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

originally posted by: macman
So, no the military member while serving does not have the right to free speech.

Correct.

Military Expression

While the civilian population of the United States is afforded the right to free expression under the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the notion that service members have a reduced level of free speech.[4] While the Court acknowledged that service members do have First Amendment rights, these rights are limited: ...

When I was in the military, I was not allowed to criticize anything my NCOIC or XO or CO (etc) ordered. I couldn't criticize in public our military strategies or efforts, etc etc. That was 30 years ago, but I have heard of no change of UCMJ/military rules on it.

a reply to: Kryties

Ahhhhh, my last feel is all used up now.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kryties

I'm not sure what your problem is. The man committed a crime. It doesn't sound like legal proceedings will look for the death penalty. So we won't be taking him out back and putting a bullet in him. He clearly committed a capital offense. He needs to pay for that.

I thought I put it quite clearly, in plain English, my disgust at those posters who wanted to see him shot without trial and possibly to do it themselves. Do I need to spell it out in sesame street letters?

a reply to: Kryties

Well I'm not one of those people. I still support him having a trial. I'm just not on his side anymore.

a reply to: Sremmos80

So, you aren't going to answer the simple question.


Simple enough to know when someone knows their wrong, but is not willing to admit it.
Carry on then.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

Ahhhhh, my last feel is all used up now.

Ha...so are all my fu(|(s for this traitor.

originally posted by: macman

You aren't even a US citizen. You don't even have any of these Rights.

American are not the only ones in the world with "rights" you know.

Some rights may be different. And wording of different constitutions and bill of rights may vary but its not a case of USA and only Tyranny.

a reply to: FlyersFan

Reduced being the key word there don't ya think?

With the advent of the Iraq War in 2003, the issue of military expression was again in the public eye as a relatively small amount of service members and veterans began demonstrating. One case revolved around a former Marine (still under contract with the IRR) who was photographed by the Washington Post wearing a partial uniform during an anti-war demonstration in Washington, D.C.[6] The individual faced disciplinary action for his participation in this demonstration, as well as for a politically charged email he sent to a Marine officer.[7][full citation needed] However, in this case, the service member managed to avoid the other than honorable discharge being sought by the military due to the First Amendment arguments posed on his behalf.[6] That case, which was argued by attorney Mike Lebowitz in representation of anti-war and political activist Adam Kokesh, is regarded as the first military expression case of its kind to result generally favorably for the service member.[8]

From your same source.

So again, when push comes to shove, they do they the right as long as it does not endanger their fellow service men.

a reply to: macman

a reply to: Stormdancer777

But that doesn't preclude members on an international board from having an opinion.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Kryties

I thought I put it quite clearly, in plain English, my disgust at those posters who wanted to see him shot without trial and possibly to do it themselves. Do I need to spell it out in sesame street letters?

Well stick to the topic chummy- discussing your views on other posters contributes to thread drift and is disallowed by t&c.


I hope they don't try to let Bergdahl off with a slap on the wrist and "time served". Though that would make for some great election year politics.

a reply to: crazyewok

The Rights of other countries and their citizens don't matter within this instance.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
If he's found guilty...put him in Gitmo; Ironic Obamaesque justice.

If he is found guilty then good idea.

If he ran off to join terrorists jail him with terrorists.

a reply to: macman

You have answered none of mine, so the shoe fits there pal.

I asked previously if you could show me where the UCMJ was able to trump the bill of rights and crickets.

Please tell me what I am wrong about when the point is the bill of rights trumps all in this nation?

Are you not a protector of that thought process?

a reply to: crazyewok


I'm betting most countries have extremely stiff penalty's for deserters.

a reply to: Excallibacca

Yes he can and Obama would approve it

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: crazyewok

The Rights of other countries and their citizens don't matter within this instance.

True.

What you do with deserters is your business. Hell I would not judge you adversely if found guilty you shot him.


But American, British, Canadian or Aussie. We all share the same right to a fair trial and its something all our country's understand.

Shot him but give him a trial first

More questions than answers on this one. Why wasn't he killed by the Taliban,? he really wasn't that important.
Why did the US cut the deal they did for a non entity.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: crazyewok


I'm betting most countries have extremely stiff penalty's for deserters.

Not arguing if found guilty he should face stiff penalty's.

originally posted by: macman

If the military removed everyone that was a "loon" from performing their duties, it would be chaos.

Wow. Just going to quote that ringing endorsement of the U.S. Military for posterity.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
More questions than answers on this one. Why wasn't he killed by the Taliban,? he really wasn't that important.
Why did the US cut the deal they did for a non entity.

I agree, fishy