quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I had not thought of that, BamaD.

I dunno though.
It might have been... awkward.... to convert and remain with his unit, but he could have done so.

quote:

Republican Senator good enough?

quote:

As it turns out, according to the White House, there is no note:


Saxby Chambliss says WH told senators in briefing that NYT reporting that Bergdahl left a note when he abandoned camp is wrong.



That’s verrry curious, since it’s not just the NYT that has sources claiming the note exists. Fox News was also told that Bergdahl had left a letter, one that not only supported desertion but which hinted that he wanted to renounce his citizenship. Either multiple sources are lying to multiple news agencies about the existence of a note or the White House is lying to Chambliss and Congress in denying it. And if it’s the NYT/Fox sources are lying, why didn’t they lie more brazenly? They could have concocted the text of the phony note, making it as damning to Bergdahl as they like, and then fed it to one or both of them. They didn’t. Why not?

quote:


In as much as you are linking to a Republican Senator saying 0bama0 denies the existence of the note, it certainly doesn't mean much to me (although it admittedly does back up your assertion; thank you). The original source of this (mis)information- 0bama0- lies more, and more arrogantly and more obviously, by the day.

I'd make book the note exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

That story is questioned by other sources.

Really? Because, gee, I cannot find them.
I found stories that did not mention the presence of a note; but gee, that's not the same as "questioned" the presence of said note, now is it?

Perhaps you could point me to stories that "question" the presence of such a desertion note.

No????

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/05/theory-the-real-reason-the-military-forced-soldiers-quiet-about-desertion-accusations-against-bergdahl/?preview=true
Republican Senator good enough?

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

See posts 199 and 201 by ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

HERE is another strawman source...at least know what the hell you are talking about.

Butch

quote:

885. ARTICLE 85. DESERTION
10. Punitive Articles
(a) Any member of the armed forces who–
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Below, from your source, is the part about which you are so determined to remain ignorant:

quote:

885. ARTICLE 85. DESERTION
10. Punitive Articles
(a) Any member of the armed forces who–
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

The coloring is mine.
"Quits", btw, means: leaves.

If he left voluntarily, it is hard to see how he could be found "not guilty" of the charge of desertion.

quote:

Did Bergdahl desert, and if so, why?

quote:

If he deserted, would the Taliban still treat him as a prisoner?

quote:

And why would he want to come back?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

FR

I'm not really sure what to make of this case, although I figure the legal eagles will churn this one around for a while.

A lot of people seem to be arguing technicalities, but I'm wondering what the deeper implications are to all of this. Did Bergdahl desert, and if so, why? If he deserted, would the Taliban still treat him as a prisoner? And why would he want to come back?

Of course, the other side of this is the Taliban prisoners who were released in exchange for Bergdahl. The implication here is that the US might have gotten the raw end of the deal, ostensibly trading high-ranking enemy officials for Bergdahl. But again, it's hard to say what's really going on here, since there seems to be more speculation than fact. I suppose anything is possible, especially in the world of cloak-and-dagger.

quote:

Some are trying to make this case seem far more complicated than it is because the most obvious and the simplest explanation implies that our CIC has either gone completely mad, or he is a moron beyond belief

Or he has knowingly and willingly committed treason in addition to knowingly and willingly violating the prisoner release statute that he himself signed into law