Army Clears Bowe Bergdahl of Misconduct. Really?

[TemplarKormac]

1. "Participating in target practice" is not misconduct either. He was under no obligation to "be hostile" all the time. He was a captive in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by armed "soldiers". I don't think they had any reason to worry that he was going to shoot them.

2. The source for the claim that he converted to Islam and declared himself a mujahideen is very questionable. Either way, converting to a different religion isn't "misconduct" either.

I can't believe what I'm hearing from you.

Declaring himself as a mujahid is to declare himself a soldier of Islam, or to declare jihad against the US or anyone else. It isn't just joining a religion, it's joining the fight. That within itself is traitorous and classifies as misconduct.

Giving him a weapon in the first place was a tactical blunder. It doesn't matter if it was one man or a hundred. If he had any access to the leaders with weapon in tow, he could have killed them. Right there. Dumbest thing they could possibly do. So my reasoning is here that he joined them. They don't simply arm him because they feared for their own safety. To arm him is to put anybody there at risk of injury or death. You don't arm a captive unless he willingly decided to join you. Do we arm our captives? No, of course not, because it's stupid and strategically erroneous.

If he had "killed the leader", he would have instantly been killed, and a new "leader" would take their place.

This is the reality, not a Rambo movie. In the real world, a single captive, surrounded by armed enemies and already captive for years would not be considered a threat, even if they let him hold a gun every now and then.

This is reality indeed. You must understand I think strategically, reality is nothing but a piece to play in the game.

They saw him as a fellow fighter. They didn't see him as a threat. Those are two keys to a successful infiltration behind enemy lines. The first rule of subterfuge Doc, is to gain the trust of your enemy. In this case they trusted him to a degree. And if he were anyone else, who gained their trust in this manner, and turned out to be an operative; someone important would have been killed, and I guarantee the replacement would not be as effective as the person he replaced. It isn't uncommon for someone to give their life in order to take another's, hence the Kamikazes. Besides, why else would they arm him?

If he had gained their trust to that degree, they could have potentially opened themselves up to possible compromise. Arming him would have made that breach even worse. If he managed to give his own country the slip, what makes you think the Taliban wouldn't be susceptible to the same?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dewey Clarridge and Eclipse Group are pretty much the textbook definition of "untrustworthy sources". There's a reason the government doesn't actually contract with them anymore.

I suggest reading up on his history, and why he's not in the CIA anymore.

But CENTCOM took their reports anyhow. Duane Clarridge was implicated in the Iran Contra scandal, but even then, you can't dismiss the veracity of the report simply for something he did during the Reagan administration, can you? And he runs a 'private spying operation' from what I've read.

That response of yours is a cop out, Doc.

I could write a "report" and mail it to CENTCOM, and they'd "take" it.

"Taking it" isn't the same thing as believing it.

Well, we don't hear of them dismissing it, now do we? Save for one person, they didn't exactly dismiss it, did they?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

But CENTCOM took their reports anyhow. Duane Clarridge was implicated in the Iran Contra scandal, but even then, you can't dismiss the veracity of the report simply for something he did during the Reagan administration, can you? And he runs a 'private spying operation' from what I've read.

That response of yours is a cop out, Doc.

I could write a "report" and mail it to CENTCOM, and they'd "take" it.

"Taking it" isn't the same thing as believing it.

Well, we don't hear of them dismissing it, now do we? Save for one person, they didn't exactly dismiss it, did they?

TK, I think you need to take a step back for a couple of minutes, you're going off the rails a little.

That "one guy" at CENTCOM is a now-retired 4-star general and was Commander of CENTCOM at the time.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I could write a "report" and mail it to CENTCOM, and they'd "take" it.

"Taking it" isn't the same thing as believing it.

Well, we don't hear of them dismissing it, now do we? Save for one person, they didn't exactly dismiss it, did they?

TK, I think you need to take a step back for a couple of minutes, you're going off the rails a little.

That "one guy" at CENTCOM is a now-retired 4-star general and was Commander of CENTCOM at the time.

Well, that changes things. Even still I take Duane Clarridge's report with plenty credibility. Mattis is a commander sitting in his respective CENTCOM region office, he gets the reports. Clarridge and Eclipse Group were the people on the ground, they knew first hand what went on.

I'm pretty much on track here, save the beginning of this thread. "My source is better than yours" will not work, since they were both involved in intelligence gathering.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I can't believe what I'm hearing from you.

Declaring himself as a mujahid is to declare himself a soldier of Islam, or to declare jihad against the US or anyone else. It isn't just joining a religion, it's joining the fight. That within itself is traitorous and classifies as misconduct.

Giving him a weapon in the first place was a tactical blunder. It doesn't matter if it was one man or a hundred. If he had any access to the leaders with weapon in tow, he could have killed them. Right there. Dumbest thing they could possibly do. So my reasoning is here that he joined them. They don't simply arm him because they feared for their own safety. To arm him is to put anybody there at risk of injury or death. You don't arm a captive unless he willingly decided to join you. Do we arm our captives? No, of course not, because it's stupid and strategically erroneous.

If he had "killed the leader", he would have instantly been killed, and a new "leader" would take their place.

This is the reality, not a Rambo movie. In the real world, a single captive, surrounded by armed enemies and already captive for years would not be considered a threat, even if they let him hold a gun every now and then.

This is reality indeed. You must understand I think strategically, reality is nothing but a piece to play in the game.

They saw him as a fellow fighter. They didn't see him as a threat. Those are two keys to a successful infiltration behind enemy lines. The first rule of subterfuge Doc, is to gain the trust of your enemy. In this case they trusted him to a degree. And if he were anyone else, who gained their trust in this manner, and turned out to be an operative; someone important would have been killed, and I guarantee the replacement would not be as effective as the person he replaced. It isn't uncommon for someone to give their life in order to take another's, hence the Kamikazes. Besides, why else would they arm him?

If he had gained their trust to that degree, they could have potentially opened themselves up to possible compromise. Arming him would have made that breach even worse. If he managed to give his own country the slip, what makes you think the Taliban wouldn't be susceptible to the same?

That is NOT reality.

That is the plot to an action film.

In reality, people break when they're held captive in the mountains for 5 years.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And can you blame me for being skeptical? I've heard people giving expeditious answers to questions before. Such as "there is no smidgeon of evidence of any wrongdoing" as Obama put it. Why should I trust the judgement of a CENTCOM commander who says "there was no misconduct"?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If he had "killed the leader", he would have instantly been killed, and a new "leader" would take their place.

This is the reality, not a Rambo movie. In the real world, a single captive, surrounded by armed enemies and already captive for years would not be considered a threat, even if they let him hold a gun every now and then.

This is reality indeed. You must understand I think strategically, reality is nothing but a piece to play in the game.

They saw him as a fellow fighter. They didn't see him as a threat. Those are two keys to a successful infiltration behind enemy lines. The first rule of subterfuge Doc, is to gain the trust of your enemy. In this case they trusted him to a degree. And if he were anyone else, who gained their trust in this manner, and turned out to be an operative; someone important would have been killed, and I guarantee the replacement would not be as effective as the person he replaced. It isn't uncommon for someone to give their life in order to take another's, hence the Kamikazes. Besides, why else would they arm him?

If he had gained their trust to that degree, they could have potentially opened themselves up to possible compromise. Arming him would have made that breach even worse. If he managed to give his own country the slip, what makes you think the Taliban wouldn't be susceptible to the same?

That is NOT reality.

That is the plot to an action film.

In reality, people break when they're held captive in the mountains for 5 years.

That's not true. Instead of referring to my posts as a "plot to an action film" you can come up with a cogent response. So, how could he have been 'broken' when he chose to desert his comrades? Was he under some immense pressure when he chose to walk away from his post? Was he broken when he sent that letter to his parents voicing his contempt for America? Fantasy is claiming that he was broken by the Taliban. He showed signs of contemptuous attitudes to the US even before he deserted. He of his own free will and accord chose to desert, and he freely threw himself into the hands of the enemy. Who is to say they didn't ask him to desert? That, however, I think is very unlikely. Who or what compelled him to do what he did?

No, Doc. He wasn't broken. Even if he was, his own country did it, not the Taliban.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, we don't hear of them dismissing it, now do we? Save for one person, they didn't exactly dismiss it, did they?

TK, I think you need to take a step back for a couple of minutes, you're going off the rails a little.

That "one guy" at CENTCOM is a now-retired 4-star general and was Commander of CENTCOM at the time.

Well, that changes things. Even still I take Duane Clarridge's report with plenty credibility. Mattis is a commander sitting in his respective CENTCOM region office, he gets the reports. Clarridge and Eclipse Group were the people on the ground, they knew first hand what went on.

I'm pretty much on track here, save the beginning of this thread. "My source is better than yours" will not work, since they were both involved in intelligence gathering.

Eclipse Group isn't a "wetwork" company. They're not "on the ground". They don't know anything "firsthand".

They collect rumors from networks of unnamed sources, and then try to sell that information. They make claims and write reports that CENTCOM doesn't take seriously or even pay for anymore. They are funded by private donations from unknown sources. They have no transparency as to where they get their money, their information, or anything at all.

What makes you give Dewey Clarridge any credibility at all? Just because he claims it?

 

[Kosh]

Just like all those training videos found in Iraq that used the words of the far left in the US as recruitment tools to kill our soldiers, but hey the far left does not care about this. Well until they get into power.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

This is reality indeed. You must understand I think strategically, reality is nothing but a piece to play in the game.

They saw him as a fellow fighter. They didn't see him as a threat. Those are two keys to a successful infiltration behind enemy lines. The first rule of subterfuge Doc, is to gain the trust of your enemy. In this case they trusted him to a degree. And if he were anyone else, who gained their trust in this manner, and turned out to be an operative; someone important would have been killed, and I guarantee the replacement would not be as effective as the person he replaced. It isn't uncommon for someone to give their life in order to take another's, hence the Kamikazes. Besides, why else would they arm him?

If he had gained their trust to that degree, they could have potentially opened themselves up to possible compromise. Arming him would have made that breach even worse. If he managed to give his own country the slip, what makes you think the Taliban wouldn't be susceptible to the same?

That is NOT reality.

That is the plot to an action film.

In reality, people break when they're held captive in the mountains for 5 years.

That's not true. Instead of referring to my posts as a "plot to an action film" you can come up with a cogent response. So, how could he have been 'broken' when he chose to desert his comrades? Was he under some immense pressure when he chose to walk away from his post? Was he broken when he sent that letter to his parents voicing his contempt for America?

No, Doc. He wasn't broken. Even if he was, his own country did it, not the Taliban.

The topic of this thread is his behavior during captivity - not beforehand. It remains to be seen his culpability over that.

The actions he took before being captured have little to do with happened during his captivity.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And can you blame me for being skeptical? I've heard people giving expeditious answers to questions before. Such as "there is no smidgeon of evidence of any wrongdoing" as Obama put it. Why should I trust the judgement of a CENTCOM commander who says "there was no misconduct"?

I have more faith in the Armed Forces of the United States than I do a shady "private intelligence firm" led by a man who would be in prison today, had he not been pardoned.

 

[TemplarKormac]

TK, I think you need to take a step back for a couple of minutes, you're going off the rails a little.

That "one guy" at CENTCOM is a now-retired 4-star general and was Commander of CENTCOM at the time.

Well, that changes things. Even still I take Duane Clarridge's report with plenty credibility. Mattis is a commander sitting in his respective CENTCOM region office, he gets the reports. Clarridge and Eclipse Group were the people on the ground, they knew first hand what went on.

I'm pretty much on track here, save the beginning of this thread. "My source is better than yours" will not work, since they were both involved in intelligence gathering.

Eclipse Group isn't a "wetwork" company. They're not "on the ground". They don't know anything "firsthand".

They collect rumors from networks of unnamed sources, and then try to sell that information. They make claims and write reports that CENTCOM doesn't take seriously or even pay for anymore. They are funded by private donations from unknown sources. They have no transparency as to where they get their money, their information, or anything at all.

What makes you give Dewey Clarridge any credibility at all? Just because he claims it?

If Eclipse Group wasn't on the ground or firsthand, why were they contracted with the Pentagon to help find Bergdahl? Normally, that involves putting operatives on the ground, in theater to help locate the person of interest. Some of the Eclipse Group's reports were credible enough to lead the US to perform airstrikes on targets in Afghanistan. Read Clarridge's wiki if you wish to verify that.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Well, that changes things. Even still I take Duane Clarridge's report with plenty credibility. Mattis is a commander sitting in his respective CENTCOM region office, he gets the reports. Clarridge and Eclipse Group were the people on the ground, they knew first hand what went on.

I'm pretty much on track here, save the beginning of this thread. "My source is better than yours" will not work, since they were both involved in intelligence gathering.

Eclipse Group isn't a "wetwork" company. They're not "on the ground". They don't know anything "firsthand".

They collect rumors from networks of unnamed sources, and then try to sell that information. They make claims and write reports that CENTCOM doesn't take seriously or even pay for anymore. They are funded by private donations from unknown sources. They have no transparency as to where they get their money, their information, or anything at all.

What makes you give Dewey Clarridge any credibility at all? Just because he claims it?

If Eclipse Group wasn't on the ground or firsthand, why were they contracted with the Pentagon to help find Bergdahl? Normally, that involves putting operatives on the ground, in theater to help locate the person of interest. Some of the Eclipse Group's reports were credible enough to lead the US to perform airstrikes on targets in Afghanistan. Read Clarridge's wiki if you wish to verify that.

They weren't.

Where did you come up with that?

 

[TemplarKormac]

And can you blame me for being skeptical? I've heard people giving expeditious answers to questions before. Such as "there is no smidgeon of evidence of any wrongdoing" as Obama put it. Why should I trust the judgement of a CENTCOM commander who says "there was no misconduct"?

I have more faith in the Armed Forces of the United States than I do a shady "private intelligence firm" led by a man who would be in prison today, had he not been pardoned.

I'm observant enough to know that just because a CIA officer of three decades did something to break the law, doesn't mean you dismiss his expertise in the field or his experiences. That is patently foolish and unreasonable.

 

[idb]

This is reality indeed. You must understand I think strategically, reality is nothing but a piece to play in the game.

They saw him as a fellow fighter. They didn't see him as a threat. Those are two keys to a successful infiltration behind enemy lines. The first rule of subterfuge Doc, is to gain the trust of your enemy. In this case they trusted him to a degree. And if he were anyone else, who gained their trust in this manner, and turned out to be an operative; someone important would have been killed, and I guarantee the replacement would not be as effective as the person he replaced. It isn't uncommon for someone to give their life in order to take another's, hence the Kamikazes. Besides, why else would they arm him?

If he had gained their trust to that degree, they could have potentially opened themselves up to possible compromise. Arming him would have made that breach even worse. If he managed to give his own country the slip, what makes you think the Taliban wouldn't be susceptible to the same?

That is NOT reality.

That is the plot to an action film.

In reality, people break when they're held captive in the mountains for 5 years.

That's not true. Instead of referring to my posts as a "plot to an action film" you can come up with a cogent response. So, how could he have been 'broken' when he chose to desert his comrades? Was he under some immense pressure when he chose to walk away from his post? Was he broken when he sent that letter to his parents voicing his contempt for America? Fantasy is claiming that he was broken by the Taliban. He showed signs of contemptuous attitudes to the US even before he deserted. He of his own free will and accord chose to desert, and he freely threw himself into the hands of the enemy. Who is to say they didn't ask him to desert? That, however, I think is very unlikely. Who or what compelled him to do what he did?

No, Doc. He wasn't broken. Even if he was, his own country did it, not the Taliban.

Do you have the answers to all of those most excellent questions?

 

[idb]

I can't believe what I'm hearing from you.

Declaring himself as a mujahid is to declare himself a soldier of Islam, or to declare jihad against the US or anyone else. It isn't just joining a religion, it's joining the fight. That within itself is traitorous and classifies as misconduct.

Giving him a weapon in the first place was a tactical blunder. It doesn't matter if it was one man or a hundred. If he had any access to the leaders with weapon in tow, he could have killed them. Right there. Dumbest thing they could possibly do. So my reasoning is here that he joined them. They don't simply arm him because they feared for their own safety. To arm him is to put anybody there at risk of injury or death. You don't arm a captive unless he willingly decided to join you. Do we arm our captives? No, of course not, because it's stupid and strategically erroneous.

If he had "killed the leader", he would have instantly been killed, and a new "leader" would take their place.

This is the reality, not a Rambo movie. In the real world, a single captive, surrounded by armed enemies and already captive for years would not be considered a threat, even if they let him hold a gun every now and then.

This is reality indeed. You must understand I think strategically, reality is nothing but a piece to play in the game.

They saw him as a fellow fighter. They didn't see him as a threat. Those are two keys to a successful infiltration behind enemy lines. The first rule of subterfuge Doc, is to gain the trust of your enemy. In this case they trusted him to a degree. And if he were anyone else, who gained their trust in this manner, and turned out to be an operative; someone important would have been killed, and I guarantee the replacement would not be as effective as the person he replaced. It isn't uncommon for someone to give their life in order to take another's, hence the Kamikazes. Besides, why else would they arm him?

If he had gained their trust to that degree, they could have potentially opened themselves up to possible compromise. Arming him would have made that breach even worse. If he managed to give his own country the slip, what makes you think the Taliban wouldn't be susceptible to the same?

Gosh, what an excellent adventure!

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And can you blame me for being skeptical? I've heard people giving expeditious answers to questions before. Such as "there is no smidgeon of evidence of any wrongdoing" as Obama put it. Why should I trust the judgement of a CENTCOM commander who says "there was no misconduct"?

I have more faith in the Armed Forces of the United States than I do a shady "private intelligence firm" led by a man who would be in prison today, had he not been pardoned.

I'm observant enough to know that just because a CIA officer of three decades did something to break the law, doesn't mean you dismiss his expertise in the field or his experiences. That is patently foolish and unreasonable.

I'm not "dismissing his expertise". I'm questioning his honesty.

 

[Esmeralda]

What about the men who served with him who said he walked off the base of his own accord? In an interesting decision, the Army has cleared Bowe Bergdahl of any misconduct during his captivity. This is contrary to testimonials given by his fellow soldiers who claimed he walked off the base unprovoked and sought out the Taliban. This is also contrary to reports that say he fraternized with Taliban fighters, played Soccer and even participated in firing exercises with the Taliban. So, did his fellow soldiers willfully lie on national television? Did they perpetrate a hoax? Were those reports wrong? I personally don't think so. These were men who served in the same hell he did, why would they take this chance to lie about a fellow comrade in this manner? If you really want to know what I think, I think this decision is politically expedient for our President, who traded for Bergdahl five of the most dangerous men in the world, this decision would seem to justify his decision to some, but to me it doesn't change a thing.

As the Army continues to investigate whether Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is guilty of deserting his unit, this afternoon they said there is no reason to believe that Bergdahl engaged in any misconduct during his five years in captivity.

In fact, that's all that the Army said:

"We have no reason to believe that he engaged in any misconduct."

Bergdahl electrified the national discourse last month after he was freed in a prisoner swap involving five members of the Taliban held at Guantanamo Bay. As charges against his character emerged, the narrative quickly shifted from Bergdahl as POW to Bergdahl as despicable deserter, unworthy bargaining chip, unwitting endangerer of America, and worse.


Here's what else we're learning about Bergdahl:
-- For now, he's on full Army pay, including $200,000 during his time in captivity, all of which he may ultimately have to return.
-- Military investigators have not read Bergdahl his rights.
-- Bergdahl has not yet spoken to his parents.


He is currently in an outpatient facility in Texas. The Army investigation is expected to conclude in mid-August. If charged with desertion, Bergdahl could face court-martial, prison, and even the death penalty.

Army Clears Bergdahl of Any Misconduct During Captivity


[CORRECTION] Just to clarify, his desertion is still being investigated. This is reference to his activities during his captivity.

I really don't want to know what you think: you think like a ten year old, and that would be the slow ones.

Since he has been back in US custody, Bowe has been debriefed and debriefed and debriefed by the best of the best of the experienced professional shrinks in the US military. I think they know him better than anyone else on Earth does, perhaps even himself.

As well, if you, OP, had ever worked for any length of time in the real world, with a group of other workers, you would understand how rumor and innuendo fly, how people misread others, how people look for worst in others instead of the best or at the very lest the reality. His mates on the base were upset, with good reason, on his wandering away from the base. They were upset in having to search for him. But they do not know the reason he wandered off anymore than anyone else. They weren't inside his head. The military shrinks doing the debriefing have been inside his head.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I have more faith in the Armed Forces of the United States than I do a shady "private intelligence firm" led by a man who would be in prison today, had he not been pardoned.

I'm observant enough to know that just because a CIA officer of three decades did something to break the law, doesn't mean you dismiss his expertise in the field or his experiences. That is patently foolish and unreasonable.

I'm not "dismissing his expertise". I'm questioning his honesty.

*ETA: "Honesty" isn't the right word for it. "Reliability of information" would be closer to what I mean.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Eclipse Group isn't a "wetwork" company. They're not "on the ground". They don't know anything "firsthand".

They collect rumors from networks of unnamed sources, and then try to sell that information. They make claims and write reports that CENTCOM doesn't take seriously or even pay for anymore. They are funded by private donations from unknown sources. They have no transparency as to where they get their money, their information, or anything at all.

What makes you give Dewey Clarridge any credibility at all? Just because he claims it?

If Eclipse Group wasn't on the ground or firsthand, why were they contracted with the Pentagon to help find Bergdahl? Normally, that involves putting operatives on the ground, in theater to help locate the person of interest. Some of the Eclipse Group's reports were credible enough to lead the US to perform airstrikes on targets in Afghanistan. Read Clarridge's wiki if you wish to verify that.

They weren't.

Where did you come up with that?

The Pentagon granted Clarridge's firm a contract in 2009. But as it turns out, granting such a contract violated Defense Department policy. His contract with the Pentagon was terminated on May 15th. A full five years he was contracted with the Pentagon. Regardless, they were granted a contract. As seen here:

The private spying operation, which The New York Times disclosed last year, was tapped by a military desperate for information about its enemies and frustrated with the quality of intelligence from the C.I.A., an agency that colleagues say Mr. Clarridge now views largely with contempt. The effort was among a number of secret activities undertaken by the American government in a shadow war around the globe to combat militants and root out terrorists.


The Pentagon official who arranged a contract for Mr. Clarridge in 2009 is under investigation for allegations of violating Defense Department rules in awarding that contract. Because of the continuing inquiry, most of the dozen current and former government officials, private contractors and associates of Mr. Clarridge who were interviewed for this article would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/world/23clarridge.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/world/asia/15contractors.html