Someone proposes swapping members of Congress for POWs

It’s a idea with a lot of merit, but I think we have to stipulate that the POWs be given their seats in Congress. Otherwise our Congresscritters might return to continue making war on us.

"Meanwhile, Ryan Devereaux continues his excellent reporting:"

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"As a visual assessment, it would have been accurate. Artistic process works that way.Why would ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"As a visual assessment, it would have been accurate. Artistic process works that way. And ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper
"This hollow pretense and finger wagging about the "exploitation" of the children via photojournalism warrants ..."

The Trump-Protecting Anti-Trumper

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • bob

    Make sure it’s a real POW first. The jury’s out on the person we just retrieved. In the meantime certainly, without fail, put our representatives on VA medical coverage. It might change that system.

    • Dan Berger

      Really? Define “real POW,” wouldja?

      “…even if Bergdahl is tried and found guilty of desertion, even if he’s found guilty of treason as some would have it, he’ll go to prison – we won’t give him back to the Taliban.

      “There is no crime so great that leaving him in the hands of our enemies is the indicated punishment.

      “He was, he is, one of ours. Period.

      “For better or for worse, he’s one of ours, and we don’t leave our people behind – not even the deserters.”

      Quoted from Stonekettle Station, a blog by a retired CPO (NSFW).

      • Mike the Geek

        Somehow, I don’t think “leave no one behind” equates to “cut loose some guys who commit crimes against humanity.” I doubt you would have traded Slobodan Milosevic for a deserter, or swapped Rudolf Hess for Lord Hawhaw. Besides, a deserter (which seems to be universally agreed on) is by definition not “left behind;” he left on purpose.

        • Dan Berger

          I wasn’t aware that banishment was the penalty for desertion under the UCMJ.

          I have no beef with contentions that the trade was unwise; there are reasonable arguments on both sides, I think. I was reacting to the “real POW” stuff. Guess what? *Every* war has a large share of POWs who got that way by an act of desertion. They’re still POWs. For that matter, the men traded for Bergdahl were POWs, too.

          • rmichaelj

            Actually the punishment for desertion “in time of war” isn’t banishment, but death. Hasn’t happened in a looonggg time, and you can argue if this is a “time of war” but it is on the books.
            I get your point about “real POW” – but I also think there is a legitimate concern that he may not have been a prisoner at all. If and only if it can be shown, that he actively sought out enemy combatants and then willingly helped them in operations against US armed forces- then the charge isn’t desertion but treason.

  • Morris

    I think you have to get congress to actually declare war before you can have an official POW, no?

  • jaybird1951

    His former comrades call him a deserter. Six men died trying to locate him. Bergdahl is no hero by a long shot and the trade was grossly imbalanced. They got five of their senior commanders back and we got him. More people will die because of this. But Obama gets a chance to lower the Guantanamo prison population. Coincidence?

    • kenofken

      And I’m sure you and the rest of the Fox News crowd would have been right there backing Obama if he had shown some backbone and decided to let an American rot in Taliban hands because of “definitive speculation” that maybe he was a traitor.

      • Kurt 20008

        Considering just last May the Republicans had included in the Defense Authorization bill specific language ordering Obama to do everything possible to bring back Bergdahl, maybe not!

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    I’m pretty sure if we gave the enemy any of our members of Congress, we’d be liable for war crimes.