RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

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



Message

cloudboy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 9:01:16 PM)


As usual, you can't really respond factually when you don't like where the facts lead.



[image]local://upfiles/210115/2F004714E7A042FA81B1FE625C7C6435.jpg[/image]



cloudboy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 9:02:24 PM)


It's not the first time he's been operating in denial.



[image]local://upfiles/210115/BC62D620D86A432A88AAD77C3A1EB9D0.jpg[/image]



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 9:51:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Forget all the crap about whether this soldier is a deserter or not many Americans would still be upset with this deal even if this were a hero. This goes against what Americans feel is the right thing to do... It makes no difference that we have done this very type of thing in the past to many of us this was at best a poor decision.




I agree it's a bitter pill, Butch, but if a deal was the only way, then it needed to be done. I'm troubled though, by reports I've seen that we had good intel on where he was being held, and even the composition of the guard forces, and that someone chose not to act on that. I want to know if the risks to a potential rescue mission were higher than the risks of letting these detainees back into the game.



BamaD -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 10:06:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Forget all the crap about whether this soldier is a deserter or not many Americans would still be upset with this deal even if this were a hero. This goes against what Americans feel is the right thing to do... It makes no difference that we have done this very type of thing in the past to many of us this was at best a poor decision.




I agree it's a bitter pill, Butch, but if a deal was the only way, then it needed to be done. I'm troubled though, by reports I've seen that we had good intel on where he was being held, and even the composition of the guard forces, and that someone chose not to act on that. I want to know if the risks to a potential rescue mission were higher than the risks of letting these detainees back into the game.

And even if you make a deal you don't give them 5 generals for one of our privates



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 10:15:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
And even if you make a deal you don't give them 5 generals for one of our privates



I say we do what it takes to bring our own home, Bama, though I'm also perfectly okay with putting GPS trackers in the detainees teeth for drones to target somewhere down the road.



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 11:01:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Here is how it goes ... The thirty days is a factor in desertion. If a soldier leaves his unit and returns before 30 days expire it is absence without leave... If he is gone longer than 30 days it is desertion. The law is vague in this area... For instance if he left of his own free will but planned to return to his unit...but was captured... he could still be considered AWOL rather than a deserter. But he will have to prove this was his intent.

Butch


Hi Butch

That's not exactly how it goes, it can be, but it's not always the case. Generally, when there's no declared war, or a unit isn't in a combat theater, or you don't have orders to deploy to combat area, that's the established pattern. However, even in peace time, there are factors that make this untrue. If a soldier were to burn his uniforms and tell his buddy that he's done with the Army, even if he's caught by the MPs just outside the gate he can be charged with desertion. That's the intent portion of Article 85 that people keep making such a big deal about.

The 30 day rule that so many people keep mentioning is not a legal requirement. If intent to desert is not established at the time the soldier goes absent, he's carried on the unit's rolls for 30 days as AWOL. After 30 days, he's removed from the rolls, allowing him to be replaced, and his status is changed to deserter. From a legal standpoint, this has several factors. If the soldier has been absent for less then 30 days, and he's charged with Desertion, it is up to the prosecution to show his intent was to remain away from military control. If it's been more then 30 days, and he's been listed as a deserter, then the court is allowed to assume he never planned to return, and the burden is then placed on the soldier to prove that he did.

Where things get tricky are in the other sections of Article 85.

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States, is guilty of desertion.

So, if a soldier is being shipped to Iraq, and he goes AWOL in order to avoid the deployment, he can be charged with desertion on the spot since he is attempting to avoid hazardous duty. No intent to remain away permanently is required, any of the three sections can be used to sustain a charge. If a soldier's unit is deployed to a forward base in a combat area, and he leaves the base without permission, he can be charged immediately, again under section 2, intent to remain away is again not required.



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/8/2014 11:15:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted


I'm sorry, but just a page or two back you were using that same Rolling Stone article to make your point, yet suddenly it's old and invalid?

Post #254

DomKen: "Assuming the Rolling Stone article is correct then he intended to come back and therefore he is not a deserter."

What's the matter, are articles only old and outdated when they're not backing up your opinion?

Never said it's old or invalid. Just making the point that Rolling Stone isn't leaping forward to do anything. The article in question was published 3 years ago.



Ok, that's fair. I missed your point.



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 1:03:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I agree it's a bitter pill, Butch, but if a deal was the only way, then it needed to be done. I'm troubled though, by reports I've seen that we had good intel on where he was being held, and even the composition of the guard forces, and that someone chose not to act on that. I want to know if the risks to a potential rescue mission were higher than the risks of letting these detainees back into the game.


Speaking of this being political. My GF has been chuckling about me spending so much time arguing this issue the last few days. She's a liberal, voted for Obama both times, hates voter ID laws, etc. After I explained my reasoning as to why I felt Bergdahl had deserted, she was pretty pissed with the Pres over the exchange, and asked my opinion about it. She was pretty shocked when I said that I didn't like how it happened, but I agreed that we had to get him back. When she asked why, I explained that he's ours, for good or bad you don't leave a soldier behind. If he's a deserter and needs to be put in prison, he should be in our prison. If he's a traitor who needs to be stood against a wall and shot, then he should be shot by Americans.

Maybe I've been phrasing myself poorly in former posts. To me, he seems guilty, and I think he needs to be charged. There seems to be a preponderance of evidence that he left his post voluntarily, with little or no intent to return. He made his feelings about the US in general and the military in particular quite clear, and it seems he was trying to seek asylum or join the Taliban army. Either of those, if proven, would make him a deserter on the spot. So investigate, if there's enough evidence prefer charges, and if he's guilty throw away the key. Also, if he's found guilty, I hope that he can be held accountable for the soldiers who died looking for him.



ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 1:05:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


Ken, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. While you may not have heard about it, there is no legal requirement for someone to be absent for 30 days before being charged with desertion.

Would it be possible for you to link us to even one court martial for desertion that was done to someone gone for less than 30 days?


I'll look, not sure if I'll find anything or not, but that's really not relevant. (Yes, yes, I know that you're all about the links, but sorry a link doesn't always prove or disprove a position) Just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean that it can't be. The simple fact of the matter is, the UCMJ does not say anything about 30 days absence being required for a charge of desertion. As was stated in the links I posted, you can be charged with desertion even if you're apprehended 1 minute after leaving your post if it was established that your intent was to leave and never return.

For example, New York had the death penalty on it's books up until fairly recently, and yet hadn't executed anyone since '63. That doesn't mean that NY had no death penalty during that time, just that they chose not to utilize it. The law was still on the books.



BitYakin -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 2:08:24 AM)

since there have been a few people asking for a link to a case of desertion that was less than 30 days, here is one...


Tankey wrote to their regiment to explain their absence before he and Slovik reported to their unit for duty on October 7, 1944. The US Army's rapid advance through France had caused many replacement soldiers to have trouble finding their assigned units, and so no charges were filed against Slovik or Tankey.

The following day on October 8, Slovik informed his company commander, Captain Ralph Grotte, that he was "too scared" to serve in a front-line rifle company and asked to be reassigned to a rear area unit. He told Grotte that he would run away if he were assigned to a rifle unit, and asked his captain if that would constitute desertion. Grotte confirmed that it would. He refused Slovik's request for reassignment and sent him to a rifle platoon.[8]

The next day, October 9, Slovik deserted from his infantry unit. His friend, John Tankey, caught up with him and attempted to persuade him to stay, but Slovik's only comment was that his "mind was made up". Slovik walked several miles to the rear and approached an enlisted cook at a headquarters detachment, presenting him with a note which stated:


I, Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik, 36896415, confess to the desertion of the United States Army. At the time of my desertion we were in Albuff [Elbeuf] in France. I came to Albuff as a replacement. They were shelling the town and we were told to dig in for the night. The following morning they were shelling us again. I was so scared, nerves and trembling, that at the time the other replacements moved out, I couldn’t move. I stayed there in my fox hole till it was quiet and I was able to move. I then walked into town. Not seeing any of our troops, so I stayed over night at a French hospital. The next morning I turned myself over to the Canadian Provost Corp. After being with them six weeks I was turned over to American M.R. They turned me loose. I told my commanding officer my story. I said that if I had to go out there again I'd run away. He said there was nothing he could do for me so I ran away again AND I'LL RUN AWAY AGAIN IF I HAVE TO GO OUT THERE.

—Signed Pvt. Eddie D. Slovik A.S.N. 36896415[4]

The cook summoned his company commander and an MP, who read the note and urged Slovik to destroy it before he was taken into custody, which Slovik refused. He was brought before Lieutenant Colonel Ross Henbest, who again offered him the opportunity to tear up the note, return to his unit, and face no further charges. After Slovik again refused, Henbest ordered Slovik to write another note on the back of the first one stating that he fully understood the legal consequences of deliberately incriminating himself with the note and that it would be used as evidence against him in a court martial.

Slovik was taken into custody and confined to the division stockade. The divisional judge advocate, Lieutenant Colonel Henry Sommer, again offered Slovik an opportunity to rejoin his unit and have the charges against him suspended. He offered to transfer Slovik to a different infantry regiment where no one would know of his past and he could start with a "clean slate". Slovik, convinced that he would face only jail time, which he had experienced and found preferable to combat, declined these offers, saying, "I've made up my mind. I'll take my court martial."

BTW slovik was executed for desertion



PeonForHer -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 2:47:33 AM)

quote:

And even if you make a deal you don't give them 5 generals for one of our privates


If they were generals before, I doubt they'd have that rank now. A terrorist whose identity is known to the enemy has lost a lot of his value.



SweetAnise -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 4:36:21 AM)

Deserting and this rescue are two different things IMHO. If Berg deserted there should be an investigation and of course reprimand for his misconduct if any is found. President Obama freeing him in exchanging him is another issue. I am not happy with what President Obama did but he did it and I think no matter how he did it people would have something to say about it. These men were suppose to be in custody for a year (see the Chicago tribune 06/03/14). Who knows why and who knows for what reason they had been held (now that would be a very good question to answer). I am sure and I am hoping President Obama didn't just exchange these men without thorough consultation by all the BIG SHOTS. So what does Berg deserting have anything to do with his rescue? Just because he left he deserved to not be look for? And not only that deserved to be left in the hands of Al-Qaeda? I mean he is not the only one who probably deserted nor the last. I had a friend who went MIA and they looked for her and when they found her she was given a swift reprimand- mind you these was not out of the country and a touchy issue but they got her back. I don't know. Just my thoughts. Feel free to cuss me out. [:)].



Zonie63 -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 4:47:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I get your general point that we don't want to leave anyone behind. But some here seem to be saying that we gave away too much. It's not really up to me to make that decision, but this is where the crux of this disagreement seems to stem from.

You criticize me for being rude and then you post this disingenuous piece of shit as if you had no clue as to what is going on.
How much is your fucking life worth? All the punk assmotherfuckers in gitmo? Mine sure as fuck is. Yet we have morons, who for no other reason than to denigrate the party they are not part of, calling the president a traitor and you mimiking the same shit as if it had some shred of validity.
A little more honesty in your post might engender a little less animosity in mine.


You're assuming way too much here. I don't care that you're rude, but if you assume things incorrectly, it brings about an unnecessary digression.

I'm not trying to make this a political matter, but it's clear to me that there are those from both sides who wish to denigrate the party they are not part of. Both sides have made harsh criticisms of the President depending on which party controls the White House at any given time. Since I'm not a part of either party, I have no dog in that fight.

I'm not mimicking anything; I'm just making observations, just as you are.

If it was up to me, I'd shut down Gitmo entirely and bring all U.S. troops back home. I think you're presenting a false choice by comparing the value of one person's life to all the "punkassmotherfuckers" in Gitmo. It would seem to me that if our government truly cared about the value of human life, they wouldn't be putting our people in harm's way in the first place.



Zonie63 -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 5:00:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Then it seems that it's a matter for the legal eagles in government to figure out and make a case. I guess we'll have to wait and see.


It's a problem for the voters, who should punish everyone in elected office who has supported 0bama0 and his henchmen in any of their various shameful scandals (IRS, Benghazi, terrorists-for-traitor- Fast and Furiously Stupid, etc).


Oh yes, I agree, although that's a knife that cuts both ways. Neither party is innocent or has much room to talk in criticizing the other. Thing is, neither party has made much of an effort to set themselves apart from the other in terms of foreign policy. They don't offer the voters any real alternatives, so what does anyone expect?



Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 5:21:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


It's not the first time he's been operating in denial.



[image]local://upfiles/210115/BC62D620D86A432A88AAD77C3A1EB9D0.jpg[/image]


Strawman argument. Even responsible Dems are questioning the trade

Some leftists, grasping at straws to try to justify the insanity, even claim that it was a good trade because the war is almost over.

Is it really?



cloudboy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 7:02:37 AM)


That cartoon is not an "argument." It illustrates a longstanding pattern of behavior.



thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 7:14:13 AM)


ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I'm troubled though, by reports I've seen that we had good intel on where he was being held, and even the composition of the guard forces, and that someone chose not to act on that.


As troubled as you are you fail to link us to these reports that trouble you so much.[8|].
A rescue mission may or may not work. A prisoner exchange leaves no dead bodies on the ground. Why is it that you,who has yet to attend your first bar-b-q, is all hot to get someone else shot to pimp your "rambo" mind set?







thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 7:15:43 AM)


ORIGINAL: BamaD


And even if you make a deal you don't give them 5 generals for one of our privates

When did you acquire the ability to promote these fellows to general?



thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 7:17:35 AM)


ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
I say we do what it takes to bring our own home, Bama, though I'm also perfectly okay with putting GPS trackers in the detainees teeth for drones to target somewhere down the road.

Would you also be good with putting gps trackers in bergdahl's teeth also?[8|]You clearly have all the ethical values of a rattlesnake



thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/9/2014 7:20:13 AM)

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

That's not exactly how it goes, it can be, but it's not always the case. Generally, when there's no declared war, or a unit isn't in a combat theater, or you don't have orders to deploy to combat area, that's the established pattern. However, even in peace time, there are factors that make this untrue. If a soldier were to burn his uniforms and tell his buddy that he's done with the Army, even if he's caught by the MPs just outside the gate he can be charged with desertion. That's the intent portion of Article 85 that people keep making such a big deal about.

The 30 day rule that so many people keep mentioning is not a legal requirement. If intent to desert is not established at the time the soldier goes absent, he's carried on the unit's rolls for 30 days as AWOL. After 30 days, he's removed from the rolls, allowing him to be replaced, and his status is changed to deserter. From a legal standpoint, this has several factors. If the soldier has been absent for less then 30 days, and he's charged with Desertion, it is up to the prosecution to show his intent was to remain away from military control. If it's been more then 30 days, and he's been listed as a deserter, then the court is allowed to assume he never planned to return, and the burden is then placed on the soldier to prove that he did.

Where things get tricky are in the other sections of Article 85.

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States, is guilty of desertion.

So, if a soldier is being shipped to Iraq, and he goes AWOL in order to avoid the deployment, he can be charged with desertion on the spot since he is attempting to avoid hazardous duty. No intent to remain away permanently is required, any of the three sections can be used to sustain a charge. If a soldier's unit is deployed to a forward base in a combat area, and he leaves the base without permission, he can be charged immediately, again under section 2, intent to remain away is again not required.

The ucmj is purposely written so as to be vague enough to jack anyone for anything. The bottom line is how many people have been convicted of desertion in the u.s. military and what penalities did they recieve?



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625