Tag Archives: desertion

Another 'czar' might emerge in Washington

It’s been some time since we’ve heard the term “czar” kicked around Washington, D.C.

But here it comes again, this time in the form of legislation that creates a “hostage czar” who would coordinate efforts to gain the release of Americans held hostage abroad.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/bill-would-create-%e2%80%98hostage-czar%e2%80%99-to-coordinate-efforts-to-rescue-americans/ar-BBj1S6C

U.S. Rep. John Delaney, D-Md., has proposed the Warren Weinstein Hostage Rescue Act, named in honor of the man killed early this year in a drone strike on a suspected al-Qaeda compound.

Allow me this one request for the legislation: no negotiating with terrorists, please.

Delaney said this: “Hostage rescue is incredibly complex and multiple agencies have a role in the process, which at times has complicated our ability to act efficiently.”

So, he wants to create a hostage czar to coordinate those efforts.

It’s at best a symbolic gesture. It could prove fruitful, but only if it maintains a policy of refusing to negotiate with terror organizations to gain the release of these captive Americans.

I know what you’re thinking: Hey, we “negotiated” with the Taliban to obtain the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl; we released five Taliban officers in exchange for Bergdahl. Isn’t that “negotiating with terrorists”? Well, I believe the Taliban is a terrorist organization, but the White House doesn’t call it such — so, technically, the U.S. government didn’t negotiate with a terrorist outfit to gain Bergdahl’s release.

In hindsight, it looks like a mistake because (a) the Taliban comprises terrorists and (b) Bergdahl now is facing desertion charges.

Still, the Weinstein Hostage Rescue Act should be free of language that allows us to negotiate with any recognized terrorist outfit.

Sgt. Bergdahl's life is getting complicated

U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s life got mighty complicated the day he disappeared from his post in Afghanistan and was held by Taliban terrorists.

He was repatriated in 2014 amid cheers to those who were glad we were able to recover one of our fighting men.

Now the young man’s life is getting decidedly more complicated. This story might not end well for Sgt. Bergdahl.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-military-bergdahl-may-face-life-in-prison-if-convicted/ar-AA9ZMmM

The Army has accused him of desertion and with misbehavior before the enemy. The desertion charge carries a five-year prison sentence if he’s convicted; the misbehavior charge comes with a life sentence if he is found guilty.

All of sudden, just like that, the man once considered a near-hero must prove to the military that he didn’t join the enemy willingly and deserted his post, abandoned his comrades and in effect shirked the duty he took an oath to perform.

The Army is going to send this case to an Article 32 hearing, which is equivalent roughly to a grand jury proceeding. There it will be determined Bergdahl’s case goes to court martial.

I would hate for Bergdahl to be convicted of either charge. If he is, then, well … the young man needs to be punished.

His life, no matter if he spends it behind bars or is acquitted, has become far more complicated than he ever imagined.

Good call, Hailey officials

Hailey, Idaho officials and civic leaders shouldn’t have to worry about anyone accusing them of having a tin ear when it involves the uproar over the release of one of their own from Taliban hands.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bowe-bergdahls-hometown-cancels-celebration/

The good folks of Hailey had planned a celebration to welcome home U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was freed the other day after being held captive by Taliban militants. Bergdahl was serving his country in Afghanistan when he was taken captive.

Then came the questions about (a) whether he walked off his post and deserted, (b) whether the United States gave up too much (five high-ranking Taliban officers) in exchange for Bergdahl’s release and (c) whether President Obama broke the law by brokering the deal without advising Congress.

Hailey officials cited “security concerns” as the reason for canceling the celebration. Do you think?

Yes, security surely would be an issue. More to the point, Hailey officials do not want to be seen as honoring someone with so many serious questions hanging over him.

Sgt. Bergdahl deserves the chance to answer the desertion allegations. We don’t know the particulars of his capture, other than what some of his comrades have said. Do they have all the fact? Probably not.

As for Hailey, I hope the town gets the chance to welcome home one of its sons. Just not yet.

Whether to court-martial Bergdahl

The rhetoric is getting pretty heated now about the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and whether he should be tried for desertion.

Some of his combat “buddies” are saying Bergdahl left his post before being captured in Afghanistan by the Taliban. He was held captive for five years until his release this weekend in an exchange of prisoners; the Taliban got five of their leading militants in return for Bergdahl.

So, what’s the next course of action?

How about letting the Army interrogate everyone with knowledge of what happened when Bergdahl was taken by the Taliban? The Army has a pretty capable judge advocate corps of lawyers who can get to the heart of what went down.

If it’s decided that Bergdahl did desert his post, that he left his comrades in the lurch, that he committed what some are calling an act of treason, then he ought to be court-martialed.

The initial word from the Pentagon was that the Army likely wouldn’t court-martial the young man, believing apparently that he’d suffered enough.

I’m not so sure about that. I’d like to see the Army investigate this matter fully and make a careful, studied determination of what happened five years ago.

Yes, there have been comments made. To date, none of them has been corroborated. Let’s look for the truth.