There are some interesting articles starting to come out about Bergdahl -- showing that there might be more details surrounding his alleged desertion. (1) One of the fellow soldiers from the unit who has been making the rounds was apparently discharged under other than honorable circumstances. minnesota.cbslocal/2014/06/02/mn-solider-speaks-out-against-freed-pow-bowe-bergdahl/ (2) The New York Times has been doing some excellent journalism -- noting that Bergdahl cant necessarily be tied to any of the deaths which were reported to have been the result of his desertion. nytimes/2014/06/04/world/middleeast/can-gi-be-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html (3) And, the New York Times also looked into his unit -- echoing sentiments I posted earlier that his unit had failed him. There was also a Rolling Stone article a few years back which covered much of the same material. nytimes/2014/06/08/us/us-soldier-bowe-bergdahl-case-highlights-a-unit-known-for-troubles.html rollingstone/politics/news/americas-last-prisoner-of-war-20120607 (4) Stars and Stripes has also done a few pieces analyzing how the military typically handles desertion -- really raising questions about the hes a traitor in the face of enemy fire and deserves to be shot argument thats made the rounds online. And, theres been an excellent point that soldiers typically arent classified as deserters until theyve been gone for 30 days and demonstrated an intent never to return. stripes/news/what-punishment-could-bergdahl-face-1.287300 stripes/news/middle-east/if-bergdahl-is-a-war-zone-deserter-he-joins-a-fascinating-and-bizarre-club-1.286977 (5) Theres also been some interesting legal analysis regarding the Presidents authority as commander-in-chief. blog.tenthamendmentcenter/2014/06/the-presidents-power-over-prisoners-of-war/ Earlier, Ive raised the point that the law the President is accused of violating is akin to a Bill of Attainder and that Congress cant order the President to incarcerate someone. However, I think the legal analysts are brushing against the Presidents best argument -- when they started comparing his power as Commander-in-Chief to other powers like the pardon power. Essentially, the Presidents exchange of POWs could be asserted as an exercise of his power to pardon, commute, or remit punishment. And, there is no check or appeal of that power. It is the Presidents sole prerogative to pardon, commute, or remit punishment and Congress cant do anything about it and the Courts cant review it. Its meant to be the final Constitutional check on government to ensure that people cant be imprisoned unjustly. Congress cant require advance notification -- not 24 hours, not 30 days, not 6 years. And, Congress cant defund it by saying no funds shall be used for it. There are limitations on the Presidents powers as Commander-in-Chief. The Founders wanted Congress involved to ensure that the country couldnt be taken to war on one persons whims. And, Congress retains the power of the purse to defund things if necessary. Again, thats a check on the President doing things. However, holding someone in prison is something else entirely. And, Congress isnt empowered to make that happen. The Founders built in checks to ensure that it was difficult for the government to do that -- prohibiting Bills of Attainder to restrain the Legislative Branch, writing in Writs of Habeas Corpus to provide for judicial review of incarcerations, and ultimately giving the President complete authority to pardon, commute, or remit punishment just to make sure no one would ever slip through the cracks. It takes the concurrence of all three branches to keep someone in prison.
Posted on: Mon, 09 Jun 2014 04:44:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015