Atlanta Reacts to Bergdahl Case

June 2, 2014 23:45 pm

by Tim Darnell · 63 comments

A caller into Kim Petersen’s Atlanta radio show on Monday claims he saw recently released American POW Bowe Bergdahl desert his post.

“He walked off base … I was there when he walked off base,” said a caller identifying himself as “Ken,” on Newsradio 106-7.

“He walked off base, according to the post sentry, which was restricted.”

“Ken” said he was a retired senior officer with three Purple Hearts, who was stationed at the same base as Bergdahl in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl was released over the weekend as part of a prisoner swap with five Guantanamo prisoners, but questions have arisen surrounding the circumstances in which he was captured.

“I find this absolutely reprehensible that our government is spitting in my face and in the face of every soldier who doesn’t wake up on this side of the ground, as well as every future solider,” the caller said.

View from Brookhaven June 2, 2014 at 11:50 pm

I don’t know who “Ken” is, but he’s hardly “Atlanta.”

Noway June 3, 2014 at 12:07 am

I’ll be very curious as to how this plays out. Could this be a real-life “Homeland?”

Mike Hassinger June 3, 2014 at 12:25 am

I heard that guy too, and remember him because I heard him saying “irreprehensible,” and it struck my ear. He was very passionate, but seemed to be in control of his facts and articulate. Great radio and a great caller who wasn’t frothing at the mouth while he made very interesting points.

DrGonzo June 6, 2014 at 1:58 pm

“irreprehensible”

In what context did he use that word? Because it means ‘innocent.’

Chris Huttman June 3, 2014 at 2:15 am

No US soldier has received a punishment of more than 24 months for desertion since 2001 according to Wikipedia. Even if he did, isn’t 5 years with the Taliban enough? And the same Republicans who wussed out on trying terrorists are now upset that we might have to release them from Gitmo. Boo hoo.

joe June 3, 2014 at 5:34 pm

If Wikipedia is correct (see previous PP entries on Wikipedia and “Frigtard”). and IF Bergdahl did desert in a combat zone, and IF Bergdahl did collaborate with the enemy, then no, 5 years with the Taliban is not enough. A firing squad is enough. This goes way beyond political parties. This has to do with the betrayal of comrades in arms. Ask any soldier, sailor, marine, or airman.

Harry June 3, 2014 at 2:15 am

I wonder how many Americans will be murdered by these just-released terrorists.

WeymanCWannamakerJr June 3, 2014 at 3:08 am

Or possibly how many “terrorists” turned out to actually be the village idiot. Or how many are being returned with a chip left behind after their probe. This guy could turn out to be Audie Murphy and certain quarters are going to gripe simply because Obama is involved. Although I do think it more likely that he will turn out to be more like Wag The Dog’s “Shoe Man”. Not enough information is being given here and probably never will be.

Rick Day June 3, 2014 at 9:00 am

Zero, if we keep our Peacekeeping asses home.

Harry June 3, 2014 at 9:28 am

What makes you think they won’t come here?

DrGonzo June 6, 2014 at 2:02 pm

You’re thousands of times more likely to die in a car accident on 285 than you are to die in a terrorist attack. There just isn’t that much terrorism to go around. Which is why you have the NSA spying on Americans and our government using the Patriot Act to prosecute drug crimes.

smvaughn June 3, 2014 at 12:15 pm

A lot less than the number of Americans who will be murdered by other Americans. And a lot less than those who will die from contaminated food, or drowning in pools, starvation, cirrhosis, maternal disorders, diarrhea, and just about every other method of death that you could conceive.

George Dickel June 3, 2014 at 8:37 am

I don’t mind that press releases, endorsements, etc. get turned into posts here, but someone should probably draw the line before using anonymous, unverified calls into a radio show. Although I’m sure that callers into the Regular Guys or the Bert Show might bring a lot to the table.

There are a dozen better sources out there that could start this same discussion, but someone would probably hurt himself stretching out even farther than this to make it “local.”

Rick Day June 3, 2014 at 9:02 am

I like how the GOP supports the troops and POWs, unless Obama had anything to do with their release. Then suddenly Scrutiny!

I guess all that red/white/blue stuff is wash n wear…

therightdirection June 3, 2014 at 9:44 am

GOP scrutiny? How about the soldiers who served with Bergdahl? How about the 6 people who died trying to bring him back? Jamie Dupree said on the radio that the 5 jihadis released were some “leaders, not followers.” The administration clearly dropped the ball. Those screaming trying to defend such a dumb deal are the real partisans.

DrGonzo June 6, 2014 at 2:04 pm

Dianne Fienstein and a lot of other Democrats disagree with you, Rick.

Noway June 3, 2014 at 9:06 am

Well, Rick, it looks like this prime example of “Obama Heroism” has some serious freaking issues associated with him! Is it wrong for those issues to be pointed out/examined?

Harry June 3, 2014 at 9:30 am

Putting the five leading terrorist ringleaders back on the street. What could go wrong?

saltycracker June 3, 2014 at 10:19 am

Harry, look on the bright side, if we let the radical Muslims do their thing, they will kill all the liberals.

WesleyC June 3, 2014 at 10:10 am

Good thing this “Ken” guy decided to make the call. Now we can officially discount any other news or perspective on the issue and put any relevant context or complexity to bed. Thanks for the update.

therightdirection June 3, 2014 at 10:18 am

Several troops who served with Bergdahl have written in mainstream publications or used social media attesting to his poor behavior (understatement).

gcp June 3, 2014 at 11:53 am

Curious as to why “Ken” didn’t identify himself and give his full name. I have seen several other former soldiers that served with Bergdahl on various cable channels that gave their names.

As to any punishment I would not look for much as his chain of command (Ordinero, Dempsey and Hagel) are Obama appointees.

And please tell me they won’t promote him to E6; bad enough he got E5 after AWOL/ desertion.

Three Jack June 3, 2014 at 3:18 pm

If you leave your post without authorization, you are on your own. If you are grabbed by the enemy after illegally leaving your post, too fn bad for you.

This guy at the very least is responsible for the deaths of six good soldiers who were assigned to look for him. These six served with honor unlike the deserter. On top of these unnecessary deaths, there are five more known terrorists on the loose able to plan future attacks against America because of this deserter.

Upon return to the states, the deserter should face immediate court martial on six counts of murder and if found guilty, put to death. Or better yet, send him back to his platoon and let those he abandoned carry out the sentence.

taylor June 3, 2014 at 4:30 pm

I don’t disagree with everything you said, but 6 counts of murder and the death penalty?

Three Jack June 3, 2014 at 6:24 pm

taylor,

Not a perfect analogy, but if a person drives while intoxicated and gets in a wreck which results in the death of others, that person is charged with homicide. So yes, absolutely the deserter who intentionally left his post should be held accountable for those who perished while searching for his AWOL arse.

Harry June 3, 2014 at 6:33 pm
Three Jack June 3, 2014 at 8:08 pm

Read this to find out what happened from a member of the original search team – http://www.oafnation.com/guests-pieces/2014/6/2/oaf-exclusive-the-truth-about-bowe-bagdahl

If this account is accurate, then the deserter is a traitor who provided the enemy with intel that more than likely led to many casualties beyond the 6 known deaths. He should be tried as such.

Harry June 3, 2014 at 8:30 pm

This definitely needs to see evidence presented in open trial in a military court. No commissions and such BS, but a speedy trial to determine guilty or not guilty. Justice delayed is justice denied.

DavidTC June 6, 2014 at 1:22 pm

I love that the right has absolutely no idea how bad this issue is making you guys look. And how utterly stupid.

Here’s some actual facts:

1) Bergdahl is not a ‘traitor’. There’s absolutely no evidence he helped the enemy at all, and, no, some random guy suggesting that the attacks were ‘more focused’ after Bergdahl was captured does not prove Bergdahl supplied information, nor does it prove he didn’t supply it under duress.

2) Bergdahl is not a ‘deserter’. He was, apparently, AWOL. Soldiers go AWOL all the time, and usually come back immediately. It’s something he deserves to have two weeks of KP for, not five years imprisonment. AWOL is not desertion until a month. Bergdahl, having been captured almost immediately and thus unable to come back, is not a deserter.

To repeat: What Bergdahl is suspected for having done (Walk off base without permission) is something soldiers do all the time. It is not treason, and it is not desertion. (Although, incidentally, soldiers desert all the time also. About 3000 a year. They usually do it in the US, though, as deserting in a war zone with no way to safety is a really stupid plan.)

3) The ‘six soldiers died looking for him’ is complete nonsense, and has repeatedly been pointed out to be complete nonsense. None of those soldiers died while looking for them.

So, in conclusion: Way to randomly slander a gravely-ill returned prisoner of war, guys. We’ll remember this. And we also remember how for years you guys demanded that Obama bring him back. In fact, plenty of the right specifically demanded that Obama bring him back via this exact prisoner exchange.

Oh, yes, we will remember this, and we will hang it around your damn necks the next time you blather about ‘supporting the troops’.

PS. Additionally, for your information because you idiots seem unable to tell apart the Taliban and terrorists, these guys were not terrorists. They were government and religious leaders in a country we invaded. Granted, we invaded that country because the country was harboring terrorists, but that does not magically transform all government leaders into terrorists. They’ve never attacked US civilians. They might have directed Afghanistan forces against US troops, but, duh, that’s what you’re supposed to do when your country is invaded.

DrGonzo June 6, 2014 at 2:07 pm

AWOL in a combat zone/situation IS desertion.

DavidTC June 6, 2014 at 8:33 pm

You are wrong. Completely, utterly, infinitely wrong. As wrong as a human can possibly be.

joe June 6, 2014 at 2:57 pm

The primary difference between the two offenses is “intent to remain away permanently,” or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk “important duty,” (such as a combat deployment).
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/awoldesertion.htm

“… some random guy …” who happened to be a member of his platoon.

“…gravely-ill returned prisoner of war…” is a debunked talking point. Even the White House has gone away from that to him being in danger of being executed.

DavidTC June 6, 2014 at 8:33 pm

The primary difference between the two offenses is “intent to remain away permanently,” or if the purpose of the absence is to shirk “important duty,” (such as a combat deployment).

Yes, I am aware of that. No one else here seems to be.

Actually, there are *three* multiple offenses. There’s being AWOL (Which is basically not being where you’re supposed to be. You can be AWOL even if you’re at base.), there is desertion (Which is never intending to return to military control), and there’s ‘Missing Movement’, aka, failure to report for deployment, which is actually yet another charge. (However, that *can* add a presumption of desertion if the military can’t find you. OTOH, if they can find you, if you miss your boat or something and show up a few hours later, you have merely committed ‘missing movement’.)

A guy walking off a military base without permission is not magically a deserter. He is AWOL. And that literally happens all the time.

In fact, *he* had a history of doing that. He’d gone AWOL before, failing to show up when he was supposed to. (Which, again, is just being AWOL, not desserting.)

And, in fact, we don’t *actually* know that he was even AWOL that specific day. There’s conflicting reports if he was on duty that day.

(Of course, everyone here has heard the complete lie that he left a note saying he was deserting. I don’t know how to argue with stupid lies.)

“… some random guy …” who happened to be a member of his platoon.

Yes, because a solider on the ground is definitively in a position to assert how much attacks have gotten worse, and why exactly they would have done so.

Oh, would this be the same people who’ve invented a lie about Bergdahl leaving a note?

Even the White House has gone away from that to him being in danger of being executed.

You know, just blatantly lying isn’t going to work very well.

But you guys keep slandering POWs. Have lots of fun with that. Eventually, the actual truth will come out, which looks basically to be ‘Guy had poor judgement, repeatedly wandered off base in a war zone, was captured and mistreated for years, the right made him a clause celeb and demanded his release that entire time, he actually was released, and the right decided to slander and spit on him for no reason beside disliking the President’.

joe June 6, 2014 at 10:18 pm

Full disclosure: I retired from the Army in 1997. I served in a combat zone, but was never involved in combat.

The jury in Bergdahl’s case will be mostly soldiers who have been in combat. If he is shown to have left his unit in a combat zone with the intention of aiding the enemy, he WILL get the death penalty.

There have been too many lackey appointments by the current administration, so do not be surprised if this does not go to Courts Martial, and instead, punishment is given as a non-judicial under Article 15 of the UCMJ. There will be tremendous pressure from the White House to make this go away.

DavidTC June 7, 2014 at 11:15 am

The jury in Bergdahl’s case will be mostly soldiers who have been in combat. If he is shown to have left his unit in a combat zone with the intention of aiding the enemy, he WILL get the death penalty.

Additionally, if he’s shown to have actually been one of the top-ranking SS commanders in Nazi Germany, he can be charged with war crimes and executed for that.

Slandering a soldier with no evidence: A new hobby that everyone can play!

There will be tremendous pressure from the White House to make this go away.

Hey, moron, no there won’t be.

I like how suddenly the right has instantly switched from being 100% for rescuing this guy and how he was a hero to 100% against rescuing this guy, but, uh, the fact is he’s just a soldier that the current commander and chief exchanged for other POWs, like is always done. Nothing else actually matters, politically…that’s simply what we do, exchange POWs.

Jesus Christ, you people have really diviced the world in half, and everyone not on (what you are not claiming is) your side must be on Obama’s side, and thus any bad thing any person on that side (At least, on that side as of a week ago.) must somehow injure the president.

He’s not some close personal friend of Obama, and whatever hypothetical bad conduct you people have made up to smear him with, even if true, does not reflect poorly on Obama, or should have altered what happened to get him back in the US. Likewise, there’s not actually any reason for Obama to ‘protect him’.

But I’m glad you’ve already got the conspiracy theory in place when it turns out he isn’t the villain you make him out to be. Nice signalling to indicate you’ll keep slandering the POW even after it’s determined he wasn’t deserting.

Like I said…you people really can’t understand how you sound, can you? You absolutely must come up with some manner in which this harms the president, so you’ve literally written a captured soldier off as a traitor with no evidence…and the really ironic thing is, even if that totally baseless allegation somehow were true, that, uh, doesn’t actually hurt the president. (We don’t let traitors wander around free.)

PS: As you claim to have actually be en a solider: Let me ask you…what do you actually think about the idea that the US should have left someone in a POW camp, simply because some people make allegations that he was a poor soldier? Think long and hard about that.

joe June 7, 2014 at 12:54 pm

“Hey, moron…” good argument. I am finished with you.

Harry June 6, 2014 at 2:13 pm

One Democrat’s take on it
http://eaglerising.com/6610/obama-crony-calls-soldiers-served-bergdahl-psychopaths/

It seems that Obama&Co. is trying to take a no-apologies approach to the Bergdahl exchange. If so, they will regret that approach. Normally nonpolitical folks are very aware and concerned about how this “mistake” is being handled by this administration.

DavidTC June 6, 2014 at 8:50 pm

LOL.

Yes, the ‘Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs with the Office for Housing and Urban Development’ is a ‘Obama Crony’.

Remember, folks, if you’re friends with the president, he’ll give you a cushy job as a guy working who takes over if the person in charge of the vitally important office that ‘conducts national public affairs programs, provides centralized leadership and guidance for public affairs activities within HHS’ Staff and Operating Divisions and regional offices, manages the Department’s digital communications and administers the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts’.

If they’re out, you’re in until they confirm a new person. It’s like almost being in the seat of power! I mean, the department they’re not in charge of reports directly to a cabinet position.

..hey, wait a second. Did you really just condemn someone for making unproven slurs against active duty US soldiers? Does your irony detector work at all?

Three Jack June 8, 2014 at 8:10 am

DavidTC,

You obviously never served or you would refrain from displaying your military ignorance with each and every post. If I thought you had a chance of getting a clue, I would link the many pieces of evidence that will eventually be used to convict the deserter of at least desertion if not treason. But your mind (as it is) has been made up because of political affiliation instead of easily gathered evidence and firsthand accounts of the deserter’s time in the war zone.

If the deserter is completely innocent as you imply, then give him a few weeks of rehab and send him back to his platoon. Justice will then be served.

DavidTC June 8, 2014 at 12:07 pm

If I thought you had a chance of getting a clue, I would link the many pieces of evidence that will eventually be used to convict the deserter of at least desertion if not treason.

Ah, yes, the tons of evidence you won’t link to because, of course, literally all of them have been disproved. The actual facts of this case, the things we actually know, are that the guy wasn’t well liked and he had gone AWOL a few times. That’s it. That other stuff you heard, about ‘attacks becomng more targeted’, about hypothetical notes…that is what we in the business call basesless slander. Just because the talking heads you listen to have said them doesn’t mean they’re true.

But like I said…you guys keep slandering a POW. It’s going to be my signoff line every single time this blog talks about military issues. Something like this:

P.S. Remember that time you guys spent weeks calling a POW a traitor for political reasons?

Harry June 8, 2014 at 12:41 pm

So just put him on a trial and let the facts be known in the transparent, speedy, public process.

DavidTC June 9, 2014 at 5:05 pm

So just put him on a trial and let the facts be known in the transparent, speedy, public process.

Is this before or after we leave him in Taliban hands?

Yes, let’s pretend we’re in some other discussion where the question was whether or not to put him on trail or not

In this actual discussion right here, people, including you, assert we shouldn’t have gotten him back.

You can’t stand there and say we should have left him behind in Afghanistan (Remember, we’re actually leaving the country at the end of the year.) and then, when the absolute absurdity of that is pointed out, blithely say ‘Oh, we should put him on trial’, like we’re debating that.

We’re not. You can’t just move the goal posts to pretend that’s the issue.

George Chidi June 8, 2014 at 1:52 pm

Three Jack. I served. Try me. Link your evidence. I was a soldier for years, and while serving I covered military trials as an Army journalist. I think I can make the distinction between dereliction and AWOL and desertion. My friends from the service are of two minds of this — lots of passion, no consensus.

What have you got?

Three Jack June 9, 2014 at 1:27 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/world/asia/bowe-bergdahl-walked-away-before-military-report-says.html?_r=0 – “The roughly 35-page report, completed two months after Sergeant Bergdahl left his unit, concludes that he most likely walked away of his own free will from his outpost in the dark of night…

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/

http://www.oafnation.com/guests-pieces/2014/6/2/oaf-exclusive-the-truth-about-bowe-bagdahl

If even one of his fellow soldiers stepped forward to corroborate the deserter’s story, maybe he would deserve some slack. But this loser walked off his post during wartime thus making him a deserter in my book. Others lost their lives searching for him and we will likely find out much more in the coming days if (BIG IF) our government provides an unbiased/non-political report. So far we know for sure the administration wants to cover up much of the deserter’s case so it will be interesting to see if we ever get an accurate investigative report.

The only way I see this case coming to a different conclusion would be if the deserter turns out to be some kind of Jack Bauer deep undercover dude working directly for the president. Other than that unlikely scenario, this administration screwed the pooch on all fronts from PR to the release of the Taliban 5 and America now faces the consequences.

Harry June 9, 2014 at 1:45 pm

What’s worse, they traded five senior commanders in return for the joker. I wonder how many people have already and will in the future have to give up their lives, and how many soldiers will be kidnapped in the future to get a repeat of such unbelievably favorable terms. It will be a sizable number. You’re doing a heck of a job Brownie.

DavidTC June 9, 2014 at 4:59 pm

But this loser walked off his post during wartime thus making him a deserter in my book.

Hey, idiot, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, going AWOL and ‘deserting’ are two different things. The fact he’d done it before and come back makes it even more likely he was merely AWOL and not a deserter.

The amazing thing is that you claim I’m ignorant of the military. At least I know the actual definition of ‘desertion’, and know that walking off a military base for a few hours or even a few days is not that.

Others lost their lives searching for him and we will likely find out much more in the coming days if (BIG IF) our government provides an unbiased/non-political report.

Yes, we attempt to recover POWs. No, no one specifically lost their life searching for him.

Other than that unlikely scenario, this administration screwed the pooch on all fronts from PR to the release of the Taliban 5 and America now faces the consequences.

You do realize the Taliban are Afghanistan POWs and thus have to be released at the end of the Afghanistan war, right? I.e., they have to be released anyway within the year or so. (They probably should have been released already, considering that while we still have troops there, we’re not actually at war with Afghanistan anymore.)

And the only ‘PR’ the administration screwed up is being Democratic so that the right instantly despises anything to do with them, even to the extent of literally attacking the administration for exchanging POWs at the end of a war and recovering our soldiers.

Three Jack June 9, 2014 at 5:14 pm

I provided facts, you call names…figures…typical mindless troll.

You asked for links, you got em buckoo. Refute or just go away.

DrGonzo June 9, 2014 at 5:36 pm

David I don’t think has realized that PeachPundit, unlike almost everywhere else on the Internet, doesn’t take kindly to name-calling.

George Chidi June 16, 2014 at 8:03 am

Well, the essence of what you’ve presented is that there’s an open question about whether or not Bergdahl deserted or not. I’m not sure that’s the case. AWOL, almost certainly. It’s possible that he’s a deserter, or started out as one. I’m sure there will be an inquiry.

He will not be sentenced to death if convicted of desertion. The worst that will happen at this point, given his ordeal with the Taliban, is a year or so in jail and a bad conduct discharge. For all the frothing at the mouth about “desertion in a combat zone!” the penalties are flexible for a reason: not all warfare is an existential struggle, not all combat hinges on the performance of a single soldier and not all units are at risk of combat refusal. Bergdahl didn’t exactly spark mass defections.

Exactly one American soldier in the last 100 years has been executed for desertion, during World War II. Now consider what happened during the mass combat refusals of Vietnam.

Were Bergdahl, say, an American drug dealer or an American war tourist captured by the Taliban and held prisoner, we would have still sent men looking for him. We have obligations as Americans to our countrymen. This is what it means to serve honorably. You dishonor their deaths to say that soldiers shouldn’t have been looking for him in the first place.

As has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the Taliban fighters we traded are prisoners of war … or should be. (We have dishonored ourselves by treating them as neither prisoners of war nor criminals set for prosecution.) And Bergdahl was, similarly, a prisoner of war. As such, we’re obligated to return our prisoners within a year or so. Trading them early for Bergdahl is defensible as a result.

If we intend never to return these men, we are saying in effect that the war is permanent. That’s a subversion of the Constitution, denying due process and the rule of law for the sake of convenience.

Harry June 16, 2014 at 10:16 am

Forget Bergdahl. Yes, he endangered others and probably caused a few deaths of his fellow soldiers, but hopefully that matter will be developed in a transparent court. Please understand, these terrorists don’t play by the rules of war. How many more innocent people will die as a result of these releases? Why was it done in in secrecy and without the legislated notification of at least a couple of committee heads?

Three Jack June 18, 2014 at 2:23 pm

George,

Got a feeling this truly honorable soldier would disagree with you – http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/wounded-looking-for-bowe-bergdahl-107955.html?hp=pm_1 – another firsthand account of the search for the deserter.

Nice regurgitation of talking points, but nothing factual provided in your most recent post. Also you cannot be serious by trying to compare Vietnam with a draft based military to the all volunteer services we have now. Come on man.

George Chidi June 18, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Actually, I can compare Vietnam era armies with our current one. The current one is better. It’s better because it’s voluntary. The morale issues with conscripted soldiers have been dramatically reduced. The result is an army with far, far fewer instances of soldiers walking off the line — and far less military necessity for laws permitting execution for desertion. The threat of mass desertions simply isn’t there, so there’s no need for the level of legal threat.

There’s so little you’ve posted about this that isn’t a regurgitation of anti-administration talking points, I can scarcely take your admonition seriously.

I’m sure that the unnamed soldier in this story is an honorable man, and I’m withholding judgment about Bowe Bergdahl’s honor, given what we know. But again … it’s irrelevant. The soldier in this story who was shot got shot doing his job. The fact that his job involved finding Bergdahl diminishes nothing about his sacrifices. It doesn’t matter who Bergdahl was. He’s an American. That’s all the justification required.

I can see that’s unsatisfying for you.

All I can say is that I’m glad I served in an Army that serves its citizens with honor without judging their moral character first. The single most dangerous trend of the last 20 years has been the creeping politicization of the military, a movement conflating honorable service with service to conservative moral philosophies or political policies. Soldiers serving honorably do not get to make decisions about whether what they’re doing is good or bad based on their personal politics.

To the extent Bergdahl did just that — walking away because he didn’t like the politics of the war — he has dishonored himself. But let’s not justify that dishonor by advocating the same, walking away from our military responsibilities to our citizens because we don’t like their politics.

Three Jack June 18, 2014 at 3:37 pm

I posted a link to the only official DOD investigation completed so far, one conducted under a dem administration that concluded the deserter left his post. Not talking points, an actual report. I have also posted firsthand accounts that are non-partisan. Actual soldiers who reluctantly in most cases provide their recollection of what happened. Post a link to one single soldier who defends the deserter.

C. was shot while searching for the deserter. If not for that search, he would not have been shot at that time and would maybe be able to walk without a limp today (and note he does not complain, he just wanted to put out the facts). The deaths and injuries of all those who were ordered to search for this deserter should be grounds for criminal charges against the deserter. If he wanted out so bad, by all means walk away…good luck, good riddance. No need to waste good men chasing a dishonorable deserter.

I agree with you about one thing, the ‘creeping politicization of the military’ is a dangerous trend. But not because of some perceived advancement of conservative moral philosophies which have been trampled as of late. I’m worried about those like yourself on the left turning our military into a social engineering project which is what has been happening for almost 20 years now. We keep it up and there will be no code of conduct that can withstand left wing tinkering up to and including desertion/treason.

Three Jack June 18, 2014 at 4:13 pm

One other thing real quick, Congressman Sam Johnson made a great point about being a POW. He was held for 7 years in Hanoi yet states that he would not want fellow troops wasting time, money and lives trying to rescue him. And he was captured as a fighter, not a deserter – http://samjohnson.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=383842

George Chidi June 18, 2014 at 4:24 pm

If Bergdahl is found guilty of desertion, he’ll be properly punished. We do not punish people by giving them to the Taliban. The description of the injuries sustained by soldiers looking for him are additional reasons the act of desertion is a crime. They are not moral reasons to abandon an American citizen held by terrorists.

They are, in fact, moral reasons to trade for him in the first place. Had someone been able to engineer a trade for Bergdahl earlier, perhaps these men would not have been injured or killed. It’s illegal to set fire to your home. That doesn’t mean the fire department won’t come and put out the fire, because that’s what we pay fire departments to do. They put out fires. And then police arrest arsonists. After.

At this point, I don’t even understand your argument. Are you seriously suggesting that we should have simply left him there to die? Screw a trial, just let him die? Way to support the troops, bro.

Here. Let me help. This is what a “support the troops” statement looks like. “If you get captured, we don’t care if you’re the biggest malingering s–tbag soldier in the Army, we don’t care if you screwed up or not, and we don’t care if you don’t particularly like us any more, we’re coming to get you. Because we protect our own.” THAT is what support looks like.

Three Jack June 18, 2014 at 4:46 pm

I really don’t need your help to understand the military honor code as it was when I enlisted and is today among honorable men. I’ll rely upon those who were there in Afghanistan and others who were POWs to provide a basis for my position.

If you willingly leave your post seeking out enemy assistance for the purpose of desertion, then you’re on your own. If we come across you on the battlefield, you will either be captured or terminated without cause. We are in a war, not a criminal courtroom full of attorneys.

John Konop June 18, 2014 at 7:56 pm

Bart,

You do know he had psychological issues? He was turned down by the coast gaurd for the above reason…..and was having issues during the time period…..before you throw this guy under a bus…..we should all see the facts….

George Chidi June 18, 2014 at 8:32 pm

I tell you what, Three Jack. These are the Army values. They haven’t changed substantially since you or I have had to stand for a board.

Show me the part where it says “If you willingly leave your post seeking out enemy assistance for the purpose of desertion, then you’re on your own. If we come across you on the battlefield, you will either be captured or terminated without cause.”

What? It’s not there? Say it ain’t so.

Instead, it says this: “A loyal Soldier is one who supports the leadership and stands up for fellow Soldiers.” Note that the line doesn’t end “unless he’s a dirtbag, then screw him.”

It says this: “Put the welfare of the nation, the Army and your subordinates before your own.” Again, no dirtbag clause.

Three Jack June 19, 2014 at 10:12 am

John,

So you’re suggesting an insanity plea? Not sure of your source, but this article has no mention of ‘psycholgical issues’ as you imply – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/11/bergdahl-discharged-coast-guard-joining-army-memo/ – “This ‘unspecified’ discharge and reenlistment code is typically applied when a recruit is unable to adapt, fails to demonstrate adequate effort or is involved in disciplinary action,”

Three Jack June 19, 2014 at 10:28 am

George,

Show me where it says, “If you get captured, we don’t care if you’re the biggest malingering s–tbag soldier in the Army, we don’t care if you screwed up or not, and we don’t care if you don’t particularly like us any more, we’re coming to get you. Because we protect our own.”

Thanks again for making my point. The deserter was not Loyal, did not fulfull his Duty, showed no Respect, no concept of Selfless Service, Honor or Integrity and needs to consult with the Lion about Personal Courage.

George Chidi June 19, 2014 at 10:35 am

I will stipulate, for discussion purposes, that Bergdahl deserted. (We’ll wait to see how a tribunal sorts that out, but still.)

It doesn’t matter.

Harry June 22, 2014 at 9:52 am

What a precedent it will be for our force if this joker walks free. But again, the main issue is not his actions but how we traded five senior terrorist commanders to get him back. These five will go on to cause more deaths and mayhem than we can ever know.

Harry June 22, 2014 at 9:53 am

What a precedent it will be for our force if this joker walks free. But again, the main issue is not his actions but how we traded five senior terrorist commanders to get him back. These five will go on to cause more deaths and mayhem than we can ever know, and done without any congressional oversight.

Comments on this entry are closed.