RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

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



Message


DaddySatyr -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 8:00:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

Do you think that negotiating a private peace with the locals is a legitimate defense against a desertion charge? I think it's proof of it......



Actually, it's been a while since Hanoi Jane and Spineless Kerry but isn't negotiating with an enemy unless authorized to do so the definition of "treason"?







Screen captures still RULE! ya feel me?







mnottertail -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 8:10:22 AM)

Ja, dunno, ask McCain. But armchair chickenfuckinhawks can sit here all day and speak of treason, you got no chance at being a POW. But I am betting you would be crying and pissing your pants and offering toilet services to the guards in one day, if they brought a pitcher of water down the hall.





cloudboy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:41:06 AM)

I'm glad the POW has been retrieved. Reading up about his outpost and the Military strategy that had his unit out in the middle of nowhere without much strategic reasoning behind it, all men there were vulnerable to be killed or captured.

It is also hard to imagine that Bergdahi deserted -- because there was nowhere for him to go.

The right wingers wanting classify him a traitor and deserter remind me of the posters here seeing justifiable homicides for trespass on property (killing a German Exchange Student in garage / shooting lost Alzheimers mand to death in yard.)

Franky, I can't imagine being in Taliban captivity for 5 years -- and it does send a positive message to our soldiers that the US will make efforts to retrieve them from capture.

There are downsides, yes. Welcome to the world of war.




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:41:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Ja, dunno, ask McCain. But armchair chickenfuckinhawks can sit here all day and speak of treason, you got no chance at being a POW. But I am betting you would be crying and pissing your pants and offering toilet services to the guards in one day, if they brought a pitcher of water down the hall.


What does one have to do with the other? I don't know about anyone else, but when I was talking about him collaborating it was based around the claims that he had gone to join the Taliban and start a new life. If those claims turn out not to be true, I'd never hold anything he might have agreed to do once he was a captive against him. He was held for 5 years, pretty much anyone is going to break after that amount of time.




thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:44:08 AM)


ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Actually, it's been a while since Hanoi Jane and Spineless Kerry but isn't negotiating with an enemy unless authorized to do so the definition of "treason"?

You mean like ragun and iran hostages for guns while he was not president.?
















ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:49:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

I'm glad the POW has been retrieved. Reading up about his outpost and the Military strategy that had his unit out in the middle of nowhere without much strategic reasoning behind it, all men there were vulnerable to be killed or captured.

It is also hard to imagine that Bergdahi deserted -- because there was nowhere for him to go.

The right wingers wanting classify him a traitor and deserter remind me of the posters here seeing justifiable homicides for trespass on land and property (killing a German Exchange Student in garage / shooting lost Alzheimers mand to death in yard.)

Franky, I can't imagine being in Taliban captivity for 5 years -- and it does send a positive message to our soldiers that the US will make efforts to retrieve them from capture.

There are downsides, yes. Welcome to the world of war.


Is there a reason that you have to make everything into a political argument? And then try to spin it back around to gun control somehow? Try just once not being a total tool and discussing something without dragging politics into it. You won't, but what the hell, I can dream.

And yes, it's hard to imagine why he'd desert, unless he really did think he could go and make nice with the Taliban. Seems crazy, but there's not much about the situation that makes sense.




Tkman117 -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:58:43 AM)

This is a political and religious forum, if you got a problem discussing politics maybe you should try a different part of collar chat.




mnottertail -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 10:46:18 AM)

And the reason there are three sections for not being where you are sposed to be when you are sposed to be there, is nothing but INTENT.

Deserter: not coming back and/or joining the other side.
AWOL: that prostitutes breath smelled a lot better than the First Sergeants.
Missed a movement: I was sitting one out, shitting when they called formation.




Politesub53 -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 2:03:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Take your shit and get off the thread, Cloudboy. This isn't a partisan thing.


Lmao...... I take it you have read all the right wing crap then Rich. None of it partisan huh !




truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 3:48:44 PM)

quote:

All he has to say is he meant to not come back and there is no desertion charge. It really is that simple.


It amazed me how you deliberately ignored plainly written law in the GZ case.
Now I wonder if it's deliberate.
At any rate, if you leave your post in a combat zone, it's desertion.
And that's simple enough for most people to understand.




truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 3:51:20 PM)

quote:

A terrorist is only a terrorist as long as you want to make him or her one


Hardly.

A terrorist is a terrorist at least until he quits doing the things that terrorists do.




deathtothepixies -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 4:38:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

A terrorist is only a terrorist as long as you want to make him or her one


Hardly.

A terrorist is a terrorist at least until he quits doing the things that terrorists do.


or a terrorist is only a terrorist when he isn't killing the people he is supposed to be killing with the guns and bombs that you gave him




TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 8:10:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

The top brass is keeping him away from even his family, claims he refuses to talk with them. Knowing this administration they're feeding him his story lines



I doubt that. Where they'd pull the strings is in the determination of how far into the recovery period he will have to be, before statements he makes can be used as evidence against him.

More generally, let me drop a little real world in here again. If we had found him the next day, or Afghani government troops had picked him up and brought him back, Bergdahl would have most likely lost rank, been fined, and maybe spent the rest of the deployment in the stockade, to be booted out when the unit came home. Maybe under Article 15, maybe under a summary court martial. That's pretty much the standard. Military charging and sentencing comes with a hell of a lot of individual discretion, and they don't use prosecutors who have to run for election, either.

The SSGT who slipped off post to murder a bunch of civilian women and kids didn't even get the death penalty, okay?





ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 8:46:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117

This is a political and religious forum, if you got a problem discussing politics maybe you should try a different part of collar chat.


Really and truly, it is? Holy crap, how did I miss that? [8|]

No shit TK, but every single issue doesn't have to revolve around purely political motivations. I personally detest Obama's politics, but I think he was right to get Bergdahl out. My GF is a huge Obama supporter, and thought he was an ass forgetting Bergdahl out. There are people here on this forum who are on the right arguing for the Pres.

So coming on and ranting about those damn right-wingers wanting to string Bergdahl up just for political gain, and then trying to drag gun-control issues in to really stir the pot is kind of an ass-hole move, at least in my opinion.




thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 8:46:51 PM)


ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

I doubt that. Where they'd pull the strings is in the determination of how far into the recovery period he will have to be, before statements he makes can be used as evidence against him.

More generally, let me drop a little real world in here again.


Dick the dumb things you say.[8|]


If we had found him the next day, or Afghani government troops had picked him up and brought him back, Bergdahl would have most likely lost rank, been fined, and maybe spent the rest of the deployment in the stockade, to be booted out when the unit came home. Maybe under Article 15,

Aricle 15 cant do that but then you were in the air farce and your knowledge of things military is rather limited.





maybe under a summary court martial. That's pretty much the standard.


Your first hand experience with ua in a combat zone is absolutely zero.

Military charging and sentencing comes with a hell of a lot of individual discretion, and they don't use prosecutors who have to run for election, either.

Isn't it a fact that any competent civilian lawyer can can out lawyer any military lawyer?






Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 8:51:23 PM)

He is an extremely high profile political figure now, Rich. I think you're giving the politicians we know and love, whose stories change daily, way too much trust and credit.




TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:02:02 PM)

Nope. He's a 15 minute flurry. The next one will be along soon enough.




Sanity -> RE: Bergdahl (6/10/2014 9:19:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Nope. He's a 15 minute flurry. The next one will be along soon enough.


Could be. Perhaps the only thing that matters to them is that the VA scandal is finally out of the headlines




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/11/2014 12:56:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And the reason there are three sections for not being where you are sposed to be when you are sposed to be there, is nothing but INTENT.

Deserter: not coming back and/or joining the other side.
AWOL: that prostitutes breath smelled a lot better than the First Sergeants.
Missed a movement: I was sitting one out, shitting when they called formation.



No, you're misunderstanding me yet again. Those are the three ARTICLES dealing with being absent from duty, 85-87. Within those articles are sections, paragraphs, and subsections, etc., that explain what is required to be charged with each.

For someone to be charged with desertion under Article 85, they need to 1) be absent with the intent never to return to military control, OR 2) leave his place of duty to avoid hazardous service or shirk important duty, OR 3) without being properly separated accept service in another branch of the military or accept foreign service.

No offense, I'm glad that you served and have a working knowledge of the UCMJ, but have you actually read Article 85 in it's entirety? Folksy wisdom and anecdotes are all well and good. I can just hear R. Lee Ermey saying "I will by god tell you, it's been this way since christ was a corporal!" But it really doesn't compare to actually pointing out what is said, in the UCMJ itself. Article 85 is about 3 pages long, and is pretty specific.

To me, it seems that Bergdahl can rather easily be charged under Article 85, section 2, quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. This is defined in Explanations, section 2: "(a) Hazardous duty or important service. “Hazardous duty” or “important service” may include service such as duty in a combat or other dangerous area" "(b) Quits. “Quits” in Article 85 means “goes absent without authority.”

So, going absent without authority, from a combat area, regardless of any other factors, is desertion. That's not an opinion, that's what the regulation says. Argue that any way you'd like, but THE BOOK says X.

But if you really want to keep going on section 1 and Intent, there seems to be evidence there as well.

Explanations, (1) Desertion with intent to remain away permanently.
a) In general. Desertion with intent to remain away permanently is complete when the person absents himself or herself without authority from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty, with the intent to remain away therefrom permanently. A prompt repentance and return, while material in extenuation, is no defense. It is not necessary that the person be absent entirely from military jurisdiction and control.

(i) The intent to remain away permanently from the unit, organization, or place of duty may be formed any time during the unauthorized absence. The intent need not exist throughout the absence, or for any particular period of time, as long as it exists at some time during the absence.

(ii) The accused must have intended to remain away permanently from the unit, organization, or place of duty. When the accused had such an intent, it is no defense that the accused also intended to report for duty elsewhere, or to enlist or accept an appointment in the same or a different armed force.

(iii) The intent to remain away permanently may be established by circumstantial evidence. Among the circumstances from which an inference may be drawn that an accused intended to remain absent permanently or; that the period of absence was lengthy; that the accused attempted to, or did, dispose of uniforms or other military property; that the accused purchased a ticket for a distant point or was arrested, apprehended, or surrendered a considerable distance from the accused’s station; that the accused could have conveniently surrendered to military control but did not; that the accused was dissatisfied with the accused’s unit, ship, or with military service; that the accused made remarks indicating an intention to desert; that the accused was under charges or had escaped from confinement at the time of the absence; that the accused made preparations indicative of an intent not to return (for example, financial arrangements), or that the accused enlisted or accepted an appointment in the same or another armed force without disclosing the fact that the accused had not been regularly separated, or entered any foreign armed service without being authorized by the United States. On the other hand, the following are included in the circumstances which may tend to negate an inference that the accused intended to remain away permanently: previous long and excellent service; that the accused left valuable personal property in the unit or on the ship; or that the accused was under the influence of alcohol or drugs during the absence. These lists are illustrative only.
(Highlighting mine)

So, if at ANY point, someone says F the Army, I'm never coming back, and leaves post, they are guilty of desertion. Even if they return the next morning. Odds are they'd never be charged with such, but by the strict letter of the law, that's the case. Again, that's not an opinion, it's written right there.

(Now I do realize that what the book says, and what happens are two very different things on occasion. Most likely if someone did the above, they'd be offered an Article 15, take the hit, and move on. But if the soldier insists on pushing the issue, or has a CO who's an ass, they can be charged with desertion.)

If someone had made statements expressing dissatisfaction with the military, had spent time learning the languages of the area, and had sent all of his personal belongings home to his parents, that can all be used as circumstantial evidence of his INTENT not to return. Again, not my opinion, it's written in the UCMJ.

So, I don't know if Bergdahl will be charged, but he certainly could be. If he's charged, I don't know if he'll be found guilty, but he could be. And of he's found guilty, he might just be let off with a dishonorable, since he was already "imprisoned" for 5 years. But, he could be given a stiffer sentence.




DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/11/2014 2:45:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted
So, I don't know if Bergdahl will be charged, but he certainly could be. If he's charged, I don't know if he'll be found guilty, but he could be. And of he's found guilty, he might just be let off with a dishonorable, since he was already "imprisoned" for 5 years. But, he could be given a stiffer sentence.

The max he could get is 5 years. We're not at war. Stop hoping to see the guy executed.

The fact is he'll likely get charged with UA, dereliction and disobeying. Those are the are the standard charges for doing what he did in any other circumstance. If he takes NJP or a special court it saves the Army and himself a lot of hassle and potential embarrassment. Keep in mind that based on the Rolling Stone article his unit functionally collapsed in the field and any decent defense attorney would use that in his defense at trial for any serious charges.




Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875