I wonder if he's really a deserter or is that the part he had to play to infiltrate the Taliban? He could've planted a lot of bugs and got a lot of inside info. Food for thought.
If that is the case, I still don't see them trading the top 5 taliban prisoners for him. He would have had to come back with some crazy info. And since they didn't know anything he knew until after the trade was done, I definitely don't think this is the case. And i agree with Skywalker. Every official that was involved in the trade that knew he was a deserter should be tried and hung as traitors to the US.
I hope you're trying to play devil's advocate...anyway: for those of you throwing the "T" word around, here is the Constitutional definition: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." Does this act meet this level as it now stands (i/e 'giving them Aid and Comfort'); or does it rise to that level only if/when the Gitmo 5 return to their evil ways and killing Americans (tacitly levying War by releasing guys you should have known were going to return to fight against you) ? I'm not picking fights, I just like to see what people think.
I think that it depends on if or what information he gave away and if he did it willingly. And if it's based on the Gitmo 5, BB had nothing to do with their release. He was just the other end of the deal.
Allowing 5 war criminals to be released back to the Taliban, and knowingly admitting that there's a high likelihood that they will return back to their war against America seem to be equal to "levying war" against the United States. Aiding the Taliban by return their leaders puts our soldiers and civilians at an even higher risk. That seems to be an act of treason to me.
"Officials said delaying Bergdahl's transfer in order to comply with the congressional notification rules would have interfered with two of the president's constitutional authorities: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers." Uh, why did the POTUS choose to ignore that "authority" in Benghazi? Also, it is not "constitutional authority" it is "constitutional responsibility," but had they used the correct term it would have been jumped on sooner.
they can't even keep that story straight... You have several Dem senators saying that the admin "apologized for the oversight" in not giving advance notice. Your quote above seems to indicate it was intentional and deliberate rather than an "oversight." You have Carney and S. Rice both saying that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction, and that we have ways to "mitigate" and "watch" the G-5. But you have the CiC saying that it's too soon to tell if Berghdahl was a good soldier or not, and there is a good chance the G-5 will return to the battlefield. They're all over the place on this one.
It is being suggested that the administration is using this to draw attention away from the VA issue and since Hillary is coming out against this, as a political move to improve her position with the voters.
Honestly I am less concerned over what happens to the soldier than those who facilitated this exchange. But I guess you have to investigate the former before it is determined that the latter must be investigated as well.
Just heard Glenn Beck repeat a quote from Marcus Luttrell : "5 years, and they didn't behead him? Hmmmmm."
Do you think they would have labelled him POW/MIA if that was the case? It is an interesting theory, but I don't think that's the case. They wouldn't have sent guys out to look and die if they knew what's up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Well I think these guys at GITMO are going to be released by the dems anyhow so why not get something for them. How long are we going to care for them. Hide a chip in their arse and have a drone take them out in a week or two in their home land. I just don't think any of us/the public can handle the truth and I prefer it that way.
This is hard for me to answer because I wasn't there. He went missing and they went searching. And kept searching. I can only speculate that they said he was captured. Having had soldiers underneath me, I know that I would have gone to great lengths to find a missing joe, but I wouldn't say he's been captured, he's just AWOL at the time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
