American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

You watch too many movies. If you think these guys are going to stay in Qatar you're nuts. And yes, they will most certainly rejoin the Taliban - these guys do NOT change their stripes, and the Taliban will most definitely take them back. These guys are leadership, it's their skills that are most important to the Taliban, not their current knowledge base.

 

A very particular set of skillz!

 

Nope, we agree, but you can't try him in absentia and you can't evaluate his mental state from hearsay. We had to hold up our commitment to get him to do that. The medical evaluation and military trial are fair once he gets back to the states.

 

What you or I think is irrelevant. The US doesn't determine how to treat its military based on random people's opinions. Legally, Lee Harvey Oswald was not convicted. Legally, this guy is not considered a traitor or a deserter at this point. He's an active member of the US Military who was promoted sometime during his capture for whatever reason and was considered a POW. That's the basis on which the government is going to act. Anything else is simply conjecture, no matter how much you may believe it or people may be certain of it.

 

Oswald did have police protection in the Dallas Police Station basement. They did try to preserve the integrity of the judicial system.

 

He was promoted in "captivity" for political reasons, there will never be a desertion trial for political reasons. That's sort of the problem.

 

So then you assume he was innocent?

 

I don't ASSume he was, but he was still owed due process. You are ASSuming Bergdahl is guilty AND professing that that ASSumption is a reason to not repatriate him.

I ASSume he did commit court martial-able able offenses, but looking for him and trading for him is still the right thing to do.

 

More assumptions on your part that are irrelevant to how the government operates. It's fascinating to see how opposed people are to the idea of due process.

 

No one suggests otherwise, the argument isn't about due process, it's about presumption of innocence despite evidence to the contrary.

 

I am free of course to hold whatever opinions I want to about his mental state and the circumstances of his "capture". As are you.

What I DON'T want to see happen is to see him get no scrutiny at all in this matter. Today we have Susan Rice (of all people, you'd think they'd have learned their lesson on that one) running around the Sunday talk shows claiming the guy is a here and we just need to shut up. I don;t want this one swept under the rug, I want them to pursue it. If the people from his unit are saying he deserted, I believe them, because if that were not the case they would be ECSTATIC with his return. They are not. They are angry because his actions got other people killed, and the exchange replenishes the Taliban's leadership ranks.

I want him to be tried under UCMJ for desertion. Let the facts shake out in the trial.

 

Your original quote and this modified one are both correct.

 

Was there some kind of talking points that were handed out on this that I'm not aware of? This isn't about due process, I want him to get his court marshal for desertion, I'm just pointing out that it'll never happen for political reasons.

 

Both could be correct, but aren't when applied to me. I don't care who decided to trade terrorists for a traitor, it wasn't a good idea. It would be just as stupid if the Bush Administration had done it and it's something I could see them doing just as easily as I can see the Obama Administration doing it.

 

I'm sure Mr. Issa will get you your hearing on the correctness of this issue. It's sorta what he lives for.

 

Of course it's about due process. You think the government should have acted differently because you've personally decided he's a traitor. The government doesn't operate that way - he's not a traitor until he's declared one. So all the evidence suggesting it should not influence how they approached the negotiation and whether it was the right or wrong decision. The fact that you think it should suggests you are opposed to the government giving him due process and want them to go ahead and treat him as a deserter/traitor.

It's almost a 100% certainty that his actions leading to his capture will be investigated. But the only new information initially will involve talking to him and that process will have to wait a bit while he's reintegrated and they determine his mental state, etc.

 

Everyone in the D&D would make the same argument.

 

Meh, I just did a very brief search on google and apparently the max he can get is 5 years if convicted of desertion because US never declared war. and even then he will likely face no prison time because the time he spent as a POW will most likely be used as time served.

I don't get the sentiment here. I'm not sure what is the "worth" of an American life held in capture is, and if I were an American I would like to get him home as a priority.

 

I think that it would be questionable for the government to give up 5 HVP's for any soldier, it's inexcusable to give up 5 HVP's for a traitor. Unfortunately because they made the blunder of trading 5 HVP's for him, there's no way they'll allow a legitimate court marshal to convene because it would be disastrous from a PR standpoint if you traded 5 HVP's for someone who ended up being sentenced to death or life imprisonment immediately upon return to the states.

This whole ordeal will be swept under the rug, just watch. It won't take long before we start hearing officials say "5 years is enough" or "what difference does it make?". The kid will get away with treason and at least 6 soldiers will have died as a direct result of his treason.

Perhaps they could try, but I don't support either party, which is different from most of the D&D types I've seen. Most here are pushing someone's agenda be it donkey or elephant.

 

The fact that you are 100% certain that this will actually be investigated shows how little you understand how the government - and particularly DoD and the Army - operate. If this is going to embarrass the military - and it would, especially if he was found to be a deserter and the Army lost people trying to get him back, then swapped terrorists for him - then it is not a bad bet that they will sweep it under the rug and hope it's lost in the constantly churning news cycle. Same with the administration. All they have to do is survive the first few days and then declare that a "thorough" review of the available evidence does not warrant any action, and move on to the next story. Just as this story is displacing the VA scandal, something else will displace this one in a few days.

Your faith in government and the military doing the right thing in this case may well be misplaced. Of course there may be a real investigation. But don't think for a second that political considerations will outweigh legal or moral considerations. That is not at all how the government works.