• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former POW Bergdahl set to return to active duty [W:159]

danarhea said:
I believe the Army, who put him back on active duty instead of prosecuting him.
Click to expand...

The investigation is still on going. When it is over then we will see if charges are brought against him or not. It's Standard SOP when a investigation is going on that the person in question has a low risk job. It's a called due process. He is innocent until proven guilty.
 
justabubba said:
my hope is the investigation finds him to be deserving of it
Click to expand...

Hoping and what really happened are two diffrent things.

There are times when an example has to be made and POTUS shouldn't be involved.

Gen. Eisenhower had to make the same decision with Private Slovik. It sent out a message that resulted in that the U.S. military didn't have to deal with soldiers deserting in combat for over sixtyfive years.
 
Redress said:
Congratz, you are wrong in pretty much every detail. Here, let me help:

http://www.usarj.army.mil/cmdstaffs/sja/criminallaw/ar27-10.pdf
10 U.S. Code § 815 - Art. 15. Commanding officer
Click to expand...

Point out exactly where I'm wrong ?

I'm an officer and you are a deck monkey. You **** up and don't salute me. You end up standing before the man with an Article 15.

You don't get no lawyer and my word over rules you because you're just a piece of amphibious ****.

The Captain passes judgement and turns you over the a U.S. Marine who throws you in the brig for two weeks.
 
APACHERAT said:
Point out exactly where I'm wrong ?

I'm an officer and you are a deck monkey. You **** up and don't salute me. You end up standing before the man with an Article 15.

You don't get no lawyer and my word over rules you because you're just a piece of amphibious ****.

The Captain passes judgement and turns you over the a U.S. Marine who throws you in the brig for two weeks.
Click to expand...

failure to salute is certainly a "crime" punishable by NJP.... but that's generally only if it's a recurring problem.

an officer failing to return a salute is also an offense punishable by NJP ( yes, officers get article 15's as well)


if we were to compare civilian law with UCMJ..... NJP would not be considered a trial.. it would be the sentencing hearing.

if you want a trial, and a lawyer.. just deny the NJP and request a court martial.... it's as easy as that.
 
Redress said:
To the best of my knowledge, the army investigation is still ongoing(and contrary to what some think, yes, the army is in his chain of command). Until the investigation is done, or at least far enough along to make a firm accusation of wrongdoing, he is still a soldier, and still going to be treated as such. That means putting him back to work is not surprising, nor is it some kind of conspiracy. Those suggestions are just stupid.
Click to expand...

This post makes no suggestion of whether or not he will be charged, or if it's right for him to be or not be charged, so I've go no disagreements with you. However that sets your post apart not just from many of those responding, but from the op as well
 
Thrilla said:
failure to salute is certainly a "crime" punishable by NJP.... but that's generally only if it's a recurring problem.

an officer failing to return a salute is also an offense punishable by NJP ( yes, officers get article 15's as well)


if we were to compare civilian law with UCMJ..... NJP would not be considered a trial.. it would be the sentencing hearing.

if you want a trial, and a lawyer.. just deny the NJP and request a court martial.... it's as easy as that.
Click to expand...

I never had any Article 15's.

I remember when ANGLICO's Top Kick showed at Camp Carrol and while going over my SRB he said "What kind of Marine our you, no Article 15's. ! Chesty Puller is probably rolling over his grave."

I just responded to the Top, "I learned how the system works and haven't been caught."

Never had to burn **** and during my entire tour of duty in the crotch I never pulled mess duty.

It was Article 134, CATCH-22 that you had to be careful of.
 
Thrilla said:
if we were to compare civilian law with UCMJ..... NJP would not be considered a trial.. it would be the sentencing hearing.
Click to expand...

The closest comparison would probably be a civil hearing.
 
APACHERAT said:
I never had any Article 15's.

I remember when ANGLICO's Top Kick showed at Camp Carrol and while going over my SRB he said "What kind of Marine our you, no Article 15's. ! Chesty Puller is probably rolling over his grave."

I just responded to the Top, "I learned how the system works and haven't been caught."

Never had to burn **** and during my entire tour of duty in the crotch I never pulled mess duty.

It was Article 134, CATCH-22 that you had to be careful of.
Click to expand...

I've had 7 Office Hours...getting caught has never bothered me... hell, I didn't get my first good cookie until I had 9 years in.
i'm first and foremost a field Marine, I do not play well with others while in garrison.
6 of the 7 articles 15's involved drinking and fighting other servicemembers( not Marines)... the 7th was for UA, because I was arrested off base while drinking and fighting.

and it's true that old salts don't trust water-walkers.. like my old first shirt used to say " if you ain't ****ing up, you ain't trying hard enough".

in Todays Corps, i'd never be allowed to reenlist even once..... and i'm not sure I would want to either.
 
Redress said:
The closest comparison would probably be a civil hearing.
Click to expand...

eh.. not really... the CO has predetermined guilt before you ever walk through the door.. if he allows you to plead your case, it's just a courtesy.. or he's trying to flesh out your character ( if you lie, you'll get more punishment... if you're upfront, you'll get less)...(more often than not, the CO told me to shut up when i tried to explain why i did it)

in a civil hearing, your guilt isn't predetermined.

but overall... there's really no civilian equivalent.
 
Thrilla said:
I've had 7 Office Hours...getting caught has never bothered me... hell, I didn't get my first good cookie until I had 9 years in.
i'm first and foremost a field Marine, I do not play well with others while in garrison.
6 of the 7 articles 15's involved drinking and fighting other servicemembers( not Marines)... the 7th was for UA, because I was arrested off base while drinking and fighting.

and it's true that old salts don't trust water-walkers.. like my old first shirt used to say " if you ain't ****ing up, you ain't trying hard enough".

in Todays Corps, i'd never be allowed to reenlist even once..... and i'm not sure I would want to either.
Click to expand...

SEMPER FI Thrilla.

Or as old Corps Marines during WW ll use to say, "Semper Fi Mac."
 
He will receive about $350,000 in back pay.
 
fmw said:
Hello. That is evidence.
Click to expand...

Even the army isn't accepting that as evidence. Thus they investigate. As I pointed out, some fellow soldiers could have motive to throw him under the bus for his political views.
 
Montecresto said:
Even the army isn't accepting that as evidence. Thus they investigate. As I pointed out, some fellow soldiers could have motive to throw him under the bus for his political views.
Click to expand...

The Army isn't going to prosecute him for political reasons. This will probably be the first time in history that desertion wasn't prosecuted. But it is still evidence no matter who accepts it or not.
 
Erod said:
So how was he captured? Did he just walk off his post? And if so, that isn't the army that won World War II, I'll tell you that.
Click to expand...

Let's see, the Army that won WWII is the same one that celebrated Christmas Day with the enemy somewhere in Germany or France, wasn't it?
 
fmw said:
The Army isn't going to prosecute him for political reasons. This will probably be the first time in history that desertion wasn't prosecuted. But it is still evidence no matter who accepts it or not.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the Army would be prosecuting him for his political views did I. I said that fellow soldiers would have motive to throw him under the bus for his political views. Convicting him before the results of an investigation are in is silly, UN-American, too!
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't say that the Army would be prosecuting him for his political views did I. I said that fellow soldiers would have motive to throw him under the bus for his political views. Convicting him before the results of an investigation are in is silly, UN-American, too!
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could share with us what these "motives" you have gleamed from your crystal ball are? We know literally whom each of the soldiers is who came forward to share what was known about his disappearance and their actions following it. Since you claim to have some insight that defies what is actually known about the soldiers (all served honorably) and what they have shared (much which bucked the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue version) what is it that lead you to come up with this conspiracy theory? What was the motive or motives that you speculate is behind your suggested conspiracy theory? Namely that lead so many of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers to as you say, throw him under the bus?:shock:
 
Filthy McNasty said:
Perhaps you could share with us what these "motives" you have gleamed from your crystal ball are? We know literally whom each of the soldiers is who came forward to share what was known about his disappearance and their actions following it. Since you claim to have some insight that defies what is actually known about the soldiers (all served honorably) and what they have shared (much which bucked the 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue version) what is it that lead you to come up with this conspiracy theory? What was the motive or motives that you speculate is behind your suggested conspiracy theory? Namely that lead so many of Bergdahl's fellow soldiers to as you say, throw him under the bus?:shock:
Click to expand...

I didn't say that they threw him under the bus, now did I. What I actually said, is that they have motive to. It's no conspiracy. His political views were quite contraversial, particularly to be espoused before fellow members of the armed forces. Also, I never spoke to the service records of any of his fellow soldiers. An investigation will ensue, and before we convict him of anything, seems prudent to have the results of that investigation in hand.
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't say that they threw him under the bus, now did I. What I actually said, is that they have motive to. It's no conspiracy. His political views were quite contraversial, particularly to be espoused before fellow members of the armed forces. Also, I never spoke to the service records of any of his fellow soldiers. An investigation will ensue, and before we convict him of anything, seems prudent to have the results of that investigation in hand.
Click to expand...
Two post in a row that open with I did not say that did I? Really? Seriously? I asked you a simple question, not a trick one. What are the motives supposed to be that would "possibly" lead so many soldiers to "throw him under the bus"? So what is the "motive" supposed to be? He held controversial views that he expressed before his company? So they threw him under the bus? This is your theory, if you can't explain it there is probably a pretty good reason for that. What source of information is it that lead you to your conclusion/suggestion? Either this is a logical thought process based upon something of content or it is not.:doh

EDIT: Oh and by the way Montecresto, when you claim that it is possible that Bergdahl's fellow soldiers "threw him under the bus"? You actually did "address" not only the character of all of those soldiers, but their service records as well. That you are clueless to this fact is not really the predominant matter here. Your inability to supply a rationale or "motives" for this possible "throwing under the bus" is.
 
Last edited:
Filthy McNasty said:
Two post in a row that open with I did not say that did I? Really? Seriously? I asked you a simple question, not a trick one. What are the motives supposed to be that would "possibly" lead so many soldiers to "throw him under the bus"? So what is the "motive" supposed to be? He held controversial views that he expressed before his company? So they threw him under the bus? This is your theory, if you can't explain it there is probably a pretty good reason for that. What source of information is it that lead you to your conclusion/suggestion? Either this is a logical thought process based upon something of content or it is not.:doh
Click to expand...
i have read two versions of bergdahl's differing views. one was that he believed the US military was abusing its authority in the region and was not truly helping the average citizens of afghanistan. the other view is that he thought the US military was not doing enough militarily, and he wanted to be more of a cowboy than what was actually being expected of him. some massive variances in those two depictions
now to the potential motives of those who served with him, to publicly criticize them
possibly, he did abandon his brothers in arms and went over to the taliban
possibly, the others were very culpable for war crimes and feared a mister clean bergdahl might expose their wrongdoing

EDIT: Oh and by the way Montecresto, when you claim that it is possible that Bergdahl's fellow soldiers "threw him under the bus"? You actually did "address" not only the character of all of those soldiers, but their service records as well. That you are clueless to this fact is not really the predominant matter here. Your inability to supply a rationale or "motives" for this possible "throwing under the bus" is.
Click to expand...
william calley was believed to be an honorable leader of men until his my lai massacre was exposed
it was the men who believed calley was committing war crimes who were responsible for exposing his wrongdoing
i hope those who served with bergdahl were honorable. but the possibility exists that they were not, explaining their motivations for trying to paint him as a deserter

how about we wait for the military investigation to conclude and its finding be made available to us before we make accusations that have no true basis at this time. suppress the emotion laden diatribes and await the facts of the matter. that alternative approach would seem to better serve us all
 
Filthy McNasty said:
Two post in a row that open with I did not say that did I? Really? Seriously? I asked you a simple question, not a trick one. What are the motives supposed to be that would "possibly" lead so many soldiers to "throw him under the bus"? So what is the "motive" supposed to be? He held controversial views that he expressed before his company? So they threw him under the bus? This is your theory, if you can't explain it there is probably a pretty good reason for that. What source of information is it that lead you to your conclusion/suggestion? Either this is a logical thought process based upon something of content or it is not.:doh

EDIT: Oh and by the way Montecresto, when you claim that it is possible that Bergdahl's fellow soldiers "threw him under the bus"? You actually did "address" not only the character of all of those soldiers, but their service records as well. That you are clueless to this fact is not really the predominant matter here. Your inability to supply a rationale or "motives" for this possible "throwing under the bus" is.
Click to expand...

For the last time, I said those soldiers had motive to throw him under the bus, I DID NOT say they had. An investigation will reveal more than anything you can pull out of you're arse. And again, I didn't speak to their service records, they all could be bronze star recipients for all I know. Somehow I doubt you're aware of Bergdahl's political views. Most soldiers would find them highly offensive.
 
Montecresto said:
I didn't say that the Army would be prosecuting him for his political views did I. I said that fellow soldiers would have motive to throw him under the bus for his political views. Convicting him before the results of an investigation are in is silly, UN-American, too!
Click to expand...

I didn't say that either. I said the government wouldn't be prosecuting him for political reasons. The white house won't allow the army to prosecute him because it would make Obama look silly for his rose garden antics with the parents of a deserter. Bergdahl is going to get away with it.

I haven't convicted him. All I said was that the comments from his fellow soldiers was evidence. And they are. If the Army were to prosecute him, every one of those former soldiers would be brought in to testify. Witnesses are often used as evidence. No?
 
Montecresto said:
For the last time, I said those soldiers had motive to throw him under the bus, I DID NOT say they had. An investigation will reveal more than anything you can pull out of you're arse. And again, I didn't speak to their service records, they all could be bronze star recipients for all I know. Somehow I doubt you're aware of Bergdahl's political views. Most soldiers would find them highly offensive.
Click to expand...
You said those soldiers had motive to throw him him under the bus. I've asked three times now, what are these motives? Going ad hom on me won't change the fact that you keep dodging the question. What were the motives you say his fellow soldiers had to "possibly" throw him under the bus? At this point it is obvious you don't have a rational answer to that question. Unless now upon your third exposure to it, and minus any other deflections, you finally do have an answer to that fairly simple and straight forward question.:doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom