Bergdahl - The Hypocrisy and Hate Must End

FredHayek wrote:

Photo-fish wrote: Why was he promoted twice during his captivity?
Who initiates and authorizes such promotions?

Good question, is there an automatic promotion program for POW's or MIA's?

I hope that the liberals here are right and Bergdahl was just a confused kid, forced to give out military secrets and tactics by his captors.


:Confused: "What kind of person would slander this patriotic, American soldier?
"His squadmates."
"You can't trust those babykillers!"

Let's see if I can explain this easily:
When a military member's duty status changes a code is input into the personnel system showing their status. Some of the statuses are: Leave, Pass, Hospitalized, POW, DUSTUN, Dead, AWOL, Deserter, etc.
I would assume in Bergdahl's case there wasn't time to list his duty status as DUSTUN or AWOL, so he was immediately listed as POW.
If the duty status is not associated with a court-martial or incarceration, most of the time, the promotions at ranks E4 and below are automatic.
It is up to the immediate commander to review the upcoming promotions and deny or approve them.

All the above being said...this is the way it was in the Air Force. The Army is a different animal all together, but I'd guess the duty status information is pretty close.

Prolly doesn't matter anyway. He'll soon be an E1 at Leavenworth.

Or Gitmo?

ScienceChic wrote: I haven't done all of the research on his case. I know his fellow troops have said he left, yet many hundreds others have as well (having a bad day, emotional breakdowns, combat stress overload, etc - a snap bad decision that they take back later, or maybe don't), but they had the chance to come back before repercussions because they didn't get captured. I'd rather wait and find out what's learned during his debriefing, and what actions the military takes - rehab, discharge, court-martial, etc - before I condemn this man based on incomplete information. The fact of the matter is, as Jim Wright said, he's an American and our first duty is to bring everyone home that we send into the grind of war - we're even still searching for POWs in Korea. Then he can be dealt with for proper justice if need be, but we don't leave him to the enemy.

Those screaming that what Obama did was wrong to bring him home, and that he needs to be impeached, need to step back and realize we've done this countless times before, negotiating and working with terrorists. Our hands are not clean and will never be so long as we continue to interfere in foreign affairs, so long as power corrupts the human soul, and the ends justifies the means.

What is being objected to is not, necessarily, that Obama negotiated with terrorists to bring a deserter/AWOL soldier home. What is most objectionable, even to the likes of Barbara Boxer and many other Democrats, is that Obama broke the law to do it. The Democrats were the ones who passed the law to make sure Congress had oversight of what Bush did with the detainees at Gitmo. Just because we have a different president now doesn't mean the laws don't apply to him.

The White House is running around showing a video from 6 months ago that they are using as the bases of the "deteriorating health" of Berghdal. Now, maybe I missed something when I was growing up, but 6 months is a lot longer than the 30 day requirement contained in the law, isn't it? The White House said it didn't inform Congress because it didn't trust Congress, but is that now a standard we can apply to all presidents going forward? That they can ignore the law because they don't trust Congress?

This isn't about Berghdal, it's about the rule of law. It's not about bringing soldiers home, it's about imperial presidency. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is blowing smoke to obfuscate the relevant issue at stake here.

homeagain wrote:

FredHayek wrote: Who is going to know his reasoning better than the guys he lived with for months?
Maybe we should also interview his Taliban captors to find why he made the decisions to abandon his post?

I believe we (collectively) need to wait for the facts AFTER he is debriefed....the two soldiers
interviewed this morning (that worked side by side with him) indicated he was introspective and
and INQUISITIVE, always inquiring about the reasoning behind actions/decisions and was VERY
intent upon UNDERSTANDING things. Methodical and quiet. I believe they indicated he did NOT
have electronic devices (cell,Tablet,etc.) and that he seemed like a nice guy,but did not interact
much...joking around,etc.

The only relevant fact that anyone needs to know right now is that Obama broke the law to secure his release. He knew what the law was, he helped pass it after all, and he decided that it didn't apply to him and to this situation. Goes back to the other thread I started a couple days ago about Obama being the president Nixon always wanted to be, this is but the latest example of how the executive branch is being fundamentally transformed into the imperial branch of our government.

The soldier and why he left his post is a minor point here, not the major focus. To make the soldier the focus is to allow the tail to wag the dog . . .

If it had been Marcus Lutrell who was being traded, I am sure a lot of the attacks would have been muted.

710KNUS this morning was speculating that this prisoner swap was just the start and the President plans to empty out Gitmo before his term is up. Do you agree with this? It would be one campaign promise he didn't break if it happens.

PrintSmith wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: I haven't done all of the research on his case. I know his fellow troops have said he left, yet many hundreds others have as well (having a bad day, emotional breakdowns, combat stress overload, etc - a snap bad decision that they take back later, or maybe don't), but they had the chance to come back before repercussions because they didn't get captured. I'd rather wait and find out what's learned during his debriefing, and what actions the military takes - rehab, discharge, court-martial, etc - before I condemn this man based on incomplete information. The fact of the matter is, as Jim Wright said, he's an American and our first duty is to bring everyone home that we send into the grind of war - we're even still searching for POWs in Korea. Then he can be dealt with for proper justice if need be, but we don't leave him to the enemy.

Those screaming that what Obama did was wrong to bring him home, and that he needs to be impeached, need to step back and realize we've done this countless times before, negotiating and working with terrorists. Our hands are not clean and will never be so long as we continue to interfere in foreign affairs, so long as power corrupts the human soul, and the ends justifies the means.

What is being objected to is not, necessarily, that Obama negotiated with terrorists to bring a deserter/AWOL soldier home. What is most objectionable, even to the likes of Barbara Boxer and many other Democrats, is that Obama broke the law to do it. The Democrats were the ones who passed the law to make sure Congress had oversight of what Bush did with the detainees at Gitmo. Just because we have a different president now doesn't mean the laws don't apply to him.

The White House is running around showing a video from 6 months ago that they are using as the bases of the "deteriorating health" of Berghdal. Now, maybe I missed something when I was growing up, but 6 months is a lot longer than the 30 day requirement contained in the law, isn't it? The White House said it didn't inform Congress because it didn't trust Congress, but is that now a standard we can apply to all presidents going forward? That they can ignore the law because they don't trust Congress?

This isn't about Berghdal, it's about the rule of law. It's not about bringing soldiers home, it's about imperial presidency. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is blowing smoke to obfuscate the relevant issue at stake here.

I understand the concern...it appears (?) that the Taliban were going to KILL Berghdal, as
he was becoming LESS relevant and the leverage they thought they had was lessening....
rather than have the death of a prisoner on his "watch", O negotiated a RAPID release which
left no time for "consultation" and as I understand it, it was a split second decision, sometimes
things line up and you are REQUIRED to act swiftly....(THIS is my understanding of the lack
of notification issue)....I do NOT think we will ever truly know the complete story...."fog of
war"....JMO

PrintSmith wrote:

ScienceChic wrote: I haven't done all of the research on his case. I know his fellow troops have said he left, yet many hundreds others have as well (having a bad day, emotional breakdowns, combat stress overload, etc - a snap bad decision that they take back later, or maybe don't), but they had the chance to come back before repercussions because they didn't get captured. I'd rather wait and find out what's learned during his debriefing, and what actions the military takes - rehab, discharge, court-martial, etc - before I condemn this man based on incomplete information. The fact of the matter is, as Jim Wright said, he's an American and our first duty is to bring everyone home that we send into the grind of war - we're even still searching for POWs in Korea. Then he can be dealt with for proper justice if need be, but we don't leave him to the enemy.

Those screaming that what Obama did was wrong to bring him home, and that he needs to be impeached, need to step back and realize we've done this countless times before, negotiating and working with terrorists. Our hands are not clean and will never be so long as we continue to interfere in foreign affairs, so long as power corrupts the human soul, and the ends justifies the means.

What is being objected to is not, necessarily, that Obama negotiated with terrorists to bring a deserter/AWOL soldier home. What is most objectionable, even to the likes of Barbara Boxer and many other Democrats, is that Obama broke the law to do it. The Democrats were the ones who passed the law to make sure Congress had oversight of what Bush did with the detainees at Gitmo. Just because we have a different president now doesn't mean the laws don't apply to him.

The White House is running around showing a video from 6 months ago that they are using as the bases of the "deteriorating health" of Berghdal. Now, maybe I missed something when I was growing up, but 6 months is a lot longer than the 30 day requirement contained in the law, isn't it? The White House said it didn't inform Congress because it didn't trust Congress, but is that now a standard we can apply to all presidents going forward? That they can ignore the law because they don't trust Congress?

This isn't about Berghdal, it's about the rule of law. It's not about bringing soldiers home, it's about imperial presidency. Anyone attempting to convince you otherwise is blowing smoke to obfuscate the relevant issue at stake here.

Once again Printsmith makes up bs and tries to pass it off as his "facts". For example, he claims that the " law" requiring 30 day notice for Gitmo transfers was passed by Democrats to prevent Bush from moving detainees. Even though the rule was only passed last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013. Or that when signing the Act, the President, just as Reagan and Bush repeatedly did, added a statement that the Act did not apply on situations where it violated his constitutional powers as commander in chief. Or that even Boehner has admitted that the President informed congressional leaders of the transfer of the detainees as early as December in exchange for the POW.
But hey why let the facts get in the way.

Six members of Bergdahl's unit were on the Megyn Kelly show last night and told her he should be court-martialed.
Think he will be? I think he won't unless there is very damning evidence that he was a willing member of the Taliban.

OK Guys...Bergdahl legally cannot be a deserter...EVER. You have to be AWOL for 30 days in a row before you are a deserter. We do not even know if his duty status was ever AWOL and if it was, he certainly was not AWOL for 30 consecutive days prior to being put into duty status POW/MIA.

Even if he was AWOL, that usually is not a court-martial offense. Unless they prove he was sabotaging the base or subverting his unit or spying for the Taliban.

IMO He may be charged with Article 15 offenses such as dereliction of duty or failure to follow orders and will be mustered out of the service.

I know from experience that if a military person doesn't fit in, they can and will be labeled by their co-workers and peers.

We do not know the whole story. We will likely not know the whole story...ever.

I am not defending Bergdahl and his actions...I am not defending what our President did. I am defending the system, knowing that it will take a while to get it all worked out.

Yes, I get angry when he is called a "deserter"...in some people's opinions he may be, but legally he is not. Period.

And I am getting more angry at people who don't know and who've never been anywhere near the military saying what our President did in getting him released was "stupid". We simply do not know the whole story.

Kinda reminds me of when Patricia Hearst was pardoned...I was very young but I remember the outrage about that.