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.
A. They will not be subpoenaed. They are beyond the jurisdiction of military courts. Period.
B. You keep saying "gushing about Bergdahl's 'honorable service'" as though that had some legal significance. It does not. They have neither eyewitness nor expert testimony to provide to the court-martial, even if they were under its jurisdiction.
A. You do realize what the term "commander-in-chief" means, right? It puts Obama smack in the middle of the military justice system, along with those he sends out to represent him.
B. Gushing about Bergdahl is stating that prior to trial there is an attempt to influence the outcome by stating a presidential opinion on the subject.
I don't know where you claim to have gone to law school but if I were you I would sue to get my tuition back.
Since when is welcoming home a POW considered intervention by a president.
Yes some may disagree if Bergdahl is sentenced but they won't attribute it to some imaginary force just because it goes against their position.
So you don't want to share the names of some of the generals that disagreed with Obama, usually when someone makes a ridiculous claim they at least provide an example, should be easy if there are so many.
Welcoming home a POW, no. Welcoming home a traitor? Intervention.
You have already attributed the trial to some imaginary force that is out to get him. In truth, he deserves to be found guilty since he alone is responsible for his idiotic actions.
You want others to do your research for you but manage to come up with cherry picked examples to support yourself. Talk about being biased and blindly following what your overlords tell you, look them up yourself if you have the honesty to do so or you can lie as you have so many other times.
Since when is welcoming home a POW considered intervention by a president.
Because there are STiLL some key differences between a POW and a deserter.
The story of Bergdahl possible desertion and capture will keep making head*lines and will draw attention. But, for the sake of Wash*ing*ton, this story isn’t about a solider. It is about Guantanamo, the power of the White House versus Con*gress, and the draw*down of the Afghanistan war.
All you have to do is look at Article 85—Desertion.
“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956), is guilty of desertion.
A. You do realize what the term "commander-in-chief" means, right? It puts Obama smack in the middle of the military justice system, along with those he sends out to represent him.
B. Gushing about Bergdahl is stating that prior to trial there is an attempt to influence the outcome by stating a presidential opinion on the subject.
I don't know where you claim to have gone to law school but if I were you I would sue to get my tuition back.
Welcoming home a POW, no. Welcoming home a traitor? Intervention.
You have already attributed the trial to some imaginary force that is out to get him. In truth, he deserves to be found guilty since he alone is responsible for his idiotic actions.
You want others to do your research for you but manage to come up with cherry picked examples to support yourself. Talk about being biased and blindly following what your overlords tell you, look them up yourself if you have the honesty to do so or you can lie as you have so many other times.
The Court Martial hearing will determine if he is guilty or did you already decide?
You are the one cojurring up imaginary forces and when he doesn't do time those forces will be the answer, not th ejudgement of the military panel.
Your the one who brought it up the firing of all those generals but I guess you don't have any examples to support your theory. So you don't want to divulge the names of all those general he "fired" for disagreeing with him how about McChrystal who went on record in the Rolling Stone criticizing the president. Maybe in your world his firing was an overreaction, most agreed that he needed to go, any other examples or is that it?
A. You do realize what the term "commander-in-chief" means, right? It puts Obama smack in the middle of the military justice system, along with those he sends out to represent him.
I suspect military lawyers and judges all over the nation have permanent red palm prints on their foreheads from hearing that statement from those with zero clue about the military court system.
As I've said before, the military court system is a special court invented by Congress for the specific purpose of maintaining order and discipline within the uniformed services. Civilian officials are exempted from its jurisdiction by law.
This has been hashed out time and again, it's old news. It gets nowhere. The last person to try to pull a president into a military court was Air Force Lt Col Terry Lakin in 2010. His entire defense was based on claiming UCMJ jurisdiction over the president. It didn't happen--the court simply refused to consider it. As a result, Lakin's court-martial lasted all of two days, the deliberation took all of five hours, and he went to prison and was dismissed from service.
Quote:
B. Gushing about Bergdahl is stating that prior to trial there is an attempt to influence the outcome by stating a presidential opinion on the subject.
And it would make sense to bring him into court to do more of the same? Or are you supposing that some accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the president would be made before the court? Again, the president is beyond the jurisdiction of court-martial. Period.
Moreover, be sure you understand this: No military court will ever, ever, ever cast doubt upon the validity of the office or orders of the president. Not ever. Won't happen. That's called "call to mutiny," and no court-martial convening authority is going to go anywhere near that. If necessary, that general might make appeals to Congress, but he's not going to impugn the president himself.
Quote:
I don't know where you claim to have gone to law school but if I were you I would sue to get my tuition back.
Because there are STiLL some key differences between a POW and a deserter.
The story of Bergdahl possible desertion and capture will keep making head*lines and will draw attention. But, for the sake of Wash*ing*ton, this story isn’t about a solider. It is about Guantanamo, the power of the White House versus Con*gress, and the draw*down of the Afghanistan war.
All you have to do is look at Article 85—Desertion.
“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956), is guilty of desertion.
The Court Martial hearing will determine if he is guilty or did you already decide?
You are the one cojurring up imaginary forces and when he doesn't do time those forces will be the answer, not th ejudgement of the military panel.
Your the one who brought it up the firing of all those generals but I guess you don't have any examples to support your theory. So you don't want to divulge the names of all those general he "fired" for disagreeing with him how about McChrystal who went on record in the Rolling Stone criticizing the president. Maybe in your world his firing was an overreaction, most agreed that he needed to go, any other examples or is that it?
The court marshal will decide, not you who didn't even want it to go to trial. When it does, try not to cry to much.
Once again, you cannot prove my statement to be false even though you are in a hurry to prove your own false statements true. You name one general (but claim other reasons for his being fired or course) so it proves that you can find them if you actually try. I bet finding the first one on your list really hurt didn't it? Another of your false claims proven false.
I suspect military lawyers and judges all over the nation have permanent red palm prints on their foreheads from hearing that statement from those with zero clue about the military court system.
As I've said before, the military court system is a special court invented by Congress for the specific purpose of maintaining order and discipline within the uniformed services. Civilian officials are exempted from its jurisdiction by law.
This has been hashed out time and again, it's old news. It gets nowhere. The last person to try to pull a president into a military court was Air Force Lt Col Terry Lakin in 2010. His entire defense was based on claiming UCMJ jurisdiction over the president. It didn't happen--the court simply refused to consider it. As a result, Lakin's court-martial lasted all of two days, the deliberation took all of five hours, and he went to prison and was dismissed from service.
And it would make sense to bring him into court to do more of the same? Or are you supposing that some accusation of wrongdoing on the part of the president would be made before the court? Again, the president is beyond the jurisdiction of court-martial. Period.
Moreover, be sure you understand this: No military court will ever, ever, ever cast doubt upon the validity of the office or orders of the president. Not ever. Won't happen. That's called "call to mutiny," and no court-martial convening authority is going to go anywhere near that. If necessary, that general might make appeals to Congress, but he's not going to impugn the president himself.
You ought to just do some reading.
What you suspect, as with all you claim, has no bearing on what happens and the actual truth.
I am saying that Obama and team have actual inside knowledge of the situation up to and including the swap and the real reasons for it.
BTW, no one needs to impugn the president, he is doing a fine job of that all by himself.
Maybe you should read some military law and constitutional law since it is obvious you never have.
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.
