Bergdahl returned to US: Does "no man left behind" apply to deserters?

  • Yes it applies to all

    He made a bad decision if you believe he committed the act of desertion; which is debatable. Even if you believe he did, he made a bad mistake. He shown remorse for it and sorrow & guilt. He understands what he did was wrong and he was still an American citizen. He made a bad decision but he is still a person with emotions and feelings- nobody, NOBODY, is left behind, EVER.

  • "No man left behind" applies to everyone

    Like any other person, a solider is innocent until proven guilty, and should be treated as such. Until they have been put on trial and convicted, they should be treated as such. Even if convicted, they are still American citizens, and the United States of America has a duty to ensure the safety of all citizens.

  • Of course it does.

    Of course it does. I don't care if we know for a fact beyond 100% if a doubt that you were a deserter. You are still an American and I will be damned of your going to rot in the hands of the enemy. What he did was fed up. The way we went about getting him back was fed up, but now at least we can have the pleasure of fing him up ourselves if and when it is proven that he is in fact a deserter or traitor.

  • No, the "no man left behind" concept should not apply to deserters.

    I do not think that the "no man left behind" should apply to deserters. People like Bergdahl are traitors to the United States of America. He should have been left there in Afghanistan. I think that now that he is back on US soil however, he should be tried like a war criminal.

  • He should have been left.

    No, "No man left behind" doesn't apply to deserters, because a person isn't left behind if they choose to walk away from the group. The US sent how many men in to die for someone who wanted to walk away and help the enemy? He should have been left with the Taliban where he belonged.

  • No, I don't believe it should.

    I think if you desert then clearly you no longer wanted to be part of the Army and therefore they should not be responsible for his well being. By leaving his post unarmed he made it clear he was deserting. The U.S. was then forced to negotiate with terrorists for his release. This is not something that should ever be done lightly and definitely not for a deserter.

  • It is against the law.

    He decided to desert. He decided to break the law. He is no soldier and should be tried and convicted. If he were in the 19th/early 20th century, he would have been shot. I think that might still be allowed, just in case the guy deserting is a enemy spy.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.