RE: Bergdahl

RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

subrosaDom -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:06:29 PM)
You are indeed the ad hominem king. Congrats. If saying the earth revolved around the sun didn't fit your leftist Weltanschauung, you'd surely call that "unsubstantiated opinion," too. And that, folks, is how the modern-day left operates.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:16:49 PM)
The modern-day right as well, truth be told.

truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:24:56 PM)
quote: Desertion has always required the intent to not come back or being gone more than 30 days of your own intent. Nice try. No cigar. Being gone more than 30 days is prima facie evidence of intent to desert. Leaving behind your ID is evidence of intent.... and so are any one of thousands of other actions great and small. So are declarations. So is walking out unarmed to take the night air and talk to the Taliban. Against all the weight of the rest of the evidence, you have: "Uh, gee, L-T, if I go over the wall, is it a problem if I take sensitive equipment with me?" Good luck with that. GZ all over again.... a pure Rohrschach

TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It's amazing to me how suddenly people who never spent a second in uniform are suddenly experts on military rules, regulations and justices. Maybe they picked it up from reading your posts on any number of other topics, Ken? How it is handled in the criminal proceedings varies widely, and so do the punishments. I knew one disgrace to his uniform and oath who deserted from 29 Palms on Sept. 12, 2001. Article 15 with rank reduction and a general discharge, when he returned to the post 37 days later. I've always felt that the 30 days before AWOL became desertion was essentially a statuatory cooling off period.

BamaD -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:30:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: Desertion has always required the intent to not come back or being gone more than 30 days of your own intent. Nice try. No cigar. Being gone more than 30 days is prima facie evidence of intent to desert. Leaving behind your ID is evidence of intent.... and so are any one of thousands of other actions great and small. So are declarations. So is walking out unarmed to take the night air and talk to the Taliban. Against all the weight of the rest of the evidence, you have: "Uh, gee, L-T, if I go over the wall, is it a problem if I take sensitive equipment with me?" Good luck with that. GZ all over again.... a pure Rohrschach When I worked at NSA 24 hours counted as desertion.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:32:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In the Civil war Lincoln personally approved the execution of a solider who when to sleep on guard duty, the charge, desertion. Prove it.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:35:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Considering what we know now about the "prisoner" we got back, we traded four known killers for a deserter that we are going to through in Fort Leavenworth. But it is true, we negotiated with Yasser Arafat, Iran, Iraq, Democrats and Republicans (yes there are times I consider both political parties in the US terrorist groups.) Of course, I consider every asshole that takes a hostage to be a terrorist, so local and federal agencies negotiate with them, when as soon as they take a hostage a fair trial should be tossed, and a bullet to be guaranteed. The only reason I came on this thread today was to make one statement, then I see that you made it here, we seem to have given them a lot for nothing. Since neither of you have any first hand information concerning either party to the prisoner exchange all that you have posted is your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion based on the ignorant unsubstantiated opinions of others...wouldn't it be just as possible that he was a "double" sent for the very purpose of gathering informaton. What better way to cover his mission than to lable him a deserter????That was an opinion substantiated only by the opinions of tom clancy and ian flemming...consider how many of the german spies of ww2 in england were "turned".

truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:39:12 PM)
quote: I'll repeat this for you to desert requires an intent that will require his confession. And I shall repeat for you that confession is not required to prove intent. quote: To gather evidence of intent to desert, the prosecution may present for consideration the length of absence, statements made, or actions of the accused and also how the absence was terminated. Source..... I can (sort of) understand that a reasonable person might think he would be found innocent. But: do you maintain there is insufficient evidence even to go to court-martial?

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:41:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrosaDom You are indeed the ad hominem king. Learn what the fuck the term means before using it...it makes you look igggernant Congrats. If saying the earth revolved around the sun didn't fit your leftist Weltanschauung, If you will avail yourself of some of my past post you will find that the term leftist is less than accurate. Some here would consider me to be about two clicks to the right of atilla the hun.

truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:45:20 PM)
quote: You do realize the fact that he escaped and they hunted him down and needed 5 guys to subdue him makes it pretty clear he was a prisoner, right? It makes it clear that he wanted to leave their hospitality, but in any case has nothing to do with the desertion. It does not take much imagination to see him joining the US Army, becoming disillusioned, deserting to the Taliban (army), becoming disillusioned, and attempting to desert to who-knows-where-or-whom (Al Queda? Back to us? Russia/Snowden?) quote: It's amazing to me how suddenly people who never spent a second in uniform are suddenly experts on military rules, regulations and justices. Surely you do not mean me. I was an investigator for the 82nd Airborne Division Military Police Company. Clearly, though, you seem to know almost as much about the UCMJ as you knew about Florida criminal law; I'll cede that.

Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:46:33 PM)
Ever notice how all the world's experts just happen to be posting on Collar? Kind of amazing coincidence.

truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:49:27 PM)
Yeah, well, I sorta kinda resemble that remark sometimes. I am in fact an opinionated sort. But I will (grudgingly) admit when I am proven wrong, and this is squarely in my (old) wheelhouse

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 2:49:42 PM)
ORIGINAL: truckinslave Nice try. No cigar. Being gone more than 30 days is prima facie evidence of intent to desert. You were never in the military and you have produced no evidence to substantiate this plate of dog turds. Leaving behind your ID is evidence of intent.... and so are any one of thousands of other actions great and small. Then it should be no problem for you to list for us ten percent of those thousands? Otherwise this would be another one of your ignorant unsubstantiated opinions. So are declarations. So is walking out unarmed to take the night air and talk to the Taliban. Against all the weight of the rest of the evidence, you have: "Uh, gee, L-T, if I go over the wall, is it a problem if I take sensitive equipment with me?" Good luck with that. Why would someone not planning on comming back be worried about possible punishment for taking or not taking some of his battle rattle? But lets pose a larger problem...If you had the balls that god gave a girlscout and were in the army in the sand box and discovered that all the things that had been told you to get you to join the army were lies. Now you are faced with killing someone that under normal circumstances you would not think of killing but now because you joined the army you are now required to kill this person...what does an ethical man do. Keep his given word, based on false data, and kill innocent people or ???

BecomingV -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:08:34 PM)
DomKen, this excerpt might help inform you: The Secretary of Defense is the principal defense policy advisor to the President. Under the direction of the President, the Secretary exercises authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense. The Deputy Secretary, the second-highest ranking official in the DoD, is delegated full power and authority to act for the Secretary and to exercise the powers of the Secretary on any and all matters for which the Secretary is authorized to act. The Department of Defense is America's oldest and largest government agency. With our military tracing its roots back to pre-Revolutionary times, the Department of Defense has grown and evolved with our nation. Today, the Department, headed by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, is not only in charge of the military, but it also employs a civilian force of thousands. With over 1.4 million men and women on active duty, and 718,000 civilian personnel, we are the nation's largest employer. Another 1.1 million serve in the National Guard and Reserve forces. More than 2 million military retirees and their family members receive benefits. quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It's amazing to me how suddenly people who never spent a second in uniform are suddenly experts on military rules, regulations and justices. Central Command at McDill is headed by civilians! The American Military is ruled by a civilian (called a President). The military only serves at a civilian's command. Also, four of my kids lived military lives... on bases, and under the direction and command of the military. One of those kids was an Army wife and never wore a uniform, but I guarantee you, that she knows more about rules, regulations and justices than her husband, who was in uniform. You don't get to discount how informed a person is based on their relationship to the military AND be accurate. Like a game of chess, most who wear a uniform are/were pawns, and "need to know" is deliberately used to keep them useful and dependent on orders... no questions asked. A uniform, to me, would have to have lots of shiny things on it, before I would assume any kind of comprehensive, big-picture, knowledge. On another point - I agree that leaving the soldier behind is vile and should not be considered an option.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:10:21 PM)
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic I knew one disgrace to his uniform and oath who deserted from 29 Palms on Sept. 12, 2001. Article 15 with rank reduction and a general discharge, when he returned to the post 37 days later. Perhaps if one were to consider the demographic from which the military recruits the above might not seem so phony and self serving[8\|] I've always felt that the 30 days before AWOL became desertion was essentially a statuatory cooling off period. When I was in the military they told us that it was ua up to 30 days then it was awol. Ua could always be handled with an article 15...If I remember correctly the most they could take from you with an article 15 was one stripe and thirty days.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:11:48 PM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD When I worked at NSA 24 hours counted as desertion. Since nsa is not the military this seems less than accurate.

BamaD -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:15:22 PM)
FR When I worked at NSA I was on the Air Force and in our incoming briefing they informed us that due to the nature of our work 24 hours did indeed constitute desertion.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:15:53 PM)
Surely you do not mean me. I was an investigator for the 82nd Airborne Division Military Police Company. ROFLMFAO...[8\|]

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:18:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR When I worked at NSA I was on the Air Force and in our incoming briefing they informed us that due to the nature of our work 24 hours did indeed constitute desertion. Since when can punk ass motherfuckers make up the ucmj to suit their opinions. They can say what they want but the law is pretty clear. Now if you didn't have the balls to tell them so that would be not my issue.

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 3:29:54 PM)
You don't get to discount how informed a person is based on their relationship to the military AND be accurate. I most certianly can and will point out the ignorance of anyone who not having been in the military tries to tell how it is in the military. Like a game of chess, most who wear a uniform are/were pawns, and "need to know" is deliberately used to keep them useful and dependent on orders... no questions asked. These "ignorant pawns" would know the difference between a lt. and a lt.col. They would know pay grades and protocols. They would also know the difference between ua and awol and desertion while many ignorant posters on this thread have no clue as to what is which other than a quick google search to wiki. A uniform, to me, would have to have lots of shiny things on it, before I would assume any kind of comprehensive, big-picture, knowledge. This thread is not about "big picture" stuff it is about some soldier and what constitutes desertion. It is about the little picture and fools with nothing but other fools opinions are calling for this mans blood in a very partisian way. If they can sling shit on him then they sling shit on the president. If big ears would have left him there the same people who want him to be shot would then be calling the president all kinds of a shit and this soldier would have been john rambo himself.[8\|]

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875