RE: Bergdahl (Full Version)

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



Message

thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 5:30:19 PM)


ORIGINAL: subrob1967

Show me a declaration of war, didn't we already have this discussion about Congress hasn't declared war?

So what would his alleged abductors be charged with if there is not a state of war between the u.s. and the taliban? Te taliban was the legal government of afghanistan until we effected a "regiem change at the point of a bayonet.
What do you feel his status was? If we are not at war with the taliban what the fuck are we doing in the sandbox?

It looks more and more like ole Bowe is a traitor and a scumbag,


You have fuck all for evidence. So far the army does not feel that there is either







TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 6:40:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
It looks more and more like ole Bowe is a traitor and a scumbag, but we won't get that talking point from the NYT.




Treason is a very specific charge, Rob, and there is precisely zero evidence on the table that Sgt. Bergdahl committed any such acts. What we can say with some degree of certainty is that he went AWOL. It may be desertion, but that distinction requires intent, and we don't know it.

A small number of soldiers have come out to make firsthand claims about what happened. Since they say they signed non-disclosure agreements (not all that uncommon, despite what has been claimed by some pundits) those individuals may be more likely to face courts martial/criminal prosecution than Bergdahl, when all is said and done.



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 6:51:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I do believe the reason there was no attempt to rescue him was because of the circumstances surrounding his disappearance.




I'm thinking along the same lines, Butch, and I'm not okay with that. If that decision can be placed to an indivdual, it should be a career ender, if nothing else. If our guys fuck up, we deal with them, but they are still ours.



angelikaJ -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 6:55:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967
It looks more and more like ole Bowe is a traitor and a scumbag, but we won't get that talking point from the NYT.




Treason is a very specific charge, Rob, and there is precisely zero evidence on the table that Sgt. Bergdahl committed any such acts. What we can say with some degree of certainty is that he went AWOL. It may be desertion, but that distinction requires intent, and we don't know it.

A small number of soldiers have come out to make firsthand claims about what happened. Since they say they signed non-disclosure agreements (not all that uncommon, despite what has been claimed by some pundits) those individuals may be more likely to face courts martial/criminal prosecution than Bergdahl, when all is said and done.


He had a tendency to be AWOL, having it done it twice before - once when he was in CA and once in Afganistan.



thompsonx -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 7:03:46 PM)


ORIGINAL: angelikaJ


He had a tendency to be AWOL, having it done it twice before - once when he was in CA and once in Afganistan.


Awol or ua?



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 7:40:06 PM)

I think we have to look beyond how he came to be captured, and view how he conducted himself in captivity as well. He seems to have done better than Senator McCain managed to do, and Bergdahl did it without other American POWs around to lend moral support.

Now, if anyone happens to have a link to video of Bowe al-Amriki shouting "death to America," and calling on other soldiers to walk away, or frag their fucking chickenshit E-6, I'll give it a view, with an open mind.



kdsub -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 7:54:27 PM)

We've said about all that can be said at this point anyway. The rest of the story will come out soon enough and I'm sure we will all have lots to say when it does.

Butch



HornyDaisy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 8:23:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

In the real world desertion has a definition and so does treason and Bergdahl meets neither. His command can charge him with a bunch of stuff, being UA, dereliction, disobeying but not desertion. It's the sort of stuff he very well might not even get court martialed for in peace time but I expect he will in this case. But really he's spent 5 years in a cage already what more should be done to him?


Desertion is leaving one's post without being relieved, with the intention of not returning. If you're AWOL for more then 30 days, you're automatically classified as being a deserter, but that's more of an administrative action. If you're on a combat footing, this is often much more serious. Desertion during time of war/while under combat conditions, carries a maximum penalty of death. The death penalty is pretty rare now, since the Civil War it's only been carried out once. More commonly it's life without parole.

Going AWOL to "shirk important duty", which includes to miss a combat deployment or while your unit is actively deployed, is also desertion. If he went AWOL, but was captured a minute later, he's still guilty of desertion. If he colluded with the enemy after deserting, those are the sort of extenuating circumstances that gets the charges increased from just a few years to life or worse.



HornyDaisy -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 8:46:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: angelikaJ


He had a tendency to be AWOL, having it done it twice before - once when he was in CA and once in Afganistan.


Awol or ua?



They are exactly the same thing, or more accurately there is no such thing as UA. Under the UCMJ there are three categories of being absent from duty, Articles 85 (Desertion), 86 (Absent Without Leave), and 87 (Missing Movement). UA/AWOL is based on the various branches originally having their own rules. The Army and Air Force called it AWOL, while the Navy and Marines said UA (Unauthorized Absense). But as of the 50's when the UCMJ was enacted to cover all branches of the military, the official charge is AWOL, regardless of what the individual service may chose to call it. Since Bergdahl was in the Army, it's completely irrelevant.




ThirdWheelWanted -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 8:50:04 PM)

Whups, the above two posts are mine. I didn't realize she had looked at the forums when she was used my PC earlier.



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 9:44:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

We've said about all that can be said at this point anyway. The rest of the story will come out soon enough and I'm sure we will all have lots to say when it does.

Butch


Hardly, Butch. We have the White House lying their asses off even more frantically than usual, AND a very large crack in the automatic slurping of the President's balls by the media.

With the President now firmly entrenched in the 40's for an approval rating, a mid-term election 5 months out, and absolutely no accomplishments to his credit, the Democrats are now heading for the exits on their one-time savior. While we still need to worry (a lot, probably) about what further foreign policy disasters he will inflict on our nation over the next 30 months, President Obama is now a lame duck ahead of schedule, courtesy of a self-inflicted wound.



Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 9:51:11 PM)

Except Republicans poll even worse.

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/05/16/americans-prefer-democrats-gop-pace-lowest-election-year-approval.html



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 10:02:36 PM)

Good luck with that, Muse. Maybe a little side wager in late October? The last mid-term, I was offering $50 a House seat over/under 40, but couldn't get a single taker.

All I got off the California primary was a few weeks worth of frappucino's that I'll cash in over the summer (mostly the tea types buying, but a few from dumbass Democrats who thought their Assembly idiot would get more than 40%).



Musicmystery -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 10:05:13 PM)

It's a long way to November, and Americans are morons who just keep switching back and forth. Who knows.

Just saying it's hardly a done deal. Republicans should be moping up the place, but they keep stepping on their dicks, despite the White House floor show.



TheHeretic -> RE: Bergdahl (6/6/2014 10:19:20 PM)

That's fine, Muse, and I don't bet elections until I know, but I haven't lost very many such bets.

What IS a done deal though, is the part where Obama turns the corner into the last stage of his Presidency.




DomKen -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 5:52:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HornyDaisy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

In the real world desertion has a definition and so does treason and Bergdahl meets neither. His command can charge him with a bunch of stuff, being UA, dereliction, disobeying but not desertion. It's the sort of stuff he very well might not even get court martialed for in peace time but I expect he will in this case. But really he's spent 5 years in a cage already what more should be done to him?


Desertion is leaving one's post without being relieved, with the intention of not returning. If you're AWOL for more then 30 days, you're automatically classified as being a deserter, but that's more of an administrative action. If you're on a combat footing, this is often much more serious. Desertion during time of war/while under combat conditions, carries a maximum penalty of death. The death penalty is pretty rare now, since the Civil War it's only been carried out once. More commonly it's life without parole.

Going AWOL to "shirk important duty", which includes to miss a combat deployment or while your unit is actively deployed, is also desertion. If he went AWOL, but was captured a minute later, he's still guilty of desertion. If he colluded with the enemy after deserting, those are the sort of extenuating circumstances that gets the charges increased from just a few years to life or worse.

Since it is fairly well established that he intended to come back desertion is off the table.

Going UA and getting captured does not make you guilty of desertion. No one has ever been treated that way before. And it has happened before.

And escaping from captivity twice seems to be indicative of not colluding with his captors.



truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 8:32:37 AM)

It all depends on whether Shrillary thinks it matters



truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 8:47:17 AM)

quote:

it is a declaration that the executive branch can choose to simply ignore the laws it has sworn to uphold.


0bamao and AG Stedman routinely refuse to enforce laws they find disagreeable.

As for the rest of it... isn't the only real sanction on the power of the Presidency impeachment?
SCOTUS might scuttle some EO or other trifle, but there's nothing to stop him from issuing another, similar, and similarly "illegal" edict. And then the same lengthy and ultimately (almost) meaningless legal process begins anew.

In an impeachment proceeding, however, the Senate determines whether the law was broken; SCOTUS has no role..

And I am ready to impeach the next three or four. Republican/Dimocrat, whatever.., the Presidency will become more and more monarchical until/unless Congress reigns it in. Semi-specious grounds are fine with me- and the current circumstances are far from that.

Then if we can force the States to pass a couple Amendments reigning in Congress and the real American lawmakers (unelected bureaucrats at the EPA and other agencies) this might once again deserve to be called a epresentative republic.



truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 8:53:19 AM)

quote:

There is a reasonable case to be made for that


You know, I actually agree with that, God help me.

But- the coward's way out does no one any good.
Isn't there a mechanism by which the President (and/or the House) can request a specific ruling from SCOTUS?

As it is now, the provision is law, and he can (and imo should) be impeched for breaking it.
After all, he did in fact sign it, all of it, his noted objecions aside,



truckinslave -> RE: Bergdahl (6/7/2014 8:55:50 AM)

quote:

Is the risk involved in releasing the Taliban individuals from Gitmo lower than the risk of casualties in a rescue operation?


Clearly the answer is yes.
We have the word of the Sultan of Bumfuck that he will keep our previous guests off the battlefield for an entire year!!!!
What a silly question.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125