault and strengthen protections for victims.

Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists.

For the past several years, the Congress has enacted unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that have impeded my ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. Earlier this year I again called upon the Congress to lift these restrictions and, in this bill, the Congress has taken a positive step in that direction. Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees. Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
...
In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.

[Grifman]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

Since they started attacking purely civilian targets. Do I really need to provide examples like the following:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1222805/vanco ... ghanistan/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/taliban-a ... dow-state/

When they start dropping nukes on cities killing millions like the good Ol' US is guilty of, then get back to me. No government has clean hands and quite honestly the US is guilty of some pretty extreme atrocities. Now Im not condoning any of the actions taken by the Taliban but we need to quit holding up the US as some bastion of perfect moral justice, because our hands are as bloody as anyone's. Remember, we invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around. To them WE are the terrorists.

Check your reading comprehension. Nowhere did I say anything about the US - I never praised or denigrated the US. No one upheld the US as a "bastion of perfect moral justice" so stop with the straw man argument. The discussion was about the Taliban and whether they are terrorists. If you wish to accuse the US of terrorism, feel free to start a new thread (in R&P).

[Cortilian]

The President is required, by law, to give 30 days notice prior to the release of any prisoners and he refused to do that.

And it was clear when that law was passed that he was going to ignore it. It's not like signing statements haven't been used before in the same manner.

Today I have signed into law H.R. 3304, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014." I have signed this annual defense authorization legislation because it will provide pay and bonuses for our service members, enhance counterterrorism initiatives abroad, build the security capacity of key partners, and expand efforts to prevent sexual assault and strengthen protections for victims.

Since taking office, I have repeatedly called upon the Congress to work with my Administration to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The continued operation of the facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists.

For the past several years, the Congress has enacted unwarranted and burdensome restrictions that have impeded my ability to transfer detainees from Guantanamo. Earlier this year I again called upon the Congress to lift these restrictions and, in this bill, the Congress has taken a positive step in that direction. Section 1035 of this Act gives the Administration additional flexibility to transfer detainees abroad by easing rigid restrictions that have hindered negotiations with foreign countries and interfered with executive branch determinations about how and where to transfer detainees. Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles.
...
In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.

See my above post about internet arguing. I don't LIKE certain laws either but I obey them. But, again, I'm not a president who does whatever the hell he pleases when he pleases.

[Isgrimnur]

That's pretty much every president.

[JSHAW]

Think I'll rewatch both versions of The Manchurian Candidate this coming weekend.

[msduncan]

The law in question was passed to EASE the previous law in order to make it less restrictive for the administration to negotiate for him. Prior to the law passed last year, which you say he planned to ignore, the law was even MORE strict about this.

[msduncan]

Reuters is reporting that Qatar is now saying the men are free to move about and even return immediately to Afghanistan if they so choose. Nice job fellas.

[Smoove_B]

Nice job fellas.

Some are suggesting the release was inevitable:

I do not agree, as some Republicans are already arguing, that these individuals should not have been released. In my view, the U.S. would not be able to hold them forever. Indeed, it is likely that the U.S. would be required, as a matter of international law, to release them shortly after the end of 2014, when U.S. combat operations cease in Afghanistan. The Administration appears to have reached a defensible, hold-your-nose compromise by arranging, in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bergdahl, for the individuals to be held in Qatar for a year before they return to Afghanistan.

But what does he know?

John B. Bellinger III is a partner in the international and national security law practices at Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, DC. He is also Adjunct Senior Fellow in International and National Security Law at the Council on Foreign Relations. He served as The Legal Adviser for the Department of State from 2005–2009, as Senior Associate Counsel to the President and Legal Adviser to the National Security Council at the White House from 2001–2005, and as Counsel for National Security Matters in the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice from 1997–2001.

[LordMortis]

Reuters is reporting that Qatar is now saying the men are free to move about and even return immediately to Afghanistan if they so choose. Nice job fellas.

Their release has been the game plan all along. Bergdahl is just the catalyst.

Given the timing on how their release has been planned by the administration for months and yet no notice was given to Congress about the swap and we have press secretaries stepping down, and we have non disclosure flags going up everywhere, I personally don't doubt that mr deserter wasa CIA asset and his recovery is part of the bigger Obama problem of releasing CIA operatives names in Afghanistan in a press release earlier that week. Obama gets two birds with one stone. He meets a stated objective of freeing these guys and getting one step closer to closing Gitmo and he recovers and asset just in time.

[Isgrimnur]

Reuters is reporting that Qatar is now saying the men are free to move about and even return immediately to Afghanistan if they so choose. Nice job fellas.

[citation needed]

[AWS260]

Reuters is reporting that Qatar is now saying the men are free to move about and even return immediately to Afghanistan if they so choose. Nice job fellas.

[citation needed]

Well, here's the Reuters story. I don't want to spoil it, but try guessing whether msd got all his facts right before clicking on the link.

[Isgrimnur]

I'm shocked, I tell you.

"Under the deal they have to stay in Qatar for a year and then they will be allowed to travel outside the country... They can go back to Afghanistan if they want to," the official said.

[DD*]

When did the Taliban become terrorists? They're horrible people in my mind, but terrorists they are not. Unless of course you define terrorist as anyone the US is at war against.

Since they started attacking purely civilian targets. Do I really need to provide examples like the following:

http://globalnews.ca/news/1222805/vanco ... ghanistan/

http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/taliban-a ... dow-state/

When they start dropping nukes on cities killing millions like the good Ol' US is guilty of, then get back to me. No government has clean hands and quite honestly the US is guilty of some pretty extreme atrocities. Now Im not condoning any of the actions taken by the Taliban but we need to quit holding up the US as some bastion of perfect moral justice, because our hands are as bloody as anyone's. Remember, we invaded Afghanistan, not the other way around. To them WE are the terrorists.

Wow, that is about the stupidest post I've seen on OO in a long time. Can we please move this to R&P where jackassery reigns?

* that being said, while I find your thoughts as laid out to be crazytalk, I still snuggle you as a fellow OO'er After re-reading I saw how my comments might have come across more harsh than I intended. If so, I apologize.

[msduncan]

Reuters is reporting that Qatar is now saying the men are free to move about and even return immediately to Afghanistan if they so choose. Nice job fellas.

[citation needed]

Well, here's the Reuters story. I don't want to spoil it, but try guessing whether msd got all his facts right before clicking on the link.

The original Reuters story posted quoted an anonymous Gulf senior official (their words) as saying they would be free to return to Afghanistan and implied immediately. Typical of internet stories they went back in and further edited and clarified the story about an hour later with the 1 year timeline.

I do appreciate you being a total dickhead by trying to get cute with your statement about my accuracy and the link. Feel free to fuck yourself.

[Pyperkub]

Reuters is reporting that Qatar is now saying the men are free to move about and even return immediately to Afghanistan if they so choose. Nice job fellas.

Their release has been the game plan all along. Bergdahl is just the catalyst.

Given the timing on how their release has been planned by the administration for months and yet no notice was given to Congress about the swap and we have press secretaries stepping down, and we have non disclosure flags going up everywhere, I personally don't doubt that mr deserter wasa CIA asset and his recovery is part of the bigger Obama problem of releasing CIA operatives names in Afghanistan in a press release earlier that week. Obama gets two birds with one stone. He meets a stated objective of freeing these guys and getting one step closer to closing Gitmo and he recovers and asset just in time.

Interesting hypothesis - is there anything out there supporting this?