@revelette2,
We have a lot more than speculation concerning how he came to be away from his base. We have the statements of men who served with him at the base, and we have reports of the 2010 Pentagon Investigation which found that he "walked away" from the base. Now, there seems to be only three possible explanations for his "walking away" from the base:
1) He was delusional due to drugs or mental illness
2) He wished to take a stroll through hostile territory
3) He wished to desert his post.
Eliminating #2 from consideration, we are left with #'s 1 & 3. There is no indication that he was a drug user or mentally ill, but there is evidence that he shipped his personal belongings back home before he "walked way" and that he hated the army and most of the people he met there. I'd say it's a lot more than mere speculation to reach the conclusion that he deserted.
While it is true that legally he is innocent until proven guilty, there is no such restraint placed on the formulation of a personal opinion, whether kept private or disseminated publicly. There are plenty of people who believe George Bush and Dick Cheney are war criminals. I disagree with them, but I don't try to argue that there opinion is invalid or mere speculation simply because Bush and Cheney are legally innocent until proven guilty.
Some have gone so far as to charge that he is a traitor and collaborated with the enemy. There does seem to be some tenuous evidence that this may be the case, but I'm not prepared to form an opinion that he was more than a deserter based on it. Never-the-less you may want to take a look at the linked article published in the UK's Mail Online site in 2010
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html
Quote:...according to those who would know, his health has been getting bad
Who are those who would know? What access would any of them have to Bergdahl? If they knew where he was being kept and were able to observe or contact him, why was no effort mounted to rescue him? Finally, why should we believe any of the players in this drama when they claim his life was on the line? No meaningful details have been released relative to his current condition and treatment, and a very plausible scenario can be constructed wherein the state of his health would be exaggerated if not fictionalized to justify the need for an immediate action and foregoing compliance with the law requiring notification of congress. It's not as if this Administration hasn't played fast and loose with the truth before.
You and others may find it cold-hearted to suggest that it was proper for the question of whether or not he was a deserter or a collaborator to be factored into the decision on this deal, but it is not only wild-eyed Obama haters who think it would have been. The tacit promise to not leave a soldier behind carries with it the tacit assumption that the soldier has served his country in good faith. If someone violates his or her oath and break military law, it is not entirely unreasonable to suggest that any duty owed to them has been nullified.
If the authorities weren't certain that he deserted or collaborated, then the benefit of the doubt absolutely fell to Bergdahl's favor and it was proper to bring him home and make a final determination of his conduct thereafter.
However, the price the US will pay to rescue/recover a captive American soldier is not unlimited. Using extreme examples to make a point, even if Bergdahl was unquestionably a hero, no one would be suggesting that he be recovered if the price was immediately removing all troops from Afghanistan, or bringing the Taliban the president's head in a gift wrapped box. There will always be a price too high to pay, and it is not unreasonable to question whether the price paid in this case was. All things considered, I can't say with strong conviction that it was, but I also am not about to denigrate those who may think otherwise.
The problems with this deal go beyond whether or not it should have been made or if the price was too high.
We have the Administration deliberately mischaracterizing Bergdahl so as to improve the tale for the Boss's image. I find it very difficult to believe that anyone who has access to the Pentagon's 2010 investigation can honestly describe him as someone who served with honor and distinction.
The father tweeted "I am still working to free all Guantanamo prisoners. God will repay for the death of every Afghan child, ameen." but was feted by the president in the Rose Garden. I think it's ridiculous to suggest Obama did no because he shares that sentiment, but it does seem as if the opportunity for a grandstanding event that might divert the media (if even for a moment) from the VA scandal was more important to this Administration than taking the time to vette this guy.
The president violated the law by not providing congress with notice of the deal at least 30 days before it was executed. I am highly suspect of the dire health explanation, and if it is true that congress had been informed of negotiations months before the deal was made, did the briefing include all of the facts, i.e. the suspicion surrounding Bergdahl's departure from base and the identities of the detainees being considered as the price of his return?
"I think he clearly broke the law," said CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Tobin on a broadcast last night (hardly a kooky conservative blogging on the web). "The law says 30-days' notice. He didn't give 30-days' notice." He added that Obama's opinion expressed in a signing statement "is not law."
Then there is the question of whether the "precautions" taken to mitigate the threat of the released Taliban Dream Team are sufficient. Three US intelligence officials have reported that both James Clapper and Leon Panetta previously rejected the release of the terrorists because of the threat they posed to our national security. Hagel and ultimately Clapper were persuaded that the assurances from Qatar were sufficient but not without a process which, according to intelligence and defense department officials was rushed, closely held, and left little room for push back against a policy clearly favored by the White House.
What do we know about these assurances?
Qatar will hold the Taliban leaders (who all have proven ties to al Qaeda) within its borders for one year. They will not be restricted from communications with anyone outside of Qatar or anyone visiting them in Qatar. This seems fairly feeble but even if it were iron clad, it is only for one year!
As for the impact of the end of the war on Taliban detainees, one of the moves made by the Bush Administration that so infuriated its critics was to classify them as unlawful combatants rather than prisoners-of-war. I could be wrong, but I don't believe Obama reclassified them at any time during the last 6 years. As unlawful combatants, there is no duty to release them even if the massive withdrawal in 2016 can be termed a cessation of hostilities. This was not a case of getting the best deal possible now before an inevitable outcome eventually eliminated our leverage.
