Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Show us something, anything that states this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Show us something, anything that proves this fault. Certainly not the statement of those he served with.
Quote:
That is your interpretation. Prove that yours is correct and mine is not.
This is true, except I have time and training in the military and a fair idea of how it works. Do you?
Quote:
Your lack of respect for those who are currently serving is duly
noted.
Nice deflection try. For those serving, with some exceptions, total respect. For the minion generals who simply do as they are told, none whatsoever. Your adherence to the desire of the government is also duly noted.
Ah, the last resort of incompetent people, believing what their overlords tell them with no facts to back them up then hurling what they perceive to be insults when they are not taken seriously. Typical of those with your political stripe and no actual knowledge.
BTW, this "report" is not official until it is presented to the Article 32 board and withstands all of their questions. Of course since it backs what some want to believe, This fact does not matter to you and yours.
Ah, the last resort of ignorant people - to automatically DISBELIEVE what they are told.
If you automatically disbelieve what you are told how does that make you any different from someone who automatically believes what they are told?
Essentially what you are saying is: "Don't confuse me with the facts. I ALREADY KNOW what I WANT to believe'".
That's a good way to remain ignorant forever.
Okay. This is just reached all kinds of heights of irony.
Because I am willing to wait and see what the hearing officers decide, I am "defending a criminal."
Right.
What makes you qualified to judge him as such without benefit of trial? Hearsay?
What makes any trial lawyer qualified to defend or prosecute any case when they were "not even there" during the commission of the alleged crime?
Why is this general qualified? I suppose maybe because someone decided he was qualified based on his adherence to military standards, years of service, area(s) of specialization...
What makes someone not in the service and/or not serving with him qualified to judge whether or not he is qualified?
As for your last comment, how you could presume to know what I do or do not know about anything is totally beyond me.
This might come as a surprise, but other people have life experiences too.
First, you are defending him. Read your own post.
Second, what makes someone who interviews and believes a well rehearsed story a fit judge?
Third, does your "life experience" include combat service in the military and give you insights to a story that you did not even hear firsthand? Disqualified.
When you don't know the facts of a given incident, it's human nature to attempt to fill them in yourself.
I agree, but I don't think anybody need to fill them in. Did he disobey an order? Did he 'Walk Off' Afghan Outposts?
His "Intention" doesn't matter and shouldn't matter .How much he suffered in enemy hands doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. The only fact matters is that Bergdahl charged with desertion.
When you don't know the facts of a given incident, it's human nature to attempt to fill them in yourself.
I agree, but I don't think anybody need to fill them in. Did he disobey an order? Did he 'Walk Off' Afghan Outposts?
His "Intention" doesn't matter and shouldn't matter .How much he suffered in enemy hands doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. The only fact matters is that Bergdahl charged with desertion.
He should get some jail time.
I understand that sentiment. I just don't see what it gains us at this point. All it would be is a waste of taxpayer money. I figure he got what he deserved. Let someone else pay for his 3 meals a day.
I understand that sentiment. I just don't see what it gains us at this point. All it would be is a waste of taxpayer money. I figure he got what he deserved. Let someone else pay for his 3 meals a day.
Ken
It matters to those who still serve and have served. You need to be able to count on your fellow soldiers. When you can no longer depend on them, you are defeated and probably dead.
Second, what makes someone who interviews and believes a well rehearsed story a fit judge?
Third, does your "life experience" include combat service in the military and give you insights to a story that you did not even hear firsthand? Disqualified.
I am not defending him. I am defending the process by which the court will ascertain whether or not he is guilty.
Too many people seem willing to convict without due process and I find that rather abhorrent, not to mention the utmost in lazy thinking.
Sounds like you don't trust the judicial system and believe that there is no point in giving anyone his/her day in court.
Are you trying to intimate you have firsthand knowledge of this case?
Did you testify at the hearing?
It's odd that you seem to put so much store in military combat service but dismiss out of hand the testimony of the general and others who likely do have such experience.
When you don't know the facts of a given incident, it's human nature to attempt to fill them in yourself.
I agree, but I don't think anybody need to fill them in. Did he disobey an order? Did he 'Walk Off' Afghan Outposts?
His "Intention" doesn't matter and shouldn't matter .How much he suffered in enemy hands doesn't matter and shouldn't matter. The only fact matters is that Bergdahl charged with desertion.
He should get some jail time.
He seemed very delusional according to Maj Dahl but to me he seemed rather crazy. He left his weapon and his escape was planned to bring to light the lack of leadership in his unit. The military has nothing to gain and he is no longer fit for duty, he made a bad decision and brought it on himself but he has already suffered a great deal. His 5 years in captivity will be a consideration.
Quote:
He once succeeded for nine days before running out of food and water and
being recaptured on top of a mountain, according to the investigation. For
years, Bergdahl was chained in squatting positions or restrained spread-eagle by
shackles as punishment for his unending resistance. The Army testified he is no
longer fit for duty, his spine and legs are permanently damaged. Bergdahl has
said he made 12 escape attempts, a claim the Army does not dispute.
Which is why the Army's accusation that Bergdahl violated the World War
II-era charge of "misbehavior before the enemy" has seemed out of place to
some.
He seemed very delusional according to Maj Dahl but to me he seemed rather crazy. He left his weapon and his escape was planned to bring to light the lack of leadership in his unit. The military has nothing to gain and he is no longer fit for duty, he made a bad decision and brought it on himself but he has already suffered a great deal. His 5 years in captivity will be a consideration.
Other soldiers lost their lives because they had to search for him. I don't believe for a second that no soldiers died searching for him. But this is just my opinion that doesn't matter.
At this point, shall I just say "I like people who weren't captured."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
