Bergdahl to be charged with desertion

[Matt1970]

Or, maybe he just went on a walkabout has he'd been known to do in the past.

Yep, walkabout seeking out the Taliban. It's the latest craze with the armed forces.

 

[cabri]

No we take in all information and categorize it via how well it can be verified. It's why we put someone on the internet making a claim way down on the list of credibility. Are you saying you don't do this?

So again, do you have information that backs up you and other posters claims that can be verified or at least given some credibility?

No? Then you've got nothing. Put up or shut up.

Says one who backed up Brown and Martin.

Information is out there; it is you that refuses to look at the pieces as a whole, but want to dissect each to find a discrepancy.

The radio transcripts and Bergdahl actions/statements prior to and during the deployment paint a clear picture.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Do you not understand how not OK it is to go on a "walkabout" in Afghanistan as a US soldier? Even if he did it and came back, that'd likely land him in jail.

Do you not understand that this was something he'd done before, right or wrong, and apparently he'd not been punished for doing so in the past. At least not in any major way. Seems like that's what, failure in command?

 

[Victorian Gray]

From your own post #62

In a combat area, one does not do a "walk about" without his gear by accident. He knew better.

He left his post without his gear, without notifying anyone that he needed to leave and only took personal gear with him.

Spin it how ever you want; he left by choice; was not captured from his post.

No one is debating that so what's your point?

 

[rudeguy]

No one is debating that so what's your point?

That you are a moron.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yep, walkabout seeking out the Taliban. It's the latest craze with the armed forces.

It was apparently something that he had something of a habit of doing as it's been reported that there were at least a couple of other occasions where he'd gone 'walkabout' before.

Pretty much everything I've read is, he never should have been allowed to enlist in the first place and once he was in the army they pretty much didn't seem to know what to do with him.

 

[Victorian Gray]

That you are a moron.

Well, is someone debating that point? It sure isn't me.

 

[Vic]

Why am I not surprised?

I don't agree with what he said about the military being a handout, but you do realize that defense spending is about 15 times that of welfare spending, yes?
Necessary to a certain extent, yes, but hardly small government no matter how much you glamorize it.

 

[Vic]

Says one who backed up Brown and Martin.

Information is out there; it is you that refuses to look at the pieces as a whole, but want to dissect each to find a discrepancy.

The radio transcripts and Bergdahl actions/statements prior to and during the deployment paint a clear picture.

Have you informed the courts martial that you've already cracked the case?

 

[Nebor]

Do you not understand that this was something he'd done before, right or wrong, and apparently he'd not been punished for doing so in the past. At least not in any major way. Seems like that's what, failure in command?

I haven't seen much reporting regarding his previous walk outside the wire (rumor is that some of his platoon members say he did it once before disappearing for good.) I guess we'll have to wait for the report. If he did leave more than the one time, I seriously doubt anyone higher than a squad leader knew he left. But if they did then they should be held accountable for not punishing him.

And there's no such thing as a soldier you don't know what do do with. He wasn't the first fuckup to join the Army and he won't be the last. Restriction, confinement, and forfeiture of pay can all be easily administered without a court martial.

 

[Matt1970]

I don't agree with what he said about the military being a handout, but you do realize that defense spending is about 15 times that of welfare spending, yes?
Necessary to a certain extent, yes, but hardly small government no matter how much you glamorize it.

I am all for reducing the size of the military, but neither side seems willing to do that.

 

[cabri]

Have you informed the courts martial that you've already cracked the case?

Either way, there will be some here that will have crow once there is(not) a courts martial and then an guilty(not) result.

Having been on a courts martial (which was not political), I am confident in what the evidence will produce and the result there of.

But due to politics, anything may happen

 

[werepossum]

I see it no differently as any other source of stability government offers to help it's people. Calling it a handout doesn't have any negative connotations in my mind as I don't look down at people who use government resources, paid for by people like me, to better themselves. Do you? Or do you separate out the handouts and consider some good and some bad? If the goal is for a better America then I'm for it, what's your requirement?

That's a much better response, but I totally disagree with it. A handout by definition is something one did not earn. If one enlists, one damn sure earns one's pay and benefits. My own off-the-cuff hierarchy would be:

Most Honorable
1. Military service: Potentially dangerous, massive loss of freedom, agonizingly long separations from loved ones, and usually 24/7 without the ability to decide the job is not for you.

2. Government jobs: Generally well paid, great benefits and job security.

3. Unearned short term government benefits designed to ultimately lift society by providing a better worker and citizen.
3. Unearned long term government benefits for someone not able to provide for themselves.
3. Unearned short term government benefits designed to provide an able-bodied and -minded person or family with the necessities of life until such time as they can be self sufficient.
3. Indirect benefit (such as tax breaks or subsidies) honestly designed to build a better society. (e.g. Energy Star tax breaks in the first few years of the program.)

4. Politician.
4. Indirect benefit (such as tax breaks or subsidies) either obtained or sustained by lobbying. (e.g. Energy Star tax breaks now.)

Dishonorable.
5. Unearned long term government benefits for someone able but unwilling to be self sufficient.

6. Any unearned government benefits obtained by fraud.

I'm perfectly willing to move a politician up to #2 or down to #6, depending on behavior. And I'm perfectly willing to move a military serviceperson down to #2 or even to #6, depending on behavior. But in general, while I don't think there's anything necessarily dishonorable about taking a government handout, I do think it's inherently less honorable than providing value (beyond being a vote) in return for it. Thus I have no moral problem with someone being offered a scholarship based on merit or need, but I consider it not as honorable as a scholarship based on military service.

 

[werepossum]

I am all for reducing the size of the military, but neither side seems willing to do that.

Problem is we seem to cut the wrong thing. We desperately need more light infantry and light armored cavalry, not less. We cut the very thing we most use, and then substitute troops trained for other duties to take up the very dangerous slack.

 

[DrDoug]

Either way, there will be some here that will have crow once there is(not) a courts martial and then an guilty(not) result.

Having been on a courts martial (which was not political), I am confident in what the evidence will produce and the result there of.

But due to politics, anything may happen

IOW, if the courts martial goes the way you want it to then justice was served. If the courts martial doesn't go the way you want then it was "politics".

IOW, you think he's guilty and that's it. Right?

 

[cabri]

IOW, if the courts martial goes the way you want it to then justice was served. If the courts martial doesn't go the way you want then it was "politics".

IOW, you think he's guilty and that's it. Right?

1) Yes, I think he is guilty.

2) I do not think a courts martial will be rigged. I have no issues if he is found not guilty when the evidence is presented.

3) If there is no courts martial, it will be due to political pressure from the WH

 

[ivwshane]

Says one who backed up Brown and Martin.

Information is out there; it is you that refuses to look at the pieces as a whole, but want to dissect each to find a discrepancy.

The radio transcripts and Bergdahl actions/statements prior to and during the deployment paint a clear picture.

Nope, once again you misrepresent my position. Not a surprise, pieces of shits like you have to spin the truth in order to demonize those that don't agree with you.

 

[DrDoug]

1) Yes, I think he is guilty.

2) I do not think a courts martial will be rigged. I have no issues if he is found not guilty when the evidence is presented.

3) If there is no courts martial, it will be due to political pressure from the WH

So the only way for you to believe that he is innocent is if there is a courts martial and he is found not guilty. If the military, for whatever reason, decides there is no reason for a courts martial then he's guilty because of political pressure. Right?

IMO, whatever is going to happen to him would happen no matter who is President. While the military has no problem making plenty of mistakes I tend to think that they are going to do whatever is best for the military. I really don't care about Bergdahl because whatever happened is between him and the military, as it should be. If the military decides that there is no justice to dispense then that the end of it as far as I am concerned. If he is tried and found guilty then he is guilty, if not then he is not. It seems pretty simple to me because I have nothing vested in the outcome.

Whatever the outcome, it will have no effect on my life therefore I am not interested in this other than to see justice done as he has that right as an American.

 

[ivwshane]

While I agree that that is the true definition of a handout, it's not how I define it. A true handout, in my mind, is something given to another with no expectations in return and in the absence of the giver the receiver would not obtain on their own. All government "handouts" have some sort of expectation for them, whether it's something the receiver is expected to do or it's the overall impact of the handout that a certain outcome is expected.


You'll note that "earning" plays no role in my definition because it's a subjective term.

I don't expect you to agree with me, my position is not normal which is why I had to clarifying previous post by editing it.

That's a much better response, but I totally disagree with it. A handout by definition is something one did not earn. If one enlists, one damn sure earns one's pay and benefits. My own off-the-cuff hierarchy would be:

Most Honorable
1. Military service: Potentially dangerous, massive loss of freedom, agonizingly long separations from loved ones, and usually 24/7 without the ability to decide the job is not for you.

2. Government jobs: Generally well paid, great benefits and job security.

3. Unearned short term government benefits designed to ultimately lift society by providing a better worker and citizen.
3. Unearned long term government benefits for someone not able to provide for themselves.
3. Unearned short term government benefits designed to provide an able-bodied and -minded person or family with the necessities of life until such time as they can be self sufficient.
3. Indirect benefit (such as tax breaks or subsidies) honestly designed to build a better society. (e.g. Energy Star tax breaks in the first few years of the program.)

4. Politician.
4. Indirect benefit (such as tax breaks or subsidies) either obtained or sustained by lobbying. (e.g. Energy Star tax breaks now.)

Dishonorable.
5. Unearned long term government benefits for someone able but unwilling to be self sufficient.

6. Any unearned government benefits obtained by fraud.

I'm perfectly willing to move a politician up to #2 or down to #6, depending on behavior. And I'm perfectly willing to move a military serviceperson down to #2 or even to #6, depending on behavior. But in general, while I don't think there's anything necessarily dishonorable about taking a government handout, I do think it's inherently less honorable than providing value (beyond being a vote) in return for it. Thus I have no moral problem with someone being offered a scholarship based on merit or need, but I consider it not as honorable as a scholarship based on military service.

 

[ivwshane]

IOW, if the courts martial goes the way you want it to then justice was served. If the courts martial doesn't go the way you want then it was "politics".

IOW, you think he's guilty and that's it. Right?

His answer is yes. Quite the true American he is, guilty until proven innocent. Truly disgusting.

 

[ivwshane]

So the only way for you to believe that he is innocent is if there is a courts martial and he is found not guilty. If the military, for whatever reason, decides there is no reason for a courts martial then he's guilty because of political pressure. Right?

IMO, whatever is going to happen to him would happen no matter who is President. While the military has no problem making plenty of mistakes I tend to think that they are going to do whatever is best for the military. I really don't care about Bergdahl because whatever happened is between him and the military, as it should be. If the military decides that there is no justice to dispense then that the end of it as far as I am concerned. If he is tried and found guilty then he is guilty, if not then he is not. It seems pretty simple to me because I have nothing vested in the outcome.

Whatever the outcome, it will have no effect on my life therefore I am not interested in this other than to see justice done as he has that right as an American.

What's funny is that he has taken the exact position he claims I took on the brown case. Hypocrisy thy name is cabri!

 

[cabri]

So the only way for you to believe that he is innocent is if there is a courts martial and he is found not guilty. If the military, for whatever reason, decides there is no reason for a courts martial then he's guilty because of political pressure. Right?

IMO, whatever is going to happen to him would happen no matter who is President. While the military has no problem making plenty of mistakes I tend to think that they are going to do whatever is best for the military. I really don't care about Bergdahl because whatever happened is between him and the military, as it should be. If the military decides that there is no justice to dispense then that the end of it as far as I am concerned. If he is tried and found guilty then he is guilty, if not then he is not. It seems pretty simple to me because I have nothing vested in the outcome.

Whatever the outcome, it will have no effect on my life therefore I am not interested in this other than to see justice done as he has that right as an American.

I will accept the verdict of a courts martial - that is the way the UCMJis supposed to operate.

I will not accept that he is denied a courts martial.
Based on the published information, a courts martial is needed.

I am concerned that the Obama administration, which has been embarrassed, may wish to sweep this under the rug.

Both he and the military require a courts martial to clear up the situation.

 

[DrDoug]

I will accept the verdict of a courts martial - that is the way the UCMJis supposed to operate.

I will not accept that he is denied a courts martial.
Based on the published information, a courts martial is needed.

I am concerned that the Obama administration, which has been embarrassed, may wish to sweep this under the rug.

Both he and the military require a courts martial to clear up the situation.

What interests me is how any decision in this case affects you enough that you feel that you have the right to determine the terms of the outcome? Since he will never be found innocent at trial, he can only be found "not guilty" and thus not proven guilty, why not just say that he's guilty, get it over with and move on with your life?

I just don't understand how people can so invest themselves in a case whose outcome has no effect on their life or the lives of those around them.

 

[Fern]

Seems many here wish to think that Bergdahl's friends and fellow soldiers are liars. They've been on TV and in other media many times. I don't think it's reasonably possible to be unaware of their accusations.

They have first hand knowledge. The only proof that could possibly be more persuasive is if a camera crew followed him around filming the entire thing. Anybody requiring such proof is an idiot.

This case couldn't be any simpler. He left: He wasn't abducted. The complication is politics.

Fern

 

[DrDoug]

Seems many here wish to think that Bergdahl's friends and fellow soldiers are liars. They've been on TV and in other media many times. I don't think it's reasonably possible to be unaware of their accusations.

They have first hand knowledge. The only proof that could possibly be more persuasive is if a camera crew followed him around filming the entire thing. Anybody requiring such proof is an idiot.

This case couldn't be any simpler. He left: He wasn't abducted. The complication is politics.

Fern

So people always tell the truth and never lie or distort what they are saying? If this is the case then why do we even have trials? You absolutely trust everything that these people have said, without question?

In my world people lie, people embellish, people distort and people tell the truth. That's why we, if it is deemed necessary, have trials. I don't think that they are liars but until they testify in a court of law it's nothing but hearsay. If there is no trial it is still nothing but hearsay.