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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

you seemed perfectly happy to volunteer for the firing squad detail over it.

Nah.
First: the court-martial.
Even then they'd have to draft me.

Drafted, I would do my duty

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

But really he's spent 5 years in a cage already what more should be done to him?

A court-martial is required.
We deserve it.
If he is innocent he deserves it.

And if guilty he merits a firing squad

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

He was captured on the battlefield in a US uniform.

Deserting your post (he was on guard duty), leaving your weapon behind, and wilfully looking to "talk to" the enemy does not qualify for "captured on the battlefield".

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Since it is fairly well established that he intended to come back

That's created from whole cloth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

It was not a lie but a mistake (he had completed his shift).
Thanks for the correction

Edit: Not so fast.
When I first researched this, the accounts I found said Bergdahl completed his shift. I made the above correction based on those accounts.
I have since found other accounts that say he walked off while on guard duty.
Which makes a lot more sense. The place from which he deserted was nothing more than a small barren hilltop. Had he not been on guard duty, other guards would have been more likely to stop him. Leaving was a planned act; leaving while on guard duty was easier....
I'm going with the people who say he deserted while on guard duty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

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.

Which past president was not also guilty of this?

As for the rest of it... isn't the only real sanction on the power of the Presidency impeachment?

Only to morons the rest of us know what a ballot box is.

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.

How is this different than any other president?


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

So in your zip code the law is determined by the majority party in the senate?

And I am ready to impeach the next three or four. Republican/Dimocrat,

Your bias is showing.


whatever.., the Presidency will become more and more monarchical until/unless Congress reigns it in. Semi-specious grounds are fine with me-


Well of coursefuck the rule of law

and the current circumstances are far from that.

Then if we can force the States to pass a couple Amendments reigning in Congress

Is there any other part of the constitution of my country you would like to wipe your ass on?

and the real American lawmakers (unelected bureaucrats at the EPA and other agencies) this might once again deserve to be called a epresentative republic.


In your zip code congress votes on how wide to make the stripes on the lane dividers on the highway?

(in reply to truckinslave)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

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.

It's really amusing how you skipped right over the section that makes your statement pointless. Let's try this again.

1) If you go AWOL (Not UA, there's no such thing, especially in the Army) to "shirk important duty", which includes to miss a combat deployment or while your unit is actively combat deployed (being on a small hilltop in Iraq certainly seems to qualify) it's desertion. It doesn't matter if you're gone a minute or a year, it's desertion, this is especially true if he left when he should have been on guard duty. If that's the case, he endangered the entire command in order to leave, which again, is desertion.

quote:

2) Regardless of your opinion, if he deserted (see #1 above), even if he was subsequently captured, he is still a deserter. One does not alter the other.

quote:

3) If the radio traffic that was reported is accurate, he left his post and traveled to a nearby town to talk to the enemy. That's collusion.

quote:

Desertion requires a specific intent which he will have to confess to or it simply is not there

quote:

Being captured prevents what he did from ever being desertion since desertion required doing something voluntarily.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

It's fascinating for others in the forum to observe how legitimate issues and questions raised by people like truckinslave are subject to ad hominen and appeals to authority by you.

Numerous reports by multiple news organizations have indicated the Pentagon had Bergdahl fingered as a deserter. Multiple soldiers who served with him and who never spoke before to still protect his sorry ass have now come out to speak the truth. Bergdahl's own father thanked Allah in the Rose Garden! Yes, undoubtedly, Bergdahl is some super patriot. At least Pvt. Slovik was simply scared. Oh, and to add to this, one of the released Taliban general equivalents already said he was heading back to the battlefield.

Facts indeed are stubborn things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Desertion requires a specific intent which he will have to confess to or it simply is not there

You cannot find anything in the UCMJ or military annals to support this. The intent to desert is proven by actions.

quote:

quote:

Being captured prevents what he did from ever being desertion since desertion required doing something voluntarily.

Absolute rubbish again. Whooda thunk it? Capture after desertion does not change the desertion. And that's if he ever was truly a captive....

quote:

This is almost as deliberately obstinately wrong as your GZ posts. Abso fuckin lutely ilarious