If were the families of those Americans killed in drone strikes

[Enfuego]

And I'm not really sure why you say we need to wait for the facts? We know the facts, that's why the Army is charging him with desertion.

In a criminal case such as Zimmerman, Baltimore, Ferguson, of course we should always reserve judgement until all the pertinent facts come in and not judge a guy guilty.

We can judge Bergdahl guilty because he told Army Investigators he deserted.

 

[mountain]

I do understand your point but Tahmooressi wasn't as innocent as he proclaimed. Guy had guns all over in the bed of his truck. If you've ever been to Mexico, you don't just take a wrong turn and end up in Mexico. Not how it works.

True but his crime pales in comparison to Bergdahl's antics. He moves heaven and earth to get Bergdahl and makes the worst trade in possible and then puts on a dog and pony show from hell

Even if Thamoressi was guilty the fact that no attempt was made to free him is troubling

 

[Enfuego]

True but his crime pales in comparison to Bergdahl's antics. He moves heaven and earth to get Bergdahl and makes the worst trade in possible and then puts on a dog and pony show from hell

Even if Thamoressi was guilty the fact that no attempt was made to free him is troubling

Yeah, totally get it. If I were family of any of these guys killed in drone attacks, I'd be so pissed at our government.

 

[akphidelt]

What is their policy?

No soldier left behind. Doesn't matter why they became a pow. That's handled after they are rescued like the Pentagon handled it in real life. This is according to the pentagon and other military officials. Not me.

 

[akphidelt]

The funny thing is Republicans were all over Obama for not rescuing him. Then he rescued him and they all of a sudden were against it. Hipocrisy at its finest. If he were still in Taliban hands today, republicans would be using him as an example of Obama not caring about the soldiers. They did exactly what they should have done. Tough situation regardless though.

 

[MantisToboggan]

The funny thing is Republicans were all over Obama for not rescuing him. Then he rescued him and they all of a sudden were against it. Hipocrisy at its finest. If he were still in Taliban hands today, republicans would be using him as an example of Obama not caring about the soldiers. They did exactly what they should have done. Tough situation regardless though.

Rescued is an interesting choice of words. I'm not sure I'd describe a prisoner swap as rescuing but to each his own (even though by definition a rescue is saving someone from a dangerous situation which would fit the situation).

No win situation for President Obama. If he dies in captivity President Obama takes the blame as well.

 

[Enfuego]

No soldier left behind. Doesn't matter why they became a pow. That's handled after they are rescued like the Pentagon handled it in real life. This is according to the pentagon and other military officials. Not me.

There is no official DoD policy regarding no servicemember left behind (servicemember because Soldier is US Army only). There is an unwritten rule but there is no official DoD policy.

 

[Enfuego]

The funny thing is Republicans were all over Obama for not rescuing him. Then he rescued him and they all of a sudden were against it. Hipocrisy at its finest. If he were still in Taliban hands today, republicans would be using him as an example of Obama not caring about the soldiers. They did exactly what they should have done. Tough situation regardless though.

Trade a known deserter for 5 known high-profile terrorists or try and get him another way. Nobody thought this was a good deal. The DoD even disagreed with it.

 

[akphidelt]

There is no official DoD policy regarding no servicemember left behind (servicemember because Soldier is US Army only). There is an unwritten rule but there is no official DoD policy.

Of course it's not a written, legally enforced policy. Never will be. But like they say, they do not leave anyone behind regardless of how they were captured. Him being accused or suspected of deserting has pretty much no relevance to the case. They treated him as a serviceman that has not been proven guilty of anything. They then handled the case after he was rescued. Which is the proper way to handle it.

 

[Enfuego]

Of course it's not a written, legally enforced policy. Never will be. But like they say, they do not leave anyone behind regardless of how they were captured. Him being accused or suspected of deserting has pretty much no relevance to the case. They treated him as a serviceman that has not been proven guilty of anything. They then handled the case after he was rescued. Which is the proper way to handle it.

Not true. If he deserted and was actively fighting against US Forces, they aren't going to try and "rescue" him. At that point, he'd be considered an enemy combatant and they would kill him just like the enemy. Doesn't matter if he wore a US Uniform or not.

I agree they are handling it the proper way now however, if my government traded known terrorists for a known deserter while my brother, uncle, father etc. sat in captivity only to eventually die in a drone strike, I'd be angry.

 

[akphidelt]

(Reuters) - The U.S. Army will not ignore any misconduct by released Taliban detainee Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, but he should be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said.
"The questions about this particular soldier's conduct are separate from our effort to recover ANY U.S. service member in enemy captivity," General Martin Dempsey said in a posting on his Facebook page on Tuesday.
Bergdahl, held for nearly five years in Afghanistan, was freed last week in a prisoner-swap deal with the Taliban brokered by the Qatari government. Five Taliban militants were released from the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and flown to Qatar.
"This was likely the last, best opportunity to free him," Dempsey said.
The general said the military will question Bergdahl about the circumstances of his capture.
"Like any American, he is innocent until proven guilty," Dempsey said. "Our Army’s leaders will not look away from misconduct if it occurred. In the meantime, we will continue to care for him and his family."

 

[akphidelt]

Not true. If he deserted and was actively fighting against US Forces, they aren't going to try and "rescue" him. At that point, he'd be considered an enemy combatant and they would kill him just like the enemy. Doesn't matter if he wore a US Uniform or not.

I agree they are handling it the proper way now however, if my government traded known terrorists for a known deserter while my brother, uncle, father etc. sat in captivity only to eventually die in a drone strike, I'd be angry.

Well according to General Dempsey as quoted above it is true. And not going to lie, going to side with him in this argument.

 

[Enfuego]

Well according to General Dempsey as quoted above it is true. And not going to lie, going to side with him in this argument.

We're just talking semantics here and we're saying the same thing.

If he walked away and was captured and held against his will, got it, we're going to go get him which is what happened.

If he walked away and then actively fought against US Forces, we aren't going to "rescue" him. We would kill him just like any other terrorist.

Just a small fine point. We're saying the same thing.

 

[TomGshotput]

Trade a known deserter for 5 known high-profile terrorists or try and get him another way. Nobody thought this was a good deal. The DoD even disagreed with it.

Most people believe any Arab is worth far less than one-fifth of an American, which would make it a very good trade

Lots of people have been documented saying it was right to bring this soldier home:

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5780772/tweets-bergdahl-conservatives-politics-stupid

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...g-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-release-article-1.1821094

 

[Acebb]

Of course it's not a written, legally enforced policy. Never will be. But like they say, they do not leave anyone behind regardless of how they were captured.

Um, policies are written down, idiot.

America left hundreds of POW's in Vietnam, idiot.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Your goal apparently is to show everyone what an imbecile you are.

 

[Acebb]

The funny thing is Republicans were all over Obama for not rescuing him. Then he rescued him and they all of a sudden were against it. Hipocrisy at its finest. If he were still in Taliban hands today, republicans would be using him as an example of Obama not caring about the soldiers. They did exactly what they should have done. Tough situation regardless though.

The fact that you are so low IQ and can not understand there is no "hypocrisy" is quite funny. Your 100 IQ and linear thinking is so funny to watch.

Using your "logic" Obama would hand over the head of ISIS for Berghdal and if anyone disagreed they are hypocrites!

You are so fucking dumb it is embarrassing.

 

[russ1945]

Why didn't they send a drone to Benghazi. Those attackers would have run like hell.

 

[carlspackler]

Why didn't they send a drone to Benghazi. Those attackers would have run like hell.

Because those attackers probably made a large deposit to the Clinton foundation.

 

[The Guesser]

And I'm not really sure why you say we need to wait for the facts? We know the facts, that's why the Army is charging him with desertion.

In a criminal case such as Zimmerman, Baltimore, Ferguson, of course we should always reserve judgement until all the pertinent facts come in and not judge a guy guilty.

We can judge Bergdahl guilty because he told Army Investigators he deserted.

Being charged isn't being convicted. Admittedly, we only know what's reported, but isn't part of his defense is that his unit was committing War crimes to civilians in his mind, and his commanders weren't listening to his complaints, so he was going to another unit to report the crimes? If his CO was a criminal asshole like Alan West who committed war atrocities on civilians, and Bergdahl's complaints were falling on deaf ears with his current unit, his defense might be valid. Or he's making that up, but point is, like any other trial, facts aren't in until a verdict is in.

 

[akphidelt]

Um, policies are written down, idiot.

America left hundreds of POW's in Vietnam, idiot.

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. Your goal apparently is to show everyone what an imbecile you are.

You're so fucking weird, it's crazy, lol. Policies don't have to be written down. That's hilarious.

And i I really don't care what you say, the current military policy is no man left behind. It's seriously not that difficult to grasp. You're gonna start a new liquidate debacle and I'm going to enjoy every second of it, hahaha.