Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

[phkrause]

Good question Johann. Probably because there such good people themselves. (talking about those that are calling with the threats)

[bonnie]

Still determined to get this moved?

Yes,the five released should have been tried for their crimes.

Part of the problem revolves around...

Obama himself signed a law last year requiring him to give Congress 30 days’ notice prior to releasing any Guantanamo Bay prisoner.

John McCain was captured and held by North Vietnam,a legitimate government.The Viet Cong was a guerrilla force,terrorists. There is supposed to be no negotiating with terrorists

It was also done as part of a negotiated cease fire. Not done in secret and then sprung on the american public.A little different.

It does have to do with a president going his own way and doing his own thing.

A jobs bill is not what this country needs.A bill does not create jobs,but even so the president could be far more active if he chose

[bonnie]

Why are his parents now receiving death threats?

Probably for the same reason the parents of George Zimmerman were threatened and had their home address listed on the internet.

I didn't imply that I agreed it should be done.

The accounts of his father's behavior might have something to do with the resentment people feel towards them

[bonnie]

Very little is known about his own personal behavior. From what is known, it is NOT one-sided.

There doesn't seem to be any dispute over the letter he left behind or the fact he sent his personal belongings home before he left.

If he deserted it doesn't matter if it were one sided. He would be a deserter.

[Tom Wetmore]

So what you are saying is that the appropriate penalty for desertion under our system of justice, military justice to be specific, is to leave the deserter to the enemy with no investigation or trial?!?!

And by the way, your attempted distinction of the Viet Cong is just plain silly, a distinction without a difference.

Of the few things of late that CNN gets right, it's banner the other day in a discussion of this situation was the truth. It said Bergdahl being tried by the public. How about letting our system that these men fight to defend do its work.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

There doesn't seem to be any dispute over the letter he left behind or the fact he sent his personal belongings home before he left.

If he deserted it doesn't matter if it were one sided. He would be a deserter.

O.K. Bonnie.

Let us mention a couple of facts that are known, indicate that he may not have been attempting to desert and that you have neglected to mention:

1) Sgt. Bergdahl is alleged to have had a history of going into the village alone. On every occasion that he is alleged to have done this, he returned, with this one exception.

If this alleged pattern is true, it casts doubt on the allegation that he intended to desert this time.

2) The Edward Snowdon leaks of classified material clearly reveal a Taliban radio communication that they had captured a U. S. Soldier in the area where Sgt. Bergdahl was, on the day he went missing. And that thy captured him without a fight due to the fact that he was sitting in a latrine, with his pants down around his legs doing what people commonly do when they visit a latrine.

These same leaks show that intelligence analysts identified the above soldier as Sgt. Bergdahl.

This is additional information that casts doubt on the intention of Sgt. Bergdahl to desert.

As to why you have not mentioned these aspects, I do not know. But, they are not the only issues that, if true, may cast doubt on his intent to desert, that have been published. Perhaps you are not aware of some of these as I read reports that, while available to the public, are commonly only read by military related people.

The bottom line is: The men and women of the Armed Forces go into battle to fight for the freedoms that we have in the U.S. One of those freedoms is that each will be co nsidered "not guilty" until determined otherwise by a competent investigation of the facts and circumstances. That has not been accomplished in the case of Sgt. Bergdahl.

A competent investigation should be made, in which he has the right to defend himself and determines the following:

1) The level of misconduct, if any.

2) The appropriate punishment for any determined level of misconduct.

[Gregory Matthews]

I will comment on a couple of issues that Bonnie has raised, as have others, from my perspective:

I was part of an invasion force that wend into an English speaking country. I spent some 33 days in country, during a time of declared combat. After I left, our military remained in that country for more than a year.

1) It is alleged that Sgt. Bergdahl mailed personal items home to the U.S. So did many of the men and women in country with me, especially as the combat circumstances changed and as individuals believed that the time was coming when they would return to the U.S.

2) I, as did others, went into the went, alone, into the local city/village. Yes, there was danger. It was a time of war. The citizens were armed. We went. NOne of us were disciplined. PEopoe do that.

Yes, I had a couple of "experiences."

1) An angry adult cow took offense at me being in her country. She attempted to penetrate my right chest with one of her horns. I was young, fit, and strong. I won the wrestling match. While I can not say that I escaped without a scratch, she was unable to penetrate my chest.

The owner of the cow was sure scared until I assured him that all was O.K.

NOTE: I did not receive a Purple Hart for my injury.

2) While the citizens of the country spoke English, it was not the English of the United States and it had a somewhat different culture.

On one occasion, I was surrounded by a large group of citizens who thought that I had spoken disrespectfully to one of their women. Well, we worked through that and all had a big laugh once we all realized that there had been a misunderstanding due to a language difference.

Was I disciplined for any of this? No. All I got was a Joint Services Commendation Medal for my 33 days in combat.

Bonnie, The issues that you raise are not uncommon in combat.

[bonnie]

O.K. Bonnie.

Let us mention a couple of facts that are known, indicate that he may not have been attempting to desert and that you have neglected to mention:

1) Sgt. Bergdahl is alleged to have had a history of going into the village alone. On every occasion that he is alleged to have done this, he returned, with this one exception.

[bonnie]

So what you are saying is that the appropriate penalty for desertion under our system of justice, military justice to be specific, is to leave the deserter to the enemy with no investigation or trial?!?!

[bonnie]

The history you raise about going off alone is reported to have happened twice.Once in the states and once in Afghanistan.

Your other comment as to sending personal possessions home,

Was this followed by the type of letter Bergdahl left behind?

How many fathers in the past have stepped forward in the White House with the remarks his father made? His father's actions are not his but were pretty tacky. A little like Heil Hitler after WW11. Certainly has added anger for many

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

The history you raise about going off alone is reported to have happened twice. Once in the states and once in Afghanistan.

Perhaps the above is true. However, there is some reason to believe that it is not true. In any case, the American way is to have a fair process to determine the truth.

Some have commented on their belief that President Obama violated U.S. law in failing to give Congress 30 days notice.

Well, even the President is entitled to be "not guilty" until a fair process determines that he is guilty.

Yes, even the President may be required to follow the law.

However, under the Federal Constitution, Article II, Section 2, the President is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. He has the authority to make decisions involving the military.

Did the President violate the law? Under Article I, Section 3, Congress has the right to bring him to trail and the established penalty for a violation of the law is impeachment. However, under Article II Section 4, impeachment for violation of the law can only take place if it is determined that the President has committed a "High Crime." IOW, if the violation of the law does not involve a "High Crime" impeachment can not take place for a violation of the law.

NOTE: I am only talking about impeachment for violation of the law as there are other grounds for impeachment.

With these aspects of the Federal Constitution in place, it is highly questionable that Congress would ever impeach (find him guilty) the President for what he did.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Perhaps the above is true. However, there is some reason to believe that it is not true. In any case, the American way is to have a fair process to determine the truth.

Has someone suggested he should not have a fair trial?

The law governing transfers of Guantanamo Bay detainees however, is not mysterious. A 2013 defense bill makes it clear that the administration “shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress” not later “than 30 days before the transfer or release” of a detainee.

This is from Msnbc,even those on his side of the aisle disagree or have severe reservations as to how this all took place.

Quote:

Yes, even the President may be required to follow the law.

Really?

Quote:

However, under the Federal Constitution, Article II, Section 2, the President is the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. He has the authority to make decisions involving the military.

Did the President violate the law? Under Article I, Section 3, Congress has the right to bring him to trail and the established penalty for a violation of the law is impeachment. However, under Article II Section 4, impeachment for violation of the law can only take place if it is determined that the President has committed a "High Crime." IOW, if the violation of the law does not involve a "High Crime" impeachment can not take place for a violation of the law.

Didn't know this was about impeachment. Obama signed the 2013 Defense bill and that seems to be very clear.

[bonnie]

Regardless of the type of inquiry that takes place,Bergdahl will have a very rough road I think. Not to many will be eager to hire someone they view as a traitor. The feelings and remarks of those that served with him will carry a lot more weight

To many things can't be explained away as easily as is being tried here. The image of his father doing basically a "Heil Hitler" in the Rose Garden will stay. As will how this all took place.

What the military does really won't change that now.

[Gregory Matthews]

FYI:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/06/04/bergdahl-could-receive-300k-in-retroactive-pay.html

[Gregory Matthews]

On a different note:

Quote:

Associated Press | Jun 08, 2014 | by Lolita C. Baldor

PARIS -- Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has told people treating him at a U.S. military medical facility in Germany that he was tortured, beaten and held in a cage by his Taliban captors in Afghanistan after he tried to escape, a senior U.S. official said Sunday.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss what Bergdahl has revealed about the conditions of his captivity.

[bonnie]

On a different note:

This is surprising?

Most would not be surprised by less than hospitable treatment by terrorists. If reports are true,even those that benefit from a traitor don't have a great deal of respect for them.

Did Bergdahl expect red carpet treatment? Is Bergdahl's account true? Maybe,but you could hardly expect Bergdahl to say anything different.

He must have some idea of the hole that he and others have dug for him.The fact that he was released and will be coming home

really isn't the core issue here.

Even Chris(thrill up his leg) Matthews had some pretty harsh words concerning the way this was handled.Matthews of course is not a politician,but typically he almost froths at the mouth at the suggestion of criticism of the president.

Aside from that,even many democrats can't defend the way this was done,and some even disagree with you and claim the president broke the law.

Bergdahl will face the backlash for the parade at the Rose Garden and his new found "hero" status with such a cloud over his head

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie said:

Quote:

Aside from that,even many democrats can't defend the way this was done,and some even disagree with you and claim the president broke the law.

Bonnie, I never said that the President did not break the law.

Here is what I said:

Quote:

Did the President violate the law? Under Article I, Section 3, Congress has the right to bring him to trial and the established penalty for a violation of the law is impeachment. However, under Article II Section 4, impeachment for violation of the law can only take place if it is determined that the President has committed a "High Crime." IOW, if the violation of the law does not involve a "High Crime" impeachment can not take place for a violation of the law.

I identified the process by which Congress can determine whether or not the President broke the law and the punishment for a determination that the President had broken the law.

Then I went on to say that Impeachment could only be determined for breaking the law (there are other reasons for impeachment) by a determination that the President had committed a "high Crime."

Perhaps the President did break the law. If he is not tried and found guilty of such, under our law, he is not guilty.

Do you think that Congress would decide what he did was a High crime and impeach him for doing so?

[bonnie]

Bonnie said:

Quote:

Aside from that,even many democrats can't defend the way this was done,and some even disagree with you and claim the president broke the law.

Bonnie, I never said that the President did not break the law.

Here is what I said:

Quote:

Did the President violate the law? Under Article I, Section 3, Congress has the right to bring him to trial and the established penalty for a violation of the law is impeachment. However, under Article II Section 4, impeachment for violation of the law can only take place if it is determined that the President has committed a "High Crime." IOW, if the violation of the law does not involve a "High Crime" impeachment can not take place for a violation of the law.

I identified the process by which Congress can determine whether or not the President broke the law and the punishment for a determination that the President had broken the law.

Then I went on to say that Impeachment could only be determined for breaking the law (there are other reasons for impeachment) by a determination that the President had committed a "high Crime."

Perhaps the President did break the law. If he is not tried and found guilty of such, under our law, he is not guilty.

Do you think that Congress would decide what he did was a High crime and impeach him for doing so?

I would hope not. Whether he deserves or not the country doesn't need that kind of turmoil.Besides I believe that would lead to riots and that we don't need.Nor would I want Biden to step into the role,if possible he would be worse.A little like one of the three stooges.

Because a person is not tried for their actions they don't become innocent. This has been portrayed as a hatred of the president. With so many on the other side of the aisle that have real problems with what took place here does that mean those that typically support the president suddenly hate him?

Or does that mean there is good reason the disgust over the actions involved?

A lot of people really were turned off by the father's behavior and words in the Rose Garden. I really can't blame them. I have family members that have done two and three tours in Afghanistan and it is a deliberate slap in their face.Should Bergdahl be held accountable for that? He will be.

Unless there were a very good reason I can't imagine any of them speaking out and against a soldier they had served with been captured and then released.

Very few can condone how this took place,the deliberate by passing of congress,not the first time,changing stories.

Iran Contra has been brought up a few times.Maybe we can have the same type of investigation going on for months over Bergdahl's behavior and that of the president

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Because a person is not tried for their actions they don't become innocent.

It makes them: Not Guilty!

[lazarus]

All Bergdhal has to say in his first TV interview is that he was tired of Obama's war and he would soon regain his hero status. The real question is whether he is a republican deserter or a democrat deserter and we now see that the new maxim is "leave no political opportunity behind".

[bonnie]

All Bergdhal has to say in his first TV interview is that he was tired of Obama's war and he would soon regain his hero status. The real question is whether he is a republican deserter or a democrat deserter and we now see that the new maxim is "leave no political opportunity behind".

You really think the political party of a deserter matters on e whit to those he served with?

I am sure most are tired of the war,regardless of whose name you choose to put on it. Generally,if that is what this was,desertion is not taken as lightly as you seem to.

A deserter is a deserter and in a "rational" mind political

leanings don't change the way it is viewed. Many democrat politicians,and left leaning media have had some negative or harsh words on this but some will still view this as political

[bonnie]

It makes them: Not Guilty!

It simply means they were not tried. Doesn't mean they didn't commit the act.

I was pulled over for speeding. I was a guilty as you could get

and should have had a whopping speeding ticket.

The officer for some reason,after pinning my ears back,decided on a warning. Does the absence of a ticket mean I was not guilty?

I still had been clocked at way over the posted limit.

It simply means he didn't give me a ticket and make me pay the penalty

[Gregory Matthews]

Bonnie said:

Quote:

It simply means they were not tried. Doesn't mean they didn't commit the act.

I was pulled over for speeding. I was a guilty as you could get

and should have had a whopping speeding ticket.

The officer for some reason, after pinning my ears back, decided on a warning. Does the absence of a ticket mean I was not guilty?

I still had been clocked at way over the posted limit.

Yes. It means that if you have not be convicted of the crime of speeding, you are not guilty of speeding.

To desert is a criminal offense under the UCMJ. Prior to trial and conviction, one is not guilty of conviction. That is a fundamental right under U.S. law, which does not exist in some other places.

The public has very limited knowledge of the evidence which may be used against Sgt. Bergdahl. From some of the media reports that I have read, There is potential evidence that Sgt. Bergdahl did not intend to desert.

Let there be a fair, objective investigation. Let there be a determination of guilt, or lack of it. Let there be, if he is determined to be guilty to some degree, to be a determination of the appropriate punishment. I will be satisfied with the outcome, whatever it may be. But, this trial and proposed convection by people who read the media is against everything that our men and women have fought for.

[bonnie]

Yes. It means that if you have not be convicted of the crime of speeding, you are not guilty of speeding.

[fccool]

Quote:

That is exactly why family members are not the ones to negotiate with terrorists. Or sit on a jury when the defendant is a family member.

The rule has been that the US not negotiate. What happens the next time?

Aren't there other citizens that are held prisoners in other countries?What about them,who should we trade for?

Who made up the rule, and why should US follow this idiocy? It's not the law, neither it's a very good principle...

Neither it was followed really well through entire history of US. Remember this one? That was Reagan and Oliver North...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair