Bowe Bergdahl- POW or Deserter?

[carlfense]

So, in a potentially life and death situation, you're cool with sufficient proof? Huh, interesting.


I've got what, exactly, all wrapped up? Wait for what?

Sufficient proof is all we ever have, sir. Set the line (beyond a reasonable doubt works) and if you cross that line the proof is sufficient. (For that matter, all that you're requiring is sufficient proof. It's just that you set your bar at what you say is definite . . . but that word doesn't mean what you think that it means.)

There is no certainty beyond death, taxes, and that 1995 Nebraska was the best college football team to ever walk the face of the earth.

Wait for results. Why on earth are you in such a hurry to rush to judgment? What can be gained? I can sure tell you what could be lost.

I certainly hope you're not inferring that I don't believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers. If you are, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just because everything I've seen and heard points to his guilt, he still deserves to defend himself.

Then why are you so anxious for everyone to say that he is definitely, undoubtedly, certainly a deserter?

 

[wildman]

Maybe it has been said already but the US government owes it to every family to bring every person serving home. Dead or alive. Regardless of what their standing is within their platoon, company, brigade, battalion, social media, etc.I don't know if trading the 5 guys they traded was the best laid plan or not. I don't know what the going rate on prisoner exchanges are but he's back now and that is what matters. If it comes to light that he deserted, it will be handled appropriately.

At what price for this cat?

Who gets to notify the KIA's parents that their son died searching for a deserter?

Is the life of a soldier who has served honorably worth that of a deserter?

As I mentioned before, I don't know what the going rate is. Was he classified as a deserter when they sent these troops out looking for him?

to my knowledge at time of war the moment you go missing your classified as a deserter. When you return would need to prove why you were not where you were suppose to be and that you had full intent of returning. Which would make you awol or excused for your absence. When we are not at war the moment you go missing your classified as awol. Then follow the same procedures to prove why you did what you did.

The issue is going to lie with is what is deemed a war. Are we considered at war now via UCMJ or is it just called a war and were only just a occupying force. Depending on UCMJ and his commanders is going to determine if he is reported awol or as a deserter.

I've never read nor seen the report. So I personally can't say how he was reported. With his fellow troops stating he was a deserter tells me one of two things. 1. He was reported as a deserter and commander stated this while briefing the troops on the missions to find him. 2. The troops are stating this cause some barracks lawyer [for the non military people, this is an insult] told them he was a deserter.

 

[MidnightRider]

So, in a potentially life and death situation, you're cool with sufficient proof? Huh, interesting.


I've got what, exactly, all wrapped up? Wait for what?

Sufficient proof is all we ever have, sir. Set the line (beyond a reasonable doubt works) and if you cross that line the proof is sufficient. (For that matter, all that you're requiring is sufficient proof. It's just that you set your bar at what you say is definite . . . but that word doesn't mean what you think that it means.)

There is no certainty beyond death, taxes, and that 1995 Nebraska was the best college football team to ever walk the face of the earth.

Wait for results. Why on earth are you in such a hurry to rush to judgment? What can be gained? I can sure tell you what could be lost.

I certainly hope you're not inferring that I don't believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers. If you are, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just because everything I've seen and heard points to his guilt, he still deserves to defend himself.

Then why are you so anxious for everyone to say that he is definitely, undoubtedly, certainly a deserter?

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

 

[Junior]

So, in a potentially life and death situation, you're cool with sufficient proof? Huh, interesting.


I've got what, exactly, all wrapped up? Wait for what?

Sufficient proof is all we ever have, sir. Set the line (beyond a reasonable doubt works) and if you cross that line the proof is sufficient. (For that matter, all that you're requiring is sufficient proof. It's just that you set your bar at what you say is definite . . . but that word doesn't mean what you think that it means.)

There is no certainty beyond death, taxes, and that 1995 Nebraska was the best college football team to ever walk the face of the earth.

Wait for results. Why on earth are you in such a hurry to rush to judgment? What can be gained? I can sure tell you what could be lost.

I certainly hope you're not inferring that I don't believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers. If you are, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just because everything I've seen and heard points to his guilt, he still deserves to defend himself.

Then why are you so anxious for everyone to say that he is definitely, undoubtedly, certainly a deserter?

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

Can you link to an article describing what the original investigators found?

 

[carlfense]

So, in a potentially life and death situation, you're cool with sufficient proof? Huh, interesting.


I've got what, exactly, all wrapped up? Wait for what?

Sufficient proof is all we ever have, sir. Set the line (beyond a reasonable doubt works) and if you cross that line the proof is sufficient. (For that matter, all that you're requiring is sufficient proof. It's just that you set your bar at what you say is definite . . . but that word doesn't mean what you think that it means.)

There is no certainty beyond death, taxes, and that 1995 Nebraska was the best college football team to ever walk the face of the earth.

Wait for results. Why on earth are you in such a hurry to rush to judgment? What can be gained? I can sure tell you what could be lost.

I certainly hope you're not inferring that I don't believe he deserves a fair and speedy trial by a jury of his peers. If you are, you couldn't be further from the truth. Just because everything I've seen and heard points to his guilt, he still deserves to defend himself.

Then why are you so anxious for everyone to say that he is definitely, undoubtedly, certainly a deserter?

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

sigh.

 

[knapplc]

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

The entire disconnect in this thread can be traced to "because he is."

You're averring that he IS a deserter. Pretty much everyone else is saying he likely is a deserter.

After that line, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with your stance. We're just half a step behind you on the "guilty" path.

 

[wildman]

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

The entire disconnect in this thread can be traced to "because he is."

You're averring that he IS a deserter. Pretty much everyone else is saying he likely is a deserter.

After that line, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with your stance. We're just half a step behind you on the "guilty" path.

well said +1

The more I hear about this the more I fear about his situation. If he is a deserter, plus was with the taliban for 5 years. Has me worried he could of been feeding them intel, which is why he is still alive. If so then it could of cause deaths of American soldiers or worse. Help plan future attacks on American soil.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

The entire disconnect in this thread can be traced to "because he is."

You're averring that he IS a deserter. Pretty much everyone else is saying he likely is a deserter.

After that line, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with your stance. We're just half a step behind you on the "guilty" path.

well said +1

The more I hear about this the more I fear about his situation. If he is a deserter, plus was with the taliban for 5 years. Has me worried he could of been feeding them intel, which is why he is still alive. If so then it could of cause deaths of American soldiers or worse. Help plan future attacks on American soil.

The flip side to that is now we interrogate him and he feeds us intel.

 

[HUSKER FREAK]

The only thing I am concerned with is that our president made the trade of the five prisoners for this guy without a good plan in place.

 

[wildman]

The only thing I am concerned with is that our president made the trade of the five prisoners for this guy without a good plan in place.

that concerns me as well. Cause if could of gotten more soldiers killed. But lately i've been hearing some rumblings amongst friends. That apparently Obama did this with out approval from congress, if so he could face jail time. Has anyone else heard anything like this?

 

[darkhorse85]

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

The entire disconnect in this thread can be traced to "because he is."

You're averring that he IS a deserter. Pretty much everyone else is saying he likely is a deserter.

After that line, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with your stance. We're just half a step behind you on the "guilty" path.

well said +1

The more I hear about this the more I fear about his situation. If he is a deserter, plus was with the taliban for 5 years. Has me worried he could of been feeding them intel, which is why he is still alive. If so then it could of cause deaths of American soldiers or worse. Help plan future attacks on American soil.

I doubt he could tell them much. He was what, a private, when he walked off? I doubt he had much information he could give them much plus as you know the battlefield is ever evolving and not much stays the same for long periods of time. Whatever intel he coudl havbe provided woudln't have kept him alive for five years. I see him as a bargaining chip and nothing more. I could very well be wrong but I just don't see a privates knowledge keeping the captors fed with intel for five years. I barely knew my a$$ from a hole in the ground as a private.

 

[MidnightRider]

The only thing I am concerned with is that our president made the trade of the five prisoners for this guy without a good plan in place.

that concerns me as well. Cause if could of gotten more soldiers killed. But lately i've been hearing some rumblings amongst friends. That apparently Obama did this with out approval from congress, if so he could face jail time. Has anyone else heard anything like this?

Yes, he most definitely did this without the approval of Congress. Jail time though? That's laughable.

 

[carlfense]

But lately i've been hearing some rumblings amongst friends. That apparently Obama did this with out approval from congress, if so he could face jail time. Has anyone else heard anything like this?

It depends on whether Congress can legally require approval under these circumstances.

Jail time? No.

 

[wildman]

Becasue he is.That doesn't mean he doesn't deserve a trial and the right to defend himself though, because he absolutely does. Who knows, a jury may find differently than the initial investigation? Since that hasn't happened up to this point, I'll go with what the initial investigators found.

Just to be clear, I do NOT advocate any type of punishment for this dude until he gets his day in court and then, only if he is found guilty. There, does that help so we don't have to keep muddying the waters with inferences of what some think, I think?

The entire disconnect in this thread can be traced to "because he is."

You're averring that he IS a deserter. Pretty much everyone else is saying he likely is a deserter.

After that line, I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees with your stance. We're just half a step behind you on the "guilty" path.

well said +1

The more I hear about this the more I fear about his situation. If he is a deserter, plus was with the taliban for 5 years. Has me worried he could of been feeding them intel, which is why he is still alive. If so then it could of cause deaths of American soldiers or worse. Help plan future attacks on American soil.

I doubt he could tell them much. He was what, a private, when he walked off? I doubt he had much information he could give them much plus as you know the battlefield is ever evolving and not much stays the same for long periods of time. Whatever intel he coudl havbe provided woudln't have kept him alive for five years. I see him as a bargaining chip and nothing more. I could very well be wrong but I just don't see a privates knowledge keeping the captors fed with intel for five years. I barely knew my a$$ from a hole in the ground as a private.

I was the same way....sadly so seemed most of the officers lol. But he could give them what he knew about the units on ground. Not to mention intel about possible targets state side. I hope to god i'm wrong but is a possibility. If he's being used as nothing but a bargaining chip. Then why wait 5 years to cash it in.

 

[darkhorse85]

U.S. Army Major General (two star) Kenneth Dahl has been tasked to lead the investigation of Bergdahl leaving his base in Afghanistan.