NYT opines: Bergdahl 'violated military regulations' - let him go

Apparently, the New York Times has no problem with deserters in the military and no problem with the deaths of soldiers who tried to retrieve them from their captors.

In an editorial in today’s New York Times, the paper joins the chorus of left wing media and pundits who come to the defense of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who deserted his country and fellow soldiers in Afghanistan:

It won’t be hard for military lawyers to argue that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl violated military regulations when he slipped out of a remote outpost in Afghanistan in 2009 and became a Taliban prisoner for five years.

Euphemism alert: violated military regulations means disloyal betrayal and desertion. George Orwell, where are you when we need you?

The paper continues:

In a statement about the conditions of his detention, released by his lawyer on Wednesday after the Army’s announcement that it had filed charges, Sergeant Bergdahl says he was chained to a bed, locked in a cage, shackled and at times beaten. He had sores from his shackles and became skeletal as a result of poor nutrition and chronic ailments.

When Sergeant Bergdahl returned home last summer after the Obama administration agreed to release five Taliban prisoners in exchange for his freedom, it soon became clear that many people in the military harbored deep animosity toward him. Some called him a coward and argued that he put troops in Afghanistan in harm’s way as they devoted significant resources and energy to searching for him. This anger is understandable.

But trying him for desertion and misbehaving before the enemy — for allegedly engaging in misconduct that endangered his unit — stands to accomplish little at this point. A conviction would most likely deprive a traumatized veteran of benefits, including medical care, which he will probably need for years. A dishonorable discharge would make it harder to rebuild his life as a civilian.

How about the soldiers who died searching for him? Do they and their survivors deserved some closure, a term popular among liberals such as those who are on the editorial board of the New York Times?

Apparently, the New York Times has no problem with deserters in the military and no problem with the deaths of soldiers who tried to retrieve them from their captors.

In an editorial in today’s New York Times, the paper joins the chorus of left wing media and pundits who come to the defense of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who deserted his country and fellow soldiers in Afghanistan:

It won’t be hard for military lawyers to argue that Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl violated military regulations when he slipped out of a remote outpost in Afghanistan in 2009 and became a Taliban prisoner for five years.

Euphemism alert: violated military regulations means disloyal betrayal and desertion. George Orwell, where are you when we need you?

The paper continues:

In a statement about the conditions of his detention, released by his lawyer on Wednesday after the Army’s announcement that it had filed charges, Sergeant Bergdahl says he was chained to a bed, locked in a cage, shackled and at times beaten. He had sores from his shackles and became skeletal as a result of poor nutrition and chronic ailments.

When Sergeant Bergdahl returned home last summer after the Obama administration agreed to release five Taliban prisoners in exchange for his freedom, it soon became clear that many people in the military harbored deep animosity toward him. Some called him a coward and argued that he put troops in Afghanistan in harm’s way as they devoted significant resources and energy to searching for him. This anger is understandable.

But trying him for desertion and misbehaving before the enemy — for allegedly engaging in misconduct that endangered his unit — stands to accomplish little at this point. A conviction would most likely deprive a traumatized veteran of benefits, including medical care, which he will probably need for years. A dishonorable discharge would make it harder to rebuild his life as a civilian.

How about the soldiers who died searching for him? Do they and their survivors deserved some closure, a term popular among liberals such as those who are on the editorial board of the New York Times?