How about Bowe Bergdahl

We all know who he is. We all know what he did. And I hope we all disagree with his sentence. He cost 6 men there lives and committed treason. That,s 100% “worth” more than $10,000 and a dishonorable discharge. He should get at LEAST 10 years in a military prison. Share your opinion on the matter.

1 Like

I don’t know if we still need a link to a news story in World News, but I am glad to see a thread on this story.
Needless to say, I was shocked to hear he only received a dishonorable discharge and had to pay $1,000 for the next 10 months as punishment. What about the soldiers who lost their lives looking for him? Wasn’t a military dog also killed? And 5 Guantamo prisoners were traded for Bergdahl’s release. This should be an outrage.

It’s interesting to consider what messages are being sent.

Trump should have bit his lip and not said anything. I think he forced the military to go in the opposite direction and explicitly show they were not under his thumb.

I would have preferred a stronger punishment but Obama’s welcome was repudiated with the type of discharge. His time in captivity was not easy.

true but he cost the lives of multiple men. I think thats worth a big punishment

agreed. It is an outrage. You see this is the stuff that really mkes me upset. Disrespect and dishonoe twards and in the millitary

I think a stronger punishment opens the door for appeal, where he might get an honorable discharge.

There is NO reason why they would give him an honorable. even his defendants aren’t that stupid.

No reason they should, but the right judge could do so, more as a response to the CIC not showing impartiality. It would be about Trump rather than Bergdahl.

I dont think it should be about trump. I think if anyone other than Bergdahl is tried then it should be Obama for the illegal trade.

3 Likes

I get the “don’t leave a man behind”.

Bergdahl deserved to have his day in court. We should continued to hunt him down and bring him to trial. If he was innocent, then he deserved accolades for being a POW.

What I don’t get is a President who traded 5 Taliban COMMANDERS for this scum bag. There was OVERWHELMING evidence/knowledge among the military that Bergdahl simply walked away and wasn’t forcibly captured.

Why in the WORLD would we trade FIVE high-value targets for a guy who was most likely a deserter?

Can some of you leftie’s here answer that for me?

The most benign answer I can come up with is that President Obama simply needed to fulfill a (stupid) campaign pledge to “close Gitmo”, and needed to empty it first.

The most malignant answer I can come up with is that President Obama wanted to A) damage our military morale, and B) assist the Taliban.

I’m sure the real answer lies somewhere between the most benign and the most malignant…but I can’t think of any other alternatives.

So, lefties (DVDJS, et al), please help me out here to understand this swap.

1 Like

well there has always been the conspiracy that Obama is Osama Bin Laden but with a shaven beard and head and everything. The people behind the theory have strong evidence and the only real problem that i see in it is that he speaks perfect English so…

If that is the case than that would perfectly explain the trade. Another theory is that Obama wanted to overthrow the command of the Taliban hence why Bin Laden was killed. The theory than continues to say that the trade that was made was to put a standby command in the Taliban. Thus meaning that Obama plans to take it over.

http://www.wearethemighty.com/news/bergdahl-receives-dishonorable-discharge-but-no-prison-time

The defense sought to counter that evidence with testimony about Bergdahl’s suffering as a captive, his contributions to military intelligence and survival training and his mental health problems.

Whats this about contributions to military intelligence and survival training? That’s putting lipstick on a pig if you ask me.

obama wants to be UN secretary-general. this just bought him some votes from the middle east. every questionable thing he did is for this goal IMHO.

ymmv

I had not thought of that. With Trump being given virtually no chance of winning, Obama may have been counting on another leftist President and an appointment to the UN. That makes sense…

He will one day have to face Our Lord and answer for what he did. He was in prison and we have no idea what was done to him. He has been charged and sentenced even though there is an appeal. He chose to walk away from his unit. Yes men died and yes we gave back some very bad men in exchange for him. No matter what else happens to him his life will never be the same. He may never be able to live a “normal” life. His name is now in the record books of this country. His name will always be associated with desertion of his fellow soldiers in arms. I don’t know what should be done. I’m glad I don’t have to make that decision. I pray for his soul that he can get his heart, mind and soul right with God. He apparently had issues before all of this happened. Remember Divine Mercy. Even Saint Paul who killed Christians was converted and saved by God’s Divine Mercy. There is hope for anyone.

I was under the impression that it was “un-officially official” that the UN Secretary General does not come from any of the 5 permanent member countries of the security council, which is the council that appoints the Secretary General. This would preclude Obama from the post.

i looked at the charter and there is no exclusion in it that i saw. maybe the security council has restrictions. the best answer i saw was the balance of power in the security council would not allow it.

but as i said he is buying votes.

Charter of the United Nations Chapter XV
Chapter XV
CHAPTER XV: THE SECRETARIAT
Article 97
The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.

if it was written down in the charter it would “official” not be “un-officially official”, which was my claim. by “un-officially official” i meant that it was an unwritten rule.

agreed it is the balance of power issue.

Interesting thought.

On the surface it sounds like a good fit, but it’s also a difficult/miserable job where you can’t accomplish very much. It’s a very political job with lots of factions to massage. I don’t think he’d be very successful since he’s an fundamentally an idealogue rather than a deal making politician.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.