In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
This is the guy who Susan Rice described as "served with honor and distinction"? The same guy the US traded 5 known terrorists for, which the current President defended as he would do it again if given the same opportunity? How ridiculous. The whole prisoner swap was nothing more than a political stun by the Obama administration, and it has now come back to bite them in the ass.
he's still an american soldier, even if he did do those things, it's still within US interest to get him back...
Get him back by trading 5 terrorists, who btw went right back to join the terror networks, without notifying the US Congress? And let's remember all the fanfare which took place soon after his trade... You've got to kidding me. Not to mention that people died looking for his deserted ass.
Can you rule out the fact that whatever fucked up mental issues that led him to think leaving the base was a good idea was caused by being a kid sent out to a war in Afghanistan? Cause most American civilians don't wander off of Afghan army bases. When you put those kids out there you have a responsibility to bring them back.
Not arguing that he should have been brought back. There was not much to content against the possibility that he was being tortured by the taliban. However, it is the extend to which this Obama admin resourced to secure Bergdahl that I have a problem with. You don't trade 5 terrorists for a deserter (if proven guilty, which is highly likely) and then justify it as announcing him as someone who "served with honor and distinction".
do you have info that we don't? cuz chances are more likely that he won't even see court, and probably get a dishonorable discharge. Just because you're charged, doesn't mean you'll go to court.
It would be very difficult to disapprove that Bergdahl did not desert his post. Almost all members of his platoon are on the same page and telling a consistent story against Bergdahl. The most telling factor will be that people have died while searching for him.
This is the guy who Susan Rice described as "served with honor and distinction"? The same guy the US traded 5 known terrorists for, which the current President defended as he would do it again if given the same opportunity? How ridiculous. The whole prisoner swap was nothing more than a political stun by the Obama administration, and it has now come back to bite them in the ass.
he's still an american soldier, even if he did do those things, it's still within US interest to get him back...
Get him back by trading 5 terrorists, who btw went right back to join the terror networks, without notifying the US Congress? And let's remember all the fanfare which took place soon after his trade... You've got to kidding me. Not to mention that people died looking for his deserted ass.
Can you rule out the fact that whatever fucked up mental issues that led him to think leaving the base was a good idea was caused by being a kid sent out to a war in Afghanistan? Cause most American civilians don't wander off of Afghan army bases. When you put those kids out there you have a responsibility to bring them back.
Not arguing that he should have been brought back. There was not much to content against the possibility that he was being tortured by the taliban. However, it is the extend to which this Obama admin resourced to secure Bergdahl that I have a problem with. You don't trade 5 terrorists for a deserter (if proven guilty, which is highly likely) and then justify it as announcing him as someone who "served with honor and distinction".
do you have info that we don't? cuz chances are more likely that he won't even see court, and probably get a dishonorable discharge. Just because you're charged, doesn't mean you'll go to court.
It would be very difficult to disapprove that Bergdahl did not desert his post. Almost all members of his platoon are on the same page and telling a consistent story against Bergdahl. The most telling factor will be that people have died while searching for him.
That is actually the most insignificant fact. It has utterly nothing to do with the question if he deserted his post or not.
This is the guy who Susan Rice described as "served with honor and distinction"? The same guy the US traded 5 known terrorists for, which the current President defended as he would do it again if given the same opportunity? How ridiculous. The whole prisoner swap was nothing more than a political stun by the Obama administration, and it has now come back to bite them in the ass.
he's still an american soldier, even if he did do those things, it's still within US interest to get him back...
Get him back by trading 5 terrorists, who btw went right back to join the terror networks, without notifying the US Congress? And let's remember all the fanfare which took place soon after his trade... You've got to kidding me. Not to mention that people died looking for his deserted ass.
Can you rule out the fact that whatever fucked up mental issues that led him to think leaving the base was a good idea was caused by being a kid sent out to a war in Afghanistan? Cause most American civilians don't wander off of Afghan army bases. When you put those kids out there you have a responsibility to bring them back.
Not arguing that he should have been brought back. There was not much to content against the possibility that he was being tortured by the taliban. However, it is the extend to which this Obama admin resourced to secure Bergdahl that I have a problem with. You don't trade 5 terrorists for a deserter (if proven guilty, which is highly likely) and then justify it as announcing him as someone who "served with honor and distinction".
do you have info that we don't? cuz chances are more likely that he won't even see court, and probably get a dishonorable discharge. Just because you're charged, doesn't mean you'll go to court.
It would be very difficult to disapprove that Bergdahl did not desert his post. Almost all members of his platoon are on the same page and telling a consistent story against Bergdahl. The most telling factor will be that people have died while searching for him.
Of all of the debatable points in this line (and there were a LOT of them) this is the one that I cant even wrap my head around. How is it that if people died searching for someone, which is sort of true but also sort of not but that is another topic at hand, that it means you deserted your unit? Is it impossible for soldiers to die searching for an MIA soldier who did not desert his post? I just do not understand the train of thought here at all.
This is the guy who Susan Rice described as "served with honor and distinction"? The same guy the US traded 5 known terrorists for, which the current President defended as he would do it again if given the same opportunity? How ridiculous. The whole prisoner swap was nothing more than a political stun by the Obama administration, and it has now come back to bite them in the ass.
He's lucky they aren't pushing for the death penalty. His desertion led to the release of 5 known terrorists.
I'm surprised they aren't hitting him with a treason charge as well as desertion.
Don't talk about things you obviously don't understand. This is the talk of someone who has no idea how the legal charge of treason works at all. Desertion is going to be hard enough to prove on its own lol.....it's as though you think the standard goes "guilty until proven innocent."
Court martials are much harsher than civilian trials. They have much less trouble convicting.
That literally means nothing relative to the case at hand. He is still not presumed guilty merely because this is a military trial.
I don't understand any narrative here in which he is anything other than the victim, and the soldiers who died searching for him are also victims.
Do we really think that he wandered out into hostile territory knowing he would be taken prisoner and be at the mercy of the enemy for personal gain? That it was something he was always going to plan to do? That he joined the army as a way of getting free airfare out to Afghanistan so he could be closer to his goal of being a Taliban prisoner?
Step one in any explanation for why he became a prisoner of the Taliban is always "he volunteered to serve his country" and everything that follows is a direct result of that.
On March 26 2015 10:24 KwarK wrote: I don't understand any narrative here in which he is anything other than the victim, and the soldiers who died searching for him are also victims.
Do we really think that he wandered out into hostile territory knowing he would be taken prisoner and be at the mercy of the enemy for personal gain? That it was something he was always going to plan to do? That he joined the army as a way of getting free airfare out to Afghanistan so he could be closer to his goal of being a Taliban prisoner?
Step one in any explanation for why he became a prisoner of the Taliban is always "he volunteered to serve his country" and everything that follows is a direct result of that.
Of course he didn't want to be captured, but deserting his post is still a crime, even if he wasn't planning on being captured or trying to defect or something.
If he couldn't handle being in the military, there are ways to get out without getting people killed.
This is the guy who Susan Rice described as "served with honor and distinction"? The same guy the US traded 5 known terrorists for, which the current President defended as he would do it again if given the same opportunity? How ridiculous. The whole prisoner swap was nothing more than a political stun by the Obama administration, and it has now come back to bite them in the ass.
he's still an american soldier, even if he did do those things, it's still within US interest to get him back...
Get him back by trading 5 terrorists, who btw went right back to join the terror networks, without notifying the US Congress? And let's remember all the fanfare which took place soon after his trade... You've got to kidding me. Not to mention that people died looking for his deserted ass.
Can you rule out the fact that whatever fucked up mental issues that led him to think leaving the base was a good idea was caused by being a kid sent out to a war in Afghanistan? Cause most American civilians don't wander off of Afghan army bases. When you put those kids out there you have a responsibility to bring them back.
Not arguing that he should have been brought back. There was not much to content against the possibility that he was being tortured by the taliban. However, it is the extend to which this Obama admin resourced to secure Bergdahl that I have a problem with. You don't trade 5 terrorists for a deserter (if proven guilty, which is highly likely) and then justify it as announcing him as someone who "served with honor and distinction".
do you have info that we don't? cuz chances are more likely that he won't even see court, and probably get a dishonorable discharge. Just because you're charged, doesn't mean you'll go to court.
It would be very difficult to disapprove that Bergdahl did not desert his post. Almost all members of his platoon are on the same page and telling a consistent story against Bergdahl. The most telling factor will be that people have died while searching for him.
That is actually the most insignificant fact. It has utterly nothing to do with the question if he deserted his post or not.
In pure legal perspective, it has no bearing. However, this fact has riled up the military community particularly those whose statements could directly impact the outcome of the preliminary hearing.
On March 26 2015 10:24 KwarK wrote: I don't understand any narrative here in which he is anything other than the victim, and the soldiers who died searching for him are also victims.
Do we really think that he wandered out into hostile territory knowing he would be taken prisoner and be at the mercy of the enemy for personal gain? That it was something he was always going to plan to do? That he joined the army as a way of getting free airfare out to Afghanistan so he could be closer to his goal of being a Taliban prisoner?
Step one in any explanation for why he became a prisoner of the Taliban is always "he volunteered to serve his country" and everything that follows is a direct result of that.
Pretty much everything is speculative at the moment, but those who are close to him in Army - his current and past co-workers - appear to be all on the same page.
This is the guy who Susan Rice described as "served with honor and distinction"? The same guy the US traded 5 known terrorists for, which the current President defended as he would do it again if given the same opportunity? How ridiculous. The whole prisoner swap was nothing more than a political stun by the Obama administration, and it has now come back to bite them in the ass.
He's lucky they aren't pushing for the death penalty. His desertion led to the release of 5 known terrorists.
I'm surprised they aren't hitting him with a treason charge as well as desertion.
Don't talk about things you obviously don't understand. This is the talk of someone who has no idea how the legal charge of treason works at all. Desertion is going to be hard enough to prove on its own lol.....it's as though you think the standard goes "guilty until proven innocent."
Court martials are much harsher than civilian trials. They have much less trouble convicting.
the standard for treason is spelled out in the constitution, and he doesn't meet the criteria for it.
On March 26 2015 10:24 KwarK wrote: I don't understand any narrative here in which he is anything other than the victim, and the soldiers who died searching for him are also victims.
Do we really think that he wandered out into hostile territory knowing he would be taken prisoner and be at the mercy of the enemy for personal gain? That it was something he was always going to plan to do? That he joined the army as a way of getting free airfare out to Afghanistan so he could be closer to his goal of being a Taliban prisoner?
Step one in any explanation for why he became a prisoner of the Taliban is always "he volunteered to serve his country" and everything that follows is a direct result of that.
Of course he didn't want to be captured, but deserting his post is still a crime, even if he wasn't planning on being captured or trying to defect or something.
If he couldn't handle being in the military, there are ways to get out without getting people killed.
On March 26 2015 10:24 KwarK wrote: I don't understand any narrative here in which he is anything other than the victim, and the soldiers who died searching for him are also victims.
Do we really think that he wandered out into hostile territory knowing he would be taken prisoner and be at the mercy of the enemy for personal gain? That it was something he was always going to plan to do? That he joined the army as a way of getting free airfare out to Afghanistan so he could be closer to his goal of being a Taliban prisoner?
Step one in any explanation for why he became a prisoner of the Taliban is always "he volunteered to serve his country" and everything that follows is a direct result of that.
Of course he didn't want to be captured, but deserting his post is still a crime, even if he wasn't planning on being captured or trying to defect or something.
If he couldn't handle being in the military, there are ways to get out without getting people killed.
And he's still a victim nonetheless.
You can be a victim and still be a criminal. Two wrongs don't make a right.
On March 26 2015 10:24 KwarK wrote: I don't understand any narrative here in which he is anything other than the victim, and the soldiers who died searching for him are also victims.
Do we really think that he wandered out into hostile territory knowing he would be taken prisoner and be at the mercy of the enemy for personal gain? That it was something he was always going to plan to do? That he joined the army as a way of getting free airfare out to Afghanistan so he could be closer to his goal of being a Taliban prisoner?
Step one in any explanation for why he became a prisoner of the Taliban is always "he volunteered to serve his country" and everything that follows is a direct result of that.
Of course he didn't want to be captured, but deserting his post is still a crime, even if he wasn't planning on being captured or trying to defect or something.
If he couldn't handle being in the military, there are ways to get out without getting people killed.
And he's still a victim nonetheless.
You can be a victim and still be a criminal. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Sure but a shitton of people seem to be calling for blood, here on tl someone said he should be given to ISIS who burn people alive in cages. None of this would have happened if he hadn't been willing to volunteer to go to war for his country and that should be noted. He signed up to serve, got fucked in the head by war the way an awful lot of people do and here we are.
This feels very vindictive. I wonder if they thought he would have some insight about the Taliban and didn't or refused to talk about it, or if he has done something to indicate his bitterness with the army or the US in general and he pissed off the wrong people.
He came home months ago and it is curious that the charges are being brought just now.
On March 26 2015 12:55 coverpunch wrote: This feels very vindictive. I wonder if they thought he would have some insight about the Taliban and didn't or refused to talk about it, or if he has done something to indicate his bitterness with the army or the US in general and he pissed off the wrong people.
He came home months ago and it is curious that the charges are being brought just now.
in criminal cases in general it's not uncommon for months to pass before charges are filed, at least for major things. I don't know why it takes so long. I wouldn't think it would take SO long to make sure everything is ready for a trial. This is probably a bit more pronounced in high profile cases where you really want to make sure you have everything prepared.
On March 25 2015 13:56 Aveng3r wrote: Guy on deadspin writes "shouldn't cops have to treat those that they shoot?"
Kinda seems like a decent idea. has a motion like this ever been passed around congress?
Then Sermakola made it into a "cops have to kill suspects as effective as they can to keep us all safe, because fuck suspects"
So please stop discussing "total disarmament" or some kind of ridiculous straw man and focus on the brought up issue: should police serve and protect, even criminals and suspects?
The problem with that is there is a HUGE difference between the inner city and outer city. inner city cops are often paid barly above minimum wage and are told to risk their lives with a gun and a bullet proof vest in a city filled with people who don't like them and that they don't understand. Outer city cops are paid middle class wages can measure the last murder in decades and can actually give a crap about them.
If you want more information about it I would suggest that people watch the documentary "cocaine cowboys" and then something about the Hollywood shootout. cops with handguns and shirts were being slaughtered by guys with automatic drum fed ak-47's bullet proof vests. Both are good information on the militarization of cops in america.
The two charges are important in conjunction because desertion carries a max penalty of five years in prison with possible reduction in rank and loss of pay and allowances. Misbehavior before the enemy carries a max penalty of life in prison with a complete reduction in rank to private, a dishonorable discharge, and total forfeiture of pay and allowances. From the early reports, it looks like the military is pursuing the maximum penalties of life in prison with total forfeiture of pay since his disappearance and a dishonorable discharge, ensuring he gets nothing for his time and will never get reasonable employment ever again.
On March 26 2015 09:00 puerk wrote: You guys are missing the point. The question that started this discussion was:
On March 25 2015 13:56 Aveng3r wrote: Guy on deadspin writes "shouldn't cops have to treat those that they shoot?"
Kinda seems like a decent idea. has a motion like this ever been passed around congress?
Then Sermakola made it into a "cops have to kill suspects as effective as they can to keep us all safe, because fuck suspects"
So please stop discussing "total disarmament" or some kind of ridiculous straw man and focus on the brought up issue: should police serve and protect, even criminals and suspects?
The problem with that is there is a HUGE difference between the inner city and outer city. inner city cops are often paid barly above minimum wage and are told to risk their lives with a gun and a bullet proof vest in a city filled with people who don't like them and that they don't understand. Outer city cops are paid middle class wages can measure the last murder in decades and can actually give a crap about them.
If you want more information about it I would suggest that people watch the documentary "cocaine cowboys" and then something about the Hollywood shootout. cops with handguns and shirts were being slaughtered by guys with automatic drum fed ak-47's bullet proof vests. Both are good information on the militarization of cops in america.
The Hollywood Shootout was almost 20 years ago... Since then how many automatic drum fed AK's have been turned on police? You really are going to stick with the scared, confused, children as cops shtick eh? "Risk their lives" is also pretty silly. We don't have all the fanfare around the more dangerous and deadly jobs so cops shouldn't get it either (or they all should). Not to mention it's still practically safer to be a cop than it is to live in Baltimore.
There is no just rationalization for the militarization, systematic oppression, or flagrant constitutional violations of/by police. If there was one, it definitely wouldn't be that they are scared, confused, man sized children paranoid about being caught in Hollywood style shootouts.
On March 26 2015 09:00 puerk wrote: You guys are missing the point. The question that started this discussion was:
On March 25 2015 13:56 Aveng3r wrote: Guy on deadspin writes "shouldn't cops have to treat those that they shoot?"
Kinda seems like a decent idea. has a motion like this ever been passed around congress?
Then Sermakola made it into a "cops have to kill suspects as effective as they can to keep us all safe, because fuck suspects"
So please stop discussing "total disarmament" or some kind of ridiculous straw man and focus on the brought up issue: should police serve and protect, even criminals and suspects?
The problem with that is there is a HUGE difference between the inner city and outer city. inner city cops are often paid barly above minimum wage and are told to risk their lives with a gun and a bullet proof vest in a city filled with people who don't like them and that they don't understand. Outer city cops are paid middle class wages can measure the last murder in decades and can actually give a crap about them.
If you want more information about it I would suggest that people watch the documentary "cocaine cowboys" and then something about the Hollywood shootout. cops with handguns and shirts were being slaughtered by guys with automatic drum fed ak-47's bullet proof vests. Both are good information on the militarization of cops in america.
If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Such professionalism, much wow:
As it seems to not have been posted in this thread: http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-w0753-pub.pdf It is only Philadelphia, but it expands and explains the points GreenHorizons was already making, and it is from a law enforcement perspective.
Finding: Incidents involving discourtesy, use of force, and allegations of bias by PPD officers leave segments of the community feeling disenfranchised and distrustful of the police department (finding 17) . Recommendation: PPD’s academy should significantly increase the scope and duration of its training on core and advanced community oriented policing concepts (recommendation 17.1).
EPT
