Skip to comments.How can Bowe Bergdahl be a POfWar if he ceased waging war and deserted?
Posted on 06/11/2014 9:47:07 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
Bowe Bergdahl: a Prisoner of WAR, a deserter taken hostage by the Taliban or an enemy combatant?
If it isn't the first of the three rather the second, why then are all cable news outlets describing this as a prisoner swap?
Why aren't they calling this an enemy combatant ( Taliban 5)/deserter or a EC/deserter swap?
If Bowe Bergdahl deserted, then would he have then as well forsake the military, and thus his uniform?
Would Bowe Bergdahl then be an enemy combatant?
POW, hostage, or what we call the Taliban since they have no official gov't uniform?
If Bergdahl had one and forsook it, which of the thrre is he?
Is having had one and forsaking it - if this o ccured- the same as never having an official uniform?
What say you?
Why did they promote him twice and almost a third time?
Would the opposing side consider Bergdahl an EC then?
Just curious what BB will be deemed to be as the weeks unfold....
It was a premeditated act of defection.
He mailed home his belongings, left under cover of darkness, and sought out the enemy.
Lets say we are at war in the future, and a person defects and does more- they join the other side......
No way they could then be a POW..
Why then are most media calling this a prisoner swap as in one POW for another?
Would the Taliban 5 and BB both be enemy combatants?
He is a deserter first, traitor second and property third.
He was held for the sole purpose of extorting the USA for a trade of people and money.
Why did we send the USS Constitution and The Enterprise to Tripoli?
Name Rank Serial Number is POW Conduct. With these assholes it will get your head cut off.
They fed clothed and housed this fuckwad for FIVE years. They would not have done that unless he provides them with something of value.
= Collaborator = Traitor. QED.
my understanding is.
(the opinion of the DoD is)
the Taliban are not a country,
they are a non-state armed group. —>
Bergdahl did not have ‘POW’ status
please correct me if I am wrong.
Several sources said that he was never categorized as a POW, but who knows?
As happens so often with the media, the most simple things become uncertain and unknown.
the Army, like the other services...
has a ‘promotion-cycle kind of thing’
from time to time, you get either...
promoted, not promoted, or terminated.
BB, as a courtesy, got promoted in-abstentia
when his turn came around.
It is what the MSM wants. He should be executed for treason and leaving his post.
What we have here is often called a conundrum, or a confusing dilemma.
Bergdahl was never carried by the US Army as a “prisoner of war” (POW).
He was listed as “missing/captured.”
POW? No. Deserter? Depends on the evidence, and they’ve done a good job of covering that. Besides what “war” are we talking about? The non-terrorists at Gitmo are not ‘POWs’ (detainees), so Bergdahl neither can be. Neither was he taken in battle or kidnapped (unless I’ve missed something or they’ve created a new fairy tale).
Conscientious Objector? At best? But he signed a contract and is subject to UCMJ.
So at this point the details really don’t matter. What matters is whether or not they prosecute him, as NO ONE can demonstrate he was ‘taken hostage’ or ‘taken prisoner’.
If they don’t prosecute, that decision will have far more serious ramifications than simply debating labels...
I say that this is not the time to have the discussion. I say that, perhaps unwittingly, you are taking the bait that The Regime is trolling with.
At the hearing yesterday, every Democrat Congressman began with "We do not leave a soldier behind."
Right now, the reaction to that should be to ignore it. There is nothing to be gained by trying to engage it on any level. That time WILL come.
Make them OWN this decision. Let them say stupid stuff like Hillary did. She said that the Five Taliban are not a danger to Americans, just a danger to Afghans.
With the MSM saying over and over ad nauseum the words “prisoner swap,” the implication is that Bowe Bergdahl was a POW.
At the same time, though, they call the Taliban 5 terrorists “enemy combatants.”
How can this be?
Were these Taliban 5 waging war against the U.S.? If so, then aren’t they POW’s?
And if Bergdahl ceased waging war, then why isn’t the Obama administration saying that he wasn’t a POW?
When will all world bodies that emet in the UN come up with terms that work each way, and cover every situation?
Right now, the Zero adm. is using its MSM mouthpieces to shill for it the following “Bowe Bergdahl was later caged by his captors.”
How can Bowe Bergdahl have been captured IF he willingly deserted, IF he willingly ceased waging war, and IF he willingly went looking for them?
Given that the Zero adm. won't/doesn't answer certain questions (some of =which are here on this thread) it allows them to throw out the shiny object of “The Taliban put Bergdahl in a cage. Surely then Bergdahl was an enemy of the Taliban!” and other red herrings...