d-usa wrote:
If we don't negotiate with terrorists then this guy was not a POW and no American soldier captured will ever be a POW.

I always thought the whole "we don't negotiate" deal was a stupid cowboy mindset on our part. But I think it is a giant "feth you" to our armed forces to deprive them of POW status because you want to play the "they are terrorists, not combatants" game with our own prisoners.

We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night
For five years, soldiers have been forced to stay silent about the disappearance and search for Bergdahl. Now we can talk about what really happened.
It was June 30, 2009, and I was in the city of Sharana, the capitol of Paktika province in Afghanistan. As I stepped out of a decrepit office building into a perfect sunny day, a member of my team started talking into his radio. “Say that again,” he said. “There’s an American soldier missing?”

There was. His name was Private First Class Bowe Bergdahl, the only prisoner of war in the Afghan theater of operations. His release from Taliban custody on May 31 marks the end of a nearly five-year-old story for the soldiers of his unit, the 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment. I served in the same battalion in Afghanistan and participated in the attempts to retrieve him throughout the summer of 2009. After we redeployed, every member of my brigade combat team received an order that we were not allowed to discuss what happened to Bergdahl for fear of endangering him. He is safe, and now it is time to speak the truth.

And that the truth is: Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.

On the night prior to his capture, Bergdahl pulled guard duty at OP Mest, a small outpost about two hours south of the provincial capitol. The base resembled a wagon circle of armored vehicles with some razor wire strung around them. A guard tower sat high up on a nearby hill, but the outpost itself was no fortress. Besides the tower, the only hard structure that I saw in July 2009 was a plywood shed filled with bottled water. Soldiers either slept in poncho tents or inside their vehicles.

The next morning, Bergdahl failed to show for the morning roll call. The soldiers in 2nd Platoon, Blackfoot Company discovered his rifle, helmet, body armor and web gear in a neat stack. He had, however, taken his compass. His fellow soldiers later mentioned his stated desire to walk from Afghanistan to India.

The Daily Beast’s Christopher Dickey later wrote that "[w]hether Bergdahl…just walked away from his base or was lagging behind on a patrol at the time of his capture remains an open and fiercely debated question.” Not to me and the members of my unit. Make no mistake: Bergdahl did not "lag behind on a patrol,” as was cited in news reports at the time. There was no patrol that night. Bergdahl was relieved from guard duty, and instead of going to sleep, he fled the outpost on foot. He deserted. I’ve talked to members of Bergdahl’s platoon—including the last Americans to see him before his capture. I’ve reviewed the relevant documents. That’s what happened.

Our deployment was hectic and intense in the initial months, but no one could have predicted that a soldier would simply wander off. Looking back on those first 12 weeks, our slice of the war in the vicinity of Sharana resembles a perfectly still snow-globe—a diorama in miniature of all the dust-coated outposts, treeless brown mountains and adobe castles in Paktika province—and between June 25 and June 30, all the forces of nature conspired to turn it over and shake it. On June 25, we suffered our battalion’s first fatality, a platoon leader named First Lieutenant Brian Bradshaw. Five days later, Bergdahl walked away.

His disappearance translated into daily search missions across the entire Afghanistan theater of operations, particularly ours. The combat platoons in our battalion spent the next month on daily helicopter-insertion search missions (called "air assaults”) trying to scour villages for signs of him. Each operations would send multiple platoons and every enabler available in pursuit: radio intercept teams, military working dogs, professional anthropologists used as intelligence gathering teams, Afghan sources in disguise. They would be out for at least 24 hours. I know of some who were on mission for 10 days at a stretch. In July, the temperature was well above 100 degrees Fahrenheit each day.

These cobbled-together units’ task was to search villages one after another. They often took rifle and mortar fire from insurgents, or perhaps just angry locals. They intermittently received resupply from soot-coated Mi-17s piloted by Russian contractors, many of whom were Soviet veterans of Afghanistan. It was hard, dirty and dangerous work. The searches enraged the local civilian population and derailed the counterinsurgency operations taking place at the time. At every juncture I remember the soldiers involved asking why we were burning so much gasoline trying to find a guy who had abandoned his unit in the first place. The war was already absurd and quixotic, but the hunt for Bergdahl was even more infuriating because it was all the result of some kid doing something unnecessary by his own volition.

On July 4, 2009, a human wave of insurgents attacked the joint U.S./Afghan outpost at Zerok. It was in east Paktika province, the domain of our sister infantry battalion (3rd Battalion, 509th Infantry). Two Americans died and many more received wounds. Hundreds of insurgents attacked and were only repelled by teams of Apache helicopters. Zerok was very close to the Pakistan border, which put it into the same category as outposts now infamous—places like COP Keating or Wanat, places where insurgents could mass on the Pakistani side and then try to overwhelm the outnumbered defenders.

One of my close friends was the company executive officer for the unit at Zerok. He is a mild-mannered and generous guy, not the kind of person prone to fits of pique or rage. But, in his opinion, the attack would not have happened had his company received its normal complement of intelligence aircraft: drones, planes, and the like. Instead, every intelligence aircraft available in theater had received new instructions: find Bergdahl. My friend blames Bergdahl for his soldiers’ deaths. I know that he is not alone, and that this was not the only instance of it. His soldiers’ names were Private First Class Aaron Fairbairn and Private First Class Justin Casillas.

Though the 2009 Afghan presidential election slowed the search for Bergdahl, it did not stop it. Our battalion suffered six fatalities in a three-week period. On August 18, an IED killed Private First Class Morris Walker and Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen during a reconnaissance mission. On August 26, while conducting a search for a Taliban shadow sub-governor supposedly affiliated with Bergdahl’s captors, Staff Sergeant Kurt Curtiss was shot in the face and killed. On September 4, during a patrol to a village near the area in which Bergdahl vanished, an insurgent ambush killed Second Lieutenant Darryn Andrews and gravely wounded Private First Class Matthew Martinek, who died of his wounds a week later. On September 5, while conducting a foot movement toward a village also thought affiliated with Bergdahl’s captors, Staff Sergeant Michael Murphrey stepped on an improvised land mine. He died the next day.
It is important to name all these names. For the veterans of the units that lost these men, Bergdahl’s capture and the subsequent hunt for him will forever tie to their memories, and to a time in their lives that will define them as people. He has finally returned. Those men will never have the opportunity.

Bergdahl was not the first American soldier in modern history to walk away blindly. As I write this in Seoul, I'm about 40 miles from where an American sergeant defected to North Korea in 1965. Charles Robert Jenkins later admitted that he was terrified of being sent to Vietnam, so he got drunk and wandered off on a patrol. He was finally released in 2004, after almost 40 hellish years of brutal internment. The Army court-martialed him, sentencing him to 30 days' confinement and a dishonorable discharge. He now lives peacefully with his wife in Japan—they met in captivity in North Korea, where they were both forced to teach foreign languages to DPRK agents. His desertion barely warranted a comment, but he was not hailed as a hero. He was met with sympathy and humanity, and he was allowed to live his life, but he had to answer for what he did.

The war was already absurd and quixotic, but the hunt for Bergdahl was even more infuriating because it was the result of some kid doing something unnecessary by his own volition.
I believe that Bergdahl also deserves sympathy, but he has much to answer for, some of which is far more damning than simply having walked off. Many have suffered because of his actions: his fellow soldiers, their families, his family, the Afghan military, the unaffiliated Afghan civilians in Paktika, and none of this suffering was inevitable. None of it had to happen. Therefore, while I’m pleased that he’s safe, I believe there is an explanation due. Reprimanding him might yield horrible press for the Army, making our longest war even less popular than it is today. Retrieving him at least reminds soldiers that we will never abandon them to their fates, right or wrong. In light of the propaganda value, I do not expect the Department of Defense to punish Bergdahl.

He’s lucky to have survived. I once saw an insurgent cellphone video of an Afghan National Police enlistee. They had young boys hold him down, boys between the ages of 10 and 15, all of whom giggled like they were jumping on a trampoline. The prisoner screamed and pleaded for his life. The captors cut this poor man’s head off. That’s what the Taliban and their allies do to their captives who don’t have the bargaining value of an American soldier. That’s what they do to their fellow Afghans on a regular basis. No human being deserves that treatment, or to face the threat of that treatment every day for nearly five years.

But that certainly doesn’t make Bergdahl a hero, and that doesn’t mean that the soldiers he left behind have an obligation to forgive him. I just hope that, with this news, it marks a turning point for the veterans of that mad rescue attempt. It’s done. Many of the soldiers from our unit have left the Army, as I have. Many have struggled greatly with life on the outside, and the implicit threat of prosecution if they spoke about Bergdahl made it much harder to explain the absurdity of it all. Our families and friends wanted to understand what we had experienced, but the Army denied us that.

I forgave Bergdahl because it was the only way to move on. I wouldn’t wish his fate on anyone. I hope that, in time, my comrades can make peace with him, too. That peace will look different for every person. We may have all come home, but learning to leave the war behind is not a quick or easy thing. Some will struggle with it for the rest of their lives. Some will never have the opportunity.

And Bergdahl, all I can say is this: Welcome back. I’m glad it's over. There was a spot reserved for you on the return flight, but we had to leave without you, man. You’re probably going to have to find your own way home.

 d-usa wrote:
And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.

We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.

We got "our" guy, now he can get "our" justice.

 Jihadin wrote:
He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and dangerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.

“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James M. Inhofe (Okla.), said in a joint statement.

Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.

The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to reengage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.

Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl’s release.

A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” the official said. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that the detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar, where they are to stay for at least a year, “are hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans and countless Afghans on their hands. I am eager to learn what precise steps are being taken to ensure that these vicious and violent Taliban extremists never return to the fight against the United States and our partners or engage in any activities that can threaten the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan.”

Beyond this individual instance, some raised the larger question of whether it is sound policy for the United States to have, in the words of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), “negotiated with terrorists.”

Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa

Khairkhwa was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban's rule. He hails from the same tribe as Afghan President Hamid Karzai and was captured in January 2002. Khairkhwa's most prominent position was as governor of Herat province from 1999 to 2001, and he was alleged to have been "directly associated" with Osama bin Laden. According to a detainee assessment, Khairkhwa also was probably associated with al Qaeda's now-deceased leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al Zarqawi. He is described as one of the "major opium drug lords in western Afghanistan" and a "friend" of Karzai. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities.

Mullah Mohammad Fazl

Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. He has been accused of war crimes during Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s. Fazl was detained after surrendering to Abdul Rashid Dostam, the leader of Afghanistan's Uzbek community, in November 2001. He was wanted by the United Nations in connection with the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites during the Taliban's rule. "When asked about the murders, he did not express any regret," according to the detainee assessment. He was alleged to have been associated with several militant Islamist groups, including al Qaeda. He was transferred into U.S. custody in December 2001 and was one of the first arrivals at Guantanamo, where he was assessed as having high intelligence value.

Mullah Norullah Noori

Noori served as governor of Balkh province in the Taliban regime and played some role in coordinating the fight against the Northern Alliance. Like Fazl, Noori was detained after surrendering to Dostam, the Uzbek leader, in 2001. Noori claimed during interrogation that "he never received any weapons or military training." According to 2008 detainee assessment, Noori "continues to deny his role, importance and level of access to Taliban officials." That same assessment characterized him as high risk and of high intelligence value.

Abdul Haq Wasiq

Wasiq was the deputy chief of the Taliban regime's intelligence service. His cousin was head of the service. An administrative review in 2007 cited a source as saying that Wasiq was also "an al Qaeda intelligence member" and had links with members of another militant Islamist group, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. Wasiq claimed, according to the review, that he was arrested while trying to help the United States locate senior Taliban figures. He denied any links to militant groups.

Mohammad Nabi Omari

Omari was a minor Taliban official in Khost Province. According to the first administrative review in 2004, he was a member of the Taliban and associated with both al Qaeda and another militant group Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin. He was the Taliban's chief of communications and helped al Qaeda members escape from Afghanistan to Pakistan. Omari acknowledged during hearings that he had worked for the Taliban but denied connections with militant groups. He also said that he had worked with a U.S. operative named Mark to try to track down Taliban leader Mullah Omar.

According to firsthand accounts from soldiers in his platoon, Bergdahl, while on guard duty, shed his weapons and walked off the observation post with nothing more than a compass, a knife, water, a digital camera and a diary.

At least six soldiers were killed in subsequent searches for Bergdahl, and many soldiers in his platoon said attacks seemed to increase against the United States in Paktika province in the days and weeks following his disappearance.

Many of Bergdahl's fellow troops -- from the seven or so who knew him best in his squad to the larger group that made up the 1st Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division -- told CNN that they signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him. Some were willing to dismiss that document in hopes that the truth would come out about a soldier who they now fear is being hailed as a hero, while the men who lost their lives looking for him are ignored.

Many are flocking to social media, such as the Facebook page "Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero," where they share stories detailing their resentment. A number of comments on his battalion's Facebook page prompted the moderator to ask for more respect to be shown.

"I challenge any one of you who label him a traitor to spend 5 years in captivity with the Taliban or Haqqani, then come back and accuse him again. Whatever his intent when he walked away or was captured, he has more than paid for it."

E-mails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl's fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: He told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.

"The future is too good to waste on lies," he wrote to his parents. "And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be American. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting."

Bergdahl wrote to them, "I am sorry for everything. The horror that is America is disgusting."

CNN has not independently verified the authenticity of the e-mails.

A former member of Bergdahl's squad who has yet to identify his last name publicly but goes by "Cody" tweeted this weekend that before he disappeared, Bergdahl once told him, "If deployment is lame, I'm going to get lost in the Mountains and make my way to China."

Leatherman told CNN that Bergdahl "always looked at the mountains in the distance and talked of 'seeing what's on the other side.' "

Cody noted in his Twitter recollections a story that others from Blackfoot Company relay. While soldiers were searching for Bergdahl, a platoon "came upon some children, they asked him have they seen an American. The children said 'yes, he was crawling on his belly through weeds and acting funny a while ago,' " according to Cody.

Bergdahl's parents: 'It isn't over'

The platoon went to the village where the children said the American had gone. "Villagers said an American did come through the area and was wanting water and someone who spoke English," Cody shared.

Former Pfc. Jose Baggett, 27, of Chicago, was also in Blackfoot Company and said he was close to two men "killed because of his (Bergdahl's) actions."

"He walked off," Baggett told CNN. "He left his guard post. Nobody knows if he defected or he's a traitor or he was kidnapped. What I do know is, he was there to protect us, and instead he decided to defer from America and go and do his own thing. I don't know why he decided to do that, but we spend so much of our resources, and some of those resources were soldiers' lives."

Many soldiers on the ground at the time said insurgents were able to take advantage of the intense search for Bergdahl.

"A huge thing in-country is not building patterns. Well when you are looking for a person everyday that creates a pattern. While searching for him, ambushes and IEDs picked up tremendously. Enemy knew we would be coming. IEDs started being placed more effectively in the coming weeks. Ambushes were more calculated, cover and concealment was used," Cody tweeted.

On August 18, 2009, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker were killed by an IED in the search for Bergdahl. Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss was killed on August 26; 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek were killed after being attacked in Yahya Khail District on September 4; Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey was killed September 5 by an IED at the Forward Operating Base, Sharana.

Moreover, other operations were put on hold while the search for Bergdahl was made a top priority, according to officers who served in Afghanistan in that time. Manpower and assets -- such as scarce surveillance drones and helicopters -- were redirected to the hunt. The lack of assets is one reason the closure of a dangerous combat outpost, COP Keating, was delayed. Eight soldiers were killed at COP Keating before it was ultimately closed.

One soldier with the 509th Regiment, a sister unit of the 501st, told CNN that after Bergdahl disappeared, the U.S. Army essentially was told to lock down the entire province of Paktika. He described sitting in the middle of a field with his platoon, vulnerable, with capabilities and personnel mismanaged throughout the region. Different platoons ran out of water, food and ammunition.

Two mortarmen -- Pvt. Aaron Fairbairn and Pfc. Justin Casillas -- were killed in a July 4, 2009, attack.

"It was unbelievable," the soldier said. "All because of the selfish act of one person. The amount of animosity (toward him) is nothing like you've ever seen before."

That Bergdahl was freed in an exchange for five detainees at Guantanamo Bay is a further source of consternation.

"I don't understand why we're trading prisoners at Gitmo for somebody who deserted during a time of war, which is an act of treason," Vierkant said.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.

We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.

We got "our" guy, now he can get "our" justice.

Sure... okay. But we're talking about OFFICIAL stance, vs any sort of backroom deals.

The only beef, really stems from the fact that he's an apparent deserter.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and dangerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.

People like this are the reason we have warnings on coffee advising that the contents may be hot

 Jihadin wrote:
Putting a lrg hot coffee that's in a styrofoam cup between my thighs is bad
Knowing to walk off the FoB by my lonesome self is bad

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And him being a POW doesn't prevent us from trying to free him either. Not negotiating also sends the message that our soldiers don't mean gak to us so just kill any captured Americans for your propaganda videos because they are worth more to you dead than alive.

We have always exchanged POWs. The only problem now is that our soldiers are fethed because we don't want to treat our enemies like POWs ourselves.

We got "our" guy, now he can get "our" justice.

Sure... okay. But we're talking about OFFICIAL stance, vs any sort of backroom deals.

Our official stance is this: "Got one of our own citizens? Kill him. Behead him on camera and post the video for his friends and family to see. Drag his headless corpse through the street and mount his head on a spike in front of whatever cave you are hiding in. Send his fingers to individual suicide bombers to wear as a necklace to remind them who they are fighting against. We don't care. As long as he is alive you will get nothing form us except people looking to hunt you down to free him. He will be more value and less problems for you dead."

All because we can't do what we do to POWs so they are terrorists instead.

I'm pretty pragmatic there and that is the message we are sending with our "we never negotiate" stance. But I'm sure they are happy to get rid of the one US guy to free up room in their caves full of soldiers and citizens from every other country that is weaker than us and actually negotiates...

The only beef, really stems from the fact that he's an apparent deserter.

And that should be a non-issue. He is still a US soldier wearing the uniform. If a guy that is living stateside decides "feth it, I don't wanna be a soldier anymore. I'm out. Ok thanx bye" he is still a member of the military until the military says he isn't. He will get hauled back and face the consequences. Same thing with an idiot walking off in a war-zone. As long as he is still alive and he is still a soldier. I'm sure that there are plenty of guys out there who feel that they should have just killed him because he is a fether, but that's not how it works. He is ours, we will get him, and then we will deal with his desertion. His capture and his desertion should be two separate issues IMO.

 Jihadin wrote:

Hot Coffee between your thighs


Common Sense does not apply?

 Jihadin wrote:
Ghosting off the FoB
Hot Coffee between your thighs


Common Sense does not apply?

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Ghosting off the FoB
Hot Coffee between your thighs


Common Sense does not apply?

Jihadin... I believe the coffee incident was that the Drive-thru server spilled the hot coffee into that woman's lap.

 streamdragon wrote:
I absolutely loathe that people still use that poor woman as some sort of "sue happy culture" poster-child. OTOH, it showcases how many people will spout off about cases without actually understanding them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
I absolutely loathe that people still use that poor woman as some sort of "sue happy culture" poster-child. OTOH, it showcases how many people will spout off about cases without actually understanding them.

You loathe people who make humorous throw away lines?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Its called accountability, its kind of a big deal in the military. It wasn't so much a decision as it was a requirement.

That's an institutional problem.

Absolutely. The military really should just let people wander off whenever they feel like it. Even more in warzones. Gotta fight the power, man.

Yeah, that 'problem' is perhaps one of the most comforting things to a lot of our service members, the 'no man left behind' is a bit of a morale boost, but yeah, you know, institutional problems and all that.

Ahtman wrote:Common sense would say not to make coffee so hot it gives third degree burns in two seconds.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think he loathes when someone spouts long standing falsehoods based on a complete lack of understanding. It is also the situation he loathes, not the people.

 Jihadin wrote:
He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and the migerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.

 whembly wrote:
To my fellow military folks...

Is it common to sign NDA on stuff throughout your tour duties?

Like, Bergdahl's own platoon having to sign NDA to prevent them from talking about the events that transpired?

That whole thing seems very odd to me.

<---- noobish civillian

 djones520 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He would not have been a POW if he hadn't been stupid. Ghosting off the FoB is stupid and the migerous. Though we did have another one try walking home in his PT uniform with a bottle of water and bag of chips.

And he spent 5 years in the hands of the Taliban for it. There are guys we're putting into prison for half that time for raping people.

I for one am getting sick and tired of all military out there that I'm seeing saying this guy wasn't worth the effort we put into freeing him.

EVERY MAN IN UNIFORM IS WORTH THE EFFORT. Otherwise we can always find some dumb thing everyone of us did in the past that would ruin the cause to bring us home.

 CptJake wrote:
My understanding (which may be wrong) about the NDAs in this particular case is that they were put out under the pretense of not wanting info released that would endanger Bergdahl or compromise search efforts and intel ops supporting those efforts. Analogous to the 'on going investigation, no comment' type deal.

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
My understanding (which may be wrong) about the NDAs in this particular case is that they were put out under the pretense of not wanting info released that would endanger Bergdahl or compromise search efforts and intel ops supporting those efforts. Analogous to the 'on going investigation, no comment' type deal.

Okay... that makes much more sense. Thanks!

The buzz I'm reading is that this is a smoke test to see if the Administration can get away with this (which, I'm of the opinion that they could anyways).

They want to close down Gitmo...