What do 2 days have to do with anything. They have had 5 years to determine the circumstances of his leave.
WASHINGTON — Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life. He slipped off the remote military outpost in Paktika Province on the border with Pakistan and took with him a soft backpack, water, knives, a notebook and writing materials, but left behind his body armor and weapons — startling, given the hostile environment around his outpost... Sergeant Bergdahl slipped away from his outpost, the former senior officer said, possibly on foot but more likely hiding in a contractor’s vehicle. “He didn’t walk out the gate through a checkpoint, and there was no evidence he breached the perimeter wire and left that way,” the ex-officer said... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/u...idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html?_r=0
that idiot went public and threw the whole crowd under the bus. Didn't help that it was all a lie upon which he built a political career.
The current new says you're barking up the wrong tree. He'll be justifiably punished to the fullest extent UCMJ allows. It was apparently explainable exactly as his squad mates said it was and the reasons were that he was clearly shirking duties he signed up for. His captivity was self imposed, hence I couldn't care less if it was ugly.
And now I'm okay with him being labeled a deserter. Lay the evidence out, that's all I was asking for.
I agree that the evidence needed to be fleshed out some, but current teammates are highly, highly unlikely to hammer a captured brother in arms like that.
If I understand correctly, Obama freed 5 dangerous Terrorist so that the Taliban would release from captivity a deserter that we could prosecute and put back into captivity.
sadly, that sorry bastard (Obama) already knew the kid was a deserter. So he forces an admiral from the Pentagon to step out and say that it's protocol to bring everyone home, deserters and otherwise, which is crap. Deserters have been shot on sight throughout all of military history, including our own.
Basically we put 5 back on the battlefield to fight and brought one home that doesnt want to fight anymore, to spend tax dollars on.
We haven't executed anyone for desertion since 1945 and he was the only one since the Civil War. Still, I'm skeptical of the trade. I actually do buy the idea of not leaving any Americans behind, but wonder at the actual implications of letting these guys out, whether or not they constitute a real threat (and a couple of them don't). Regardless, he violated our military laws and the story was, until now, that the Taliban had an American serviceman in captivity for 5 years. Get him out of there, give him a trial and deal with it ourselves.
So what exactly is the issue here? The 5:1? He was a deserter? Negotiation with "terrorists"? Went around Congress? It's Obama?
It seems as more time goes on more damning information is being released. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...call-when-bergdahl-stumbled-into-their-midst/
for me it is the 5:1 and the negotiation with terrorists. Congress has made it clear they have no interest in effectively governing anyway, and whether or not he is a deserter has no bearing for me on whether that means he "deserved his fate" or whatever. We can punish by our laws, still.
I mean the part about walking over the mountain to "look for the taliban." Refusing bread while lit on hash? C'mon.
I find it hard to believe that he was looking for the Taliban. He was obviously having mental problems to some degree so it's not too much of a reach to think he smoked some hash. I read an interview where someone mentioned that Bergdahl wondered if he could get to China by crossing the mountains. Maybe that's what he was trying to do and was caught? I don't really know.