quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Zonie63
Of course, the other side of this is the Taliban prisoners who were released in exchange for Bergdahl. The implication here is that the US might have gotten the raw end of the deal, ostensibly trading high-ranking enemy officials for Bergdahl.

Which of the people in custody at gitmo would you not let go to get your kid back,your wife,you mom. Remember,if you will,this is the man who is out in front of u.s. foriegn policy with a rifle in his hand and a ticket for the body bag lotto. You are saying the man you are asking to take a bullet for you may not be worth some fuckwad you have no clue about.
Imagine you are a recruiter talking to me and telling me that if I get captured you are going to try to find some three leged dog with herpes to trade for me instead of something my captors might actually want. You want me to sign where???

Well, it's unlikely that I ever would have become a recruiter. I was turned down for military service when I tried to join, but I don't recall that the recruiter mentioned anything about what would happen if I got captured.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThirdWheelWanted

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. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm

This link is regarding what is known as the 30 day rule. http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/a/awol2.htm

Missing movement isn't just a navy offense, it's Article 87 of the UCMJ Missing Movement, and applies to all service members.

And by the way, I did serve in the Army.

Read your own link

quote:

The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently." If one intends to return to "military control," one is guilty of "AWOL," under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85, even if they were away for ten years.

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

How totally random

What a complete and total surprise

Rolling Stone leaping forward in knee-jerk fashion to defend an America-hating traitor

Who could ever have foreseen that happening

On another note, some experts are calling Barack Obama insane in light of some of the recent spectacles he has made of himself, including this swapping of a traitor for five Taliban commanders while we are still fighting in Afghanistan

Article is from 3 years ago.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

quote:

Per the NY Times, he left a note saying that he was starting a new life and shipped his personal belongings home. Per Rolling Stone, he sent his parents an e-mail before he left saying how evil the US was, and how sorry he is for serving in the Army. That right there is intent and changes his status from AWOL to Deserter the minute his foot crossed the perimeter.

QFT.
Plain. Pure. Simple. Truth.

There was no note by all accounts and the email was about an MRAP running over a kid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

The MOB judgments of the right wingers on this thread are ugly and ignorant. Of course the OP is off his rocker in a rush to judgment.

The right wing reaction to the Bergdahi case mirrors the same kind of reaction to the IRS and Benghazi "scandals." The FOX noise machine ramps up: banging drums, sounding alarm bells, spinning up non existent facts, and while over- simplifying complicated decisions in an effort to have a Gotchya moment v. the Obama Presidency.

The most distasteful element here is the vicious maligning of a POW to justify the pound of flesh you want to extort.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It isn't? Because it certainly quacks like one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

It isn't? Because it certainly quacks like one.

Really? Because I'd swear I'm in here defending the need to bring our soldier home, get him healed, and then figure out the circumstances of his capture, and we have representation from the left saying it's their last straw with Obama.

Making it partisan makes it easy to dismiss, so if you want the cowards way out of the scandal (and to play proxie for a vile piece of shit I only see on the scroll), stay your course.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moderator7

Unlocked- some post have been deleted for going beyond Feisty. Please be careful to not bully or harass or follow each other thread to thread. Enjoy the discussion

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?