I just noticed something

[earlycuyler]

Hm. This one has drifted all over.

1. Any Marine who has been to 29 palms as well as us Sea Bees knew it was not a good idea to be in Mexican jail. We know not to get lost in or around the border with Mexico. And most of the dumbest guys my age have heard and know that according to the laws of our country that,

"Ignorantia juris non excusat"

So sorry, stupid is as stupid does. Why should we expect anymore of a third world shit hole?

This Marines case has no Bering here at all.

 

[LoneLaugher]

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it.

Are you kidding? Link to it, loser.

You dare him? Fuck....you are a tool.

 

[LoneLaugher]

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.

Bullshit. You are full of shit. You insult everyone here by thinking this line of bullshit will be bought.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ahh yes. Renouncing citizenship does not absolve him of the crimes he committed against the US. But even still, when he is tried, he won't have his constitutional rights. In effect, he is stateless. He lacks the protection of any government. Therefore, he has no rights anywhere.

So, if we wanted to, we could have captured him and executed him on the spot, not only for his desertion, but treason.

Where in the Constitution does it say that non-citizens don't have the same rights as citizens?

Are Constitutional rights "inalienable" and from god, or are they just figments bestowed only on citizens by various governments?

Pretty much everywhere, which is why they can't vote.

Any other stupid questions?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

1. My point precisely. So if they have nothing to gain from his detention, why are they holding him? Perhaps they want some sort of leverage over the US in some thing or another. What it might be is anyone's guess.

2. Prove that this is "accepted knowledge" then we can go forward. There are accusations that he was funneled into Mexico. In that case any charges against him would be illegitimate.

3. Then by that statement alone, you rendered your first point invalid.

4. Actually, Cody Full and Gerald Sutton aren't retired. They were his platoon mates, they both contend he deserted. You have others in his platoon making the same allegations. Colonel David Hunt has 29 years operational experience in the field, and is privy to classified information on the subject. I take his word over anyone else's. I also have the CIA expressing concerns that Bergdahl did in fact desert.

I have witnesses, an intelligence agency and a source privy to classified information saying that he deserted. But until a military trial is convened, I cannot assert one way or another.

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.

I've read it.

That doesn't change the position that you've been actively arguing in this thread - which is what I've been responding to. Whether or not it's your "real" position is irrelevant.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Well, a lot is impossible to really know. Was he abused? He says he was, but there's no other evidence. He says his lawyer told him to "lie" about how many times he was in Mexico. Maybe so. Maybe also his lawyer had a deal with the Mexican authorities to let him go. Maybe the marine is guilty of something. We don't know. We don't know what the DOS has done with Mexico. We certainly have no right to demand they let the guy go, which some of the RW loony brigade here posited last week. Imo, at times TK has asserted certainty when none existed.

Yes, yes I have. But in this case I know I'm right. How many times must I state and restate the evidence here?

Huh? Is that your way of arguing both sides?

Tired bullshit.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.

I've read it.

That doesn't change the position that you've been actively arguing in this thread - which is what I've been responding to. Whether or not it's your "real" position is irrelevant.

Man.....you are one really classy dude. Kudos.

 

[TemplarKormac]

"According to Mexican authorities..."

So what makes you think they are telling the truth? Their system works on 'guilty until proven innocent.'

"He's being held because he broke Mexican law"

How can you prove he broke Mexican law? He had no intent of being there or smuggling weapons anywhere. If my knowledge serves, intent is key in convicting anyone of a crime. Correct me if I'm wrong.

"According to our legal system..."

What I have heard so far is that we should respect the Mexican Justice System in this matter. All we've heard from them is that he is 'not innocent.' We've heard from him that he has been mistreated.

"You are not in a position to offer judgement in either case..."

Are you? You want to talk down to me as if I know little to nothing, but my history here shows I do tons of research. Do you have sufficient information to form a conclusion? I don't make conclusions wantonly. I rarely debate on emotion alone.

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Might I correct you on one thing though?

I don't derive my interpretation of the facts purely on opinion alone. When it comes to history, I know my history because I've studied it. I know the history of American jurisprudence, because I've studied it. My knowledge of English and Literature don't come from opinions, it comes from understanding.

I've dabbled in Human Anatomy and Physiology, Astronomy and Meteorology, Computer Technology, Programming and Internet Technology. So suffice it to say I don't take opinion as fact. If and when I do, I work to correct it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For God's sakes, is TK now actually arguing FOR killing US citizens with no Due Process? My, how conservative.

Sure, then you can explain why Obama killed Anwar Al Awlaki without his due process rights. My, how liberal of you.

Was he a prisoner? Was he in custody?

What right not to be killed does an enemy of the US, in time of war, have, actually?

Damn, that was an incredibly stupid serious of moronic questions just to prove that you are an idiot, wouldn't it be simpler just to say it straight up?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Might I correct you on one thing though?

I don't derive my interpretation of the facts purely on opinion alone. When it comes to history, I know my history because I've studied it. I know the history of American jurisprudence, because I've studied it. My knowledge of English and Literature don't come from opinions, it comes from understanding.

I've dabbled in Human Anatomy and Physiology, Astronomy and Meteorology, Computer Technology, Programming and Internet Technology. So suffice it to say I don't take opinion as fact. If and when I do, I work to correct it.

I'm not accusing you of any intellectual failings, TK. I'm sure there are plenty of topics that you know quite a bit about, through study and research.

I'm simply saying that this is the sort of thing that it's nearly impossible to "do research" on. The information needed to fill in the blanks is simply not available.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nobody here thinks you do tons of research. Trust me.

All you do is "debate" on emotion. This thread is clear evidence.

I disagree. I'm sure that TK has done a lot a "research", in the sense that he's read a lot of different opinions on the subject from various pundits on both sides.

The problem is that all that shows is what various other people think about the situation, not anything close to the objective reality of the situations.

Might I correct you on one thing though?

I don't derive my interpretation of the facts purely on opinion alone. When it comes to history, I know my history because I've studied it. I know the history of American jurisprudence, because I've studied it. My knowledge of English and Literature don't come from opinions, it comes from understanding.

I've dabbled in Human Anatomy and Physiology, Astronomy and Meteorology, Computer Technology, Programming and Internet Technology. So suffice it to say I don't take opinion as fact. If and when I do, I work to correct it.

Please list your degrees. Please capitalize History when you do so. Thanks.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And yet, you've been doing just that this entire thread.

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.

I've read it.

That doesn't change the position that you've been actively arguing in this thread - which is what I've been responding to. Whether or not it's your "real" position is irrelevant.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it is relevant. I believe you simply do not care for the fact that I am bouncing from one end of the spectrum to another trying to get a clear view on the subject.

Believe it or not, I've agreed with with the "wait and see" approach. Drawing from knowledge on court processes and logical reasoning, it is only reasonable to wait until the facts are debated in controlled setting. My personal opinion is that he's guilty, but my better judgement tells me to 'wait and see.'

 

[LoneLaugher]

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.

I've read it.

That doesn't change the position that you've been actively arguing in this thread - which is what I've been responding to. Whether or not it's your "real" position is irrelevant.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it is relevant. I believe you simply do not care for the fact that I am bouncing from one end of the spectrum to another trying to get a clear view on the subject.

Believe it or not, I've agreed with with the "wait and see" approach. Drawing from knowledge on court processes and logical reasoning, it is only reasonable to wait until the facts are debated in controlled setting. My personal opinion is that he's guilty, but my better judgement tells me to 'wait and see.'

It's obvious. That is why you have submitted no less than two dozen posts in which you have gone against your better judgement over the past two days. That makes perfect sense.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's another thread in the Politics section of mine that you might want to see. I dare you to look for it. This entire thread has been my way of taking in facts, information and looking for a viable position on this issue. I have argued both for and against on purpose. I work by making both arguments and melding the two. So it might appear to you that I am arguing for one case or another, when in reality I am assessing them in earnest.

I've read it.

That doesn't change the position that you've been actively arguing in this thread - which is what I've been responding to. Whether or not it's your "real" position is irrelevant.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it is relevant. I believe you simply do not care for the fact that I am bouncing from one end of the spectrum to another trying to get a clear view on the subject.

Believe it or not, I've agreed with with the "wait and see" approach. Drawing from knowledge on court processes and logical reasoning, it is only reasonable to wait until the facts are debated in controlled setting. My personal opinion is that he's guilty, but my better judgement tells me to 'wait and see.'

It's not that I don't "care for" you bouncing around - bouncing around is good, it means you're thinking about it - it's that in this thread, I'm arguing against your position. The other threads you've made where you explore different arguments are a good thing, and are certainly relevant to you and what you believe.

They're not particularly relevant to this thread, and the arguments you've made here.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I've read it.

That doesn't change the position that you've been actively arguing in this thread - which is what I've been responding to. Whether or not it's your "real" position is irrelevant.

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it is relevant. I believe you simply do not care for the fact that I am bouncing from one end of the spectrum to another trying to get a clear view on the subject.

Believe it or not, I've agreed with with the "wait and see" approach. Drawing from knowledge on court processes and logical reasoning, it is only reasonable to wait until the facts are debated in controlled setting. My personal opinion is that he's guilty, but my better judgement tells me to 'wait and see.'

It's not that I don't "care for" you bouncing around - bouncing around is good, it means you're thinking about it - it's that in this thread, I'm arguing against your position. The other threads you've made where you explore different arguments are a good thing, and are certainly relevant to you and what you believe.

They're not particularly relevant to this thread, and the arguments you've made here.

Fair enough.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are we at war with Mexico?

Do we need to be?

No, but you are making an invalid comparison of the two situations.

I challenge you to prove that assertion.

 

[TemplarKormac]

99% of the detainees are insane from the treatment received at Gitmo and other secret prisons...plus the long incarceration periods..
Now, you can't evaluate the situation because you do not have all the facts....After the facts do get out and the man has his day to tell his side, then you can make an assessment...until then you are just jumping on the band wagon for a hot hayride.

As if you've never done the exact same thing. In my case, I like jumping on both bandwagons.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No it doesn't. But on the other hand it is relevant. I believe you simply do not care for the fact that I am bouncing from one end of the spectrum to another trying to get a clear view on the subject.

Believe it or not, I've agreed with with the "wait and see" approach. Drawing from knowledge on court processes and logical reasoning, it is only reasonable to wait until the facts are debated in controlled setting. My personal opinion is that he's guilty, but my better judgement tells me to 'wait and see.'

It's not that I don't "care for" you bouncing around - bouncing around is good, it means you're thinking about it - it's that in this thread, I'm arguing against your position. The other threads you've made where you explore different arguments are a good thing, and are certainly relevant to you and what you believe.

They're not particularly relevant to this thread, and the arguments you've made here.

Fair enough.

Is that a concession? Everyone here knows that the Doc is fair....in general...and in his dealings with you. Are you prepared to retract your OP?

 

[TemplarKormac]

There are two individuals discussing a thread. Two intelligent individuals, neither of which are named LoneLaugher.

 

[1776]

1) Obama pissed in the faces of dead and wounded military that helped bring those 5 terrorists to GITMO.

2) Obama is pissing in every military member/Vet face with their comments about this shitbag deserter serving "honorably," especially after his actions can be traced to 2-6 dead troops.

This is par for the course with Obama, breaking the law while putting the US in danger for his political points with the kooks in this country.