It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xeven
originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Soldiers are under UCMJ NOT the Constitution.
Yes and guilt and punishment is still determined in a trial.
Bergdahl was a private when he deserted his platoon.
Although he was a private when he was first captured by the Taliban, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was promoted twice in captivity and is scheduled for another promotion to staff sergeant.
CNN’s Barbara Starr reports that a defense official confirmed that Bergdahl is scheduled for a promotion to the rank of staff sergeant later in June of this year (2014).
originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
a reply to: Xeven
I care less about whether he walked off his post or not. That is not for me to decide, but a military tribunal.
The whole premise here is false because he is under the ucmj and does ot have the same rights as you or i.
originally posted by: Xeven
If your Anti Berghdal return your also anti-innocent until proven guilty in court of law. Americans are innocent until proven guilty. He did not act as an enemy combatant so your left with him being an innocent. You have to attempt to return your innocent Soldiers. Now that he is back he needs to be held accountable for his actions in court and spend time in jail or hung if warranted. We must return our troops though.
Look it seems like he is a traitor but we need to put him on trial. Until then he is innocent and should be treated as such. If he is guilty of being a traitor you can add me to the firing squad.
Would you rather the President have the power to decide which soldiers are worth rescuing in the world? Your answer might be yes if you think each future President will always agree with your viewpoints.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
If your Anti Bergdhal return, your also anti-innocent until proven guilty in court of law
OH .. and Bergdhal wasn't "rescued". In order to be rescued he'd have to have been held against his will. The dude walked off his post and went looking for English speaking Taliban. He did that right after having told people he was renouncing his US citizenship.
Sgt Bergdahl’s former unit leader said that when Taliban attacks on their base became more accurate and frequent following his disappearance, troops feared that the missing soldier was supplying information to the enemy, either under duress or voluntarily. Evan Buetow also said his team picked up radio intercepts in which Afghans in a nearby village were talking about an American soldier seeking an English-speaker so that he could communicate with the Taliban. “I heard it straight from the interpreter’s lips as he heard it over the radio,” he told CNN. “There’s a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away.
originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: eriktheawful
If you get arrested for something while you are on leave, you can be punished for the same offense when you return to base. This does not conform with the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.
originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: eriktheawful Of coarse there is a loop in the system but when you enlist you absolutely have the same rights as you did before. I totally get that it can be explained that you do but you can not exercise those rights in most cases without facing punishment. So if you follow the rules then you are submitting to not having those rights.