Bergdahl to be charged with desertion

[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.

Please list examples of the type of evidence you are requiring.

TIA

Fern

(I'm very interested in what you think there is beyond testimony, since you've just ruled that out.)

 

[ivwshane]

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

Another true American! Fuck the right to a trial! Guilty by court of public opinion!

 

[Fern]

Another true American! Fuck the right to a trial! Guilty by court of public opinion!

Hmmm... I'm some what tempted to look up your posts on the case of Trayvon Martin.

Otherwise, please show me (bold, underline, whatever) where I suggested we skip a trial.

Fern

 

[rudeguy]

Hmmm... I'm some what tempted to look up your posts on the case of Trayvon Martin.

Otherwise, please show me (bold, underline, whatever) where I suggested we skip a trial.

Fern

You're feeding the RBM troll....

 

[Moonbeam]

Lets just make sure I get this right:

Your opinion is right, even if you haven't personally verified it.
Other people's opinions are wrong if they haven't personally verified it?
Other people confuse opinions with reality.
Your opinion is reality?

I didn't have an opinion I said I accepted the facts that no WMD were found. I am not wedded to that fact based statement. I can change my opinion if the evidence does. Your opinions are just opinions based on evidence not presented and verified in a factual trial of this man. You have formed your opinion before the facts have been determined as they were with the WMD. You are blind so you don't make these kinds of distinctions. You confuse your opinion with reality whereas I look back at the evidence that was gathered and found to be factual as the basis for my opinion. You are a conformational thinker, looking for facts that support your position when the facts have yet to be validated formally. Trust me bunko, when you go on trial for something, you will want people like me and not like you to hear the evidence against you.

 

[ivwshane]

Hmmm... I'm some what tempted to look up your posts on the case of Trayvon Martin.

Otherwise, please show me (bold, underline, whatever) where I suggested we skip a trial.

Fern

If you didn't then my bad.

As far as the TM thread goes, feel free to look it up.

 

[rudeguy]

I didn't have an opinion I said I accepted the facts that no WMD were found. I am not wedded to that fact based statement. I can change my opinion if the evidence does. Your opinions are just opinions based on evidence not presented and verified in a factual trial of this man. You have formed your opinion before the facts have been determined as they were with the WMD. You are blind so you don't make these kinds of distinctions. You confuse your opinion with reality whereas I look back at the evidence that was gathered and found to be factual as the basis for my opinion. You are a conformational thinker, looking for facts that support your position when the facts have yet to be validated formally. Trust me bunko, when you go on trial for something, you will want people like me and not like you to hear the evidence against you.

OK great.

Please show me the facts that say Bush and Cheney are going to be tried for treason.

 

[DrDoug]

Please list examples of the type of evidence you are requiring.

TIA

Fern

(I'm very interested in what you think there is beyond testimony, since you've just ruled that out.)

Testimony given under oath, in a court of law. While what they are saying may be truthful, until they say it in court it's all hearsay.

After that it's evidence.

 

[unokitty]

Survey: Troops Expect Army to Prosecute Bergdahl

Bergdahl's peers have spoken...

Neither they, nor I, understand what is wrong with holding Bergdahl responsible for his actions.

Could it be that the President doesn't want the military justice system to proceed because the President thinks that the truth will make his Rose Garden victory lap look imprudent?

Uno

 

[Moonbeam]

OK great.

Please show me the facts that say Bush and Cheney are going to be tried for treason.

The folk who have the power to try a President for treason even when it's obvious the pretext he used to get us into an illegal war was a fabricated lie, and known to be such, does not mean he WILL be brought to trial, because if you allow one President to be convicted of war crimes, you open that door to you yourself being tried for something or other in the future. Plus it would be an official black mark on the US and people think that ignoring facts protects their reputations instead of just making them hypocrites in the eyes of thinking people. Obama cares more about the reputation of his office than about justice. He would have never made it to the level of a candidate if that were not true. He failed the test of concern for real justice just as he fails the test of protecting personal freedom from the power of the state.

 

[rudeguy]

Especially when you invade a country to destroy all their hidden weapons of mass destruction that you invent as a pretext for the invasion. The destruction of imaginary weapons of mass destruction is serious business. Imagine the hypothetical disasters that could happen if you didn't. Their detonation could kill millions of people by the placebo effect alone, not to mention the fall our from all the radiation we would imagine is there.

I didn't have an opinion I said I accepted the facts that no WMD were found. I am not wedded to that fact based statement. I can change my opinion if the evidence does. Your opinions are just opinions based on evidence not presented and verified in a factual trial of this man. You have formed your opinion before the facts have been determined as they were with the WMD. You are blind so you don't make these kinds of distinctions. You confuse your opinion with reality whereas I look back at the evidence that was gathered and found to be factual as the basis for my opinion. You are a conformational thinker, looking for facts that support your position when the facts have yet to be validated formally. Trust me bunko, when you go on trial for something, you will want people like me and not like you to hear the evidence against you.

=Moonbeam]That will all come out in the trial when Bush and Cheney are brought up on charges of treason. Until the trial, however, I will simply trust the consensus of experts there were no WMD recognizing it's a personal opinion. It's you conservative brain defectives that science has shown to be the ones to confuse your opinions with reality. That is a scientific fact.

The folk who have the power to try a President for treason even when it's obvious the pretext he used to get us into an illegal war was a fabricated lie, and known to be such, does not mean he WILL be brought to trial, because if you allow one President to be convicted of war crimes, you open that door to you yourself being tried for something or other in the future. Plus it would be an official black mark on the US and people think that ignoring facts protects their reputations instead of just making them hypocrites in the eyes of thinking people. Obama cares more about the reputation of his office than about justice. He would have never made it to the level of a candidate if that were not true. He failed the test of concern for real justice just as he fails the test of protecting personal freedom from the power of the state.

So...there were no WMD and we will find that out when the trial happens but the trial won't happen.

By your own logic, that means there were WMD.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Moonie, how do you feel about the false pretense Obama used to justify our involvement in Libya? Just curious.

 

[Moonbeam]

So...there were no WMD and we will find that out when the trial happens but the trial won't happen.

By your own logic, that means there were WMD.

I seem to be wasting my time with somebody who doesn't want to think. There was a deep investigation done to determine whether or not Iraq had WMD and none were found and have never been found while the so called evidence for their presence used to get us into the war turned out to be lies and fabrications. This is a consensus opinion. It rises to a whole different level than the evidence against our so called walk about traitor. What we have is a situation where one person is being convicted before he even has a trial on evidence yet to be validated while another who is known to be guilty will never even be tried and my thinking is that you are on both sides of this issue.

 

[unokitty]

Iraq wasn't the first war that a President lied about...

Read about LBJ and Robert McNamara's lies and distortations concerning the Gulf of Tonkin Incidet.

U.S. Naval Institute

Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War...

Historians have long suspected that the second attack in the Gulf of Tonkin never occurred and that the resolution was based on faulty evidence. But no declassified information had suggested that McNamara, Johnson, or anyone else in the decision-making process had intentionally misinterpreted the intelligence concerning the 4 August incident. More than 40 years after the events, that all changed with the release of the nearly 200 documents related to the Gulf of Tonkin incident and transcripts from the Johnson Library.

These new documents and tapes reveal what historians could not prove: There was not a second attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Tonkin Gulf in early August 1964. Furthermore, the evidence suggests a disturbing and deliberate attempt by Secretary of Defense McNamara to distort the evidence and mislead Congress.

Among the most revealing documents is a study of the Gulf of Tonkin incidents by NSA historian Robert J. Hanyok. Titled "Skunks, Bogies, Silent Hounds (PDF), and the Flying Fish: The Gulf of Tonkin Mystery, 2-4 August 1964," it had been published in the classified Cryptological Quarterly in early 2001.

Obama's middle east wars “deja vu all over again”?

When presidents lie to make a war

Like Barack Obama, Lyndon Johnson was a president who felt “the fierce urgency of now” to address the glaring inequalities of American society. Just a month earlier, with Martin Luther King Jr standing at his side he had signed the civil rights act, ending racial segregation. And as the Pulitzer prizewinning historian Frederik Logevall told me, “Johnson apparently said in the spring of ’64, ‘I don’t think we can win in Vietnam and I don’t think we can get out.’ You can have all the military power in the world, but if you can’t win the thing politically then you’re not going to succeed.”

Reading headlines from Syria, or watching the news from Iraq – where an army which had been trained and equipped at enormous expense simply laid down their weapons and ran away, abandoning territory that had cost British and American troops their lives –it has been impossible to resist the sensation, in the words of the great Yankee catcher Yogi Berra, that this was “deja vu all over again”. Listening to Obama and David Cameron respond to the debacle in Iraq, I kept hearing echoes of President Kennedy declaring in September 1963: “I don’t think that unless a greater effort is made by the government to win popular support that the war can be won out there.”

Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. But from my perspective when a president lies to start a war, it doesn't seem to end well...

Doesn't seem to matter if that President is named Johnson, Bush, or Obama...

Uno

 

[Moonbeam]

Iraq wasn't the first war that a President lied about...

Read about LBJ and Robert McNamara's lies and distortations concerning the Gulf of Tonkin Incidet.

U.S. Naval Institute
Obama's middle east wars “deja vu all over again”?

When presidents lie to make a war
Everyone is welcome to their own opinion. But from my perspective when a president lies to start a war, it doesn't seem to end well...

Doesn't seem to matter if that President is named Johnson, Bush, or Obama...

Uno

War is a testament to human stupidity.

 

[Moonbeam]

Moonie, how do you feel about the false pretense Obama used to justify our involvement in Libya? Just curious.

I don't know what they are. Nothing other than ignorance is implied by this.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't know what they are. Nothing other than ignorance is implied by this.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/e...s/2011/04/14/false_pretense_for_war_in_libya/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/28/hillary-clinton-undercut-on-libya-war-by-pentagon-/

 

[marincounty]

When is he going to be charged with desertion? I haven't seen anything on the news about this. Fox news is not a reliable source btw.

 

[cabri]

When is he going to be charged with desertion? I haven't seen anything on the news about this. Fox news is not a reliable source btw.

Fox did not say when, nor did any other media outlets.

The wording was that there will be, not when it would be held or even announced.

 

[Jhhnn]

Fox did not say when, nor did any other media outlets.

The wording was that there will be, not when it would be held or even announced.

Faux News frothing up the base, again? A little push propaganda? Say it isn't so!

 

[cabri]

Faux News frothing up the base, again? A little push propaganda? Say it isn't so!

NBC

How about a media outlet that also has habit of frothing up the base?

You have a habit of killing the message because you do not like the messenger.

 

[Carson Dyle]

What exactly did he do? Was he AWOL before he was captured, or does anyone even know?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Survey: Troops Expect Army to Prosecute Bergdahl

Bergdahl's peers have spoken...

Neither they, nor I, understand what is wrong with holding Bergdahl responsible for his actions.

Could it be that the President doesn't want the military justice system to proceed because the President thinks that the truth will make his Rose Garden victory lap look imprudent?

Uno

A June 5, 2014 article, that mentions a (unsourced) survey of 8,800 service members, their spouses, veterans and retirees isn't exactly "his peers have spoken".

 

[werepossum]

I seem to be wasting my time with somebody who doesn't want to think. There was a deep investigation done to determine whether or not Iraq had WMD and none were found and have never been found while the so called evidence for their presence used to get us into the war turned out to be lies and fabrications. This is a consensus opinion. It rises to a whole different level than the evidence against our so called walk about traitor. What we have is a situation where one person is being convicted before he even has a trial on evidence yet to be validated while another who is known to be guilty will never even be tried and my thinking is that you are on both sides of this issue.

Actually we found quite a lot of WMDs in Iraq. Most are still extant, as Iraq has not yet built a facility to safely dispose of them. What we didn't find were the WMDs we thought had been manufactured during the sanctioned post-war period.

 

[MongGrel]

Who gives a fuck if he deserted? We brought him home because he is an American citizen.
If you guys want to strip him of his citizenship, then you can do that here, in America, in the appropriate court of law.

The military has a whole separate justice system, that apply once you join it.

Basically, if you are full time military you follow that one, on top of the civil courts.

I'm not disagreeing with you...my first instinct says to shoot the fuckers. But reason says to give him whatever punishment the UCMJ allows for. Anyone know what that actually is?