normiss 801 #376 January 27, 2015 Seems to be about 90% of the time if not more. It's nothing whatsoever like a civilian trial. It's a military tribunal of sorts. ALL the "judges" are military officers. It used to be almost impossible to bring in a civilian defense attorney when I was in, although that may have been due to the lawyering fees. *ETA* 93.7% I was close! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #377 January 27, 2015 Exactly. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #378 January 27, 2015 AnvilbrotherCan't wait to see the lack of people admitting they were wrong about him being a traitor. We shall see. Why should they? He's (apparently) being charged with desertion, not treason - they are two different things.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #379 January 27, 2015 jakee***Can't wait to see the lack of people admitting they were wrong about him being a traitor. We shall see. Why should they? He's (apparently) being charged with desertion, not treason - they are two different things. There you go, using your words again....Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #380 January 27, 2015 jakee***and if convicted, he should be shot. Bollocks he should. It isn't 1917 in the trenches anymore. This. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #381 January 27, 2015 QuoteAnvilbrother wrote: Can't wait to see the lack of people admitting they were wrong about him being a traitor. We shall see. Why should they? He's (apparently) being charged with desertion, not treason - they are two different things. Traitor-a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc. No matter the charge he is a traitor if found guilty. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #382 January 27, 2015 lawrocket******and if convicted, he should be shot. Bollocks he should. It isn't 1917 in the trenches anymore. This. You beat me to it. Psychological casualties are still casualties. That said, I do think that in this case "psychological casualty" ought to be be an "affirmative defense", i.e., Bergdahl ought to have the initial burden of demonstrating it with evidence before the prosecution should be required to rebut it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #383 January 27, 2015 Andy9o8*********and if convicted, he should be shot. Bollocks he should. It isn't 1917 in the trenches anymore. This. You beat me to it. Psychological casualties are still casualties. That said, I do think that in this case "psychological casualty" ought to be be an "affirmative defense", i.e., Bergdahl ought to have the initial burden of demonstrating it with evidence before the prosecution should be required to rebut it. This. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #384 January 27, 2015 SkyDekker***Can't wait to see the lack of people admitting they were wrong about him being a traitor. We shall see. You seem to forget the step where he has to be convicted first. Getting charged doesn't make him a traitor just yet. More importantly, most people stated there just wasn't enough information out there, and certainly not enough clear information to determine if he was a traitor or deserter just yet. Hopefully the trial will rectify that. Since when you do care about a trial?? Thinking about Zimmerman, the incident in Ferguson MO and others Dont you know it is the seriousness of the charge that really counts Sheeesh Catch up"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jclalor 12 #385 January 27, 2015 sfzombie13and if convicted, he should be shot. It's been 70 years since the deserter was shot, it won't even be a serious option in 2015. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #386 January 27, 2015 AnvilbrotherQuoteAnvilbrother wrote: Can't wait to see the lack of people admitting they were wrong about him being a traitor. We shall see. Why should they? He's (apparently) being charged with desertion, not treason - they are two different things. Traitor-a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc. No matter the charge he is a traitor if found guilty. That's your opinion, the US Constitution (and pretty much every relevant book of law ever written) would beg to differ.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimjumper 25 #387 January 27, 2015 According to the Army Times, he hasn't been charged with anything yet. The Army is saying that the Rueters report was inaccurate. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #388 January 27, 2015 That was a definition from Google search all I did was cut and paste. Not my opinion on the definition at all, but it is my opinion that he is both a traitor and deserter. A London paper reported that a Taliban member they interviewed said bowe taught them how to ambush people, and use a cell phone to detonate a bomb. He said after the second time he saw him that he had changed and become one of them. We will see. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #389 January 27, 2015 Oh OK, so Google dictionary ranks higher than the US Constitution on matters of American law. Good to know. The legal definition of traitor (this thread was revived because of a possible court case), is someone who actively plots against their nation or government or who actively gives aid to the enemy. A conviction for desertion would involve none of those things, therefore it would have no bearing on whether or not he was a traitor. And as for your anecdote where an unnamed paper interviewed an unnamed terrorist, come on. Are we in kindergarten here? Source it or it's bullshit. (Seriously, what kind of terrorist doesn't know how to set off a bomb with a cellphone by now? Did Berghdal desert in the '80s?)Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #390 January 28, 2015 jakeeOh OK, so Google dictionary ranks higher than the US Constitution on matters of American law. Good to know. The legal definition of traitor (this thread was revived because of a possible court case), is someone who actively plots against their nation or government or who actively gives aid to the enemy. A conviction for desertion would involve none of those things, therefore it would have no bearing on whether or not he was a traitor. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traitor trai·tor noun \ˈtrā-tər\ a person who is not loyal to his or her own country, friends, etc. a person who betrays a country or group of people by helping or supporting an enemy Full Definition of TRAITOR 1one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 one who commits treason I would hope that your not so closed minded to stick to your legal definition bullshit on this one, and just admit it, in a general context the guy was a traitor to his fellow soldiers. QuoteAnd as for your anecdote where an unnamed paper interviewed an unnamed terrorist, come on. Are we in kindergarten here? Source it or it's bullshit. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305184/Bowe-Bergdahl-Taliban-claim-captured-U-S-solider-teaching-fighters-bomb-making-skills.html QuoteA captured American soldier is training Taliban fighters bomb-making and ambush skills, according to one of his captors and Afghan intelligence officials. Private Bowe Bergdahl disappeared in June 2009 while based in eastern Afghanistan and is thought to be the only U.S. serviceman in captivity. The 24-year-old has converted to Islam and now has the Muslim name Abdullah, one of his captors told The Sunday Times. Not only that he was caught on cell phone trying to anyone who spoke english and was looking FOR the taliban, which a later wikileaks was able to help corroborate. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/04/cnn-radio-chatter-indicates-bergdahl-sought-contract-with-the-taliban-n1847233 QuoteThe American is in Yahya Khel (a village two miles away). He's looking for someone who speaks English so he can talk to the Taliban. "I heard it straight from the interpreter's lips as he heard it over the radio," said Buetow. "There's a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away." Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #391 January 28, 2015 >Full Definition of TRAITOR >one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty Cool. Mitt Romney - TRAITOR! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anvilbrother 0 #392 January 28, 2015 Not sure what your referring to, the search with his name and traitor turns up results of economic traitor. If you think he meets the definition i'll stand with you on it. Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along, Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #393 January 28, 2015 Anvilbrother Full Definition of TRAITOR 1one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty 2 one who commits treason I would hope that your not so closed minded to stick to your legal definition bullshit on this one, and just admit it, in a general context the guy was a traitor to his fellow soldiers. Ok then. Play it your way - have you ever failed to keep a promise? You're a traitor. By the way, your two links contradict each other.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #394 January 28, 2015 QuoteI am not. In military trails getting charged is the same as getting convicted? Oh really? Canadian Forces have their own manual for Courts Martial. I must confess I've not read any of the Canadian Manual. South of you is the Uniform Code of Military Justice or as us Yank G.I's call it, The "UCMJ." Something of which I am familiar. Cutting to the chase, it's simply this, you're blanket statement is opinion, absent of any substrative fact and therefore Bee Ess. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #395 January 28, 2015 In your rush to pass judgment you may have missed the part where he was asking a question, not making a statement. Normiss was the guy saying tribunal equals conviction.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #396 January 28, 2015 Well...here's the deal. A lot of speculation going on here and most of it has been generated by the American press rushing to get a story. OK, I get it, that's their job. So I'll admit to the foul having missed the question mark at the end. MY ERROR. NO EXCUSES. MY APOLOGIES TO Mr. SkyDekker. That stated. This thread started last May. Between that time, one thing I am absolutely certain of, Bergdahl's case has been investigated and the particulars of that investigation (probably carried on by Army CID) is all on a need to know basis. Whoever is leaking in the Pentagon to the press needs to keep their mouth shut. Even in cases of Non-Judicial Punishment under UCMJ Article 15, once the charges are referred to the JAG's office, the case is now in the military justice system and for the sake of due process and the rights of both parties PARTICULARLY the accused, everyone (in the military chain of command) is required to keep their opinion to themselves and their mouths shut until the case has been proper adjudicated. The principal charge is reported to be desertion (whether treason applies remains to be seen) and desertion carriers a maximum capital penalty to it; particularly in cases where the desertion occurred in a combat operations area. But since the cat is out of the bag as they say, this is a dicey one. First, there is a high probability that a "Charge Sheet" does exist and has been formalized against Bergdahl. At this point in time official Pentagon statements is that Bergdahl has not been formally charged. The Army General Staff is reviewing and it's probably a safe be that the Army Chief of Staff, General Odierno has his eyes on it. The problem is further compounded by the fact that the White House obtained Bergdahl's release in exchange for five high value Taliban and put a considerable amount of political capital into this action. So now what we have is a potential clash between the White House and the Pentagon, particularly the US Army. If and when the facts come out and point to compelling evidence against Bergdahl warranting first an Article 32 hearing proceeding to a General Courts Martial, this could get real messy. Maybe in the balance it was best thing to bet Bergdahl back. However, it may not look good for the White house to trade 5 HVT's for what may be proven to be an individual who deserted in the first place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 801 #397 January 28, 2015 I never claimed that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #398 January 28, 2015 BillyVanceHe deserted his unit in a war zone. Throw the book at him. Send him back to Afghanistan to serve his sentence in prison. "Sentence first, verdict afterwards"... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,490 #399 January 28, 2015 normiss I never claimed that. I was going to put '(well, 93%)' in there but I figured why complicate things?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Boomerdog 0 #400 January 28, 2015 QuoteBillyVance wrote: He deserted his unit in a war zone. Throw the book at him. Send him back to Afghanistan to serve his sentence in prison. Quotekallend wrote:"Sentence first, verdict afterwards" How about we try this...if there is a General Courts Martial convened, let due process work. It may not be perfect but it's the best we got. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
