This whole thing stinks of something, but I can't put my finger on it.
I agree. Nothing is as it seems. There are clearly two contradictory stories going on. The amount of press coverage in just 24 -48 hours is amazing. To the point where the press already has pictures of the soldiers that allegedly died while searching for him. It's almost as if somebody was prepared to release a counter narrative to the administrations decision to do the prisoner swap.
What if you are the parents of 1 of the 6 that were killed, or the other members of his troop that put themselves in harms way to try and find him. How do you feel today knowing he ran away of his own accord, ...
The 6 chose to be there.
Bergdhal changed his mind.
Of course, you are a criminal if you grow a conscience in the military and wish to no longer participate.
All I'm saying is that anyone who decides that what they are doing is wrong, should be allowed to leave.
The other troops would be safer without these people.
Or worse, their words of right and wrong might contaminate the rest.
Of course, you are a criminal if you grow a conscience in the military and wish to no longer participate.
All I'm saying is that anyone who decides that what they are doing is wrong, should be allowed to leave.
The other troops would be safer without these people.
Or worse, their words of right and wrong might contaminate the rest.
I guess taking an oath and abiding by a set of rules that you swore to uphold means nothing to you. If you object to what is going on in a combat zone, there are procedures to follow... one of them is not just deciding to walk off base. Being in the Military is not like working at Sears where if you get pissed with the job, you can't just walk out with no consequence to others.
The other six were looking for a , at that time, lost comrade. If he doesn't leave like that, they don't get involved in search operations and possibly don't get killed. He has their blood on his hands.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
Apparently you still don't see the value of allowing those who realize what they are doing is wrong, to leave.
And no, I don't think a sworn oath should outweigh a person's conscience.
In fact I believe it should be encouraged for all persons to base decisions on their own conscience.
This was not a case of someone disagreeing and wanting out. He walked off the base with the intent of meeting the Taliban. That is not the actions of someone that feels his role in the war is not just. His videos while with Taliban and apparently pretty good treatment speak volumes.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Apparently you still don't see the value of allowing those who realize what they are doing is wrong, to leave.
And no, I don't think a sworn oath should outweigh a person's conscience.
In fact I believe it should be encouraged for all persons to base decisions on their own conscience.
LOL...Try that sworn oath vs conscience theory in a court of law and see how far you get As far aswhat I bolded in your post...Your reading comprehension sucks... where did I say that? I do see a value in that, but FOLLOW the process and don't put others in harm's way because of YOUR actions or decision
If I want to come in to your house, do I a: ring the doorbell? or b: bust your f'ing door down and come in that way?
No harm comes to you if I follow plan A, you can choose to answer the doorbell or ignore it You're paying for a door if I choose plan B.
What's so hard to understand?
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
LOL...Try that sworn oath vs conscience theory in a court of law and see how far you get As far aswhat I bolded in your post...Your reading comprehension sucks... where did I say that? I do see a value in that, but FOLLOW the process and don't put others in harm's way because of YOUR actions or decision
If I want to come in to your house, do I a: ring the doorbell? or b: bust your f'ing door down and come in that way?
No harm comes to you if I follow plan A, you can choose to answer the doorbell or ignore it You're paying for a door if I choose plan B.
What's so hard to understand?
Based on some articles I've read, there are claims that they searched for this guy for 30-35 days. Based on joebxr's experiences, that doesn't seem like the SOP for deserters - maybe for defectors. This sounds more like combat missions to detain him, not rescue him.
If the people died on missions to detain a defector(now enemy combatant) then they died in combat.
For whatever reason, the Army wasn't willing to label this person an enemy combatant.
Side note: I also find it interesting that Michael Hastings of Rolling Stone Mag was reporting on this guy.
Based on some articles I've read, there are claims that they searched for this guy for 30-35 days. Based on joebxr's experiences, that doesn't seem like the SOP for deserters - maybe for defectors. This sounds more like combat missions to detain him, not rescue him.
My statements DO NOT support your assumptions. You cannot compare apples with rocks. You do not rationalize your thoughts with reasoning.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
My statements DO NOT support your assumptions. You cannot compare apples with rocks. You do not rationalize your thoughts with reasoning.
It's circumstantial evidence. You and box have first hand knowledge of how deserters have been handled in the past. Maybe things have changed in 40 years. But based on the recent articles, it sounds like there are some pissed off soldiers because people died looking for a deserter.
Not to mention, these soldiers had to sign a gag order so they couldn't talk publicly about there search mission. But now they are talking. Why?
It's circumstantial evidence. You and box have first hand knowledge of how deserters have been handled in the past. Maybe things have changed in 40 years. But based on the recent articles, it sounds like there are some pissed off soldiers because people died looking for a deserter.
Not to mention, these soldiers had to sign a gag order so they couldn't talk publicly about there search mission. But now they are talking. Why?
Probably the same reason that Bergdahl used when he walked away from his post (which you seem to support)... their conscience.
"Arguing with liberals is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock out the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it is victorious." - Author Unknown
It's circumstantial evidence. You and box have first hand knowledge of how deserters have been handled in the past. Maybe things have changed in 40 years. But based on the recent articles, it sounds like there are some pissed off soldiers because people died looking for a deserter.
Not to mention, these soldiers had to sign a gag order so they couldn't talk publicly about there search mission. But now they are talking. Why?
It's not circumstantial anything. You cannot compare Vietnam action to Afghan. Of course you think you know it all, but you are so far from reality on this topic that you might fall off the earth! If you had been part of it you would understand...since you were not a part of it you will never understand!
Not sure such a thing as gag orders were in place, but discussing actions are not allowed to prevent compromising our troops.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
It's not circumstantial anything. You cannot compare Vietnam action to Afghan. Of course you think you know it all, but you are so far from reality on this topic that you might fall off the earth! If you had been part of it you would understand...since you were not a part of it you will never understand!
Not sure such a thing as gag orders were in place, but discussing actions are not allowed to prevent compromising our troops.
Quoted Text
CNN’s Jake Tapper also reported that many of Bergdahl's fellow troops signed nondisclosure agreements agreeing to never share any information about Bergdahl's disappearance and the efforts to recapture him.
Bethea explained that now he was safe, more soldiers would be trying to tell the truth of his disappearance.
BBC interviewed Bethea after he wrote an article for the Daily Beast, asserting that Bergdahl was a deserter.
“He is safe, and now it is time to speak the truth,” he wrote. “And that the truth is: Bergdahl was a deserter, and soldiers from his own unit died trying to track him down.”
Probably the same reason that Bergdahl used when he walked away from his post (which you seem to support)... their conscience.
I don't support it. I don't care one way or the other. This isn't the first deserter in American history. My fascination is with the disconnect between the commander in chief's take on the situation and that of those that served with him. Somebody is lying...Who and why?
Why are soldiers required to sign a non disclosure agreement?
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that President Obama "clearly broke the law" in his efforts to free American POW Bowe Bergdahl, the Huffington Post reports.
Said Toobin: "I think he clearly broke the law. The law says 30-days' notice. Give 30 days' notice. Now, it is true that he issued a signing statement, but signing statements are not law. Signing statements are the president's opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander in chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books, and he didn't follow it."
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said that President Obama "clearly broke the law" in his efforts to free American POW Bowe Bergdahl, the Huffington Post reports.
Said Toobin: "I think he clearly broke the law. The law says 30-days' notice. Give 30 days' notice. Now, it is true that he issued a signing statement, but signing statements are not law. Signing statements are the president's opinion about what the law should mean. Now, it may be that the law is unconstitutional, a violation of his power as commander in chief, but no court has held that. The law is on the books, and he didn't follow it."
That's funny...Obama didn't follow his own signature legislation - Obamacare. He ignored all kinds of implementation deadlines written into the law. But...this is the first example of his lawlessness.
Logged
