I agree. Nonetheless he defected, did he not?
Sent from outer space or somewhere from my mobile device
I agree. Nonetheless he defected, did he not?
Sent from outer space or somewhere from my mobile device
Also just wanna add this thought. Look at the pattern the information is being released and what kind of information. When this first happened, he was a good Soldier, doing a good job, with a good record and reccomendations. Then it progresses until he is portrayed as a left wing pansy ass that has psychological problems and hes a homosexual. This is so obvious a very typical pattern and used as a way to systematically discredit a person.
It happens too often to not see the amateur ish way. Its like a old cold war propagandist trick.....except it childishly obvious.
It happens too often to not see the amateur ish way. Its like a old cold war propagandist trick.....except it childishly obvious.
I tend to lean more in the 'traitor' direction. At least until more is known, which will probably be never.
What I know for sure, he is NOT worth trading for 5 enemy combatants.
But it makes for a great photo op for Babba and the MSM.
Snowden was in the right and fled for his life.
His own unit calls Bergdahl a deserter
What I know for sure, he is NOT worth trading for 5 enemy combatants.
But it makes for a great photo op for Babba and the MSM.
Snowden was in the right and fled for his life.
His own unit calls Bergdahl a deserter
From reports that I heard, this is not a new "event." Back in 2009, when he left the base and after, it was known that he left willingly. Why the military does so amazes me, but there were some that told the others in his unit to not speak of it. I guess some were even given non-disclosure statements to sign. Why would the "brass" do that if Bergdahl was a "good soldier?" So far, the only ones I've seen saying that he was a good soldier are those trying to gain politically in this election year or cover their own tails.
I don't know why they did or didn't do what they did or didn't do at the time, but it seems to me that the way the military handles POWs has been deferential toward the POW, at least since WWII. Without intent, you can't charge someone with desertion, and if you have video evidence that they've been captured by the enemy, it's pretty hard to show intent--and it's not like it's politically feasible to charge a POW with being AWOL while he's still a POW, either. You can't charge him with desertion, and you can't charge him with being AWOL, so what do you do? It's not like you actually have to do anything, so you take the path of least resistance: treat him like every other POW and wait.
Where are they saying this?
I'd consider it asylum from a corrupt and dangerous government, Snowden thinking the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He's in Russia cause its the safest place for him to be most likely.
It gives Putin something to hang over Obama's head, but I don't think Snowden set out with the intent of going to Russia, he probably wanted to stay in Hong Kong.
I suppose it is defection, but its not like the US is the goodguys though.
The very first report that broke involved this kid and 2 others being kidnapped. Early on he was decribed as "being quiet and not causeing problems." So ask yourself this....how would you describe a buddy or comrade in one of your units that went missing?
Knowbody says quiet and doesnt cause problems. They may say quiet but a good soldier or a good guy or any numbers of descrptions but few or none would add in the part of "doesnt cause problems". Trouble makers that cause problems are delt with. Others are just described without adding the extra "no problems" part. Thatsa propagandist trick to add that in when you know something wasnt "right" and ya might hafta explain or discredit details at a later date.
1st General Order
"I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved."
2nd General Order
"I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner."
3rd General Order
"I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief."
I think he violated the first two of every soldiers Three General Orders. I would be happy with a Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge. I do not think he deserves the rank of Sergeant or the benefits of being a veteran.
"I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved."
2nd General Order
"I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner."
3rd General Order
"I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief."
I think he violated the first two of every soldiers Three General Orders. I would be happy with a Bad Conduct Discharge or Dishonorable Discharge. I do not think he deserves the rank of Sergeant or the benefits of being a veteran.
I'm not disputing that; I was only addressing Lurker's question about why they didn't charge him with something five years ago. You can't throw a POW under the bus while he's still a POW, whether he deserves it or not. Think about it--if the US denounces a POW who may deserve the treatment, how does that get used against other POWs who don't deserve it? A captor telling an American POW that the US denounces POWs is one thing; if the POW knows that the US has done it, that's something else entirely.
Similar threads
