• 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!

Bergdahl Pose with Taliban

CalGun said:
Photo of smiling Bowe Bergdahl posing with Taliban official surfaces on Twitter | Fox News

I find it interesting this guy's media day has come and gone. Not much in the press about him anylonger. Obama said he rushed the deal and didn't notify congress due to his life threatening condition and this article references investigators can't even talk to the guy till his health care providers say its ok. Considering the images of him walking to the helicopter I have to question that - its weeks later and he can walk out to a helicopter but can't talk to an investigator? It reeks of stonewalling.
Click to expand...


If you were a hostage of these terrorists would you be acting all defiant or would you be cooperative? I think most people would be cooperative because acting defiant will get you killed.
 
jamesrage said:
If you were a hostage of these terrorists would you be acting all defiant or would you be cooperative? I think most people would be cooperative because acting defiant will get you killed.
Click to expand...

Or hurt really badly.

I think people that think that prisoners will not bond to a degree with their captors need to do some studying about Stockholm Syndrome.

Stockholm syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
jamesrage said:
If you were a hostage of these terrorists would you be acting all defiant or would you be cooperative? I think most people would be cooperative because acting defiant will get you killed.
Click to expand...

American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen don't have that option if captured by the enemy.

Those who wear the American uniform are held to higher standards. They took an oath.

The Code of Conduct




I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.


VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

The Code of Conduct (ArmyStudyGuide.com)
 
APACHERAT said:
American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen don't have that option if captured by the enemy.

Those who wear the American uniform are held to higher standards. They took an oath.

The Code of Conduct




I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.

IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.


VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

The Code of Conduct (ArmyStudyGuide.com)
Click to expand...
A code of conduct sounds good on paper.However a different story when your life is on the line and a POW. We do not know what his captors did him,what they threatened him with or anything else they might have done to him.The vast majority of Americans were never in his situation.The vast majority of troops will never be in his situation.The troops who most likely will be in his situation will go to SERE School so that they can try to live up to that code of conduct.
 
jamesrage said:
A code of conduct sounds good on paper.However a different story when your life is on the line and a POW. We do not know what his captors did him,what they threatened him with or anything else they might have done to him.The vast majority of Americans were never in his situation.The vast majority of troops will never be in his situation.The troops who most likely will be in his situation will go to SERE School so that they can try to live up to that code of conduct.
Click to expand...

Well we know what the North Vietnamese did to John McCain while he was staying at the Hanoi Hilton. You ever wonder why he can't raise his arms above his shoulders ?

No body gives a **** about what happened to Bergdahl during his captivity except maybe some bleeding heart liberals.

Bergdahl abandoned his post, the men of his unit, the U.S. Army and his country on the battlefield. If found guilty, punishable by death from musketry.

But the current administration claims desertion on the battlefield is serving with honor. I think we have a bigger problem in the White House wouldn't you say ?
 
APACHERAT said:
American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen don't have that option if captured by the enemy.

Those who wear the American uniform are held to higher standards. They took an oath.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Code of Conduct is not an oath, it is simply a code.

And while it is a goal, it is not a suicide pact. It dates to the 1950's, and assumes that the enemy would follow at least most of the Geneva Conventions, so was simply to help give them a guideline to follow in the event they are captured.

It certainly does not cover situations like this, and a POWs most important goal is simply survival, so long as it does not involve the survival of other POWs (in which this case there were none).

After all, we had quite a few POWs in Vietnam make public taped statements and written confessions much worse then this Sergeant did. And certainly nobody reasonable goes around screaming that they were in collusion with the enemy.
 
Henry David said:
You're very welcome, regarding the link describing Colin Powell's meeting with the Taliban all those years ago! :)
Click to expand...

But you did not, if this had not been a quote I would not have looked, since I ignore your posts unless quoted by others.

You said there were photographs of him in Afghanistan handing over a check. Instead the reality was completely different then what you tried to make it out to be. It was simply the State Department talking with the Afghanistan Government (which was Taliban controlled but not exclusively Taliban) and donating money to help them improve conditions in refugee camps.

Sorry, once again, a complete and utter failure, and so typical of you. You take the smallest sliver of truth, and then bend and twist it in order to suit your own needs. Simply making up things along the way. Sorry, your credibility is almost zero, and that blog post (was not even news but another blog post) in fact shows that you were wrong when it is actually read and understood.
 
Oozlefinch said:
But you did not, if this had not been a quote I would not have looked, since I ignore your posts unless quoted by others.

You said there were photographs of him in Afghanistan handing over a check. Instead the reality was completely different then what you tried to make it out to be. It was simply the State Department talking with the Afghanistan Government (which was Taliban controlled but not exclusively Taliban) and donating money to help them improve conditions in refugee camps.

Sorry, once again, a complete and utter failure, and so typical of you. You take the smallest sliver of truth, and then bend and twist it in order to suit your own needs. Simply making up things along the way. Sorry, your credibility is almost zero, and that blog post (was not even news but another blog post) in fact shows that you were wrong when it is actually read and understood.
Click to expand...
Henry David was right and proved you wrong. for all of us to see
i have emphasized YOUR post above to make that readily apparent
no amount of BS is going to make that reality go away
get over it
 
Oozlefinch said:
Actually, the Code of Conduct is not an oath, it is simply a code.

And while it is a goal, it is not a suicide pact. It dates to the 1950's, and assumes that the enemy would follow at least most of the Geneva Conventions, so was simply to help give them a guideline to follow in the event they are captured.

It certainly does not cover situations like this, and a POWs most important goal is simply survival, so long as it does not involve the survival of other POWs (in which this case there were none).

After all, we had quite a few POWs in Vietnam make public taped statements and written confessions much worse then this Sergeant did. And certainly nobody reasonable goes around screaming that they were in collusion with the enemy.
Click to expand...

I never said that the Code of Conduct was an oath, I said that American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen took an oath.

The Code of Conduct was adopted after the Korean War when it was discovered how many soldiers had surrendered not captured but surrendered when they still had the means to keep on fighting.

II
I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.


III
If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.I


There's a big difference between being captured and surrendering.

When I served the Code of Conduct was driven into our heads during boot camp and while at Staging Battalion before deploying to Nam.
Hardly was the Geneva Convention ever mentioned or anything about unlawful orders. That would change after the Vietnam War because of the My Lai incident.

All Vietnam War American POW's were captured, mostly aviators shot down over the North. No record of any Americans ever surrendering. But there's rumors of Salt and Pepper.
 
APACHERAT said:
Well we know what the North Vietnamese did to John McCain while he was staying at the Hanoi Hilton.
Click to expand...

It explains why he is insane trying to provoke a war every time he opens his mouth.Plus not every soldier,marine,airman or sailor can handle being threatened and tortured by the enemy.Pus in McCain's situation there other POWs, Bergdahl was alone.

You ever wonder why he can't raise his arms above his shoulders ?
Click to expand...

I have never once thought about why he couldn't raise his arms.

No body gives a **** about what happened to Bergdahl during his captivity except maybe some bleeding heart liberals.
Click to expand...
Considering the allegations made against him a lot of conservatives care too.They calim he gave the enemy intel,although I am not too sure what kind of valuable intel a PFC would have.They claim he celebrated Easter and Christmas with his captors and that he fired AK-47s with his captors.
 
jamesrage said:
I have never once thought about why he couldn't raise his arms.
Click to expand...

But I've seen more than a few who were to young to remember the Vietnam War who made fun of McCain's arms.

McCain was physically tourterd as a POW. But McCain followed the Code of Conduct especially Article lll when the North Vietnamese discovered that McCain's father was an Admiral in the U.S. Navy and offered to release McCain from captivity. McCain refused early release while his fellow POW's remained in captivity.

III

If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and to aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.
 
Oozlefinch said:
But you did not, if this had not been a quote I would not have looked, since I ignore your posts unless quoted by others.

You said there were photographs of him in Afghanistan handing over a check. Instead the reality was completely different then what you tried to make it out to be. It was simply the State Department talking with the Afghanistan Government (which was Taliban controlled but not exclusively Taliban) and donating money to help them improve conditions in refugee camps.

Sorry, once again, a complete and utter failure, and so typical of you. You take the smallest sliver of truth, and then bend and twist it in order to suit your own needs. Simply making up things along the way. Sorry, your credibility is almost zero, and that blog post (was not even news but another blog post) in fact shows that you were wrong when it is actually read and understood.
Click to expand...

Oh Gosh, you're great at hair-splitting! :mrgreen:

If it makes you feel better that nobody took a picture of Powell & The Taliban, by all means, embrace whatever fantasy you need to get by. :peace

Such a desperate plight.
 
jamesrage said:
Considering the allegations made against him a lot of conservatives care too.They calim he gave the enemy intel,although I am not too sure what kind of valuable intel a PFC would have.They claim he celebrated Easter and Christmas with his captors and that he fired AK-47s with his captors.
Click to expand...

I care a hell of a lot to be honest. He went through hell for several years, and the majority of the time none of the American public seemed to give a damn.

And yes, a single PFC is not going to be able to give much information, and especially of a valuable nature. Anything he knew that was really of importance (countersign and passwords, access codes, callsigns, etc) would have been changed immediately after his capture.
 
justabubba said:
Henry David was right and proved you wrong. for all of us to see
i have emphasized YOUR post above to make that readily apparent
no amount of BS is going to make that reality go away
get over it
Click to expand...

No, he was completely dead wrong.

Here, a repeat:

Henry David said:
Bergdahl posing with Taliban?

Holy Cow, he shares that honor with Colin Powell, who posed with them in April 2001, hand carrying a US government check.

Way cool. :cool:
Click to expand...

Now tell me what in the **** what he said had to do with the reality. He talks about seeing photos and videos of the SOC giving a check to the Taliban, nothing even remotely like that ever happened.

It is all a fantasy, made up in his mind. The fact that he found something only with a grazing passing to the truth means nothing. Other then he needs to learn how to freaking fact check.

Read HDs blog source (and a blog is not a source in the first place), and you see that other then the US Government giving Afghanistan money for refugee aid, it has not a thing to do with what he claimed. Might as well try to say that the US and USSR were locked in a death match until 1992.
 
Oozlefinch said:
I care a hell of a lot to be honest. He went through hell for several years, and the majority of the time none of the American public seemed to give a damn.

And yes, a single PFC is not going to be able to give much information, and especially of a valuable nature. Anything he knew that was really of importance (countersign and passwords, access codes, callsigns, etc) would have been changed immediately after his capture.
Click to expand...

I can remember a couple of times I wanted to change my call sign ASAP after some Lt. Col. sitting in the FSCC listening to the com traffic and asking "Who in the **** is Ham Salad 26 Charley ? Have him report to me as soon as he's out of the bush and back in camp" :lamo
 
Oozlefinch said:
No, he was completely dead wrong.

Here, a repeat:



Now tell me what in the **** what he said had to do with the reality. He talks about seeing photos and videos of the SOC giving a check to the Taliban, nothing even remotely like that ever happened.

It is all a fantasy, made up in his mind. The fact that he found something only with a grazing passing to the truth means nothing. Other then he needs to learn how to freaking fact check.

Read HDs blog source (and a blog is not a source in the first place), and you see that other then the US Government giving Afghanistan money for refugee aid, it has not a thing to do with what he claimed. Might as well try to say that the US and USSR were locked in a death match until 1992.
Click to expand...

A fantastic, if not embarrassing, display of not being able to admit one was wrong. :3oops:

Just to keep things in perspective, as a supporting member of Cato I probably read that article I linked to many years ago, though do not specifically remember having read it.

But the larger point is that in those early days of the Bush administration the visit by Powell was fairly well covered in the mainstream media, including pictures.

I don't care at all whether you believe that or not. Every man is entitled to his own fantasies, founded upon whim or ignorance, it doesn't matter to me.

The reason I was interested in Powell's visit was because of its implications to our drug policy. The Taliban had effectively wiped out poppy production in Afghanistan, and the US was rewarding them. Heavy irony, years later, that their success came by way of zealous enforcement of Sharia Law. The Taliban had also heavily defaced some old statues of Buddha, as I recall, and they were scolded about having done that, success in the drug war notwithstanding.
 
"Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will be formally questioned by an Army investigator on Wednesday about his 2009 disappearance in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl will be interviewed by Major General Kenneth Dahl, who was appointed to head up the AR 15-6 investigation into the circumstances leading up to his captivity.


The pair have already met informally, though Wednesday will be their first formal interaction and the interview will take place at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas.


Bergdahl's attorney Eugene Fidell told the New York Daily News that he will meet with Bergdahl today to prepare for Dahl's questions, and will also attend on Wednesday. An Army lawyer assigned to Bergdahl's case will attend with them."

"Greg Rinckey, a former JAG officer and military practice lawyer, told the Daily News that he expects Bergdahl to answer Dahl's questions though Fidell may call a stop to the probing at any point."

Read more: Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to be formally questioned in 'desertion' probe | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Read more: Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to be formally questioned in 'desertion' probe | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl to be formally questioned in 'desertion' probe | Mail Online



//
 
jamesrage said:
If you were a hostage of these terrorists would you be acting all defiant or would you be cooperative? I think most people would be cooperative because acting defiant will get you killed.
Click to expand...

The question of desertion is the intent at the moment that Bergdahl walked off the base.

A day after Bergdahl walked off the base, there was a radio transmission, or cellphone interception, that a US soldier was looking for the Taliban in a village near the base.

The question is, was Bergdahl looking for the Taliban, when he left the base? If he was not looking for the Taliban, when he left the base, what changed in the day since he left? Why was he looking for the Taliban, a day after he left the base, if he did not plan to look for the Taliban?

If Bergdahl did intend, instead, to serve as if he were a peace corp volunteer to help the Afghan peasants with increasing crop yields or animal husbandry, why was he looking for the Taliban?

Was Bergdahl's purpose to provide instruction to the Taliban, on how to avoid casualties, from the US and Coalition forces? Perhaps Bergdahl intended to give purely defensive strategy information, but in fact, did Bergdahl give information helpful to the Taliban in offense actions, against the US and coalition forces? Perhaps information that was helpful also in repelling attacks by US and Coalition forces? What, if any, peaceful assistance did Bergdahl intend to provide to the Taliban?

If Bergdahl intended to help the Taliban in some manner, at the moment he walked off the US Base, was there a time at which Bergdahl changed his mind, that the Taliban should not be helped? When Bergdahl reached a decision to no longer voluntarily help the Taliban, what did he change in the cooperation he had been giving to the Taliban? Why did the Taliban call Bergdahl their "Canary" if Bergdahl did not provide useful information to the Taliban?

If Bergdahl had walked off the US Base with the intent to help the Taliban, in some way, what led Bergdahl to try to escape from Taliban custody?

Will Bergdahl accept a dishonorable discharge, and forego his right to a court martial?


//
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
The question of desertion is the intent at the moment that Bergdahl walked off the base.

A day after Bergdahl walked off the base, there was a radio transmission, or cellphone interception, that a US soldier was looking for the Taliban in a village near the base.

The question is, was Bergdahl looking for the Taliban, when he left the base? If he was not looking for the Taliban, when he left the base, what changed in the day since he left? Why was he looking for the Taliban, a day after he left the base, if he did not plan to look for the Taliban?

If Bergdahl did intend, instead, to serve as if he were a peace corp volunteer to help the Afghan peasants with increasing crop yields or animal husbandry, why was he looking for the Taliban?

Was Bergdahl's purpose to provide instruction to the Taliban, on how to avoid casualties, from the US and Coalition forces? Perhaps Bergdahl intended to give purely defensive strategy information, but in fact, did Bergdahl give information helpful to the Taliban in offense actions, against the US and coalition forces? Perhaps information that was helpful also in repelling attacks by US and Coalition forces? What, if any, peaceful assistance did Bergdahl intend to provide to the Taliban?

If Bergdahl intended to help the Taliban in some manner, at the moment he walked off the US Base, was there a time at which Bergdahl changed his mind, that the Taliban should not be helped? When Bergdahl reached a decision to no longer voluntarily help the Taliban, what did he change in the cooperation he had been giving to the Taliban? Why did the Taliban call Bergdahl their "Canary" if Bergdahl did not provide useful information to the Taliban?

If Bergdahl had walked off the US Base with the intent to help the Taliban, in some way, what led Bergdahl to try to escape from Taliban custody?

Will Bergdahl accept a dishonorable discharge, and forego his right to a court martial?


//
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like his intent was to help the Taliban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl
Some soldiers who served with Bergdahl have called him a deserter.[34][35][36] Nathan Bradley Bethea, a member of Bergdahl's battalion wrote a Daily Beast article stating that there was no patrol the night that Bergdahl went missing, and that Bergdahl had talked about his desire to walk to India.
 
jamesrage said:
It doesn't look like his intent was to help the Taliban.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl
Some soldiers who served with Bergdahl have called him a deserter.[34][35][36] Nathan Bradley Bethea, a member of Bergdahl's battalion wrote a Daily Beast article stating that there was no patrol the night that Bergdahl went missing, and that Bergdahl had talked about his desire to walk to India.
Click to expand...


Taking a walk to India, might not be an intent to desert permanently.

Was Bergdahl looking for the Taliban to help guide him to Pakistan, so he could walk to India?


"A military person has committed the crime of Desertion if he/she is AWOL, and intends to remain away from the military permanently. Desertion is a major crime in the US Military. It's punishable under Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. "


What Is Desertion From the Military?


"1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently; "

"Maximum punishment.

(1) Completed or attempted desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 5 years.

(2) Other cases of completed or attempted desertion.

(a) Terminated by apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 3 years.

(b) Terminated otherwise. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and confinement for 2 years.

(3) In time of war. Death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct. "




Article 85—Desertion



//
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom