6 June 2014

Sgt. Bergdahl’s return is character test for Walsh and Zinke

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl may not have been a model soldier before he became a prisoner of war held by the Taliban. But model soldier or not, he was — and is — an American soldier. Our soldier. Ergo, when an opportunity to obtain his release arose, President Obama rightly seized it.

The deal that returned Bergdahl already is mired in politics, so how the issue is handled by two retired career military officers turned politician — Sen. John Walsh, a Democrat, and Ryan Zinke, a Republican — will be interesting.

Bergdahl’s return raises three questions:

1. Was he a deserter who should have been taken out by a drone instead of taken back by the country he allegedly betrayed?


2. Were the five men released from Guantanamo too high a price to pay for Bergdahl’s return?


3. Did President Obama break the law when he failed to provide Congress with 30 days notice that the deal was going down? And if he did, how serious was his lawbreaking?

Whether Bergdahl deserted remains to be determined. And now that he’s back in American hands, that determination can be made. While his situation is sorted out, he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence, just like every American. The former and current servicemen who are calling for his head, and the Republicans who want to associate the President with aiding and abetting the latest incarnation of Benedict Arnold, should hold their fire until the investigation is complete.

Whether the price was too high seems an odd question. Once our war in Afghanistan is concluded, combatants that we’re holding in Gitmo will be released. The Bergdahl deal means we got something in return for a release that was inevitable. Moreover, the five released will be under restrictions in Qatar, and probably will spend the rest of their lives keeping an eye peeled for a drone equipped with a Hellfire missile. My personal opinion is that just one American is worth more than every Taliban on Earth.

Whether President Obama broke the law when he decided not to give Congress the 30 days notice required by law is by far the most serious of the three issues raised. Right now he’s pleading exigent circumstances, that waiting 30 days might have caused the loss of Bergdahl’s life. He’s also arguing that because when he signed the bill establishing the 30 days notice he issued a signing statement asserting that he was not obligated to follow the parts of the law he considered unconstitutional. Signing statements are simply backdoor attempts to exercise a line item veto, a power not found in the U.S. Constitution. These weak arguments make Obama seem slippery and untrustworthy.

Arguing that ignoring the 30 days notice provision was somehow consistent with the statute, and with general provisions of the Constitution as interpreted by the President instead of the Supreme Court, amounts to arguing that the President is above the law whenever he deems his being above the law to be in the national interest. It’s a weak argument made famous by a scofflaw President whose middle name was Milhous.

Obama clearly refused to comply with the law. He knew what he was doing and why. His best defense is asserting he engaged in an act of civil disobedience that was a principled act of conscience and duty, and that as a result, an American prisoner of war is home at last. I believe that most Americans will conclude he did the right thing.

How will Walsh and Zinke — and Daines and Lewis — handle the Bergdahl situation as they seek the votes of their fellow Montanans? This will be a real world test of character and wisdom, the kind of test that helps voters make their decisions in November.