Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl returns to active duty after therapy.

[Borgholio]

in your own post, he did actually intend to desert.

Yes, because we know now that he did. That was not clear in the beginning.

It's also apparent from other posters in this thread that the military did actually send search and rescue patrols.

That is far from certain. Individual soldiers say they were tasked specifically with finding him, the Pentagon denies it.

So, should I suppose that you support exactly what I initially thought?

That the soldiers would have died anyways whether they were searching for him or not? No, I still think that's bullshit.

I read your article; the one and only specific case mentioned is a dude who deserted in Fort Bragg.

An Associated Press examination of Pentagon figures shows that 174 troops were court-martialed by the Army last year for desertion — a figure that amounts to just 5 percent of the 3,301 soldiers who deserted in fiscal year 2006.

No, I don't think you read it. You really expect this article to go in depth on the thousands of other desertions that occurred just to further prove a point that the military cares less about desertion than a POW or MIA?

Are you trying to magically expand the article's meaning from what it states (deserters in the States are left alone) to what you'd like it to say (people leave their post in active deployment and the military doesn't give a shit)?

I am unable to find any information online about a difference between deserters in the US and those on deployment. Perhaps it doesn't happen often enough for there to be a clear trend either way. Can you find anything to support the idea that there IS a difference?

Okay, your position (assuming I parsed this piece of totrurous pointlessness correctly) is so: the military assumed he was 'legit' captured, and that's why they went through all the trouble of rescuing him. Had they known he'd just fucked off the base and happened to stumble on the enemy, they wouldn't care. Which you base on the most hilariously inappropriate article ever, as I said.

No, you parsed it incorrectly. Again. I never said they wouldn't care once they found out he was in the hands of the enemy. He went missing on June 30, 2009, he was marked as missing July 1, marked as captured two more days later with the first video proof coming two weeks later from the Taliban. That is not enough time to draw any conclusions. Would they have gone door to door if he had simply vanished without a trace and nobody released a video showing him in captivity? Somehow, I doubt it. They would likely have used drones to scour the desert for a body and asked civilians for information and given up after a period of time if they didn't find any leads.

It is different enough that I have no reason to believe it uses the same standards to judge anything as the civilian system. You know, that's the reason it is it's own system, so it can use standards not normally applied to civvies.

There are indeed aspects of military and civilian justice that are very different, but - we can count on the core aspects of it being the same. Murder, rape, assault, negligence resulting in death...why should serious offenses be so different?

Maybe. Even if we grant this, I still think 'no man left behind' is a compelling counterargument.

Counter argument to what? "No Man Left Behind" is a noble idea but it doesn't excuse culpability for deaths on your behalf when you did something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

They will accept the casualties, just as they would accept them if these soldiers were on a different mission entirely.

You're probably right, they probably will because it'll be easier and have less backlash. There are as many people who think he's a hero as there are who think he should be drawn and quartered.

Quit restating an argument I got perfectly well the first time. Also in general, fuck off and headbutt a wall.

What, I should fuck off because I believe the soldier's deaths shouldn't be handwaved away? That if some guy does something stupid and people die as a result that he shouldn't face some kind of consequences for it? "Oh they would have died anyways". For fuck's sake dude...you're one callous son of a bitch.

[Grumman]

Many of the talking heads in both media and politics who are now decrying his release were clamouring for his rescue by any means necessary prior to the announced exchange.

Even if somebody says "by any means necessary", they do not ever mean it. It is a figure of speech. To use an extreme example, if his captors had demanded the unconditional surrender of the United States in exchange for his release, that would clearly be unacceptable.

[Simon_Jester]

Well yes, but there's still a level of hypocrisy involved. POW exchanges are one of the most common ways of getting POWs back, and have been for many many years. The idea that we can demand Bergdahl be found, and yet be opposed to a POW exchange is ridiculous. And it harkens back to, oh, WWII Japanese attitudes in which being caught by the enemy is somehow disgraceful and the nation should refuse to ever pay a price for the return of the person who is thus captured.

What's really going on of course is that the people who wanted to 'find Bergdahl' actually wanted a heroic commando raid that would find and seize him while slaughtering a horde of Taliban troops at little or no cost to our side. And they somehow assumed that this would automatically be possible and that Obama's "failure" to make such a raid magically happen was a sign that he didn't care, which folds into their national narrative that liberals are weak on defense, coddle the enemy, and are willing to leave Our Heroic POWs Behind.

But what matters to them isn't Bergdahl. It's the narrative.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Yes, because we know now that he did. That was not clear in the beginning.

Exactly. We know that he did. Which means that one of the ifs you mentioned before ("IF he deserted") is satisfied. This is basic logic.

That is far from certain. Individual soldiers say they were tasked specifically with finding him, the Pentagon denies it.

This means that the other if in your argument ("IF they sent a rescue party just for him") is still unsatisfied. Too bad that even assuming both ifs are met, I still disagree with the conclusion ("THEN the deaths could be attributed to him").

That the soldiers would have died anyways whether they were searching for him or not? No, I still think that's bullshit.

Look, man, I've already told you, I tried this ridiculous strawman on for size and it didn't fit. My position is nothing more than 'we should accept that soldiers in war sometimes die in the fulfillment of their duty', with a side of 'we can uselessly play with what ifs all day, but it won't change anything that happened'.

No, I don't think you read it. You really expect this article to go in depth on the thousands of other desertions that occurred just to further prove a point that the military cares less about desertion than a POW or MIA?

I don't expect anything from this article. It was you who expected something: that it'd shore up your position. It doesn't. Tough luck.

I am unable to find any information online about a difference between deserters in the US and those on deployment. Perhaps it doesn't happen often enough for there to be a clear trend either way. Can you find anything to support the idea that there IS a difference?

Holy shit your inability to find information is exactly why you shouldn't go ahead and assume. Don't form theories when you've got jack in the way of data, is it hard? I also assumed, but I did base it on something: that an active deployment area is different from a posting in a US base.

No, you parsed it incorrectly. Again. I never said they wouldn't care once they found out he was in the hands of the enemy. He went missing on June 30, 2009, he was marked as missing July 1, marked as captured two more days later with the first video proof coming two weeks later from the Taliban. That is not enough time to draw any conclusions. Would they have gone door to door if he had simply vanished without a trace and nobody released a video showing him in captivity? Somehow, I doubt it. They would likely have used drones to scour the desert for a body and asked civilians for information and given up after a period of time if they didn't find any leads.

Yes, pretty likely. But that is still doing something, and way more than what they do for deserters inside America (that is, nothing).

There are indeed aspects of military and civilian justice that are very different, but - we can count on the core aspects of it being the same. Murder, rape, assault, negligence resulting in death...why should serious offenses be so different?

It is, most emphatically, not the same. One of the core aspects, and the reason your analogy fails, is that desertion is not an offense under civilian law; indeed, the very concept of desertion is meaningless in civilian law.

Counter argument to what? "No Man Left Behind" is a noble idea but it doesn't excuse culpability for deaths on your behalf when you did something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

Except for the fact that there is no direct link between Bergdahl and these deaths.

You're probably right, they probably will because it'll be easier and have less backlash. There are as many people who think he's a hero as there are who think he should be drawn and quartered.

I don't fit in either camp, chief.

For fuck's sake dude...you're one callous son of a bitch.

It is callous, yeah. I admitted so. It is ugly as well, because it reflects upon an ugly situation. However, it's even worse to be unable to accept that sometimes things happen outside of your control. It's even worse to look for someone to pin all the world's fault on them. Bergdahl can be punished for being a deserter, or simply absentee without leave. However, that's as far as his legal responsibility goes. The relatives of the dead can still blame him, and I'd certainly blame myself if I was in his shoes. But the law can't go around blasting people with disproportionate retribution.

What, I should fuck off because I believe the soldier's deaths shouldn't be handwaved away?

No, you should fuck off because your reaction to my initial comment was a strawman coupled with belligerent stupidity, and you've kept this tempo throughout. Perhaps if your first instinct wasn't "go for his jugular RARGH", you'd come across as less of a dumbass and I wouldn't be telling you to screw yourself. But here we are, aren't we? Go fuck yourself.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

But what matters to them isn't Bergdahl. It's the narrative.

Without wanting to distract from the Republican bullshit, isn't politics all about finding a narrative to better slam the other guy?

[Borgholio]

I still disagree with the conclusion ("THEN the deaths could be attributed to him").

And that's the core of this whole argument here. You feel that the risk of death (or actual death in this case) was a result of them being soldiers in a combat zone and it does not matter if they were looking for him or not. The trouble is, you can't possibly know that. How do you know that any of the dead soldiers were scheduled to go out anyways? How do you know they weren't supposed to have the day off? How do you know they weren't supposed to be transferred to another location but held back to help with the search? See that's my issue with the argument, if a solder was supposed to be on a plane back to Germany instead of on the ground...how could his death be considered inevitable? I don't think any of those soldiers were guaranteed to die in the coming days or weeks.

Now, I agree with you that being in a combat zone is naturally risky and they COULD have died anyways at some point. As I said, if they were already out on patrol they their deaths should not be attributed to searching for Bowe. But according to the individual soldiers, they were ordered to go out of their way to find him which means the risk they normally accepted was increased due to his actions.

I don't expect anything from this article. It was you who expected something: that it'd shore up your position. It doesn't. Tough luck.

My position is that the army doesn't care as much about deserters as it does about POWs. The article says exactly the same thing. How doesn't it shore up my position?

Holy shit your inability to find information is exactly why you shouldn't go ahead and assume. Don't form theories when you've got jack in the way of data, is it hard?

I have plenty of data. YOU, on the other hand, have nothing. You're trying to say they treat deserters in a combat zone different from deserters on US soil AND YOU HAVE NO FUCKING PROOF OF THIS.

that an active deployment area is different from a posting in a US base.

In regards to how they handle desertions? Proof please.

It is, most emphatically, not the same. One of the core aspects, and the reason your analogy fails, is that desertion is not an offense under civilian law; indeed, the very concept of desertion is meaningless in civilian law.

I'm not referring to desertion itself. You are correct, the civilian world has no concept such as that. I'm referring to the idea that if you do something that causes harm to others, then there will be consequences for that.

Except for the fact that there is no direct link between Bergdahl and these deaths.

Of course not, that's why he hasn't been brought up on charges "yet". As stated earlier in the thread, keeping him on active duty allows the military to court-martial him if they so desired. There is enough shouting going on by Bowe's former squadmates that it should be properly investigated. If there is such an investigation and the official conclusion is that his disappearance is NOT related to the deaths of his squadmates, then that pretty much settles the issue.

No, you should fuck off because your reaction to my initial comment was a strawman coupled with belligerent stupidity

You really need to go back and read what your initial comment was, dude. You stated straight up that the solders WOULD have died elsewhere regardless of whether or not Bowe was captured. You criticized me for making assumptions about military desertions but holy shit, that one big assumption of yours is in a league of it's own. And somehow it's a strawman to call you out for it?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

And that's the core of this whole argument here. You feel that the risk of death (or actual death in this case) was a result of them being soldiers in a combat zone and it does not matter if they were looking for him or not.

Pretty much, yes. There is an inherent risk to being a soldier, which volunteers willingly accept when they sign up (at least in theory). Hell, even being at the rear isn't a guarantee, if only because of guerillas.

The trouble is, you can't possibly know that. How do you know that any of the dead soldiers were scheduled to go out anyways? How do you know they weren't supposed to have the day off? How do you know they weren't supposed to be transferred to another location but held back to help with the search? See that's my issue with the argument, if a solder was supposed to be on a plane back to Germany instead of on the ground...how could his death be considered inevitable? I don't think any of those soldiers were guaranteed to die in the coming days or weeks.

You see, we don't know. Your questions are valid, but equally valid is my question: how do you know their vehicle wouldn't hit an IED? Thing is, they could have died just as they could have lived; it's just these specific ones happened to die. It sucks, but is exactly what happened and is useless to speculate on.

My position is that the army doesn't care as much about deserters as it does about POWs. The article says exactly the same thing. How doesn't it shore up my position? [...] I have plenty of data. YOU, on the other hand, have nothing. You're trying to say they treat deserters in a combat zone different from deserters on US soil AND YOU HAVE NO FUCKING PROOF OF THIS. [...] In regards to how they handle desertions? Proof please.

Okay, I've decided to combine these three.

The source you found said nothing about deserters in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated, mostly focused on domestic ones. I found it improbable that the military wouldn't care about soldiers lost in active deployments (the article says something about deployments, but then says that desertions happened as they were about to ship off or during a temporary leave, both stateside). But, having found no other evidence, I admit that for all we know they do exactly that and concede the issue.

I'm referring to the idea that if you do something that causes harm to others, then there will be consequences for that.

Then the question becomes whether any harm caused was his fault. But since he's tried for something that doesn't even exist under civilian law, you can't say "well here's how it would be in a civil/criminal court".

You really need to go back and read what your initial comment was, dude. You stated straight up that the solders WOULD have died elsewhere regardless of whether or not Bowe was captured. You criticized me for making assumptions about military desertions but holy shit, that one big assumption of yours is in a league of it's own. And somehow it's a strawman to call you out for it?

I've read my initial comment. Hell, I was the one who posted it. I explicitly said "they were in conventional military operations": you run the risk of death when you are in one involving people wanting to shoot you. This risk would exist regardless. Did it happen that way? Yes, but it could have happened any other way as well. Blaming Bergdahl is futile.

Which you then twisted into bullshit because you decided that you had to fit in "lol u on drugs" somewhere.

[Borgholio]

Which you then twisted into bullshit because you decided that you had to fit in "lol u on drugs" somewhere.

My intent was not to twist anything and I apologize if I did. Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but it sounded to me like you were just hand-waving those deaths away casually, and I took issue with that.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

My intent was not to twist anything and I apologize if I did. Perhaps I misinterpreted it, but it sounded to me like you were just hand-waving those deaths away casually, and I took issue with that.

Okay, I see. And I can see how it could be sort of misinterpreted that way.

[Patroklos]

Update:

Bowe Bergdahl, once missing U.S. soldier, charged with desertion

Bowe Bergdahl, shown here as a private first class, has been charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, his lawyer said Wednesday. The sergeant was recovered by U.S. troops in Afghanistan last year after being held by enemy forces for about five years. AFP PHOTO / HANDOUT / US ARMY /Getty Images

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, is being charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, his lawyer said Wednesday.

Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday. Army officials announced they will provide an update in his case at 3:30 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., but declined to discuss new developments ahead of the news conference.

Bergdahl, 28, went missing from his base in Paktika province on June 30, 2009, and is believed to have grown disillusioned with the U.S. military’s mission in Afghanistan. He was held captive in Pakistan by the Haqqani network, an insurgent group allied with the Taliban, until the White House swapped him for five Taliban officials in a deal brokered through the government of Qatar.

In exchange for the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. agreed to free five Taliban commanders from the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They were among the Taliban’s most influential commanders. (Tom LeGro and Natalie Jennings/The Washington Post)

The charges come after a lengthy investigation launched last June after his recovery and a review by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg. Bergdahl has faced a slew of accusations from his fellow soldiers that he abandoned them on the battlefield and triggered a manhunt that diverted resources from the war effort and put lives in danger.

[Anger from those who consider Bowe Bergdahl a deserter]

Bergdahl will faces charges under articles 85 and 99 of the military’s Uniform Code of Military Justice, Fidell said.

Article 85, desertion, applies to a service member who “quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.” The maximum sentence for those convicted is death, although no soldier has faced that punishment since 1944, when Pvt. Eddie Slovik was executed by a firing squad after running away from combat duty in France.

Article 99, misbehavior before the enemy, applies to a service member who has run away in the face of the enemy, abandoned his unit, cast aside his weapon or ammunition or willfully failed “to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... l-security

I was surprised by this, given the rose garden optics I expected this to be hushed and done away with.

[Zaune]

I'd say this was politically motivated if I could figure out what the point was in charging him months after the public have forgotten who the hell he is.

[Patroklos]

I'd have made that claim if the opposite would have happened. And whatever was going to happen would have taken time, investigations are not instantaneous and I'd hope nobody would want it rushed regardless as to how they felt it would turn out.

[Mr Bean]

I say not charging him while he was in captivity or just after he got home was politics. The plan was likely to charge him all along but to do it at a sufficient distance to be somewhat polite to both Sgt Bergdahl and his family. As in you've been in Al-Q captivity for years, your going to get a chance to heal up, calm down and get back into a safe place.

Now we are going to charge you for desertion, I'm guessing it will be a simple dishonorable discharge rather than prison time or lining him up against the nearest wall and shooting him.

[Patroklos]

If it was just desertion I'd say that was a likely possibility, the "misbehavior before the enemy" sounds more tricky.

[Elheru Aran]

Desertion is deliberately leaving the unit; misbehaviour is failing to do one's duty. Basically they're hitting him with both faces of the same coin, and it does look like the charges fit well enough as he did skip town from what I understand.

[Patroklos]

Desertion is leaving your unit anywhere, whether it be in Louisiana or Afghanistan. Deserting when your unit is actively engaging an enemy or in enemy territory is obviously a far more consequential action regarding effects on your unit and shouldn't be treated the same. Plus there were some questions as to whether he was captured by the Taliban or sought them out. I'm not sure if that was a consideration as well, it may not be what prompted the addition and just be the units circumstances.

[Ralin]

Desertion is leaving your unit anywhere, whether it be in Louisiana or Afghanistan. Deserting when your unit is actively engaging an enemy or in enemy territory is obviously a far more consequential action regarding effects on your unit and shouldn't be treated the same. Plus there were some questions as to whether he was captured by the Taliban or sought them out. I'm not sure if that was a consideration as well, it may not be what prompted the addition and just be the units circumstances.

I was under the impression that desertion and being absent without leave were separate offenses. Since that's what I believe a friend of mine and her ex husband were charged with before being discharged

[Mr Bean]

Desertion is leaving your unit anywhere, whether it be in Louisiana or Afghanistan. Deserting when your unit is actively engaging an enemy or in enemy territory is obviously a far more consequential action regarding effects on your unit and shouldn't be treated the same. Plus there were some questions as to whether he was captured by the Taliban or sought them out. I'm not sure if that was a consideration as well, it may not be what prompted the addition and just be the units circumstances.

I was under the impression that desertion and being absent without leave were separate offenses. Since that's what I believe a friend of mine and her ex husband were charged with before being discharged

Absent without leave can be anything from not showing up to department PT to overstaying a leave by three days over fake "car trouble". Desertion is you left your unit and it's obvious you don't intend to return. The USMJ leaves lots of flexibility to charge someone who's absent without leave for a good deal of jail time and fines, but Desertion gives them the option of everything up to and including shooting you.

[Patroklos]

Yep. Desertion simply put means you left and are gone for good. Or intended it to be that way (we don't look for deserters outside dangerous theaters anymore, eventually something happens that forces you back 99% of the time). You can be declared this right away if there is a manefesto left behind or something like that making your intentions clear. If we don't know why you left you are assumed AWOL and after a period of time you are automatically declared a deserter. I forget exactly what it is, 30 days or maybe 60.

[RogueIce]

If it was just desertion I'd say that was a likely possibility, the "misbehavior before the enemy" sounds more tricky.

Could just be hedging their bets. IE: if they can't prove he never intended to return but the defense convinces the panel/judge that he was merely "hopping the fence" and then got snagged or whatever, they can still make the misbehavior charge work.