Bergdahl To Be Charged With Desertion.

[OldCoyote]

It is about time,  I can not believe five high level terrorists were traded for him


www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/26/bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official-says/

[Value Buy]

But, Rice at the time, said they traded for an American hero.
Now the military is wasting years of manpower on this. He will not be found guilty until after the Obama administration is gone.

Trust me.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 26, 2015 8:48:15 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

But, Rice at the time, said they traded for an American hero.
Now the military is wasting years of manpower on this. He will not be found guilty until after the Obama administration is gone.

Trust me.

His military trial will be completed and decided before Innauguration Day, January 20, 1917.

And I assume there is no double jeopardy in the military. So he won't be tried again in a military court after Obama leaves office.

Trust me.

[happyhoix]

I don't think he was traded for terrorists because he was supposedly a hero. I think they traded him because he was a soldier when he disappeared.

I think he will have a hard time claiming he didn't desert, when he walked away from the base and went AWOL, and I don't think the military court will look very kindly on his case. I heard today he might get a plea deal if he agrees to a dishonorable discharge and gives up the $200,000 in back pay he is owed, if he is smart he'll go for that.

I don't think the president will interfer on his behalf. No reason not to let the military court deal with it, and plenty of reasons not to cater to this guy who put his fellow soldiers at risk when they went out to look for him.
 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2015 13:42:29 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't think he was traded for terrorists because he was supposedly a hero. I think they traded him because he was a soldier when he disappeared.

I think he will have a hard time claiming he didn't desert, when he walked away from the base and went AWOL, and I don't think the military court will look very kindly on his case. I heard today he might get a plea deal if he agrees to a dishonorable discharge and gives up the $200,000 in back pay he is owed, if he is smart he'll go for that.

I don't think the president will interfer on his behalf. No reason not to let the military court deal with it, and plenty of reasons not to cater to this guy who put his fellow soldiers at risk when they went out to look for him.
 

as long as nobody wants to make an example of him, that might work.  but i have a feeling he has too much light on him.

[Value Buy]

Mar 26, 2015 9:24:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 26, 2015 8:48:15 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

But, Rice at the time, said they traded for an American hero.
Now the military is wasting years of manpower on this. He will not be found guilty until after the Obama administration is gone.

Trust me.

His military trial will be completed and decided before Innauguration Day, January 20, 1917.

And I assume there is no double jeopardy in the military. So he won't be tried again in a military court after Obama leaves office.

Trust me.

Not worried about double jeopardy. I stand on the fact the trial will not be finished until after the Inauguration. This, to me is an embarrassment to the Obama Administration. The guy was not an American hero as we were told.
Talking heads on cable were saying they did not expect a quick resolution to this. His defense team needs plenty of time to mount the defense.

Surprised he was not charged with another charge of causing a death of a military person.
Myself, after living five years in captivity with the Taliban, I have mixed feeling of wasting time, and hours, could just let it go.
I believe we still have men in North Korea that have not been brought home. No priority there by ANY Administration.....some were deserters, some prisoners.

[happyhoix]

The guy was not an American hero as we were told.

I don't remember anyone calling him a hero? I just remember them saying he was an American soldier who 'wandered off his base' and got captured.  Maybe this was stated in media that I don't usually watch so I missed it.

I remember at the time he sounded like a doofus to me - wandering off his base, in hostile territory? 

Heroes don't usually get lost

[Robert not Bobby]

This one has me perplexed?<br><br>I really shouldn't comment one way or the other.<br>

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 13:55:39 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Mar 26, 2015 9:24:41 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

His military trial will be completed and decided before Innauguration Day, January 20, 1917.

And I assume there is no double jeopardy in the military. So he won't be tried again in a military court after Obama leaves office.

Trust me.

Not worried about double jeopardy. I stand on the fact the trial will not be finished until after the Inauguration. This, to me is an embarrassment to the Obama Administration. The guy was not an American hero as we were told.
Talking heads on cable were saying they did not expect a quick resolution to this. His defense team needs plenty of time to mount the defense.

Surprised he was not charged with another charge of causing a death of a military person.
Myself, after living five years in captivity with the Taliban, I have mixed feeling of wasting time, and hours, could just let it go.
I believe we still have men in North Korea that have not been brought home. No priority there by ANY Administration.....some were deserters, some prisoners.

Most of us already knew he was a deserter well before the prisoner exchange.

I don't feel sorry for anyone that believed Obama and was fooled. Sorry. At this point people should know Obama can't be trusted.

[Value Buy]

Mar 27, 2015 6:56:56 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Maybe he didn't freakin' know.

Remember Pat Tillman? Remember Jessica Lynch?  For that matter, how about "Mission Accomplished?"

Sometimes it takes a while for the truth to come out.  I'm glad that it seems that it is in this case.

Who didn't know?

[Value Buy]

Mar 26, 2015 15:03:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

The guy was not an American hero as we were told.

I don't remember anyone calling him a hero? I just remember them saying he was an American soldier who 'wandered off his base' and got captured.  Maybe this was stated in media that I don't usually watch so I missed it.

I remember at the time he sounded like a doofus to me - wandering off his base, in hostile territory? 

Heroes don't usually get lost

Remember calling him a hero?
Let me refresh your memory.
Ms. Rice went on all the Sunday shows calling him a hero while representing the White House.
You know the same personwsho kept telling us there was not a concerted terrorist attempt to kill our Embassador in Libya.
I won't even mention the President in the Rose Garden with the deserter's parents.




Whoops, I did mention it.

[zibazinski]

He's a defector not a deserter.

[happyhoix]

Mar 27, 2015 8:33:30 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Mar 26, 2015 15:03:45 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I don't remember anyone calling him a hero? I just remember them saying he was an American soldier who 'wandered off his base' and got captured.  Maybe this was stated in media that I don't usually watch so I missed it.

I remember at the time he sounded like a doofus to me - wandering off his base, in hostile territory? 

Heroes don't usually get lost

Remember calling him a hero?
Let me refresh your memory.
Ms. Rice went on all the Sunday shows calling him a hero while representing the White House.
You know the same personwsho kept telling us there was not a concerted terrorist attempt to kill our Embassador in Libya.
I won't even mention the President in the Rose Garden with the deserter's parents.




Whoops, I did mention it.

Sorry, I don't remember those incidents - not saying it didn't happen, just saying I didn't see it.

What I do remember was the uproar about him NOT being a hero - that started before he ever got off the plane, and seemed to be all over the media.

Maybe the ones shouting that he was not a hero were shouting louder than the ones shouting that he WAS a hero?

[Deleted]

Mar 26, 2015 7:35:30 GMT -5 OldCoyote said:

It is about time,  I can not believe five high level terrorists were traded for him


www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/26/bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official-says/

I remember FOX being ridiculed by the liberal networks for saying he was going to be charged with desertion.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2015 6:56:56 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Maybe he didn't freakin' know.

Remember Pat Tillman? Remember Jessica Lynch?  For that matter, how about "Mission Accomplished?"

Sometimes it takes a while for the truth to come out.  I'm glad that it seems that it is in this case.

"Mission Accomplished" doesn't apply to this situation. And Jessica Lynch didn't abandon her post before she disappeared.

I honestly don't remember the situation with Pat Tillman... just remember the name. So you'll have to tell me how that one compares.

As to "Maybe he didn't freakin' know."... maybe he should have known before he went behind the backs of Congress and made an illegal trade of 5 terrorist LEADERS for him.

I'm all for "get our boys back" policies... But let's make sure they actually ARE "our boys" first. Is that too much to ask?

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm just excited to see the military tribunal travel back in time to convict him before the end of WWI.

[joemilitary]

I am thinking there will be some technicality where he doesn't have anything significant happen to him

[Virgil Showlion]

Mar 28, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Mar 27, 2015 20:04:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm just excited to see the military tribunal travel back in time to convict him before the end of WWI.

What do you mean by that Virgil?

(I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just don't understand what you mean)

Read the first four posts in the thread very carefully, and it will make sense.

[Deleted]

Maybe erring on the "not terrorists' side would have been a good idea.

[zibazinski]

Absolutely! Shoot the remaining criminals and close it. Start executing traitors and terrorists. Immediately. Years of them whining about their rights is ridiculous. Criminals have no rights.

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2015 12:41:38 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Absolutely! Shoot the remaining criminals and close it. Start executing traitors and terrorists. Immediately. Years of them whining about their rights is ridiculous. Criminals have no rights.

Humans do.  All humans have God given rights and they are not yours to take away.

[mmhmm]

Let's leave God out of it, please. We're talking here about legal rights.

mmhmm, Administrator

[zibazinski]

They gave up their rights when they committed their crimes. 

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2015 10:42:30 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Mar 27, 2015 18:10:03 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

"Mission Accomplished" doesn't apply to this situation. And Jessica Lynch didn't abandon her post before she disappeared.

I honestly don't remember the situation with Pat Tillman... just remember the name. So you'll have to tell me how that one compares.

As to "Maybe he didn't freakin' know."... maybe he should have known before he went behind the backs of Congress and made an illegal trade of 5 terrorist LEADERS for him.

I'm all for "get our boys back" policies... But let's make sure they actually ARE "our boys" first. Is that too much to ask?

Pardon me, but I believe they all apply.  They all refer to situations where politicians made battlefield assessments based on incomplete, missing or faulty information- assessments that ended up being false.  That is the point I am making.  In none of those cases did the leaders and others who made judgements based on them know all of the true information which would have shown their conclusions to be wrong. 

I could say "I believe I'm a Billionaire"... that wouldn't make it true.

But I see the problem. You are focusing on one tiny facet of the whole issue (people make mistakes). In that one teeny, tiny, minuscule (compared to the whole picture) facet (people make mistakes)... yes they all apply. In the overall picture however, they don't.

[OldCoyote]

Before 1917, Missed that good catch Virgil.  

[Deleted]

Mar 28, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

Mar 27, 2015 20:04:19 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I'm just excited to see the military tribunal travel back in time to convict him before the end of WWI.

What do you mean by that Virgil?

(I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just don't understand what you mean)

Tennesseer posted (erroneously?) January 20, 1917  in Reply #3   Edit;  oops, it was caught on already before I posted this.

[Virgil Showlion]

I'm split on the issue.

You don't get to choose who you're negotiating to get back. Even if the POW in question is a suspected-deserter-possible-defector like Mr. Bergdahl, he's an American soldier and you follow the established protocols for recovering American soldiers. If Americans are captured and held prisoner in future, they needn't worry that the government believes they deserted and is leaving them for dead.

As for the 5-leaders-to-one-infantryman trade, whoever ultimately procured the "This is absolutely the best deal we can get." assessment should be fired for incompetence. Even a one-to-one exchange for an enemy leader would have been pushing it. I don't think we'll ever know how much of the blame falls on the low-level officials negotiating the trade and how much falls on higher-level officials demanding expediency for sake of political pressure.

As for Pres. Obama himself... The Internet is now home to roughly ten billion photographs of him gladhanding the deserting skunk he got back in exchange for five enemy leaders (by illegally circumventing Congress). There also seems to be considerable evidence that Mr. Bergdahl was a defector, hence the man may be the gift that keeps on giving for Republicans.

[Deleted]

I was under the impression that the US doesn't bargain with terrorists.  Logically my question is , were the Taliban considered terrorists at the time of the trade ?

[Tennesseer]

Mar 29, 2015 8:18:28 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Mar 28, 2015 1:48:03 GMT -5 Ratchets said:

What do you mean by that Virgil?

(I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just don't understand what you mean)

Tennesseer posted (erroneously?) January 20, 1917  in Reply #3   Edit;  oops, it was caught on already before I posted this.

It appears I was off 100 years to the exact day. My error. The intended meaning of the post still stands.

[Deleted]

Mar 29, 2015 9:05:05 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Mar 29, 2015 8:18:28 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Tennesseer posted (erroneously?) January 20, 1917  in Reply #3   Edit;  oops, it was caught on already before I posted this.

It appears I was off 100 years to the exact day. My error. The intended meaning of the post still stands.

I've already done a 1915 when writing a check this year.  Old habits die hard.  Especially when your getting old.