Bergdahl scandal; a Veteran's perspective

Absent without leave is a simple fact to prove.

If he was not on the compound he was AWOL.

 

and if he was gone 5 years, he's a deserter. Oh, btw, you do know he's still military until he gets done with his chain-gang time in Leavenworth, right?

 

the point is that it hasn't been proven

as has been said umpteen times before, he can't be punished if he has a defense for that


ucmj article 51: voting and ruling

"the accused must be presumed to be innocent until his guilt is established by legal and competent evidence beyond reasonable doubt"

 

I never liked Shep.I see where MEDIA MATTERS uses him to make their far left
propaganda point on this matter.
I cannot understand why Roger Ailes permits this Shep liberal to stay on
at Fox.The guy is little more than a Liberal in Fox clothing.Even MSNBC
praised him a couple years ago as the only person at Fox worth his salt.
Geradlo is just as pathetic.These guys are liberals.They are tone deaf and
completely safe in constant PC { touchy feely mode }.
I doubt many Fox viewers give much thought one way or the other
about S.Smith.He has earned their indifference.Because he's a lollipop
reporter.

 

BSNBC Newsflash

Washington DC: Current Press secretary liar states that Bergdahl was a Bush CIA agent and had gathered important information concerning the assassination of JFK...
_________________

I wish to thank everyone on this forum who has served in the armed forces of our country, God bless you and keep you.

 

what a joke, of course you can't be taken seriously

 

Really, 5 of the worst?

One was a bodyguard, one was the head of Taliban Intelligence, which tortured people, Afghan Intelligence has always tortured people, the current Afghan Intelligence tortures people, and the US works with it just fine.
There is no evidence the other three did anything wrong, they were just members of the Taliban, who surrendered to US forces in exchange for a promise of safe passage home....

 

Plus Pleeeeeeeze lets dispense right here and now any liberal notion
that's he's a prisoner of war.Terrorist do not hold Prisoners of war.
Terrorist do not represent any country or flag.Or uniform.
If anything this buck private was a capture.A captive.He was if anything a Hostage.
There was no definition of POW,until recently as to Terrorist capturing a combatant.
That is why they Invented the words { belligerent power }.
POW goes with Military Prisoner of war.If a military soldier is taken by a
Terrorist group,even in war it is not a POW.It is a capture.That is why there
are genova convention rules as to conduct during war of prisoner taking.
Since terrorist groups do not wear any uniform and hide their faces
and have no sworn country of allegiance it is ridiculous to consider
whoever they capture as a POW.Geneva Convention rules thus establish
this norm applied to soldiers.Terrorist are NOT soldiers.
Those at Gitmo are not soldiers.They are detainees.Or Unlawful combatants.

 

Want to bet that there wouldn't be some that would actually believe this IF it came from certain 'Leaders' and was repeated enough???

But to get back on subject. EVERY veteran I have talked too want answers to this Bergdahl BS and they of all people deserve the TRUTH...

 

That is entirely why Our Country has a 35 + year rigid policy
of NOT negotiating with Terrorists.Because how do you determine
any spoils of war.Terrorist have no country to establish any spoils.
Terrorist also have no Military standing as far as conventional
soldiers as to rank.So How in War is a captured Terrosist supposed
to be determined as to rank.They wear No uniform.
How about if one Terrorist group wars with another Terrorist group.
How can anything be ironed out.It can't.Therefore there's historic
precedence for establishing No Negotiating with Terrorist groups.

 

a policy which has been broken on many occasions

you're just confirm my allegation that you can't be taken seriously

the point is that they don't have any evidence of a crime, just conjecture and anger, which don't make for a good witness

 

You must not be referring to my board size with that number.

 

Everyone can't get a job handing out towels in a men's room like you did.

 

of course you can't make a real argument

 

Now you are engaging on conjecture.

IF bergdahl has a defense for being absent?

Untill he does present an excuse that the court accepts bergdahl is AWOL.

 

evidently you don't understand what 'if' means

that's right and if he even gets to trial

again? ok

there's the distinct possibility he was kidnapped

 

you are totally confused. We are not talking about the Taliban. We are addressing the issue of a US soldier who walked off his post in a declared war zone. You can huff and puff all you want, in the end he is and will remain in the service until they are finished with him, therefore, his court martial and subsequent punishment will be dealt with by the military, not some civilian punk who thinks the Taliban are peacenics with turbans

 

I have no interest in trying to "make a real argument" with anyone who defames our military. These type of people (I should say scum) are only worthy of contempt.

 

Make that an extremely remote, almost impossible possibility.

And it is bergdahl's responsibility to prove it.

 

no, it's distinct

not

 

Yes.

Bergdahl was missing from his place of duty.

It's his responsibility to explain why he was missing and why he should not be punished

The burden of proof is his.

 

really, you never heard of the the privilege against self-incrimination? it's part of the constitution

bergdahl can close his mouth and say nothing, the usa has burden of proof


…as soon as they become a suspect their rights must be read to them before questioning. Article 31 of the UCMJ gave military people that right 16 years before the U.S. Supreme Court agreed in a case called 'Miranda'.

Article 31 provides servicemembers with a broad protection against being compelled to incriminate themselves. The text of Article 31 provides as follows:

a. No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/aa31rights.htm


i doubt bergdahl has been read any rights

evidently you don't know the difference between defamation and the truth

and that's a weak excuse for weaseling out of backing up what you said


of course you won't watch this or look at reality, it might burst your bubble



U.S. armed forces have committed war crimes in various wars in which they've been engaged throughout history.

Philippine–American War

On January 26, 1943, the crew of the submarine USS Wahoo fired on survivors of the Japanese transport Buyo Maru. The survivors were later determined to have included Allied POWs of the Indian 2nd Battalion, 16th Punjab Regiment, plus escorting forces from the 26th Field Ordnance Depot.


World War II

Secret wartime files made public only in 2006 reveal that American GIs committed 400 sexual offences in Europe, including 126 rapes in England, between 1942 and 1945. A study by Robert J. Lilly estimates that a total of 14,000 civilian women in England, France and Germany were raped by American GIs during World War II.[34][35] It is estimated that there were around 3,500 rapes by American servicemen in France between June 1944 and the end of the war and one historian has claimed that sexual violence against women in liberated France was common.


Korean War

The No Gun Ri Massacre refers to an incident of mass killing of undetermined numbers of South Korean refugees conducted by U.S. Army forces of the 7th Cavalry Regiment (and in a U.S. air attack) between 26 July and 29 July 1950 at a railroad bridge near the village of No Gun Ri, 100 miles (160 km) southeast of Seoul. In 2005, the South Korean government certified the names of 163 dead or missing (mostly women, children and old men) and 55 wounded. It said many other victims' names were not reported. Over the years survivors' estimates of the dead have ranged from 300 to 500. This episode early in the Korean War gained widespread attention when the Associated Press (AP) published a series of articles in 1999 that subsequently won a Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting.


Vietnam War

The My Lai Massacre was the mass murder of 347 to 504 unarmed citizens in South Vietnam, almost entirely civilians, most of them women and children, conducted by U.S. Army forces on 16 March 1968. Some of the victims were raped, beaten, tortured, or maimed, and some of the bodies were found mutilated. The massacre took place in the hamlets of Mỹ Lai and My Khe of Sơn Mỹ village during the Vietnam War.


War on Terror

Human Rights Watch had claimed in 2005 that the principle of "command responsibility" could make high-ranking officials within the Bush administration guilty of war crimes allegedly committed during the War on Terror, either with their knowledge or by persons under their control.

Nat Hentoff wrote on August 28, 2007, that a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross and the July 2007 report by Human Rights First and Physicians for Social Responsibility, titled "Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality", might be used as evidence of American war crimes if there was a Nuremberg-like trial regarding the War on Terror.

On April 14, 2006, Human Rights Watch said that Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be criminally liable for his alleged involvement in the abuse of Mohammad al-Qahtani.[53] On November 14, 2006, invoking universal jurisdiction, legal proceedings were started in Germany – for their alleged involvement of prisoner abuse – against Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo, George Tenet and others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes

 

the Pentagon said no such thing about the men who died looking for Bergdahl. Here we go again. If you can't link it..DON'T CLAIM IT.

 

i'm pretty sure the pentagon didn't post any photos of dead soldiers and claim bergdahl was responsible

 

Seems this isn't flying in any circle other than right wing partisan extremists circlejerks

Like I said, it would be interesting to see if indeed the right thought the President broke the law, that they would attempt to impeach him over it.

I can see how popular that action would be since in the final analysis the result was the sole American POW was successfully retrieved.

Want an inquiry into his alleged desertion? Me too.

And as for the 5 Taliban held without trial for 12 YEARS, I am amazed that the right thinks that America is "less safe" with these guys released.

It sounds almost as ridiculous as saying that America is less safe evey time a murderer or drug dealer or rapist is released from prison.

Who knew these guys were all that was keeping America safe, despite the almost 10,000 dead americans and the tens of thousands of wounded and maimed americans that occured AFTER their capture.

I hear FOX is now attempting to make a big deal out of the fact that "many(two, four, 2,000?)" in the militay advised against making the trade - As if unanimous consensus in the ranks is a necessary component of a military decision.

I hear FOX is claiming that there are FOX news reports that there were different deals on the table including a ransom and are asking why were these five released because apparently that is too high a price for an american soldier. They are actually suggesting America could have gotten a better deal - a neat after the fact claim.

How dumb does Fox News and the hard right think the american people ar.... oh, right, of course..

.