Of course it is oversimplified. We are also not privy to much of the details of the case and, as such, are not qualified to place a guilty judgment on him. Violating any law, military or otherwise, can be excused for a wide variety of reasons. In this particular case, he allegedly violated the law in order to correct other laws which were also being violated. Do two wrongs make a right? Not necessarily, but there certainly may be extenuating circumstances which we are not aware of. On this it seems we are in agreement. He has served two years in jail; perhaps that is enough?Originally Posted by Sarcogito
Don't give me that BS. There were no superior officers available because the misconduct went to the top. It is next to impossible for a PFC to directly contact the theater commander or President. Soldiers swear an oath to defend the nation against all enemies both foreign and domestic. Lawlessness falls into that category and he was doing what he thought was right. Why don't we leave the judgement of guilt to the jury?Originally Posted by ChuckBerry
Better check your UCMJ again on that one.Originally Posted by ChuckBerry
I do not disagree. But the laws of the U.S. guarantees a speedy trial. Two years in prison and the inability to discreetly meet with a UN investigator are hardly speedy or within typical human rights agreements. Put this case in another country and the U.S. media would be slobbering all over it with allegations of human rights violations, but because the U.S. is the perpetrator it is just fine. I'm calling BS.Originally Posted by ChuckBerry
Every suspected criminal has the right to meet with an attorney without being monitored.Originally Posted by ChuckBerry
What he is actually accused of doing is gathering a vast amount of data, much more than he could possibly have checked for evidence of criminality and risks to national security or individuals safety (not that he was in a position to make that judgement anyway), and freely handing it over to a private organisation.
Here is the bottom line ( as far as I'm concerned)
In order to capture people like
Bin Laden and find and recover our POWs like Lynch and Bergdahl we need intelligence networks ( liaison, sources, etc )
Who is going to want to talk to us if we can't keep a secret?
I realize arm chair generals feel like they are entitled to know everything but guess what? When they find out so do our enemies.
The man is a traitor.
I saw people try to play the gay angle all the time to get out of deploying, chances are his command had too.
Even before DADT was repealed
there were guys we knew were gay and over looked it
because they were cool and didn't make a big deal out of it.
Being gay is not a mental disorder.
Looking back with 20/20 hindsight I'm sure they might handle it different.
As far as sending a picture in a dress... You'd be surprised the things straight grunts will do for a laugh. Things that to a outside observer would seem "super gay". Like the "impossible situp"
Last edited by Paratrooper; 04-28-12 at 09:18 AM.