Bowe Bergdahl, once missing U.S. soldier, charged with desertion

a reply to: Kryties

Again all volunteer army. You have no excuse for desertion when you volunteered to sign up. Granted some enlistment practices are rather dubious, but you HAVE to know upon signing up what wars are going on and if you agree with them or not.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties
Basically all I am seeing in this thread is a bunch of hard-asses moaning about one of their soldiers, who woke up on the battlefield and decided enough was enough and that he was fighting a war that was wrong, getting to come home and face a trial for desertion. Apparently he deserves to die in horrible ways, according to many posters on this thread, without a trial and because he "dared" to have an individual thought.

It's disgusting, hypocritical garbage that I am reading. Why, however, am I not surprised?

At this point I want the Obama admin to answer for trading for a traitor to our country.

Going around the law to get this trade done is more traitorous in my eyes. They knew the specifics prior to the trade and did it anyways.

originally posted by: abe froman

I don't think anyone demanded no trial. I think you just misinterpreted people saying it wasn't really necessary since we have a confession.

The only way he goes without a trial is if he waives the trial and pleads guilty. However in this case I am thinking a court martial is required given the punishment for guilt.

From the news report there will be no death penalty pursued.

a reply to: macman

And if you can't grasp the simple idea that the constitution is above the UCMJ I don't know what to tell you.
Please show me one example of this idea of the UCMJ superseding the bill of rights
I agree they don't have certain rights, but that is not all rights and it is not cut and dry.

a reply to: Kryties

Again....dude, you really are turning into clown shoes.

He and his actions don't fall under the Constitution. They fall under the UCMJ. That is why he is facing the Military Courts and not a civilian court.


I know that you push the persona of being the above the fray foreigner with sooo much enlightenment, but the truth is you have no clue.

It isn't just being a clown. You have now moved to the vehicle that moves the clown from point A to point B.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
From the news report there will be no death penalty pursued.

Well that is disappointing. Some were killed for his actions.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: ketsuko

Oh well, case done then eh? Lets take the bastard out back and shoot him? Who needs a trial eh?

Despicable. Just despicable.

He'll get a trial, but there are certain things we already know. The evidence is there and known already.

You can't deny that he, himself, left the letter. You can't deny others died trying to bring him back. You can't deny that he wound up in the camp of the enemy. All these are known things. In addition to those things we all know, there are all the things that we do not know that have been uncovered in debriefings since that are only privy to the parties who need to know them.

It's a bit of a stretch to try to cling to the idea that he's completely innocent at this point in the process.

originally posted by: beezzer
For what it's worth? Bergdahl did or didn't desert.

UCMJ will figure that out.

But Bergdahl didn't release 5 taliban folks.

Obama did.

Now are we to "assume" that Obama didn't have a clue when he did the swap?

If so, I have some land in Atlantis I'd love to sell you. . . . .

that deserves a topic of its own

So much blame here.

First Bergdahl, of course. The kid is not right...a dreamer, unstable. His parents for enabling him and the U.S. Army for taking him at all and - for sure - for keeping him. Last, but not least...his C.O. for having his head up his ass. What the heck went on at that camp?

Anyways...kid did five years as a POW....that's tough enough, IMHO. Court Martial/dishonorable discharge....no time served. Again, IMHO.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
From the news report there will be no death penalty pursued.

Well that is disappointing. Some were killed for his actions.

I vaguely remember that.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I will ask again...does the service member retain the right to free speech while serving?

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't think anyone demanded no trial. I think you just misinterpreted people saying it wasn't really necessary since we have a confession.

Here's but one example:

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

He admitted it....no need for a court in my eyes.

Please tell me how I "misinterpreted" that?

Plenty of people have given "confessions" under interrogation only to be proven innocent later down the line. While this may not be the case with this fellow, it certainly is no excuse for skipping trial and going straight to the lethal injection chamber.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: macman

And if you can't grasp the simple idea that the constitution is above the UCMJ I don't know what to tell you.
Please show me one example of this idea of the UCMJ superseding the bill of rights
I agree they don't have certain rights, but that is not all rights and it is not cut and dry.

The UCMJ is valid and constitutional considering the Constitution allows for the establishment of lower courts, including military ones. When a person enlists they are told what to exepct, which includes discussion about reduction of civil rights, like freedom of speech, freedom of movement etc etc.

Military people who are charged can still retain civilian council.

any ruling by a military court is subject to the same process as the civilian side, which is to say verdicts can be appealed and the Supreme Court is the last stop.

There are no constitutional violations considering these people agreed to the terms and conditions. So while the UCMJ is not above the Constitution, its processes are in fact lawfully different than what you would see in a civilian criminal court. So long as they are in uniform they are required to behave in a certain manner.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Kryties
Basically all I am seeing in this thread is a bunch of hard-asses moaning about one of their soldiers, who woke up on the battlefield and decided enough was enough and that he was fighting a war that was wrong, getting to come home and face a trial for desertion. Apparently he deserves to die in horrible ways, according to many posters on this thread, without a trial and because he "dared" to have an individual thought.

It's disgusting, hypocritical garbage that I am reading. Why, however, am I not surprised?

At this point I want the Obama admin to answer for trading for a traitor to our country.

Going around the law to get this trade done is more traitorous in my eyes. They knew the specifics prior to the trade and did it anyways.

Obama never ceases to amaze me,

a reply to: kosmicjack

Wait.....it's now the Army's fault he left??? And his CO's fault as well???

You have got to be kidding.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: abe froman
a reply to: Kryties

I don't think anyone demanded no trial. I think you just misinterpreted people saying it wasn't really necessary since we have a confession.

Here's but one example:

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

He admitted it....no need for a court in my eyes.

Please tell me how I "misinterpreted" that?

Plenty of people have given "confessions" under interrogation only to be proven innocent later down the line. While this may not be the case with this fellow, it certainly is no excuse for skipping trial and going straight to the lethal injection chamber.

He wrote a letter and left it for them to find when he deserted. There was no confession under interrogation Until the traded for him.

Read up on the whole scenario before making statements that are untrue.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I agree, I am not saying there is violations going on with him being charged under the UCMJ.

Just that he in the end entitled to his rights like everyone else is.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Please show me one example of this idea of the UCMJ superseding the bill of rights

Freedom of speech.
Civilians have it. Soldiers do not.


Court Marshall trial. And when found guilty, he needs to do jail time.
Our people died because he deserted. He needs to answer for that.
His time 'being held' by the enemy doesn't count.
He wanted to be there. That's not prison time for getting our people killed.

And the Obama administration still needs to answer for the ILLEGAL
"prisoner' swap. It wasn't done following the law. IMHO it shouldn't
have happened at all, but the bottom line is it didn't follow the rule
of law. And Obama claiming he didn't know the law doesn't fly.
He knew it.

lolz

To anyone still confused;

The UCMJ is the "T&C's" of the military.

*shakes head and wanders off, looking for a nice carrot. . . .