'If this were WWII and some rough and tumble military general and FDR released some POWs to get a captured US serviceman speculated to have gone AWOL…. you’d think it was the most manly thing to have ever happened.'
- antisense on June 5, 2014 at 2:58 PM
‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, FDR would have traded Goebbels, Goring, Himmler, Hess and Rommel for Second Lieutenant Martin James Monti, who deserted and sought out the Nazis for whom he acted as an American version of Lord Haw-Haw or something.
‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, FDR stopped Eisenhower from ordering the execution of Private Eddie D Slovik, who deserted by merely saying that he could not, would not fight or something. He never even left his unit or sought out the enemy.
‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, Jerry Texiero, a deserter from the Vietnam War, wasn’t held to account 38 years later or something.
‘Cuz, like, um, ya know, the United States did not court martial Charles Robert Jenkins, who deserted to North Korea during Vietnam and made him serve time – albeit only 30 days – in prison…40 years after he returned or something. And, that guy spent decades in Nork gulags.
Not even Jimmy Carter negotiated with terrorists and the 52 Americans that he wanted back didn’t abandon their posts before being taken captive…
‘The Iran hostage crisis, referred to in Persian as تسخیر لانه جاسوسی امریکا (literally “Conquest of the American Spy Den,”), was a diplomatic crisis between Iran and the United States. Fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days (November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981), after a group of Iranian students, belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam’s Line, who were supporting the Iranian Revolution took over the US Embassy in Tehran. President Jimmy Carter called the hostages “victims of terrorism and anarchy,” adding that “the United States will not yield to blackmail.”
What did the terrorists want?
That’s right. Jimmy Carter could have returned the Shah to Iran and the Iranian terrorists would have released our 52 Americans…
…But, unlike Barack Obama, Carter refused to negotiate with terrorists and yield to their blackmail because he knew that it would have only resulted in more hostage-taking.
Would you have traded Khalid Sheik Mohammed for Bowe Robert Bergdahl?
I mean, if we don't leave anyone behind...
'So… un-Christ like.'
- antisense on June 8, 2014 at 2:57 PM
Wow, you described Bergdahl to a tee:
'There is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.'
- John 15:13
You've said that Bergdahl's unit is smearing him and acting like mean-mean-meanies, but they were willing to lay down their lives for a deserter. Bergdahl? Not so much.
So, who exactly acted 'un-Christ like' here?
'no it wasn’t. the easy decision would’ve been to do nothing. Obama went ahead and made the call DESPITE the headaches this would bring. Because we don’t leave one of ours behind.'
- nonpartisan on June 8, 2014 at 3:25 PM
First of all, we actually have to be leaving in order to ‘leave one of ours behind’ and we will have troops in Afghanistan through 2016.
Second, and most importantly, Bowe Robert Bergdahl left his country and his comrades behind when he, incontrovertibly per the Pentagon’s 2010 report, abandoned his post and went off in search of the enemy.
Finally, this wasn't really about getting Bergdahl back because 'we don't leave ours behind.' It was about releasing the five most senior subhuman Talibanists, including two wanted by the United Nations for war crimes involving the massacres of thousands of Shi'ites and ethnic cleansing, that we had at Gitmo so that it would be easier to release the 'not-so-bads.'
As Ben Domenech, accurately and succinctly wrote in The Federalist over the week-end, 'Bob Gates, Leon Panetta, James Clapper, and possibly even Hillary Clinton understood years ago that whether Bergdahl was a deserter or not, this is too high a price to pay, especially when a simple ransom offer was reportedly on the table earlier. This suggests the real aim was getting these five guys out of Gitmo, not getting Bergdahl back. And that’s a really troubling thought.'
'RWM, the taliban were gonna chop bergdahl’s head off if Obama didn’t pull the trigger on the deal'
- nonpartisan on June 8, 2014 at 5:13 PM
That’s a fucking lie. He wasn’t held by the Taliban. He was being held by the Haqqani Network, whom Obama designated as a terrorist organisation in 2012. This means, by the way, that if any money, arms, people, or other benefit was delivered, then Obama broke a Federal CRIMINAL law.
And, they weren’t going to cut off the deserter’s head. THAT is according to the ‘bagger’, as you call them, Dianne Feinstein.
Via The Hill:
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) threw another jab at the Obama administration by dismissing its claim that the Taliban would have killed Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had news of his release leaked early.“No, I don’t think there was a credible threat,” Feinstein told Bloomberg’s Al Hunt on Friday when asked about the claim by senior administration officials that Bergdahl would have likely been executed had it been revealed he was set to be traded for five Taliban militants.During a classified briefing Wednesday, administration officials cited the threat to Bergdahl’s life as a reason they did not give senior members of Congress advanced notice about the pending release of prisoners from the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.Feinstein said it was clear from past negotiations that the Taliban’s leadership was so eager to free five of its commanders from the detention camp that they would not have risked Bergdahl’s life, their biggest bargaining chip.She said the same prisoner exchange was discussed as part of preliminary peace talks in 2011.“We were brought in, in November 2011, when this was part of a bigger effort. And that bigger effort was a reconciliation with the Taliban. And this was proposed as a confidence building measure,” she said of the five-for-one prisoner exchange that was first floated several years ago.“Well, it was very clear at the time that the Taliban really want these five back. And of course history has verified that,” she added.Feinstein told reporters earlier in the week that the administration proposed trading the five Taliban commanders at Gitmo for Bergdahl in 2011 AS PART OF PEACE TALKS and that she and other senior lawmakers were nearly unanimously opposed.She argued Friday that the Taliban’s persistence in seeking to free its leaders from the camp, including Mohammad Fazl, the chief of staff of the Taliban army, suggests they would not have squandered their leverage by killing Bergdahl.Feinstein also questioned whether Bergdahl’s life was in serious jeopardy despite a short video administration officials showed to senators during a classified briefing depicting the American POW in apparent poor health."Well, that’s hard for me to tell. I don’t think that was — had a clear distinction in the briefing we’ve had,” she said.
Rep Mike Rogers (R-MI), Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said the same thing:
Per National Review:
'A State Department spokeswoman admitted to reporters that President Obama’s team had no specific information suggesting that Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl’s life would be in danger if news of the recent prisoner swap went public before the exchange took place, even though the Obama team has cited the danger to Bergdahl as a reason for declining to give Congress the legally required advance notice.'
And, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted to the Senate in a classified meeting that there was no threat or intelligence that Bergdahl's life was at risk.
Lastly, let me make this very clear: If they had cut off the deserter’s head, it would have been HIS problem. Not mine. Not yours. Not our men and women in uniform. Not our military. Not our government. Not our nation.
Obama's release of the Taliban 5 will, without a doubt, will lead to the deaths of Americans, Afghans, and others in the future. Obama, Bergdahl, and any of those involved in this insane trade will have the blood of those killed and maimed in the future on their hands.
Report: Bergdahl In “Physically Sound Condition”
- Resist We Much on June 8, 2014 at 5:51 PM
'he was kept in a metal cage in complete darkness for extended periods of time. for deserting the army, does one deserve torture and death?!! Bergdal should be punished for leaving his post…but that doesn’t mean he deserves a fate more horrific than death'
- nonpartisan on June 8, 2014 at 6:00 PM
For 5 days…years ago. Again, not my problem. Additionally, in recent years, he has been seen playing soccer with his captors, carrying around an AK-47, giggling with them, and frequently and proclaiming 'Salaam,' the Arabic word for 'peace.' Note, too, that he was speaking in Arabic, not Pashto.
And, yes, if you desert in a time of war, I have no problem with you being executed.
If the Greatest Generation had been comprised of people like you, we’d be speaking German and/or Japanese.
As the indispensable Del Dolemonte reminds us:
Currently under the US Military Code of Justice, there are 14 possible offenses punishable by the death penalty.
Bergdahl [may have -SoRo]
committed more than one of them.
The list, with the offenses Bergdahl could be charged with bolded:
94 – Mutiny or sedition
99 – Misbehavior before the enemy
100 – Subordinate compelling surrender
101 – Improper use of countersign
102 – Forcing a safeguard
104 – Aiding the enemy
106a – Espionage
110 – Improper hazarding of vessel
118 – Murder (including both premeditated murder and felony murder)
120 – Rape (including child rape)
Four provisions of the UCMJ carry a death sentence only if the crime is committed during times of war:
85 – Desertion
90 – Assaulting or willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer
106 – Lurking as a spy or acting as a spy
113 – Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout
FYI there are currently 5 military members who have been sentenced to death for USMC violations. And two of those have been sentenced to death on O’bama’s watch as Commander in Chief.
Why do you think execution, branding, and/or decades at hard labour have been the punishment for deserters for time immemorial?
Hint: The primary reason isn’t punishing the deserter, at least as far as execution is concerned.
First and foremost, it enforces discipline. If we let people desert and fail to punish them, how will that affect the rest of the troops? Can you imagine trying to fight World War II with a rule that anyone who wants to leave his post and the war at any time can?
You'd be speaking either Japanese or German today.
Secondly, the military isn't exactly focused on the individual. The cohesiveness of the unit is paramount. If you are going to depend on your brothers-and-sisters-in-arms and ask them to put their lives on the line for you, then they need to know that you are not going to be able to just walk away whenever you decide...leaving them in the lurch.
Both of you are bloody