Army Charges Bergdahl as a Deserter

[IlarMeilyr]

His writings show an increasing hostility toward the United States and many of his fellow soldiers believe he deserted. He shed his weapons and walked off the post with a compass, knife, water and a few personal items. These things inferentially suggest he did not intend to return.

-- Articles The Army s Bergdahl Problem

I am still looking to put a number on the topic of how many people in the military have been tried for desertion. There is (I find) just one case of an execution in the U.S. military history for that crime. [EDIT: SINCE the Civil War, that is.] But I am wondering how many have gotten TRIED for it.

One source says that LOTS of our guys got charged with and convicted of desertion:

The military sentenced more than 20,000 Americans for desertion during World War II. Forty-nine got the death penalty. But only Slovik was actually executed.

-- The Sad Story of the Last American Soldier We Executed for Desertion War Is Boring Medium

This suggests that "proof" is really not as difficult as some people might imagine.

 

[paperview]

The five Afghanis released weren't listed as terrorists.
The US secured the release of a captive soldier in exchange for prisoners that were due to be released anyway.

The 5 were Taliban commanders in combat with American forces....they were NOT due to be released you lying douche.

Yes, they were.

 

[BULLDOG]

The fuckup was signing up someone like Bergdahl to start with. Someone who washed out of Boot Camp for the Coast Guard.

and then the army kept promoting him in his absense.

Of course, of course. How stupid of me to even think that Obama made a bed call here.

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't have time to deal with enlistment of individual soldiers, or promotions. What kind of idiot thinks he does?

What kind of idiot deflects responsibility away from the President?

A: All of them.

No, he's right. Obama has little to do with enlistment. He had a lot to do with trading 5 assholes who will come back to kill Americans for one who is responsible for the deaths of those looking for his deserting ass.

Even if he is determined to be a deserter, we didn't know that when the deal was made. You saying we shouldn't bring our own back?

 

[paperview]

"The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

Sgt. Bergdahl was a U.S. soldier captured in an active zone of combat. The circumstances of his capture make him a Prisoner of War, not a hostage as some have erroneously claimed. In traditional conflicts, both sides would release their prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities. This is not a traditional conflict, however, and the Obama administration rightly had no expectation that Sgt. Bergdahl would have been released when U.S. forces redeployed out of Afghanistan. As that date neared, any leverage the United States possessed would have been severely undermined."

Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon No Matter What

 

[BullKurtz]

I know that an Article 32 comes first. In fact, I believe it may very well have been going on already. But what are the charges (the Articles) since the OP states that the Army is charging him?

No, he hasn't had an Article 32 hearing at this point and the charge is desertion...now go hang upside down from a rafter someplace.

 

[boedicca]

Just wait. Obama's reaction to this will be to free all the remaining terrorists in Gitmo.

 

[boedicca]

The fuckup was signing up someone like Bergdahl to start with. Someone who washed out of Boot Camp for the Coast Guard.

and then the army kept promoting him in his absense.

Of course, of course. How stupid of me to even think that Obama made a bed call here.

Considering that we had no reason to really hold these five Taliban guys (they hadn't committed any crimes against Americans) and they were of no value, it was actually a good trade.

I should also point out that the right wing had been screaming FOR YEARS to do something to secure Bergdahl's release.

Until the Black Guy Did It.

They're prisoners of war that the PC Moonbats refuse to acknowledge as a war.

That's the problem...not Gitmo.

 

[Decus]

Here are highlights of just three of the five assholes traded for Begdahl:

Mullah Mohammad Fazl
"..Fazi was a senior commander in the Taliban army during the 1990s, eventually becoming its chief of staff. He is thought to have personally supervised the killing of thousands of Shiite Muslims near Kabul between 1998 and 2001."

Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa
"...was once the Taliban's interior minister, actually helping to create the Taliban movement in 1994. ….a “hard-liner in his support of the Taliban philosophy” and “known to have close ties to Osama bin Laden.”"

Mohammed Nabi Omari
"...was a member of a joint al-Qaeda-Taliban cell in eastern Khost province, according to his case file, and “one of the most significant former Taliban leaders detained” at Guantanamo."

Bowe Bergdahl was traded for 5 Taliban commanders. Here 8217 s who they are. - The Washington Post

.

 

[BullKurtz]

Even if he is determined to be a deserter, we didn't know that when the deal was made. You saying we shouldn't bring our own back?

Bullshit...they knew full well the circumstances of this disappearance and the loss of life looking for his sorry ass. There are at least 5 witnesses to him walking away from his post....I don't believe he thought he'd be captured.

 

[idb]

The five Afghanis released weren't listed as terrorists.
The US secured the release of a captive soldier in exchange for prisoners that were due to be released anyway.

The 5 were Taliban commanders in combat with American forces....they were NOT due to be released you lying douche.

Yes, they were Taliban commanders - not terrorists.

They were to be released.

 

[Meathead]

The fuckup was signing up someone like Bergdahl to start with. Someone who washed out of Boot Camp for the Coast Guard.

and then the army kept promoting him in his absense.

Of course, of course. How stupid of me to even think that Obama made a bed call here.

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't have time to deal with enlistment of individual soldiers, or promotions. What kind of idiot thinks he does?

What kind of idiot deflects responsibility away from the President?

A: All of them.

No, he's right. Obama has little to do with enlistment. He had a lot to do with trading 5 assholes who will come back to kill Americans for one who is responsible for the deaths of those looking for his deserting ass.

Even if he is determined to be a deserter, we didn't know that when the deal was made. You saying we shouldn't bring our own back?

Are you saying Obama was uninformed about who Bergdahl was and what he did before he let 5 dangerous men released for a deserter?! There is either something wrong with Obama, you, or most likely both.

 

[jwoodie]

Seriously, what more does Obama have to do to violate his oath of office?

You do realize that these 5 guys were already leaving guantanomo, as a judge had already ordered, right?

So what Obama did was trade 5 men who were about to be released for one hostage who wasn't.

Then why did the terrorists give up their "hostage?"

He wasn't a "hostage" - he was a Prisoner of War.

You are the one who referred to him as a hostage, but now you dispute that term? Are you schizophrenic or just full of crap?

Why won't you answer this question: Why did the terrorists give up their hostage/POW?

 

[BullKurtz]

Yes, they were Taliban commanders - not terrorists.

They were to be released.

PROVE IT....and don't link me to some stinking leftist blog.

 

[ogibillm]

The five Afghanis released weren't listed as terrorists.
The US secured the release of a captive soldier in exchange for prisoners that were due to be released anyway.

The 5 were Taliban commanders in combat with American forces....they were NOT due to be released you lying douche.

were they? source?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Threads merged. More merges to come.

 

[paperview]

Did everyone forget John McCain had agreed to the swap? (thugh he denied it later)

Fact Checker: Despite What McCain Says, He Flip-Flopped On Bergdahl Swap

We fully appreciate that the details of a prisoner exchange are important, and McCain certainly made that caveat clear.

But since the deal was announced, he has suggested that the question of trading the Taliban Five for Bengdahl was a surprise—and that’s certainly not the case.

These five men were always part of the prisoner swap, so that is not a detail that can be in dispute. Indeed, only a day after The Washington Post revealed a deal was in the works to trade the five men for Bengdahl, McCain appeared on television with what was billed as a “new position.” ...
McCain may have thought he left himself an out when he said his support was dependent on the details. But then he can’t object to the most important detail–the identity of the prisoners–that was known at the time he indicated his support. McCain earns an upside-down Pinocchio, constituting a flip-flop.

Did John McCain flip-flop on the Bergdahl deal - The Washington Post

 

[DriftingSand]

Have they chosen the members of the firing squad yet?

 

[paperview]

Seriously, what more does Obama have to do to violate his oath of office?

You do realize that these 5 guys were already leaving guantanomo, as a judge had already ordered, right?

So what Obama did was trade 5 men who were about to be released for one hostage who wasn't.

Then why did the terrorists give up their "hostage?"

He wasn't a "hostage" - he was a Prisoner of War.

You are the one who referred to him as a hostage, but now you dispute that term? Are you schizophrenic or just full of crap?

Why won't you answer this question: Why did the terrorists give up their hostage/POW?

No I didn't. Look at the post again. Pay attention to what I bolded.

Army Charges Bergdahl as a Deserter Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I answered the question. Keep reading.

 

[BULLDOG]

Of course, of course. How stupid of me to even think that Obama made a bed call here.

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't have time to deal with enlistment of individual soldiers, or promotions. What kind of idiot thinks he does?

What kind of idiot deflects responsibility away from the President?

A: All of them.

No, he's right. Obama has little to do with enlistment. He had a lot to do with trading 5 assholes who will come back to kill Americans for one who is responsible for the deaths of those looking for his deserting ass.

Even if he is determined to be a deserter, we didn't know that when the deal was made. You saying we shouldn't bring our own back?

Are you saying Obama was uninformed about who Bergdahl was and what he did before he let 5 dangerous men released for a deserter?! There is either something wrong with Obama, you, or most likely both.

Wow, a brain dead teabagger is trying to point out what he thinks is wrong with others. Can you say IRONY?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't have time to deal with enlistment of individual soldiers, or promotions. What kind of idiot thinks he does?

What kind of idiot deflects responsibility away from the President?

A: All of them.

No, he's right. Obama has little to do with enlistment. He had a lot to do with trading 5 assholes who will come back to kill Americans for one who is responsible for the deaths of those looking for his deserting ass.

Even if he is determined to be a deserter, we didn't know that when the deal was made. You saying we shouldn't bring our own back?

Are you saying Obama was uninformed about who Bergdahl was and what he did before he let 5 dangerous men released for a deserter?! There is either something wrong with Obama, you, or most likely both.

Wow, a brain dead teabagger is trying to point out what he thinks is wrong with others. Can you say IRONY?

I can note it. Like YOU talking about anybody else being "brain dead."