Ayn Rand

Bowe Bergdahl, Ayn Rand Fan?

Deserter is reportedly "a truthful but delusional soldier, who identified with John Galt." He faces life in prison.

|

A little while ago, it came out that Bowe Bergdahl, the Army sergeant who walked away from his post in Afghanistan and became a prisoner of war for five years before a controversial exchange with the Taliban, thought of himself as a Jason Bourne type. That is, a super-operative who was conflicted about the country he served and capable of incredible feats of improvisational derring-do.

Well that's not the only fictional protagonist Berghdahl digs. One of the Army commanders who debriefed Bergdahl testified in ongoing proceedings:

General Dahl described Sergeant Bergdahl as a truthful but delusional soldier, who identified with John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."

A more obvious parallel is that Bergdahl, like Galt, is in big, big trouble. And while he won't get to deliver a really long radio speech, he's going to get hours of coverage via a podcast.

The military's investigation of Bergdahl found no evidence that he sympathized or conspired with the Taliban, al Qaeda, or any other battlefield enemies of the United States. Indeed, he may have suffered "more in captivity than any American since Vietnam, including beatings with rubber hoses and copper cables, and uncontrollable diarrhea for more than three years" according to a defense witness. The investigation also found that, contrary to early reports, no American troops died or were injured during an intensive 45-day search for Bergdahl, whose stories about dysfunction in his unit were also apparently unfounded.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/73465037645569751/

The preliminary hearing over Bergdahl, whose 2014 release was secured via a highly controversial swap for five Taliban prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, recommended that he be given a "special court-martial" which would carry with it no more than one year in military prison. That decision was reversed by a higher-level ruling and now he faces more serious charges that carry a possible life sentence:

The Army did not elaborate on Monday's decision by General Abrams, or on why he decided that Sergeant Bergdahl should face the potential for a far more serious punishment than what the two independent Army fact-finders had recommended. A spokesman for Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg noted in an email that recommendations made by preliminary hearing officers "are advisory in nature."

No date has been set for Sergeant Bergdahl's next court hearing, which will be held at Fort Bragg, the Army said. He is currently assigned to the Army's Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, the site of his preliminary hearing in September.

Read more here.

Critics of the upgraded charges claim that Bergdahl's situation has been recklessly politicized by Republicans, especially those running for president. There's no question that people from Donald Trump to Ted Cruz to various senators and representatives have spoken out against Bergdahl. A new report issued by the House Armed Services Committee faults Hillary Clinton, then the secretary of state, for misleading Congress about the terms and timing of the prisoner exchange. The Obama administration also "locked out" the Pentagon's chief intelligence officer from information about the Taliban commanders swapped for Berghdahl, according to the report.

But Bergdahl and his defense team are not exactly shrinking violets. Bergdahl's trial is the subject of the second season of Serial, a popular podcast.

Eric Montalvo, a defense lawyer for Guantanamo prisoners, told the Christian Science Monitor that Bergdahl's decision to talk with Serial while his case is being adjudicated was not a wise choice. The added scrutiny raises the stakes for military while making a conviction a slam dunk:

Bergdahl will be facing a conviction based on his statements on the "Serial" podcast, says Montalvo. 

"If I were the prosecutor and I heard that, I'd be in no-brainer mode. All I have to do is roll that beautiful … footage, and we're done. He had a plan, and he executed on that plan."

Exit questions: Do you think the charges and possible penalties against Bergdahl were increased because of political pressure or consideration? Or were the initial, weaker charges the sign of a military gone soft? What is the best way to evaluate whether that's the case or not?

And what would Ayn Rand have thought of Bergdahl?

NEXT: A.M. Links: GOP Presidential Debate Tonight, Chicago Police Unions Fight to Destroy Records, Saudi Arabia Announces Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. There is no moral defense of Bergdahl. We have an volunteer army. No one drafted him. He signed up and agreed to follow orders and go to war if told they told him. If he got there and decided it wasn’t too his taste, too bad. No one made him sign up and he is responsible for knowing the consequences of doing so.

    I don’t know or particularly care what Rand would have thought of him. If she had any sense of honor or personal responsibility, which I am pretty sure she did, she would have thought he was a piece of shit, which is what he is.

    1. What you said. Desertion is never OK. You took an oath – fuck you, Bo Bergdahl.

      ./sld

    2. she would have thought he was a piece of shit, which is what he is.

      Objectively useless too. Bergdahl isn’t Galt, he’s the nameless soldier that gets shot by Dagny Taggart for spineless indecisiveness.

      I don’t see any reasonable evaluation that ends along the lines of “She might have considered him, in some way, admirable.”

      1. Even if you say the guy legitimately had a change of heart about the war after he joined, that still doesn’t get him off the hook. He still took the oath and had an obligation to live up to it. If you object to the war complete your obligation and leave. Worse still, walking off like he did forced multiple people to risk their lives looking for him. What a selfish piece of shit. “Oh I don’t like it here so I am leaving and the rest of you dumb bastards are going to have to risk your lives looking for me as a result”.

        I have real sympathy for people who are drafted. They really are victims of wars. And even if I don’t agree with them, I have to respect no kidding conscienous objectors who just drop their weapon and say no and take the consequences the way someone like Siegfried Sassoon did. But people who just walk away and leave those around them to risk their lives looking for them? Fuck them.

        1. Siegfried Sassoon

          Good reference – and I recommend to anyone his “Memoirs of an Infantry Officer”.

          Also Robert Graves “Good-Bye to All That”

        2. So, is one obliged to stick to any oath they make no matter what? Suppose you swore an oath, but later discover that what you swore to do is actually evil or immoral? Are you still obliged to stick with it? I would argue that you would be obliged to break your oath in such circumstances.

          I’m not saying that that is the way to look at this specific case. He knew what he was agreeing to when he signed up, an this is what happens if you desert. And he did endanger other people. So sure, fuck him. But breaking the oath isn’t really why.

          Possibly related question: can you sell yourself into slavery?

          1. So, is one obliged to stick to any oath they make no matter what? Suppose you swore an oath, but later discover that what you swore to do is actually evil or immoral? Are you still obliged to stick with it? I would argue that you would be obliged to break your oath in such circumstances

            War is all those things.

          2. Then say no and take the consequences. Did you miss my reference to Sassoon Zeb? I can respect someone who does that even if I disagree with them. What I can’t respect is just walking away and leaving the people around you to suffer the consequences of you doing so.

            And taking the oath for the military, while more serious than a normal job, is not slavery. It is for a set period of time first of all. Slavery is for life. Second, even though there are criminal consiquences to refusing to serve, at some point those consequences end and you are no longer in the military. Not so with slavery.

            If they shoot you or send you to prison for life for objecting, then in some sense it is slavery. But since when do Libertarians object to people doing that? Especially if it is for a set period and not for life. As long as the deal is made voluntarily and has a set period, what is the issue?

            Lastly, if your orders are immoral or illegal, you have an obligation to disobey them. And if they try to court martial you, you have an absolute defense. So you don’t have to dissert to avoid obeying truly immoral or unlawful orders. That of course is not what happened here. No one ever told this guy to kill prisoners or indiscriminately shoot civilians. He just didn’t like it and left.

            1. I agree that the right thing to do if you object is to make your objection clear and refuse and take the consequences, not wander off endangering the people you are with.

              I’m not saying military service is completely equivalent to slavery. But other kinds of contracts generally can be broken without criminal consequences. Yes, it’s for a limited term, but for that time, especially when deployed, you basically are a slave. In any other job, you can just up and say “I quit” and only face financial and reputational consequences.

              I’d question whether a contract such as you agree to in the military should even be enforceable. Which is why I asked the slavery question. Should it be possible for a person to sign away their natural hunam rights like that (slavery being the most extreme example of that)?

              Of course, this is all very academic. The military is one of those things that is probably necessary in some sense, but can never be entirely morally justifiable except in a utilitarian way. Sort of like government in general.

              1. Isolating just the aspect of whether or not a person can make themselves a slave (as an extreme example) I would say that there’s nothing about that that conflicts with understandings of human liberty as being derived from property rights. If you own yourself (your body, your time, etc.) you can certainly dispose of yourself in the manner you see fit. I’d walk it back a little bit, too, and say that a military service contract is just somewhat more extreme than any other contract limited by time. Yeah, the penalty is much harsher, but that’s simply a detail of the contract, and time in prison might very well be less harsh in the long run than a ruinous financial settlement.

                Now, in my mind, the real question is as to how valid the contract was. I’ve spoken with recruiters (as a potential enlistee and just hangin out at the bar) and while the vast majority are honest, they are absolutely salesmen. They’re honest like a car dealer or a real estate agent; they won’t tell you something that isn’t true, but they won’t volunteer information and they won’t correct any misconceptions you have. Hell, some I’ve talked to have told me that they recommend that enlistees get a lawyer involved to look the contract over before they sign. So, I do believe there’s a moral difference if Bergdahl (or anyone) doesn’t fully understand the terms of the contract, although I agree with John that the appropriate response is to announce your intent to stop serving and take the consequences that come.

              2. “I’m not saying military service is completely equivalent to slavery.”

                You’re right. It’s worse. Nobody ever made a slave go do something that could get himself killed. Slaves cost a lot of money.

                The military is an organization full of people stupider than you telling you to do either things so inane they are beyond the pale or so dangerous you’d have to be out of your mind to do them, all while being treated like complete shit. And the best part is, you volunteer for this treatment. On purpose.

                And if anyone was wondering, I’m a Marine corporal.

                1. You’re projecting.

          3. He also signed a contract. That contract had a specific term of service with an end date. If he had a change of beliefs, all he had to do was wait.

            1. Well no, that’s not “all.” He couldn’t just sit down and wait.

          4. That’s actually a really good question. If you sign a contract to do something, then discover that it’s immoral or otherwise not what you thought it was, what are your moral options? I think that adherence to your oath is a moral value, but it’s not the only one or the highest one; you have to seek the highest moral good overall.

            So if you’ve decided that serving out your contract is definitely morally wrong, you still have some choice about what you do. If you really came to believe that you were working for the Evil Empire, the most moral thing to do might be to defect and work for the other side. Short of that, you could ask your employer for other duties. Or you could just announce that you’re not going to do the work anymore, and let them decide how to handle you.

            The main problem is that Bowe seems to have felt like he was working for the Evil Empire, but instead of taking a bold moral stance based on that, his answer was to just wander off like a moronic shitbag.

            1. Promises are morally imperative, but they can still be broken in a moral way. That usually includes offering to compensate the other party.

          5. Suppose you swore an oath, but later discover that what you swore to do is actually evil or immoral? Are you still obliged to stick with it?

            The military offers a way out – it’s called conscientious objector status. Is it easy to get? I imagine not. However, several soldiers in the recent wars have done it. There’s been no suggestion that Bergdahl considered this option.

            1. Yes. He could have simply gone to his commanding officer, said he could no longer fight, and take the consequences, which would have been better for him and everyone else. This sort of thing is what firing squads are for.

              1. He wasn’t trying to get out, but didn’t think his commanders were competent. Since his CO disagreed, he figured he’d take a stroll through the hills to talk to his CO’s superior who would surely see things his way.

                He literally thought he could go full Rambo & take out any enemies he encountered with his bare hands.

                1. I do not think he, nor his attorneys or PR flacks, have been remotely honest about what he was really thinking. Not that we could understand much even if he tried – his inner world being that far removed from reality.

                  Not to say that he’s mentally incompetent, that he hides it all well, if imperfectly, being proof that he is not.

                2. Uncle Joe — Surely you’re not so naive as to believe the words your are writing?

                  Oh how it must be to live in that space you call a mind!

          6. People on this site like to think in absolutes. They also seem to think Bergdahl is a proxy for Obama & Clinton.

          7. In the oath of service, you pledge to follow all LAWFUL orders. So there is a carve out for illegal orders. And none of that applied here.

            This rat deserves to seeing at the end of a rope. Just looking at his picture makes me want to snap his neck. And there is good reason for the soldiers who served with him to despise him as they do.

        3. Shut the fuck up, John. Desertion laws are unlibertarian. Any contract that forces someone to labor against their will past when they are willing is involuntary servitude, aka slavery. There can be financial repercussions for walking away, but not criminal ones. Rothbard covered this topic well.

          1. Well, then don’t join the military. And no, it isn’t slavery when you volunteer. As far as allowing oneself to be subject to the UCMJ, every member of the Armed Forces has informed consent to that.

    3. It’s difficult to determine who is more despicable, Bergdahl or Obama. Both are traitors to our country. Both are responsible for the multiple deaths of our countrymen (Yes I believe our soldiers died looking for the piece-of-shit because I believe the soldiers in the field before I believe our corrupt politicians and generals.) And in Obama’s case, how many more Americans will die because of the 5 high ranking terrorists he freed?

      I say we put both of them on trial for treason and once they are found guilty we conduct a charity drawing where half a dozen lucky ‘winners’ get to participate in firing squads to exterminate this most treacherous vermin. Count me in!

      1. Uh oh, watch out for the federal attorney for the Southern District of New York, or whatever the fuck his title is.

        1. Woodchipper Food

      2. Yeah, Bergdahl is in cahoots with Obama to destroy America. smh…

        1. Who is saying that Bergdahl and Obama are in ‘cahoots’?

    4. A lot of commenters seem to be working from the assumption that Bergdahl simply deserted. That’s not his story, at all, and really, there was no place for him to go. If you want to argue that his intentions, (which were not desertion), were poorly thought out, even stupid, that’s one thing. But jeez, the kid was 23. I’m glad I don’t have to live with the stupid crap I did at that age for the rest of my life. Do you people really want to send him to prison for life?

      1. sudon’t — Hell no I don’t want to send him to prison for life. What kind of degenerate do you think I am. I want the mother-fucker in front of a firing squad for Christ’s sake!

        Of course he deserted. What the fuck do you call it when you leave your post and don’t return while actively looking to turn yourself into the enemy?

        Are you Bergdahl’s jihadist father? I’ll bet you are, aren’t you? Good luck defending that piece-of-shit son of your.

      2. “The kid was 23”? I was 20 when I deployed for Desert Shield/Storm. So I can say from personal experience as a soldier, younger than this rat, that being 23 is no fucking excuse to sneak off like he did. Which took some real effort by the way. I’ve seen a walk through of the actions required to exit the base he deserted. It took significant planning and effort to make it happen. So this was no whim.

        He is and adult, and a soldier. he made despicable decisions that cost good men their lives. So he deserves to burn for what he did.

      3. “… the kid was 23.”

        That statement deserves far more ridicule than I can muster. Suffice to say that it is infantile in it’s infantilization.

  2. Ayn Rand was a bit of a collectivist when it came to the clash of civilizations, and I expect she would have denounced him as anti-life.

  3. I don’t care what Ayn Rand would have thought of Bergdahl. Based on what I’ve read about her, her opinions on matters like these were generally worthless. Though I do find it amusing that someone who voluntarily chose to enter the military would identify with John Galt. That doesn’t make much sense.

    I’m not now nor have I ever been in the military, but my understanding is that desertion isn’t treated very lightly. That seems wise to me. Life in prison might seem a bit steep given that he did not conspire with the Taliban, but he did put people’s lives at risk who were looking for him, even if no one actually did die, so one year also seems like it might be a bit soft.

    1. As an Army war vet, I consider MY opinion of this turd far more valuable than Ayn Rand’s.

  4. Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers believe their comrades were killed searching for him. Veterans trust their word over politicized Pentagon-denials. “Responsively-politicized” is more accurate than “recklessly politicized”.

    1. The only defenders this guy has are leftists who don’t want to admit Obama traded five high value prisoners for him. They politicized his release by making that swap, and they did it intentionally to try and avoid criticism. Who would criticize trading five prisoners for a POW gone for that long? In their infinite wisdom, the top men in the Obama administration didn’t even consider what a piece of shit he was. Those are my thoughts, at least.

  5. including beatings with rubber hoses and copper cables

    so, NO WIRE HANGERS, whew.

    1. They went up his nose with a rubber hose?

  6. And while he won’t get to deliver a really long radio speech…

    SPOILER ALERT

    1. Gillespie is remembering something about the collapse of D’Anconia Copper death of Bergdahl tomorrow that we don’t.

  7. I have seen nothing that makes me believe that Bergdahl isn’t a deserter.

    I have every reason to suspect the administration of politicizing the fuck out of this. Rose Garden ceremony, anyone? Seriously, how is the administration going to throw a big public welcome home for this guy, and then turn around and charge him with a capital crime, regardless of how much he may deserve it?

    To accuse the military is politicizing this, after what the administration has done, is ludicrous.

  8. More importantly, can we get some feedback from Gilmore and anyone in the military on the use of berets? I personally find them offensive. French fashion has no place in the U.S. military.

    1. The beret is an abomination, and a permanent stain on Shinseki’s career. As of 2-3 years ago it’s being deemphasized, it’s no longer mandatory for regular daily garrison wear, although it still comes out for ceremonies.

      1. How about a fedora? Or baseball cap, or cowboy hat. Something American, dammit.

        1. Top hats and monocles would certainly add a touch of class.

          1. Tricorne is the only correct answer.

        2. Cavalry wears Stetsons. Badass.

          1. We can also earn spurs (silver or gold), provided you are actively serving in a US Army Cavalry Regiment.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Spur

        3. US Army Cavalry wears cowboy hats. And spurs.

        4. Or a Fez. Fez’s are cool. Just like bowties.

  9. My military beliefs generally go like this: What would George Washington do?

    Flog the bastard.

    1. Back in the day, I think a hanging was more in fashion for deserters.

      1. I thought so to, and that is what I was going to write, but I did a quick bit of research and it appears Washington mostly used floggings to keep his troops from deserting.

        Hanging is a little too harsh for what this guy did. 30 lashes should do the trick.

    2. I remember hearing something about Washington + deserters in an old History Channel documentary. They caught a small band (a dozen or so?) deserters and Washington ordered half of them to shoot the other half, so as to both preserve manpower and deter further desertion.

  10. Do you think the charges and possible penalties against Bergdahl were increased because of political pressure or consideration? Or were the initial, weaker charges the sign of a military gone soft?

    Of course it’s been politicized, and was from the moment they agreed to the swap. (The swap itself was to be a distraction from the political scandal at the VA.) At this point, whatever else he was or is, Bergdahl is now a political football. If justice is found it will be incidental.

  11. Life in prison? Who did he murder?

    1. Everyone the released Taliban Five will kill.

      1. Oh, that’s on him now too? He told Obama to release those five guys?

        1. He had something to do with it, yes. People who do stupid stuff and need to be rescued are to some degree responsible for the costs of their rescue.

      2. Nah, that’s President Nobel Peace Prize, not him.

    2. All the people who died looking for him?

    3. The poor bastards who served with him who got killed looking for him.

  12. This shit isn’t complicated. He walked off the base. That’s established fact. He’s a deserter. Nothing else matters besides adding penalties to it afterwards. I don’t care if someone refuses to fight or even reneges on their contract with the government. Walking off and endangering others with your shitbag behavior is inexcusable.

    He should be convicted, taken out back, and shot.

    1. ^^THIS^^

      I can’t remember but I want to say the resulting search got a couple of people killed. Even if it didn’t, it could have and that makes his act just as despicable even if they were lucky and no one was hurt during the search.

      1. The guys in his unit claim people died. I don’t care what is said above that by some political hacks up in the ranks.

        1. Exactly. They have no reason to lie about it. Politicians do.

  13. Bluntly, we will never know what sort of punishment, if any, would be appropriate.

    Putting on my anarchist’s fedora, he signed a contract that didn’t have a “I quit” clause. This was stupid. There is a school of thought that such a contract should be non-enforcable. But I think most would agree a stiff fine would be in order. He just walked off the job without giving notice.

    Now I put on my junior naval officer’s cap. He should be doing life in Leavenworth. He deserted in the face of the enemy. People did die looking for him. If he provided actionable intelliegence to his enemies, one could even make a great case that he committed treason. In modern warfare victory and defeat turns on many factors. A critical one, without which victory is much more difficult if not impossible, is discipline – the enthusiastic and immediate compliance with orders (yes Chief Suplido, I remember this to this day). Sadly such discipline cannot be achieved solely with carrots; a stick is necessary so that when people shirk or quail at doing what they are ordered to do, the punishment is so severe that the others fear the discipline more than the enemy. If Berdahl is permitted to get away with what he did, others will inevitably follow.

    To me, what the Army is trying to do is very appropriate with respect to their philosophy and rules.

    1. Snip my first paragraph; it was supposed ot go on the cutting room floor.

    2. I hate that he was beaten and starved, but really, Bergdahl can suck a dick. Every enlisted Soldier is made very aware of what can happen if you walk off the job. Doing it in enemy territory is way beyond stupid. It’s foolish and arrogant. And with all due respect to NCOs, SGT Bergdahl should have known what to do if he felt the command climate was dysfunctional. Deserting was not that.

      1. To be fair, he wasn’t an NCO when he deserted. He got promoted while in captivity. Which basically makes him a boot, and as we all know, boots are useless.

  14. What word could possibly be missing between “beautiful” and “footage?”

    1. bean?

  15. If Bergdahl doesn’t get a firing squad, the Army owes Eddy Slovik at least a posthumous Purple Heart.

  16. We all know full well that this is another Nidal Malik Hasan situation, and that Block Yomomma and Valerie Jarrett are putting enormous pressure on the Pentagon to go sodt on this guy. The cretins want to bury this and make it go away.

    1. Hasn’t Hassan been sentenced to death?

      1. For workplace violence?

        1. Obama finally called that one a terrorist act.

          1. Talk about being dragged kicking and screaming into saying that.

      2. That’s what we’ve been told, and that’s certainly what we’re all supposed to believe.

        But personally, I don’t believe that they have any intention whatsoever of executing him. This administration lies like most people breathe.

        1. This administration has 13 months left. How extensive is this conspiracy theory?

    2. “We all know full well”

      What do “we” know and how do “we” know it?

  17. Bergdahl can hang for all I care.

    The people I really feel sorry for are his parents. Think about it, your son goes off to war and your worst nightmare comes true when he gets captured.

    Not knowing whether he is even still alive he suddenly turns up and is given an undeservedly ostentatious welcome as a hero, which half of the country hates him for because he got swapped for five dangerous terrorists.

    Then you find out your son, having inexplicably survived and made it home, will now be convicted and locked away for the rest of your life because he was an out and out coward and a traitor to his country.

    Talk about a tough fucking break man.Also: Fuck Bo Bergdahl.

    1. Fuck his parents, too. Dbag Dad went full blown stockholm syndrome trying to get his failure back. Hang Bo(which one???) in the Rose Garden with his parents there.

      1. They are a truly fucked up family. It also sounds like his dad’s advice influenced him to desert in the first place.

    2. Dude, his parents, or at least his father, when Jihadi

  18. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.buzznews99.com

  19. FWIW, I am in the “After a Courts Martial, he should be shot” camp.

  20. The charges and possible penalties against Bergdahl were increased in spite of political pressure and/or considerations.

    This administration has no desire for anyone to review its actions in this matter, especially the release of 5 terrorists for the return of Bergdahl. It is a certainty that the military’s decision does not sit well with the White House.

  21. He’s a nut who thought the USA was bad, went AWOL and found out the other side was as bad or worse than he’d been told.

    Boot him out of the military with a dishonorable discharge. No back pay. No pension. No eligibility for any VA medical care or anything else veterans who served honorably are entitled to.

    Five years as a prisoner and a dishonorable discharge should be enough punishment for stupidity.

    1. So reward Bergdahl’s bad behavior with exactly what he wants? That and you, are stupid. Here’s why:

      He got exactly what he wanted going AWOL, that’s not punishment. Skipping work for a booty call, only to find out she’s on her rag and not putting out… you still skipped work. “but boss, she didn’t even put out” or “but boss, I was really trying to spy on our company’s competition for you” are purely shitty excuses to soften up dim witted morons. Deserting the Army to go be a pretend spy or to turn jihadi, only to find out the gig ain’t so great… has no bearing on his crimes.

      Desertion deserves punishment. The way he did it, sounds like there’s also a reasonable suspicion of treason. There is no question, he deserves life in prison at minimum, and if it’s treason too, he deserves death.

    2. I’m thinking that is why they want to go with a general court martial instead of a special. Not to give him more time behind bars.

      The worst discharge you can get from a SCM is a Big Chicken Dinner, the Bad Conduct Discharge. A GCM can go all the way to dishonorable discharge.

      There are no mandatory minimums under the UCMJ, so the president of the GCM can say that imprisoning Bergdahl again would not further the cause of justice. But giving him a DD will, and that’s his punishment.

  22. He deserted his post in the face of the enemy:
    He should be shot!

  23. If one of those five Taliban kills another person, how is he not criminally responsible for their death?

    1. The blame for that should fall on Obama’s shoulders.

  24. Let’s all be serious. The Jason Bourne thing is his lawyer talking.

    Desertion is a capital offense during time of war. Just saying we have the laws on the books, so we should probably occasionally exercise them.

  25. “The investigation also found that, contrary to early reports, no American troops died or were injured during an intensive 45-day search for Bergdahl, whose stories about dysfunction in his unit were also apparently unfounded.”

    A lot of people seem to think otherwise.
    http://time.com/2809352/bowe-b…..y-taliban/

    And what did *you* find, Mr. Journalist? You seem uncharacteristically eager to take the investigation’s word for this.

    1. It seems the majority of commenters here have no clue what the facts of the case are. Not surprisingly, they’re the ones calling for an execution. And of course we should put more faith in what some “journalist” wrote early on, based on hearsay, than in the results of an investigation!

      1. I’ve seen statements from soldiers who served with Bergdahl saying other soldiers were killed looking for him. I am inclined to believe them. As opposed to an investigation easily steered for political purposes, by an administration that made a stupid deal to get this turd back. And that has more to lose the worse Bergdahl looks.

  26. One of the Army commanders who debriefed Bergdahl testified in ongoing proceedings:

    General Dahl described Sergeant Bergdahl as a truthful but delusional soldier, who identified with John Galt, the hero of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

    ####

    So a Commander reports a General saying that Berghdahl identified with Galt?

    It doesn’t seem like you really have evidence for this “quote”:
    Deserter is reportedly “a truthful but delusional soldier, who identified with John Galt.”

    1. Yes, it’s all a conspiracy by the brass trying to make themselves look good because they accepted a soldier who should have been in a mental institution. /sarcasm

  27. “… no American troops died or were injured during an intensive 45-day search for Bergdahl…”

    An interesting formulation (emphasis added.)

    How about outside of those 45 days? Did anyone suffer harm in relation to Bergdahl after that initial search period?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.