The more we learn, the harder it is to have much sympathy for this guy. Networks across the board are at best very hesitant to support this move.
What we know for sure is that every soldier that served with this guy doesn't have much good to say about him, and he was an obvious deserter.We also know that anywhere between 6 and 14 men were KIA while assigned missions to look for him. We also know that soldiers who served with him were ordered to sign non-disclosure statements regarding the event. We also know that the administration knew of these events prior to any deal being made. We know that the president broke the law in making the deal. Leaves us with what I believe are fair questions. Given that we have a policy where we don't want to leave anyone behind, just how much do we give up for a deserter? Does a deserter, by the very nature of their actions, voluntarily give up some rights reserved for others?
Not to dodge the questions my self, I would answer, no we should not sell the farm for a deserter and yes, a deserter goes give up the right to have us move heaven and earth to get them back. It also seems pretty obvious to me that our president is willing to bend over backwards trying to appease our enemies, while receiving little or nothing in return.
This deal really sucks, and it sucks even worse that we have a Marine held prisoner in Mexico and a administration that seems perfectly content to leave him there. WTF?