How would I feel if this absurdly improbable scenario occurred? Honestly I'd be stupefied to find out I'd been traded for multiple high level prisoners and be expecting my peers to be demanding a damn good explanation for how I got myself isolated and taken without a fight and didn't find a way to escape or kill myself. Look, I don't mind giving this guy the benefit of the doubt to explain himself but don't let that fool you, I think he's guilty. There are slim odds he wasn't a deserter and most alternate explanations require monumental cowardice or negligence. So you're suggesting a highly implausible scenario and acting like the rest of us are barking mad for working off the more likely one. You also dodged the whole bit about the president not informing congress as he was legally bound to do. Are we worthy of insult because we're pissed the president undeniably and indisputably broke the law?
Bergdahl went AWOL several times and came backof his own accord. http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS05/306030078/Sources-Bergdahl-may-walked-off-base-more-than-once this makes proving him guilty of desertion incredibly difficult, although he should still be afforded a hearing/trialnow that he's been released to answer the charges. his unit failed to report his leave at the time, but after the fact now they say he's a deserter. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bergdahl-had-left-his-post-at-least-once-before-investigation-found/ it's incredibly easy to accuse someone of a crime, it's another thing entirely to actually prove it. in addition, Bergdahldidescape from the taliban -- twice -- and was recaptured -- also twice. his reward for these attempts was to be beaten and put into a cage, and also to have people like yourself question his loyalty and the terms of his release.
on that note, theletterof the law says Obama is required to give 30 days notice before releasing Guantanamo detainees. however, thespiritof the law is that this was designed to make sure the entire prison wasn't emptied without Congressional notification. there is a lot of grey area between what Congress thinks they are entitled to and what the President is actually entitled to under this particular law. but that is something that can actually be debated. however, most of the vitriol against Bergdahl in this thread focused on the release of the taliban fighters, not the constitutionality of Obama's negotiations. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/06/stop_saying_that_the_exchange_of_prisoners_for_bergdahl_was_illegal_the.html
those five released were due to be released at some point regardless of the prisoner exchange. it's better that they be released to do something useful like return our lone POW rather than release them with everyone else once the war winds down. their terms of release requires them to be held in Qatar for at least a year, so it's not like they're immediately re-joining the war because the war will be long done by the time they are allowed to leave their new detainment.
Bergdahl's family absolutely received death threats because of his release, thus proving just how low some right wing nut jobs will sink to try to get back at Obama: http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/08/us-usa-afghanistan-bergdahl-idUSKBN0EJ02720140608
so, to sum up everything: yes, you are all barking mad for trying to make Bergdahl into a scapegoat for everything you hate about Obama. the supposedly implausible scenario you scoff at absolutely has happened as i described it, and you still want to pretend Obama is vulnerable to impeachment because of the US commitment to bring home all soldiers captured in conflict.
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman
