I just noticed something

[auditor0007]

I am glad you think that high level terrorists for a potential deserter makes sense.

That said, please, try to accuse me of thinking Gitmo s a god idea, I would love to shove your sanctimonious posturing down your fucking throat.

I never actually said it made sense. I just think that convicting an American soldier without a trial as has been done in this thread is wrong. As for our treatment of GITMO detainees, it's been abhorrent. If they are high level terrorists, then they should have been tried and convicted and then given lifetime prison sentences. I don't give a rat's ass if they are US citizens or not, they deserve their day in court. As for you shoving anything down my throat, you can shove it right up your own behind.

Perhaps you weren't reading when I said "he'll get his trial." One other thing I didn't say was that he didn't deserve one. Terrorists don't. HE is still an American citizen, he is entitled.

American terrorists get trials, do they not? Didn't Tim McVeigh get a trial? And didn't we execute him? Do you realize that if these alleged terrorists had been tried and convicted, this deal never would have happened?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I never actually said it made sense. I just think that convicting an American soldier without a trial as has been done in this thread is wrong. As for our treatment of GITMO detainees, it's been abhorrent. If they are high level terrorists, then they should have been tried and convicted and then given lifetime prison sentences. I don't give a rat's ass if they are US citizens or not, they deserve their day in court. As for you shoving anything down my throat, you can shove it right up your own behind.

Perhaps you weren't reading when I said "he'll get his trial." One other thing I didn't say was that he didn't deserve one. Terrorists don't. HE is still an American citizen, he is entitled.

American terrorists get trials, do they not? Didn't Tim McVeigh get a trial? And didn't we execute him? Do you realize that if these alleged terrorists had been tried and convicted, this deal never would have happened?

Big difference. They are American. Perhaps I should clarify: terrorists who are from middle eastern countries who work to kill or harm Americans don't deserve trials. They should be summarily executed as enemy combatants.

Like I said before, they don't get 14th Amendment rights. American terrorists are American. They on the other hand, do.

How much more simplistic must I make it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Perhaps you weren't reading when I said "he'll get his trial." One other thing I didn't say was that he didn't deserve one. Terrorists don't. HE is still an American citizen, he is entitled.

American terrorists get trials, do they not? Didn't Tim McVeigh get a trial? And didn't we execute him? Do you realize that if these alleged terrorists had been tried and convicted, this deal never would have happened?

Big difference. They are American. Perhaps I should clarify: terrorists who are from middle eastern countries who work to kill or harm Americans don't deserve trials. They should be summarily executed as enemy combatants.

Like I said before, they don't get 14th Amendment rights. American terrorists are American. They on the other hand, do.

How much more simplistic must I make it?

We don't shoot prisoners. That isn't our policy.

 

[tinydancer]

This exchange came with a very very high price tag. These terrorists were all in the upper echelon of the Taliban. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

American terrorists get trials, do they not? Didn't Tim McVeigh get a trial? And didn't we execute him? Do you realize that if these alleged terrorists had been tried and convicted, this deal never would have happened?

Big difference. They are American. Perhaps I should clarify: terrorists who are from middle eastern countries who work to kill or harm Americans don't deserve trials. They should be summarily executed as enemy combatants.

Like I said before, they don't get 14th Amendment rights. American terrorists are American. They on the other hand, do.

How much more simplistic must I make it?

We don't shoot prisoners. That isn't our policy.

Throughout the history of American justice, people guilty of capital crimes stateside were hung, shot, electrocuted, and injected with poison. To say it wasn't our policy to shoot those types of prisoners is inaccurate.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And to those who insist we didn't negotiate with terrorists...

Who were we negotiating with then?

 

[SmedlyButler]

You people are certain Bergdahl is guilty and certain the guy in Mexico is innocent.

The bliss of certainty. Is that similar to the bliss of ignorance?

I thought I made it perfectly clear I hadn't made any judgement on the man and said we should get all the facts before we decide anything.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Leave no man behind.*


*Optional if you're a republican

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy...

Obviously you’ve failed to do enough ‘thinking,’ and went into partisan brain-dead mode instead, as this statement is factually wrong.

Allegations that Bergdahl is a ‘deserter’ have no bearing whatsoever on the merits or conditions of his release; indeed, he has not been found guilty of ‘desertion,’ or of ‘aiding and abetting the enemy,’ as he has been afforded neither an investigation nor due process of the law.

In essence you’re making the inane and failed ‘argument’ that Bergdahl should be presumed guilty of the allegations and summarily ‘punished’ by being left behind with his captors.

In fact, it was incumbent upon the president to secure Bergdahl’s release pursuant to an investigation and court martial if warranted.

And the same is true of the five released detainees, who have not been afforded due process, have not been afforded a trial, and have not been found guilty of any crimes.

Indeed, the release of the detainees comports with the law because these five individuals were being held absent a conviction of any crime, which goes to the overall un-Constitutional failure what was the process and policy of holding terrorist suspects in custody absent due process of the law. See, e.g., Boumediene v. Bush (2008).

If Bergdahl is guilty of any crimes, that will be determined in due course in accordance with the law, a determination that could not have been made if he had been left behind. And if Bergdahl is not guilty of committing any crimes, to have left him behind as a prisoner predicated solely on unproved allegations would have been the actual crime.

 

[SmedlyButler]

American terrorists get trials, do they not? Didn't Tim McVeigh get a trial? And didn't we execute him? Do you realize that if these alleged terrorists had been tried and convicted, this deal never would have happened?

Big difference. They are American. Perhaps I should clarify: terrorists who are from middle eastern countries who work to kill or harm Americans don't deserve trials. They should be summarily executed as enemy combatants.

Like I said before, they don't get 14th Amendment rights. American terrorists are American. They on the other hand, do.

How much more simplistic must I make it?

We don't shoot prisoners. That isn't our policy.

according to apparently over half the members of this forum, most who claim to be Christians as well. I don't know about you but these threads on this US soldier who was a captive for five years seems to me like the head of a virulent pimple, oozing with pus and about to burst. What the hell happened to Lady Justice in America? She's been knocked down, pissed on and raped.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Clayton. Apparently you didn't do enough reading. If you look real hard in this thread, you will see some posts by Quantum Windbag. One states how the intelligence community was well aware of his desertion and had a rather large file on him.

You are the one spouting nonsense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Smedly. In every foreign conflict since World War II, enemy combatants had no habeas corpus rights. Especially in 1942, when 8 Nazi Saboteurs were captured. They asked to be granted a civilian trial and were denied. They were subsequently tried before a military tribunal and were hanged until dead. Eh? And you have the gall to bring religion into the thread? Argumentum ad baculum. No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

With all of this controversy over Bowe Bergdahl swirling around, I've heard people saying that we shouldn't leave him behind. Well, no, I agree to a point. But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy; you cannot in good conscience release 5 dangerous war criminals for another criminal. Let's face it. Bergdahl is no hero. Not one iota. He abandoned his comrades, and in doing so got a number of them killed in a search mission on his behalf. He should be court martialed under Article 85 of the UCMJ for desertion.

But what I've also noticed here is that a certain few have accused Republicans of "wanting to leave a soldier behind." All while Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexican jail being tortured and beaten. So, why is it in one instance that people wish to leave a soldier behind while another sits and waits in jail for his country to come to his aid? Why are liberals ignoring Tahmooressi? What I've noticed here is a double standard. Our president is willing to fight for a traitor, but not for a loyal soldier who fought for his country sitting in a jail in Mexico. I'm glad Bergdahl is back home, but why did the president negotiate for his release and not that of Tahmooressi? What the heck is going on here?

Can you ever be honest about anything?

You didn't "just notice" something. You thought of Tahmooressi the fucking moment the Bergdahl story broke. Isn't that true?

 

[The Rabbi]

I never actually said it made sense. I just think that convicting an American soldier without a trial as has been done in this thread is wrong. As for our treatment of GITMO detainees, it's been abhorrent. If they are high level terrorists, then they should have been tried and convicted and then given lifetime prison sentences. I don't give a rat's ass if they are US citizens or not, they deserve their day in court. As for you shoving anything down my throat, you can shove it right up your own behind.

Perhaps you weren't reading when I said "he'll get his trial." One other thing I didn't say was that he didn't deserve one. Terrorists don't. HE is still an American citizen, he is entitled.

American terrorists get trials, do they not? Didn't Tim McVeigh get a trial? And didn't we execute him? Do you realize that if these alleged terrorists had been tried and convicted, this deal never would have happened?

What happens when they're tried and acquitted on a technicality?
You don't try POWs, which is what the assholes in Gitmo are. You hold them until the war is over.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

With all of this controversy over Bowe Bergdahl swirling around, I've heard people saying that we shouldn't leave him behind. Well, no, I agree to a point. But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy; you cannot in good conscience release 5 dangerous war criminals for another criminal. Let's face it. Bergdahl is no hero. Not one iota. He abandoned his comrades, and in doing so got a number of them killed in a search mission on his behalf. He should be court martialed under Article 85 of the UCMJ for desertion.

But what I've also noticed here is that a certain few have accused Republicans of "wanting to leave a soldier behind." All while Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexican jail being tortured and beaten. So, why is it in one instance that people wish to leave a soldier behind while another sits and waits in jail for his country to come to his aid? Why are liberals ignoring Tahmooressi? What I've noticed here is a double standard. Our president is willing to fight for a traitor, but not for a loyal soldier who fought for his country sitting in a jail in Mexico. I'm glad Bergdahl is back home, but why did the president negotiate for his release and not that of Tahmooressi? What the heck is going on here?

Can you ever be honest about anything?

You didn't "just notice" something. You thought of Tahmooressi the fucking moment the Bergdahl story broke. Isn't that true?

If he were honest he’d admit to the fact that Tahmooressi/Bergdahl is a false comparison fallacy, and the premise of this thread fails accordingly.

The former was lawfully detained by a sovereign nation based on a reasonable belief that that nation’s laws were violated, having nothing to do with wartime military service.

The latter, however, was taken prisoner solely as a consequence of his wartime military service, by Taliban fighters who do not constitute a recognized sovereign government.

The OP is just another ignorant, tedious rightwing partisan hack.

 

[Interpol]

With all of this controversy over Bowe Bergdahl swirling around, I've heard people saying that we shouldn't leave him behind. Well, no, I agree to a point. But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy; you cannot in good conscience release 5 dangerous war criminals for another criminal. Let's face it. Bergdahl is no hero. Not one iota. He abandoned his comrades, and in doing so got a number of them killed in a search mission on his behalf. He should be court martialed under Article 85 of the UCMJ for desertion.

But what I've also noticed here is that a certain few have accused Republicans of "wanting to leave a soldier behind." All while Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexican jail being tortured and beaten. So, why is it in one instance that people wish to leave a soldier behind while another sits and waits in jail for his country to come to his aid? Why are liberals ignoring Tahmooressi? What I've noticed here is a double standard. Our president is willing to fight for a traitor, but not for a loyal soldier who fought for his country sitting in a jail in Mexico. I'm glad Bergdahl is back home, but why did the president negotiate for his release and not that of Tahmooressi? What the heck is going on here?

It's a funny thing to say one person is guilty of desertion while five others are war criminals when not a single one of them have had one single day in court to answer to any charges brought against them.

Just looking at the information available on Bergdahl, I see him more as being mentally ill than being a deserter. If the reports of what he said prior to leaving his post are true, why was he not sent for a psychological evaluation immediately? Klinger is only funny on MASH. When Klinger shows up in your unit, you've got a problem and it needs to be addressed immediately. This was a complete failure on the part or his commanding officers.

Very well put.

We need to understand that there are consequences to sending soldiers into multiple tours of duty.

There are stories of people who went back over there like a dozen or more times. One soldier a couple years back died on his 14th tour of duty in Afghanistan.

There's something seriously wrong with any military operation when you have to send somebody back there that many times.

The PTSD and all the other things that emotionally scar these brave people is unprecedented as a result. I hope he gets the help he needs.

I read his e-mail to his parents. He wrote of abuses to Afghan people from our military. The actions of other soldiers that he writes about, along with his own actions reveal to me that that's what you get when you put our military in a mission that is not clearly defined and which is terribly executed as a result.

For that I blame military commanders all the way up to President George W. Bush, who figured we'd just send everybody over there and then just wing it as we go along. Our soldiers deserved better than that.

If you're on a serious nation building effort, you have to make friends with the people of that country and earn their trust. We didn't do that. A lot of people went in there with a kick-ass attitude and a lot of civilians got poor treatment from us. It's something we need to face as a country that that's what you get when the mission is poorly planned and terribly executed.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Soldiers are trained to kick ass. It is natural that they'd want to do some ass kicking.

Therefore, it is not natural that we charge them with making peace.

 

[The Rabbi]

Soldiers are trained to kick ass. It is natural that they'd want to do some ass kicking.

Therefore, it is not natural that we charge them with making peace.

Huh? That's even more incoherent than your usual posts.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

With all of this controversy over Bowe Bergdahl swirling around, I've heard people saying that we shouldn't leave him behind. Well, no, I agree to a point. But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy; you cannot in good conscience release 5 dangerous war criminals for another criminal. Let's face it. Bergdahl is no hero. Not one iota. He abandoned his comrades, and in doing so got a number of them killed in a search mission on his behalf. He should be court martialed under Article 85 of the UCMJ for desertion.

But what I've also noticed here is that a certain few have accused Republicans of "wanting to leave a soldier behind." All while Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexican jail being tortured and beaten. So, why is it in one instance that people wish to leave a soldier behind while another sits and waits in jail for his country to come to his aid? Why are liberals ignoring Tahmooressi? What I've noticed here is a double standard. Our president is willing to fight for a traitor, but not for a loyal soldier who fought for his country sitting in a jail in Mexico. I'm glad Bergdahl is back home, but why did the president negotiate for his release and not that of Tahmooressi? What the heck is going on here?

Prepare yourself for Obozo awarding him the Medal of Honor since the liberals are politicalizing this matter too,

 

[AvgGuyIA]

With all of this controversy over Bowe Bergdahl swirling around, I've heard people saying that we shouldn't leave him behind. Well, no, I agree to a point. But when the man you're fighting for is guilty of desertion, of aiding and abetting the enemy; you cannot in good conscience release 5 dangerous war criminals for another criminal. Let's face it. Bergdahl is no hero. Not one iota. He abandoned his comrades, and in doing so got a number of them killed in a search mission on his behalf. He should be court martialed under Article 85 of the UCMJ for desertion.

But what I've also noticed here is that a certain few have accused Republicans of "wanting to leave a soldier behind." All while Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi sits in a Mexican jail being tortured and beaten. So, why is it in one instance that people wish to leave a soldier behind while another sits and waits in jail for his country to come to his aid? Why are liberals ignoring Tahmooressi? What I've noticed here is a double standard. Our president is willing to fight for a traitor, but not for a loyal soldier who fought for his country sitting in a jail in Mexico. I'm glad Bergdahl is back home, but why did the president negotiate for his release and not that of Tahmooressi? What the heck is going on here?

It's a funny thing to say one person is guilty of desertion while five others are war criminals when not a single one of them have had one single day in court to answer to any charges brought against them.

Just looking at the information available on Bergdahl, I see him more as being mentally ill than being a deserter. If the reports of what he said prior to leaving his post are true, why was he not sent for a psychological evaluation immediately? Klinger is only funny on MASH. When Klinger shows up in your unit, you've got a problem and it needs to be addressed immediately. This was a complete failure on the part or his commanding officers.

It's only coincidence his dad kisses Taliban ass?