You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status.
You are not a legal combatant? You are not given POW status because the laws of warfare don't apply.
Non-legal combatants capturing one of our guys? They should act like legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare!
And our troops do. They don't interrogate then execute. They provide medical care. They give access to IRC, they allow a legal process to review status, and so on. We do act like legitimate folks and do follow the laws of war. The exceptions get punished when caught.
The bad guys, not so much.
So are they POWs now after you said they were not POWs?
Even the notion of not negotiating with terrorists isn't as clear cut as people think.
Negotiating with terrorists over a specific act of terror is generally unwise.
Negotiating with a terrorist organization because its also a de facto government is usually the only option to have any dialogue. There's also no reason to completely limit options.
No country is tougher on terrorists than Israel, and even they will negotiate with the PLO.
So our captured soldiers are not POWs either and the enemy consists of unlawful combatants that we refuse to negotiate with because they are terrorists and not any kind of armed force or government but who we expect to follow the laws of warfare when it suits us.
Insurgent forces are not a country. Insurgent forces did not sign the Geneva Conventions. So they do not have to follow the rules and guide lines for POW's as stated in the Geneva Convention.
The VA issue kept escalating (as it should) and the WH needed to get it off the burner somehow.
The VA has had problems for a long time, why would it now suddenly require such an odd story to try and counteract it? Especially since at best it also keeps the VA problems in the light as well since this guy will be dealing with the VA.
Just look at the two issues and think about it.
Which goes back to it being there only if that is what you want to see. If you actually think about it it doesn't work and it doesn't make sense.
The VA secretary was just forced to resign under massive allegations of systemwide fraud. THATS new.
Frazzled wrote: The VA secretary was just forced to resign under massive allegations of systemwide fraud. THATS new.
And yet this story still hasn't made you, or anyone else, forget it. The argument is that somehow rescuing this guy is supposedly to bury the negative VA stories, but it hasn't done that, and even if there weren't problems with the Bergdahl story it still wouldn't make people forget that the VA needs serious work. It also isn't something that is new to this administration. I find the argument that it was done as deflection ludicrous.
Jihadin wrote: Insurgent forces are not a country. Insurgent forces did not sign the Geneva Conventions. So they do not have to follow the rules and guide lines for POW's as stated in the Geneva Convention.
Thank you. That's only what I've been saying for a couple of pages now.
Which is why I think that this:
CptJake wrote: They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
Is a mindset that doesn't work when dealing with them. "Following laws that they don't have to follow because they are unlawful combatants" is no incentive at all.
Which means that their incentive for US soldiers so far has been: "Kill them instead of capturing them" or "capture, then kill them on camera". Continuing the "we don't negotiate with terrorists" mantra just keeps that the only viable options they have for dealing with our soldiers.
"We don't negotiate" made a nice slogan once, and it might have even been a viable strategy at some point in our history.
But we are in a point in history where the line of "fighting a war" and "fighting terrorists" has become very blurred and often times they are the same thing. So a lot of our ideas have to change along with that. We can't have a "these are the rules we follow when fighting every terrorist organization" and "these are the rules we follow when fighting a war against a 'real' country" anymore, because the lines are becoming to blurry. War changes, and the wars we fight now are different than WW2, Vietnam, and even the 1st Gulf War.
d-usa wrote: So our captured soldiers are not POWs either and the enemy consists of unlawful combatants that we refuse to negotiate with because they are terrorists and not any kind of armed force or government but who we expect to follow the laws of warfare when it suits us.
The laws of war apply to those nations that have signed the accords. But... and this is a pretty big exception, it only applies to what international law considers "legal combatants." This is defined generally as having an officer corps, wearing uniforms, etc. Generally, it means that when in uniform, legal acts of war (such as shooting people) are not criminal acts, but rather legal acts fo war.
Like a lot of terms, POW has both colloquial and legalistic definiations, and differing definitions in different legal frameworks. To a group that is not a signatory to the Hague conventions (such as the Taliban), the term POW as defined there simply has no meaning.
Believe it or not, the US and its allies actually bend over backwards with regards to insurgents. Most of that is out of awareness of publicity, but especially in Afghanistan, where we started out as allies of a semi-legitimate poltical entitiy, our Armed Forces are legally there. Any illegal combatants could, IIRC, simply be executed or otherwise dealt with under local law.
Frazzled wrote: The VA secretary was just forced to resign under massive allegations of systemwide fraud. THATS new.
And yet this story still hasn't made you, or anyone else, forget it. The argument is that somehow rescuing this guy is supposedly to bury the negative VA stories, but it hasn't done that, and even if there weren't problems with the Bergdahl story it still wouldn't make people forget that the VA needs serious work. It also isn't something that is new to this administration. I find the argument that it was done as deflection ludicrous.
I should be clear, I don';t think that was the reason. I'm down with the CNN argument that they want to start dumping people out of GITMO and saw a chance to get this guy back at the same time. Their mistake was: breaking the law; making this Bardahl guy out to be Sgt. York.
CptJake wrote: They had plenty of incentive. Namely trying to be legitimate folks that follow the laws of warfare. If acting in accordance with those laws isn't enough incentive, there are bigger issues.
Can you please extrapolate on what those bigger issues are?
The law is actually pretty clear, the constitutionality of the law is another thing.
I'm leery about the executive taking unilateral action, OTOH, matters of negotations with hostile groups is completely within the purview of the executive.
What's murky is what, if anything, happens if the notice isn't given?
Frazzled wrote: making this Bardahl guy out to be Sgt. York.
Even before the desertion accusations I haven't seen anything remotely like that. Just that he was one of ours and we got him back.
Yeah, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see that either.
Aside from the standard respect given any POW, that is.
Having said that, I stick with my earlier point. Getting him out good. Military should look to see if he merits trial for his actions that got him there. All the other stuff is not much of an issue to me.
Easy E wrote: I never thought that bringing an American home from the control of a foreign enemy would be so controversial.
Truly we live in interesting times.
In other news, this trade seems like a good way to kickstart a potential political resolution to the Taliban "problem" in Afghanistan.
Many here in OT do not seem to object to the release being secured. It is inexcusable to leave a brother/sister-in-arms behind. The controversy here arises from the manner in which the POW was captured, the White House lauding him as a hero, making a deal with terrorists, not following the law in relation to GITMO detainees, and the fact that his alleged actions have caused the deaths of other servicemen.
Exactly. Why weren't the parents of the soldiers killed trying to save him invited to the Rose Garden to thank them for the sacrifice of their sons?
The law is actually pretty clear, the constitutionality of the law is another thing.
I was thinking of the Constitutionality of the law, I should have been more specific. There was a discussion elsewhere about that and I crossed the wires.
I said people in the administration, not the administration. It's still pretty bad. People got worked up and righteous about what the Clippers owner said in a private conversation.
I think this is far worse since it's a highly placed government official putting a message out to the public at large.
As I said, he's someone in the administration. To tell the truth, if he doesn't think it'll go public when he says something like that on twitter, he's dumber than a box of rocks.
And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.
Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.
If he doesn't think it will go public he is an idiot. If people think his personal statements are the official statements of the administration then I would shake my head at them as well.
d-usa wrote: And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.
Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.
d, I said someone in the administration, not "the" administration. He is highly placed, though, as I said which is why it was looked at as a newsworthy item when he spouted that gak.
d-usa wrote: And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.
Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.
d-usa wrote: And I'm with the VA, so every time I type something "the VA says", and every time one of our military members posts "the pentagon says". We have someone who works for the IRS, so when he posts in Dakka the IRS posts.
Or we can agree that calling a personal twitter account of a HUD official "the administration calling people things" is pretty dishonest and far fetched.
"I’d like to clarify tweets I wrote last night on my personal Twitter account concerning the return of Bowe Bergdahl. First, I do not speak for the Administration on national security issues in any capacity—public or personal. As a former infantry officer and combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have only the highest regard for our servicemen and women. They are my friends, my colleagues, my mentors, my brothers, and sisters. While I just wanted to make the point that the public should wait before passing judgment, I unfortunately used my own poor judgment in choosing inappropriate language that many view as disparaging to U.S. service members. That was certainly not my intent and I regret making the comments on my personal account in such a way. I apologize to those with whom I work in the Administration, at HUD, and, most importantly, to any service members who took offense.”
I would be fine with saying "a high ranking HUD official", I just think spreading him to mean "an administration official" is stretching things a bid thin.
To me "the administration" would be the big boss, anybody working in the White House, or the individual secretaries of the cabinet.
d-usa wrote: I would be fine with saying "a high ranking HUD official", I just think spreading him to mean "an administration official" is stretching things a bid thin.
To me "the administration" would be the big boss, anybody working in the White House, or the individual secretaries of the cabinet.
That's my only beef.
The big boss? Bruce Lee'll kick his ass! The ironic thing is, if you go by his job description, it looks like he would be some kind of media specialist.
whembly wrote: “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
This is a dumb sentiment and I think you probably know that if you consider it. Capturing a US soldier alive has always been and will always be a very useful tool for the Taliban because the PR value of executing them on the internet is enormous. The only way you can defend the Taliban's POV on this (which as a side note, you should maybe think about) would be if you honestly think they had not previously been trying to do this. That is, I believe, utterly impossible for any reasonable person to believe.
D-USA is right. The old status quo was that the Taliban was eager to capture US troops alive, so they could make videos about killing them. That they might now have some value alive other then for that is a net bonus, and the desire of the Taliban to capture troops is still going to be exactly the same as before.
I think it was right to make a swap. I think the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is a travesty, I think it's a betrayal of American Ideals, and I think holding men indefinitely in an extralegal environment should be horrifying to conservative and liberal alike. I consider it the greatest failing of the Bush adminsitration - opening a facility with the stated goal of putting the detainees is "legal outer space"; as they put it - and I think the greatest failure of the Obama administration was not righting this wrong. Charge them, grant them POW status, or let them go: those are the options as I see it. As the war winds down and we start to realize that it's going to be very hard to continue extrajudicially holding these guys forever, we're going to have to release them anyway, and we might as well get something out of it than nothing.
"I’d like to clarify tweets I wrote last night on my personal Twitter account concerning the return of Bowe Bergdahl. First, I do not speak for the Administration on national security issues in any capacity—public or personal. As a former infantry officer and combat veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, I have only the highest regard for our servicemen and women. They are my friends, my colleagues, my mentors, my brothers, and sisters. While I just wanted to make the point that the public should wait before passing judgment, I unfortunately used my own poor judgment in choosing inappropriate language that many view as disparaging to U.S. service members. That was certainly not my intent and I regret making the comments on my personal account in such a way. I apologize to those with whom I work in the Administration, at HUD, and, most importantly, to any service members who took offense.”
The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.
Relapse wrote: The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.
Probably a 40 foot shipping container of assorted guns, rpgs, grenades and the like
I'm not one to say that some of his fellow soldiers and our politicians are full of crap, but I do question where all this "why are we risking our lives for a deserter" talk was from everybody while he was still missing. It just feels very "swift boat".
Relapse wrote: The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.
Relapse wrote: The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.
Is this the marine with the 3 guns that "accidentally" crossed the border? Because if so, those charges didn't seem very bogus to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I'm not one to say that some of his fellow soldiers and our politicians are full of crap, but I do question where all this "why are we risking our lives for a deserter" talk was from everybody while he was still missing. It just feels very "swift boat".\.
And even if not,
1.) It seems way, way too early to smear him. Lets have the facts come out first. If he deserted, then charge him.
2.) Even if he was a deserter, he was an American serviceman and we get back our troops, even if they're not particularly good or particularly loyal. Call me an idealist.
Ouze wrote: D-USA is right. The old status quo was that the Taliban was eager to capture US troops alive, so they could make videos about killing them. That they might now have some value alive other then for that is a net bonus, and the desire of the Taliban to capture troops is still going to be exactly the same as before.
I think it was right to make a swap. I think the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is a travesty, I think it's a betrayal of American Ideals, and I think holding men indefinitely in an extralegal environment should be horrifying to conservative and liberal alike. I consider it the greatest failing of the Bush adminsitration - opening a facility with the stated goal of putting the detainees is "legal outer space"; as they put it - and I think the greatest failure of the Obama administration was not righting this wrong. Charge them, grant them POW status, or let them go: those are the options as I see it. As the war winds down and we start to realize that it's going to be very hard to continue extrajudicially holding these guys forever, we're going to have to release them anyway, and we might as well get something out of it than nothing.
We have no moral high ground here.
The issue with that is you are putting the cart before the horse. At the time Berghdl was captured the status quo was that a US serviceman was useful as a propaganda tool for an execution video (barring whatever information could be wrung from them). What changed the status quo was the fact that the US and Taliban are now talking and interacting politically to reach a settlement so the US can withdraw from Afghanistan.
I agree about GITMO too. While there is room to play with the legal definition of the detainees the fact remains that this makes it a minefield when we try to repatriate them, and it has been a huge black eye for the US and her international standing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: CNN is arguing this was actually a step to getting rid of GITMO and it kind of backfired.
It's a good way to test the water. See how the public react to a prisoner exchange to get a POW back, then if it is favourable sell the closing of GITMO as the only way to get all out troops out of Afghanistan
d-usa wrote: And he is still using a personal twitter account saying personal stuff.
Politicians left and right are attacking people on a daily basis speaking in the record and in their official capacity.
But some guy on his own twitter is "the administration"?
I agree with d-usa. However ill-advised his comments were it does not appear that he made them in an official capacity
Relapse wrote: The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.
We have millions of illegal immigrants who are Mexican natives who we could trade
whembly wrote: “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people,” the commander said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the media. “It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
This is a dumb sentiment and I think you probably know that if you consider it. Capturing a US soldier alive has always been and will always be a very useful tool for the Taliban because the PR value of executing them on the internet is enormous. The only way you can defend the Taliban's POV on this (which as a side note, you should maybe think about) would be if you honestly think they had not previously been trying to do this. That is, I believe, utterly impossible for any reasonable person to believe.
D-USA is right. The old status quo was that the Taliban was eager to capture US troops alive, so they could make videos about killing them. That they might now have some value alive other then for that is a net bonus, and the desire of the Taliban to capture troops is still going to be exactly the same as before.
I disagree.
The Talibans (and potentially other terrorists) now has something concrete in this transaction. Namely, 5 of their guys for 1 of ours. When is that last time we've done something like that? Honestly? (Jessica Lynch was rescued by Special Ops).
All you have to do is look at how Isreal handles these prisoner swap. Both sides actively engage in strategies to capture the enemy with the express purpose to get the other side to release their POWs.
Is that what you're advocating for?
I think it was right to make a swap.
I'm glad he's home. It's the "how" is disconcerning...
I think the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay is a travesty, I think it's a betrayal of American Ideals, and I think holding men indefinitely in an extralegal environment should be horrifying to conservative and liberal alike. I consider it the greatest failing of the Bush adminsitration - opening a facility with the stated goal of putting the detainees is "legal outer space"; as they put it - and I think the greatest failure of the Obama administration was not righting this wrong. Charge them, grant them POW status, or let them go: those are the options as I see it. As the war winds down and we start to realize that it's going to be very hard to continue extrajudicially holding these guys forever, we're going to have to release them anyway, and we might as well get something out of it than nothing.
Eh... if it was really that cut & dry, Obama would've shut down Gitmo on Day 1 of his Presidency.
We have no moral high ground here.
Regarding the Talibans? Zero feths given.
Regarding to having function in place to indefinitely detain people? (The Patriot Act?) Yeah... that simply need to end.
I believe Obama tried to close GITMO and there was a big outcry from certain groups about bring terrorists and the "worst of the worst" onto Amnerican soil to be tried was insanely dangerous.
Then we he wanted to send them to a third party country there was outcry from certain groups that doing so would be insanely dangerous and they would just return tot he fight.
I guess if we depopulate GITMO by trading them for our own POWS there is an outcry from some groups that.... well I think you know where this is going.
What is the solution for closing GITMO? Send the detainees to Mars as the first human colonists?
Easy E wrote: I believe Obama tried to close GITMO and there was a big outcry from certain groups about bring terrorists and the "worst of the worst" onto Amnerican soil to be tried was insanely dangerous.
Then we he wanted to send them to a third party country there was outcry from certain groups that doing so would be insanely dangerous and they would just return tot he fight.
I guess if we depopulate GITMO by trading them for our own POWS there is an outcry from some groups that.... well I think you know where this is going.
What is the solution for closing GITMO? Send the detainees to Mars as the first human colonists?
The Obama team managed to shoot themselves in both feet with the Bergdahl PR stunt. They thought they could tug on America's heartstrings, get heaps of praise and distract us from the rest of their abysmal failures. It didn't quite work out that way, did it?
The outrage of the many folks who knew of the dubious circumstances surrounding Bergdahl's walkabout exploded with righteous fury. The Rose Garden ceremony with Obama and Papa Bergdahl doing his "Love the Taliban” bit didn't help much and it sure seemed like Bowe was headed for a heroes welcome for serving with honor and distinction. The administration was talking like there was no need for any review of the circumstances of his "disappearance" or need for any punishment as he had obviously suffered enough. Wrong!
The flip side of "Bring them all home" is "Hold them all accountable". If you served with honor and distinction you get the hometown parade and a lifetime of free drinks at the VFW. If you served dishonorably, forget the cheering crowd, keep cash on hand for your own refreshments, and do expect a mighty boot in the ass. It seemed the Obama team wanted to make sure their guy stayed the hero and was going to torpedo any attempt to look at the back-story. There is no doubt in my mind that a good dose of undue command influence was ready to make sure he stayed clean. That brought the aforementioned outrage and it served the purpose of derailing the hero train Obama and his folks planned to joy ride on. But as these things often do, it has spun up into a "Hangin's too good for 'im" mentality.
Now it has become apparent that Bergdahl will have to answer for his actions and all those who had been muzzled will get to speak. This is a good time to make sure we stop looking at the considerable information out there in the media as the gospel truth. I have seen, read, heard about it and talked to people deep in the know about this and it looks very, very bad for Bergdahl. However, and this is vital, he is innocent until PROVEN guilty. That hasn’t even come close to happening yet. So let's keep the fire/heat on the administration so they don’t derail the Army investigation, and likely court martial, and make sure it happens properly. But it is time to douse the torches and put away the pitchforks.
The vast majority of information is coming from the same media folks that I, and many of you, spend voluminous amounts of time calling sensationalistic fantasists. All of a sudden the NY Times or CBS is somehow trustworthy? And yes we have heard directly from many members of his unit, but we surely do not have the whole story. We haven't heard a single word from Bergdahl himself about what his time in the unit was like. And while it was a complete Blue Falcon move for that Obama flack to call his unit leaders psychopaths, if he was as much of a screw up as it sounds like, is it crazy to wonder if he was catching a lot of crap? If you say that doesn't happen I will throw a BS flag. It does and even COL Jessup admitted it.
So it's time to remember we have a functional military justice system that will be under intense scrutiny as this unfolds. Many have served, and even made the ultimate sacrifice, to protect our way of life and our liberties. Let’s remember not to hang Bergdahl in the court of public opinion without a trial. He still deserves his day in court.
Relapse wrote: The question going around now is what is Obama willing to trade to Mexico for the marine they have jailed down there on bogus charges? I hope he does decide to do something for him.
Is this the marine with the 3 guns that "accidentally" crossed the border? Because if so, those charges didn't seem very bogus to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I'm not one to say that some of his fellow soldiers and our politicians are full of crap, but I do question where all this "why are we risking our lives for a deserter" talk was from everybody while he was still missing. It just feels very "swift boat".\.
And even if not,
1.) It seems way, way too early to smear him. Lets have the facts come out first. If he deserted, then charge him.
2.) Even if he was a deserter, he was an American serviceman and we get back our troops, even if they're not particularly good or particularly loyal. Call me an idealist.
Ouze, he could well have been telling the truth about the accidental border crossing. He wouldn't be the first that did something like that. In all fairness, there is a call to let the facts come out before passing judgement on Bergdahl for desertion. Doesn't Tahmooressi deserve the same benefit of a doubt? He is, after all, in a confinement situation where his health is suffering and he could be killed at any moment, similar to Bergdahl's.
I know the crossing from El Paso to Juarez had a point where you are at least a mile inside the US, but there are NO places to turn around, you MUST go through the crossing into Mexico to get back at that point. And the 'This is the last chance to turn' sign was not very well marked.
d-usa wrote: I've seen pictures of the "turn around here" sign. It's pretty clear that you are at a border and pretty clear that you can turn around there.
I don't know, to be honest, there could be plenty of legitimate reasons he missed the sign. It happens all the time with people that aren't suffering stress, let alone someone in his condition.
d-usa wrote: I've seen pictures of the "turn around here" sign. It's pretty clear that you are at a border and pretty clear that you can turn around there.
I don't know, to be honest, there could be plenty of legitimate reasons he missed the sign. It happens all the time with people that aren't suffering stress, let alone someone in his condition.
Doesn't matter, and it still doesn't make these "bogus charges". He entered Mexico with weapons. That's a fact and is 100% true. It doesn't matter how, it doesn't matter why, only thing that matters is that he broke the law so the charges are legit and 100% not bogus.
You can argue all you want about intent and whatnot and that's perfectly valid but that is separate from the fact that he broke the law.
And it's really not that complicated of a border crossing.
I'm just going out on a limb here and guess that there is some advanced warning that you are heading to a border.
Then you got these signs:
Then you got these signs that are "so easy to miss":
And he is a fething Marine. If anybody should have a fething clue about how to navigate checkpoints, gates, borders, etc it's our freaking military. Why is it that everytime I hear about some dumbass not knowing that he is crossing a border with a car full of weapons it's one of our military guys?
The camera is focused on that one sign, but it looks as if there are a crapload of others that could cause it to be overlooked. It doesn't neccesarily mean that's what happened, but reading about this guy's condition, it seems like he could have been distracted.
See, here is the thing. You guys are awfully willing to give this guy any benefit of the doubt (despite the fact the no one, not even he, disputes the core fact that he did bring firearms into Mexico); and yet you catch even a sniff of Bergdahl's possible desertation, something which is as yet unproven, and you're willing to immediately convict him based on hearsay because it's politically convenient to do so.
Obama is weak because he doesn't go out there to try and get American servicemen back home but also he is weak because he does too much to bring home American servicemen. That is how I am reading what you're saying. Maybe it's not your intent, but that's how it reads.
I do think we should try and get the Marine home from Mexico, because I think the State Department should go the extra mile for any person who risked their life while wearing our uniform, especially with that would be a "victimless crime" who is facing disproportionate jail time. But I'd prefer we accurately characterize the situation because otherwise it seems like politically motivated cherry picking to me.
Ouze wrote: See, here is the thing. You guys are awfully willing to give this guy any benefit of the doubt (despite the fact the no one, not even he, disputes the core fact that he did bring firearms into Mexico); and yet you catch even a sniff of Bergdahl's possible desertation, something which is as yet unproven, and you're willing to immediately convict him based on hearsay because it's politically convenient to do so.
Obama is weak because he doesn't go out there to try and get American servicemen back home but also he is weak because he does too much to bring home American servicemen. That is how I am reading what you're saying. Maybe it's not your intent, but that's how it reads.
I do think we should try and get the Marine home from Mexico, because I think the State Department should go the extra mile for any person who risked their life while wearing our uniform, especially with that would be a "victimless crime" who is facing disproportionate jail time. But I'd prefer we accurately characterize the situation because otherwise it seems like politically motivated cherry picking to me.
You make a fair point, but is that not what's happening the other way around, also? As I think on it, there seems like mental distubance in both cases led to disaster.
That the guy that took a rifle, handgun, shotgun and 400 rounds of ammo into Mexico, claimed he had never been to the place before and it turned out he was lying, and then attempted to escape the prison he was held in?
Relapse wrote: You make a fair point, but is that not what's happening the other way around, also? As I think on it, there seems like mental distubance in both cases led to disaster.
I think the difference is that in 3-gun Marine; the facts are less ambiguous. Bergdahl is alleged to have maybe been a deserter, but those allegations are yet unproven or even charged. No one, the Marine included, disputes that he brought a truck full of shooting irons into Mexico.
Agreed... Even if, as with Bergdahl, it is simply to face UCMJ, or some other legal ramifications. Hell, we shouldn't even have to "trade" anyone to Mexico, if they want someone, we should just remind them of OP Fast/Furious
I was really hating for someone to bring up that idiot of a NCO Marine. My ass would have stopped right there on the the US side before the damn check point of the Mexicans. I rather get hassle by CBP then deal with Mexicans
Software Reprogramming Policy for Electronic Warfare and Target Sensing Systems
SUMMARY of CHANGE
AR 525-15
Software Reprogramming Policy for Electronic Warfare and Target Sensing Systems
This major revision, dated 23 July 2010—
* Changes the title of the publication to Software Reprogramming Policy for Electronic Warfare and Target Sensing Systems (cover).
* Updates guidance for software reprogramming of electronic warfare and target sensing systems (throughout).
* Makes administrative changes (throughout).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: See, here is the thing. You guys are awfully willing to give this guy any benefit of the doubt (despite the fact the no one, not even he, disputes the core fact that he did bring firearms into Mexico); and yet you catch even a sniff of Bergdahl's possible desertation, something which is as yet unproven, and you're willing to immediately convict him based on hearsay because it's politically convenient to do so.
Obama is weak because he doesn't go out there to try and get American servicemen back home but also he is weak because he does too much to bring home American servicemen. That is how I am reading what you're saying. Maybe it's not your intent, but that's how it reads.
I do think we should try and get the Marine home from Mexico, because I think the State Department should go the extra mile for any person who risked their life while wearing our uniform, especially with that would be a "victimless crime" who is facing disproportionate jail time. But I'd prefer we accurately characterize the situation because otherwise it seems like politically motivated cherry picking to me.
That would be plural. I'm only seeing one person posting who matches the behaviour you describe
You're right, of course. I often find myself lumping people of a similar ideological bent into a cohesive group, which is a terrible habit, but one I have found quite hard to break.
Ouze wrote: You're right, of course. I often find myself lumping people of a similar ideological bent into a cohesive group, which is a terrible habit, but one I have found quite hard to break.
At some point, we're all guilty of that Ouze.
It's easy to lampoon Obama these days as it's evident that he's manifesting into that bad, stereotypical politician. Case in point, during the '08 campaign, remember this:
“I taught constitutional law for ten years, I take the Constitution very seriously. The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President”
It's just too easy dude.
:shrug: I blame it on his incompetent cabal of flunkies... one thing after another. I'm tired of all this outrage-o-gasm lately.
Next thing you'll hear about is that folks will be outraged for chewing gum during a ceremony. Oh snap!*
It depends on what ceremony, for how long, and so on. I'd hope if he was at a funeral, he wasn't chewing gum during the eulogy. I generally don't think gum is appropriate when public-facing in a formal setting but YMMV.
I'm also willing to cut him some slack as a smoker trying to quit.
Ouze wrote: It depends on what ceremony, for how long, and so on. I'd hope if he was at a funeral, he wasn't chewing gum during the eulogy. I generally don't think gum is appropriate when public-facing in a formal setting but YMMV.
Really?
I can see if he was blowing bubbles or smacking it. But getting all huffy-puffy on him when he's simply chewing is a bit much even to me.
Maybe because I'm almost deaf, I can't hear "gun chewing".
whembly wrote: Maybe because I'm almost deaf, I can't hear "gun chewing".
It depends on what part. If it's a rubberized grip, it's pretty quiet, but the magazines can be quite loud when chewed and I must insist it's a poor habit.
whembly wrote: Maybe because I'm almost deaf, I can't hear "gun chewing".
It depends on what part. If it's a rubberized grip, it's pretty quiet, but the magazines can be quite loud when chewed and I must insist it's a poor habit.
freudian slip somehow.
I had to re-read what you typed like 5 times to figure out WTF you were talking about.
whembly wrote: Yeah... I thought of that too. I'd rather have him gnawing on that gum than smoking in any formal setting.
Yes. I don't think it's old fashioned or foolish to think that the President of the United States is, and should be, a role model to young people, and as such I would definitely prefer a president - of either party - who does not indulge in a habit that essentially causes 9/11 level fatalities 3 times a week, every week, year in and year out, in this country.
When I quit smoking, I gained about 50 pounds, so I'm sympathetic to the smoking cessation gum crowd.
Doesn't look like the Afghanistan Taliban are on the list. Wouldn't that make the whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" complaint irrelevant?
The difference is that Bergdahl was held and released by the Haqqani Network, who is on States Department's Terrorist Organization list.
That was the detail I was missing then.
What if the US was negotiationg with the non-terrorist Taliban, and the Taliban were negotiating with the Haqqani Network. That would be like when we talk to other countries we don't talk to by sending a letter to the Swiss embassy there. That's the kind of hair-splitting you support isn't it
Doesn't look like the Afghanistan Taliban are on the list. Wouldn't that make the whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" complaint irrelevant?
The difference is that Bergdahl was held and released by the Haqqani Network, who is on States Department's Terrorist Organization list.
That was the detail I was missing then.
Yeah... the Haqqani are like the Afghani Mafia, rather than the political structure of the Taliban.
What if the US was negotiationg with the non-terrorist Taliban, and the Taliban were negotiating with the Haqqani Network. That would be like when we talk to other countries we don't talk to by sending a letter to the Swiss embassy there. That's the kind of hair-splitting you support isn't it
And so the true bs begins, persecuting the man's family. Bergdahl, I think, had some serious mental issues he was dealing with when he walked away from the camp. Getting angry at him and his family for this is like getting angry at a one legged man and his family because he can't run.
This has turned into a PR nightmare for Obama and I am praying Bergdahl's family does not get attacked.
After dropping out of Louisiana Tech University after three quarters, Robertson was drafted into the United States Army during the Vietnam War.[3] During the war, his mother sent him a set of Tupperware cups, two boots, and two jars of jalapeno peppers in each boot, because he loves jalapeno peppers.[4][5] These gifts are his greatest treasures, and he is rarely seen without one of his plastic cups drinking iced tea, which he treats with equal importance.[4] Si retired from the Army in 1993 with the rank of Sergeant First Class (E-7) [6]
Nothing you copy/pasted there says that that person is complaining about the father's beard, or any part of this for that matter. It just says he was drafted and served in the military and likes stuff his mom sent.
Nothing you copy/pasted there says that that person is complaining about the father's beard, or any part of this for that matter. It just says he was drafted and served in the military and likes stuff his mom sent.
I think it was more an allusion to the "beard holding duck" thing... as Si is apparently almost never seen without his "drinking cup" as opposed to a duck
Nothing you copy/pasted there says that that person is complaining about the father's beard, or any part of this for that matter. It just says he was drafted and served in the military and likes stuff his mom sent.
I think it was more an allusion to the "beard holding duck" thing... as Si is apparently almost never seen without his "drinking cup" as opposed to a duck
I don't watch Duck Dynasty so I didn't realize that Si was a person, or is that someone else? Honestly I thought it was some copy/paste error.
I'm still not sure exactly how it relates to the beard thing, but I know it came from either Daily Show or John Oliver's HBO weekend show, which is really just Daily Show that can curse. I think it was more of a response to those saying the dad was a Taliban supporter becuase of his beard, which some did say, but ignored that no one ever said that about the DD guys even though they also have big beards as well.
a Reuters reconstruction of his disappearance indicates that at the time when Bergdahl’s six comrades in the 1st Battalion of the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment were killed in August and September 2009, his fallen comrades were on other missions like securing the Afghan elections and, according to one U.S. military official, the period of intensive ground searches had already ended.
Really? They had access to the unit daily action/activity reports?
But several soldiers in his unit say the quest to locate him never really ended, and that it was
an element of every mission
they undertook, prompting some to blame the deaths on him.
Mention this earlier. The unit still did its missions but the added "element" further exposed the unit patrols to hostile actions. The unit took more chances just in case he "might be there"
Another story I read said that maybe one or two of the missions had a strong element that was connected with him. All of them had a "by the way, keep an eye open for him" sidebar, but a couple were a little bit more connected.
It seems like they say the other four are connected because even though the intense search was over, they pissed off everybody there so they were angry and planted more IEDs later, stuff like that.
1) August 18, 2009 -- Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen and Pfc. Morris Walker were killed by an IED
Bowen and Morris were part of Headquarters Company, but attached to Comanche Company, which "was conducting a recon of polling sites in order to prepare for the election on August 20," recalls a former officer from the 501st, one of whom describes his politics as left of center but who asked not to be named because of the rhetoric and accusations being leveled against troops who served with Bergdahl.
In the aftermath of the initial search for Bergdahl, called DUSTWUN (for DUTY STATUS: WHEREABOUTS UNKNOWN), the officer recalls, "there were numerous polling sites that had to be closed because security was so poor. Their platoon slept overnight at a remote site, and when they started rolling again the next morning, an IED detonated.
A 501st soldier with Comanche Company recalled the device "had been located right under their right back tire."
The mission was not specifically focused on personnel recovery but the officer said he believes Bergdahl's disappearance played something of a role in the attack since this "was the absolute worst part of western Paktika Province, and it was the subject of numerous air assaults in July" that were directly focused on Bergdahl. "I believe those contributed to the worsening security situation."
Bowen, 29, was from San Antonio, Texas. Walker, 23, was from Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Not sure if I would really connect this with him.
2) August 26, 2009 -- Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss is killed by small arms fire
This incident occurred after the battalion received information that the Taliban shadow sub-governor of Sar Hawza district in Paktika Province -- a man who went by the name "Muslim" -- had effectively taken a local clinic hostage as he received medical treatment for wounds he received during the election, according to the former officer from the 501st.
To the leadership of the 501st, the name "Muslim" prompted an immediate response as he was supposedly connected to Bergdahl's captors, the former officer said.
An intelligence source told CNN the incident involved a commander with the terrorist Haqqani network, working directly for Mullah Sangin Zadran, the Paktika Shadow Governor, widely believed to have Bergdahl in his custody. "He was important as part of the mission to get to Bergdahl," the source said.
The former 501st officer echoed that detail: "The relation to Bergdahl made him a priority target."
The 4th Platoon from Delaware Company was sent to seize the Taliban official. Some from the insurgent group surrendered, but "Muslim" was nowhere to be found.
"Curtiss took his squad to search an empty building adjacent to the clinic that the Afghan National Police had supposedly cleared," the officer recalled. "It was empty, but a storage room door was wedged shut. He and his squad kicked in the door, and Curtiss was the first guy in."
Troops there that day say "Muslim" had been in the room hiding with three bodyguards, who shot Curtiss.
Additionally, 501st sources say, the insurgents threw Curtiss' grenades at the squad, after which a two-hour firefight ensued -- one that ended with Apache helicopters strafing the building. The building caught fire and killed all the insurgents except for one bodyguard, who was severely wounded. Curtiss' body was recovered before the fire.
Curtiss, 27, was from Salt Lake City, and had already done two deployments in Iraq. He left behind a wife, son and daughter.
A stronger case there.
3) September 4, 2009 -- 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews and Pfc. Matthew Michael Martinek are attacked by an IED and a rocket-propelled grenade
Andrews and Martinek were in Bergdahl's company, Blackfoot, and were in the village of Palau, just outside of Yaya Kayhl, one of the last places where Bergdahl was believed to have gone. After Bergdahl disappeared, local Afghans and intercepted Internet chatter placed him in that area, according to multiple sources with the 501st.
Andrews and Martinek were there to conduct atmospherics -- basically check anything and everything around Palau.
According to several sources in Blackfoot Company, among the many questions those soldiers wanted answered was: where is Bergdahl? Where are the guys who have him? Was Palau connected with the insurgents -- who by then it was believed -- had transported Bergdahl to Pakistan?
But the platoon hit an IED. In the aftermath, a cluster of soldiers tried to hook the vehicle up to chains for the wrecker and were stuck out there for hours on end. In the midst of the effort, an RPG hit them and an insurgent ambush began, according to multiple soldiers with Blackfoot company.
Andrews yelled that the RPG was coming and knocked a bunch of guys out of the way. "Jason watch out," were said to have been his last words, soldiers told Andrews' father. He was killed instantly.
The ambush brought relentless amounts of RPG and heavy artillery fire on the platoon. Martinek was trying to call for air support when he took a severely debilitating artillery round. He lived long enough to get to Landstuhl in Germany where he was taken off life support and died on September 11.
Other members of the platoon faced severe wounds, from a jaw blown off, to deafness, to severe psychological issues from that day, according to sources in Blackfoot company and the 501st. It wasn't a formal DUSTWUN mission, but it wasn't unrelated, the former 501st officer said.
Moreover, says Buetow, Blackfoot Company's mission tasking was about to change.
"We were told we were moving south to start focusing on another area of the province," Buetow says. "Our four-day mission to Observation Post Mest was going to be our last trip out there before moving south. Bowe Bergdahl left, so we then stayed in that area for several more months. We stayed in the area because Bergdahl was last known to be in that area. If he has never deserted, Andrews and Martinek would not have been on patrol in that area."
Andrews, 34, was from Dallas. He and his wife had a 2-year-old son and were expecting their second child when he was killed. Martinek, 20, was from Dekalb, Illinois.
Andrews' heroism eats at former Spc. Jose Baggett, a member of Blackfoot Company. "He pushed a sergeant out of the way" of the RPG, "and now I'm stuck watching" Bergdahl get attention from politicians, the military and the media "and they're dead and he's alive."
Probably the strongest connection I think.
4) September 5, 2009 -- Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey is hit by an IED
Da Dila Panegir village was part of an area that had been subject to searches during the DUSTWUN, and Comanche Company was charged with trying to win the locals back. That day they conducted a foot patrol to hand out supplies and meet with the leaders. In the course of the mission, Murphrey stepped on a pressurized plate that unleashed an IED and was severely wounded; he died at Forward Operating Base Sharana's hospital the next day.
That mission "wasn't an exact search, it was a 'Keep your eyes out for Bowe Bergdahl while you're there,'" said former Spc. Joseph Cox of Comanche Company, who calls Murphrey his best friend and squad leader.
And yet, the intensity of the DUSTWUN search had also enraged Afghans, soldiers said.
"Our platoon alone conducted more than 20 inserted missions operations within three days. There were massive insertions to find him," Cox said.
"This mission was probably the least related to Bergdahl" of the four missions, the former officer said, "but it was definitely in an area previously targeted -- an area where they already hated us before, but hated us more because of the search."
Murphrey, 25, left behind a wife, son, and daughter.
I'm not sure this has been posted yet.
Bowe Bergdahl: Emailed death threats are investigated
US authorities are investigating emailed death threats to the father of Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier released by the Afghan Taliban last week after five years in captivity.
Four threatening emails were being investigated, police told Reuters.
Meanwhile he is reported to have said that his captors locked him in a cage in total darkness for weeks at a time.
US opinion is divided as to whether he is a hero or a soldier who endangered his comrades by deserting his post.
On Thursday a welcoming party in the hometown of Sgt Bergdahl was cancelled.
The first of the four death threats was sent to Bob Bergdahl - Sgt Bergdahl's father - at his home near Hailey, Idaho, the town's police chief Jeff Gunter told Reuters.
He said that Mr Bergdahl received the first threat on Wednesday, the same day as a rally in Hailey celebrating Sgt Bergdahl's release was cancelled amid controversy over the circumstances of his release.
Mr Gunter said that the threatening emails were now being investigated by the FBI.
The authorities are reported to be providing security to Bob Bergdahl and his wife, Jani.
'Deteriorating health'
The details of Sgt Bergdahl's capture in 2009 remain unclear.
Some of the soldier's former comrades say that he fell into Taliban hands after deserting his post in Paktika Province.
Critics of the deal - in which five Taliban prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were released in exchange - have alleged that six US soldiers were killed in the initial efforts to locate the missing man.
They say that 30 days' notice needs to be given to Congress before Guantanamo prisoners can be transferred.
President Barack Obama has defended his decision to go ahead with the prisoner swap.
Speaking in Brussels last week at the G7 summit he said that Sgt Bergdahl's deteriorating health was a "deep concern" and "we saw an opportunity and we seized it".
Details of Sgt Bergdahl's treatment at the hands of the Taliban have meanwhile been reported by the New York Times.
He is quoted as telling medical officials that his captors imprisoned him in a metal cage in total darkness for weeks at a time as punishment for trying to escape.
It also quoted doctors as saying that while he is physically able to travel from Germany he is not yet emotionally prepared for the rigours of being reunited with his family.
I got the duck thing from the Daily Show. And really the complaining about the release are people that will complain no matter what Obama did as to them Obama is wrong by definition. The shear number of people that went from complaining that Obama wasn't doing enough to free him to complaining that he got freed is astounding.
skyth wrote: I got the duck thing from the Daily Show. And really the complaining about the release are people that will complain no matter what Obama did as to them Obama is wrong by definition. The shear number of people that went from complaining that Obama wasn't doing enough to free him to complaining that he got freed is astounding.
What are you complaining about specifically?
Politicians on both sides are equally complaining...
Mostly the same politicians that would be irked by anything and everything Obama does, so I could care less about them at this point. They cry wolf all the time it is hard to get worked up over it after awhile. It is certainly problematic, and I think discussing it is good, but I couldn't give two gaks about politicians in this instance.
Mostly the same politicians that would be irked by anything and everything Obama does, so I could care less about them at this point. They cry wolf all the time it is hard to get worked up over it after awhile. It is certainly problematic, and I think discussing it is good, but I couldn't give two gaks about politicians in this instance.
Erm... dude.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a typical staunch Obama Administration defender... has been VERY vocally critical of the White House’s failure to notify congress... because, it's the fething LAW.
Jebus...MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell, is not buying the WH's spin:
This video is one of those rare dismantling of a spin I've seen in a while. Maybe she should host The Factor for awhile...
Outside her district no one likes or listens to her either.
I didn't say there weren't others worth listening to, I just don't put much stock in the ones that always complain no matter what happens. It wasn't my intention to make it seem as if they were the only ones complaining, just the only ones I could care less about, and jokes like Feinstein.
Outside her district no one likes or listens to her either.
I didn't say there weren't others worth listening to, I just don't put much stock in the ones that always complain no matter what happens. It wasn't my intention to make it seem as if they were the only ones complaining, just the only ones I could care less about, and jokes like Feinstein.
Ah... gotcha.
Also, it's Midterm season coming... they have to stake some "activities" to run on.
Jihadin wrote: Think the reason for the low media attention now is the possible influence they might have on UCMJ trial.
This... and I've already said my piece.
Also, hoping we can get that dude in Mexico home too...
What low media attention?
The media has been talking about it on a pretty regular basis. His travel back to the US, his parents, what we know about his conditions there, the care he will need to get back to normal. I've read a couple stories each day on the news sites, NPR has been talking about it everytime I'm driving anywhere.
I'm talking about DakkaDakka.
It was very "this deeply bothers me and it is very concerning how everything was handled and how he just left and had this cozy stay in a cafe and maybe Obama....squirrel!" and then nothing. Dropped off the front page just like that.
If the operation orders or OPORD contains something to the effect of "search for Bergdahl" in the mission profile then he "can" be held responsible for the deaths. He will be prosecuted under UCMJ.
You're captured by the enemy; they send men in to get you and one dies; you are rescued but now charged with his death; trade one prison for another. What a great system. Well thought out.
It's actually perfectly logical, Ahtman. Think of it this way... if you start a forest fire and then hide in a cave in the woods so you don't burn to death and later two firemen die trying to rescue you, then you can be charged in their death as well. The fact that you were trapped does not exonerate you from the death of those who were trying to rescue from a situation you created.
See how that works? As for trading one prison for another, I can only remind you that he could have avoided that first "prison" altogether if he had so chosen. This isn't a case of "blaming the victim" either. Bergdahl made deliberate choices that landed him where he is now.
One minute late to formation then I can get someone for 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty Means your duty hours are 0600 to midnight for 14 days straight just for missing 60 seconds
Breotan wrote: It's actually perfectly logical, Ahtman. Think of it this way... if you start a forest fire and then hide in a cave in the woods so you don't burn to death and later two firemen die trying to rescue you, then you can be charged in their death as well.
Except it isn't someone starting a fire, but someone in the forest during the fire that seeks shelter in a cave and is then charged for the deaths of the firemen.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Bergdahl made deliberate choices that landed him where he is now.
Unless you are omnipotent we don't know that yet. We are getting ahead of ourselves based on anecdotal evidence.
Breotan wrote: It's actually perfectly logical, Ahtman. Think of it this way... if you start a forest fire and then hide in a cave in the woods so you don't burn to death and later two firemen die trying to rescue you, then you can be charged in their death as well.
Except it isn't someone starting a fire, but someone in the forest during the fire that seeks shelter in a cave and is then charged for the deaths of the firemen.
The guy deserted. He left camp, and became MIA.
ANY missing soldier creates the response that happened. ANY. We all know this. When a soldier goes MIA, everything stops and all available assets go to getting him back.
Everyone knows one does not leave the FoB
So his first lawful order he broke was leaving the FoB
In the process of breaking that "order" he left his weapon "unattended" thereby breaking the order of always "maintaining positive control of your weapon"
In the process of breaking the "Do not leave the FoB" (In case some want to cut hairs here. Do not leave the FoB unless mission) he left his guard mount thereby breaking General Orders Number 1 and 2. To clarify:
1st General Order
"I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved."
2nd General Order
"I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner."
Could not break General Order Number 3 of
3rd General Order
"I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief."
Being he willfully broke General Order Number 1 and 2.
What do you not understand about the Orders he broke? Orders that been establish well before we went to war? Orders that were establish literally day one of military combat operations?
All basic trainees learn their General Orders literally day one of basic training.
All basic trainees learn never to leave their weapons unattended.
All basic trainee learn to stay in their designated area.
He does not need a trial for those he broke. He can decide Non Judicial punishment or trial by Court Martial if his Chain of Command press it.
UCMJ also still has a procedure, and requires evidence. I don't think even the UCMJ lets you just acuse a man of murder and throw him in prison without some oversight.
Jihadin wrote: What do you not understand about the Orders he broke?
That you are going by anecdotal evidence that he broke them. I'm not saying he did or didn't, but that it will be up to people not you or I to analyze and determine based on an investigation, not stories passed along to the press.
He broke Standing Orders within five seconds of leaving his guard post. He then broke another Order by leaving the FoB of his own free will. He does not need a trial unless he request Trial by Court Martial.
If the current Chain of Command so wish to prosecute him under UCMJ
The violations of Articles
Article 80 "Attempts" (a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed.
(c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.
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 on 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; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
Article 86 Absence Without Leave
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority–
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 87 Missing Movement
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 92 Failure to Obey Order and/or Regulations
ny person subject to this chapter who–
(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
shall be punished as a court-martial may dire
Article 99 Misbehavior before the Enemy
Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy–
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.
Article 105 Misconduct as a Prisoner
Any person subject to this chapter who, while in the hands of the enemy in time of war–
(1) for the purpose of securing favorable treatment by his captors acts without proper authority in a manner contrary to law, custom, or regulation, to the detriment of others of whatever nationality held by the enemy as civilian or military prisoners; or
(2) while in a position of authority over such persons maltreat them without justifiable cause;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
Article 113 Misbehavior of a Sentinel or Look Out
Any sentinel or look-out who is found drunk or sleeping upon his post, or leaves it before he is regularly relieved, shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, by if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment other than death as court-martial may direct.
Article 118 Murder
Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -
(1) has a premeditated design to kill;
(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;
(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or
(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;
is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.
Article 119 Manslaughter
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.
(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being–
(1) by culpable negligence; or
(2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person;
is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
d-usa wrote: So at this point he is still innocent unless he accepts the charge or is found guilty by court martial.
He is also, at this point, 100% innocent since not a single charge has even been brought forward.
You list a laundry list of stuff he could be found guilty off down the line, but today he is not charged with anything nor guilty of anything.
I'm pretty sure he has admitted he left his COP. Calling him guilty of breaking the rules for doing so shouldn't offend anyone's sense of right. The motive and reasons he left may be used as mitigating factors when deciding what actual charges to bring (or whether to skip charges and just separate him administratively with or without an Article 15 which is administrative and not judicial itself). Honestly, to think otherwise is silly at this point. Again,he admits he left the COP.
CptJake wrote: I'm pretty sure he has admitted he left his COP.
I'm sure you can link to a source where he says that then, as I've only seen other people make the claim. Again, I've never claimed he didn't, just that at this point we don't have definitive information, and the more politicized this becomes the more difficult it is to believe anything absolute that is being argued. I'd rather wait for the official investigation to make a determination before condemning him and making absolute statements about what did or didn't happen.
CptJake wrote: I'm pretty sure he has admitted he left his COP.
I'm sure you can link to a source where he says that then, as I've only seen other people make the claim. Again, I've never claimed he didn't, just that at this point we don't have definitive information, and the more politicized this becomes the more difficult it is to believe anything absolute that is being argued. I'd rather wait for the official investigation to make a determination before condemning him and making absolute statements about what did or didn't happen.
NYT reporting:
WASHINGTON — Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life.
He starts on a social note, saying he missed Thanksgiving and wished good hunting to his family and friends. Then he sets about explaining why he left his base, in poorly spelled block print.
“The cercomstance from the begaining of my time in Afghanistan from immedet top to bottom (spelling typed as per the letter), where bad for troopers espeshly in my PLT. (Platoon.) Orders showed a high disconcer for safty of troopers in the field, and lacking clear minded, logical and commonsense thinking and understanding from the topsides,” he writes.
“The cercomstance showed signs of going from bad into a nightmare for the men in the field. Unexeptable conditions for the men working and risking life every moment outside the wire,” Bergdahl adds.
“There are some risks that are forced to be taken, however it was made clear more than once that clear minded understanding from leadership was lacking, if not non-existent. The conditions were bad and looked to be getting worse for the men that where actuly the ones risking thier lives from attack as well as Afghan ellements.”
Honestly, I can'y fathom how anyone could make the argument he did not walk away from his COP. What is your alternative theory? A couple Talibs snuck in and kidnapped him from the COP?
So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby declined to comment on the Bergdahl correspondence on why he left his base. He said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has “already made clear that the Army is going to review the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and captivity,” adding that “we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete.”
Silly DoD investigating the incident, don't they know we already have decided what happened?
Ahtman wrote: Two things from the article(s) you posted.
Writing from a Taliban “prison,”
So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?
Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby declined to comment on the Bergdahl correspondence on why he left his base. He said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has “already made clear that the Army is going to review the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and captivity,” adding that “we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete.”
Silly DoD investigating the incident, don't they know we already have decided what happened?
Weren't a bunch of journalists forced to convert to Islam by gunpoint? Seems about as applicable as a letter written in Taliban captivity.
-Shrike- wrote: I believe Ahtman was referring to the last letter, in the daily beast article.
If we're talking about the smoking gun that he deserted, then it probably has to be the letter saying, "Later guys, I'm deserting."
I'm not trying to start an argument here, but:
Ahtman wrote:Two things from the article(s) you posted.
Writing from a Taliban “prison,”
So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?
... that's the first line of the daily beast article.
And attacking that while trying desperately to ignore the note he left before walking off the base is just weird. Ahtman asked for evidence that Bergdahl walked off. He got it. He then chose to go after the "weakest" link by pretending it wasn't one of many and that the others didn't exist.
I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.
To be fair, for 'desertion' you need the element of intent, which is why the original 15-6 was not closed (allegedly says he willingly left the COP but without being able to interview him could not label it as desertion).
Of course, since that report is not open source right now, and they've appointed a 2 star to reopen the investigation, we'll see.
But again, there seems to be zero credible dispute he willingly left the COP.
And again, I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.
I'm not cold hearted, unmerciless bastard of an NCO. Bergdahl is mentally F'ed up from the floor up. I'm not advocating slamming him with UCMJ now after being released by the Insurgents. Though after Mental Health gives the okay then yes. I would, IMHO, have some sort of UCMJ action happen.
Same as Manning. It matter not why one does it. Its what one does in the process that breaks/violate UCMJ Articles.
CptJake wrote: To be fair, for 'desertion' you need the element of intent, which is why the original 15-6 was not closed (allegedly says he willingly left the COP but without being able to interview him could not label it as desertion).
Of course, since that report is not open source right now, and they've appointed a 2 star to reopen the investigation, we'll see.
But again, there seems to be zero credible dispute he willingly left the COP.
And again, I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.
Haven't there been confirmed reports that he has walked off and "deserted" twice before, but always came back?
So there would be really no evidence that this desertion was really a desertion .
But seriously, if you walk off twice how the hell do you not get kicked out?
But seriously, if you walk off twice how the hell do you not get kicked out?
Between my wife and me, we had 5 company commands, and she has had a BN command and takes a brigade next month. I can tell you from experience that it can be amazingly hard to do the right thing and kick a troop out or even hammer them with an article 15 or refer them for UCMJ. Hell, you can even be questioned by 'higher' for obeying the regs and correctly reporting DEROG info to CCF. Often there are two issues with come into play. The "we're short handed" issue (which is often accompanied by a belief in junior leaders they can 'fix the trooper') and the "we've already had too many incidents and it will make us look bad" issue which tends to be accompanied by higher leaders unwilling to back lower level leaders. Many folks can only take being beaten up so many times for doing what is right before you either get gun shy or leave active duty in frustration.
Often certain 'crimes' cannot be dealt with below the O6 or even higher level (which has pissed me off more than once) and a result of this risk aversion means that things which should have been addressed early and at a low level are instead allowed to fester until they can no longer be ignored by the O6 or higher level.
Now, I have no proof any of what I just typed has any bearing on this specific case, but have seen indicators which make it easy to believe similar issues did come into play.
I also have some very personal experience with how similar discipline matters were handled by this unit in Alaska before their deployment which color my beliefs.
Unit there for a one year rotation in Afghanistan. If a Court Martial convenes to "kick him out". Bergdahl will be held at a facility in Kuwait and flown back and forth to Afghanistan during the process of Court Martialing him. Unit will wait till it gets back to the US and start the process of (most time I have seen) a "Less then Honorable", "Dishonorable", or "Discharge for the Good of the Service"
Though I'm wondering why he could not make it at all in the Coast Guard and yet makes the Army.
It doesn't really matter if he deserted or not. We don't try and retrieve American servicemen based upon how good they are, and leave them to rot if they were poor or unfit. This really is super simple stuff, not a tough concept.
If he deserted, then he should be tried accordingly, although given the specific situation with this case, it might be that charges would serve the law, and not justice. But we'll see when the investigation is complete.
Seaward wrote:And attacking that while trying desperately to ignore the note he left before walking off the base is just weird. Ahtman asked for evidence that Bergdahl walked off. He got it.
And then you made up a bunch of stuff about me and my intent in a desperate attempt to defflect. None of those articles show that note, and only one mentions it in passing, which doesn't really mean much as there are still conflicting reports about it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there is room to doubt it at this time as much as there is to believe it. The only actual evidence shown are the letters written while in captivity.
Seaward wrote:I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.
Not saying didn't, just that the investigation isn't over and all the facts aren't in yet. Making the classic error of assuming since I don't agree with a point then I must believe the opposite, even though I've clearly sated I'm not taking either stance.
CptJake wrote:I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.
Why would I do what others are doing and jumping to conclusions one way or the other? All I've advocated is exactly what the DoD itself has, which is "we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete". When all is said and done and they determine his guilt one way or the other. I have no real doubt he wandered off, but until he is convicted of deserting I'm not going to call him a deserter and pretend I have perfect knowledge of the situation.
Seaward wrote:And attacking that while trying desperately to ignore the note he left before walking off the base is just weird. Ahtman asked for evidence that Bergdahl walked off. He got it.
And then you made up a bunch of stuff about me and my intent in a desperate attempt to defflect. None of those articles show that note, and only one mentions it in passing, which doesn't really mean much as there are still conflicting reports about it. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but there is room to doubt it at this time as much as there is to believe it. The only actual evidence shown are the letters written while in captivity.
Seaward wrote:I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.
Not saying didn't, just that the investigation isn't over and all the facts aren't in yet. Making the classic error of assuming since I don't agree with a point then I must believe the opposite, even though I've clearly sated I'm not taking either stance.
CptJake wrote:I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.
Why would I do what others are doing and jumping to conclusions one way or the other? All I've advocated is exactly what the DoD itself has, which is "we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete". When all is said and done and they determine his guilt one way or the other. I have no real doubt he wandered off, but until he is convicted of deserting I'm not going to call him a deserter and pretend I have perfect knowledge of the situation.
Your appear to be hung up on us convicting him of 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 on 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; is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
Section 1 and 2 he falls into. Question now is "why" he did it. Is his reason to violate Article 85 justifiable to avoid getting hit with this charge or lessen the effect of the charge to Non Judicial
Loosely and I mean "loosely" a clarification
Civilian world your innocent until your proven guilty of your actions
Military world is your guilty until your proven innocent of your actions
Edit 1
Back to complete this further.
If the Two Star cannot justify charging Bergdahl with Article 85 Desertion or Bergdahl justification prevents charging him with Article 85
Bergdahl then can be charged with
Article 86 Absence without Leave
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority–
(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;
(2) goes from that place; or
(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;
shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
EDIT
Seems Hollywood is interested in doing a movie about his situation and ordeal
And I know he's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.... but feth him. I hope he makes big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his natural life, or rides the lightning, or goes before a firing squad, or whatever the military decides.
And I know he's supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.... but feth him. I hope he makes big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his natural life, or rides the lightning, or goes before a firing squad, or whatever the military decides.
I want to see the charge sheet Highest charge mention was Desertion but there are other Articles involve to.
Question would be if he willing to be judged by his "peers" or Judge only.
I would not be surprised if he does a plea for an AWOL charge, and due to the 'captive of the Taliban' factor isn't given a dishonorable so he can keep VA benefits.
I hope I'm wrong, but there is a LOT of PC crap involved in high visibility or potentially high visibility cases in the Army at this point.
Here's what I don't understand. Why does the Obama administration even care about this guy? They gain nothing by trying to force this to "go away" so what's the point?
That he (Obama) freed the only American captive from the Insurgents. A PFC (SGT) for five high level Taliban figures. Which puts the US Army in a jam being now they have to put Bergdahl through UCMJ action.
Breotan wrote: Here's what I don't understand. Why does the Obama administration even care about this guy? They gain nothing by trying to force this to "go away" so what's the point?
Face saving. The Administration does not appear to have given the legally mandated 30 days notice for the release of prisoners from Guantanamo, and they traded 5 high ranking terrorists for someone now about to stand trial for desertion. A cynic could say that they gave up more than they got.
The Army says there is no truth to media reports claiming a decision has been made to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion.
The Army continues to review the case against Bergdahl, said Paul Boyce, a spokesman for Forces Command, on Tuesday morning.
"Sgt. Bergdahl has not been charged with any crime," said Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby during a press briefing Tuesday afternoon.
"No decision has been made with respect to the case of Sgt. Bergdahl," Kirby said. "None. There is no timeline to make that decision, and Gen. [Mark] Milley is being put under no pressure to make a decision."
In a report Monday citing two anonymous military sources, retired Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer told Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that the Army plans to charge Bergdahl with desertion. Schaffer also told the outlet his sources confirmed to him that Bergdahl's lawyer has been given a charge sheet.
No charge sheets were available Tuesday, and Boyce said he is unaware of any charge sheets being issued against Bergdahl, adding that the Fox News story "seems to be speculative in nature." Bergdahl's attorney Eugene Fidell declined to comment. NBC News, citing an anonymous senior defense official, is also reporting a desertion charge is coming, possibly within the week.
Milley, commanding general of Forces Command, "is reviewing now the Army's facts and findings to determine, impartially, any appropriate next steps and possible actions," Boyce said.
Milley is "actively reviewing the case," he said. "No decision's been made."
There is no timeline for when Milley must make a decision.
Milley received the Army's investigation Dec. 22, Boyce said.
Bergdahl, 28, disappeared from Combat Outpost Mest-Lalak in Paktika province, Afghanistan, on June 30, 2009.
He spent five years as a captive under the Taliban before he was freed in a May 31 prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
He is now assigned to a desk job at U.S. Army North at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas, while he awaits the outcome of the Army's review.
The Army has declined to release any details of the six-month investigation into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance.
Then-Spc. Bergdahl was accused of leaving his patrol base alone and intentionally before he was captured by Taliban insurgents in 2009.
A prior investigation of Bergdahl's disappearance — conducted in 2009 long before his return — found that some members of his unit believed Bergdahl left his patrol base alone at night at least once before and returned safely.
As the general court-martial convening authority, Milley has several courses of action, from no further action against Bergdahl to court-martial.
The case presents a challenge for the Army's leadership, which has to decide whether to punish a soldier who spent five years as a prisoner of war or essentially overlook the allegations of misconduct that surrounded his disappearance.
His story is told in a documentary, " Crossing the Line", which I believe is on Netflix at the moment. He spent his time in North Korea making propoganda films.
MSNBC also reported the same but from a different source
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by enemy forces in Afghanistan for five years, will likely be charged with desertion, senior defense officials tell NBC News.
The officials point out that Bergdahl will likely face a lesser charge of desertion described in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as leaving a post to avoid duty or shirk an important assignment, based on his actions when he left a remote outpost in June 2009.
Those charges carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison upon conviction, but sources tell NBC News the Army is considering crediting Bergdahl for the 5 years he spent in captivity and be given the opportunity to avoid prosecution by leaving the Army with a "less than honorable discharge."
If accepted, Bergdahl could be denied as much as $300,000 in back pay and benefits and be reduced in rank from Sergeant to Private First Class or lower.
The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return. Bergdahl was reportedly captured by the Haqqani terrorist network in Pakistan and was later released in a prisoner swap for five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay in May.
Army General Mark Milley, the command authority in the Bergdahl case, has not publicly released his findings, and Pentagon Spokesman Read Admiral Kirby reiterated said on Tuesday that "no decision has been made" yet.
Jihadin wrote: MSNBC also reported the same but from a different source
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by enemy forces in Afghanistan for five years, will likely be charged with desertion, senior defense officials tell NBC News.
The officials point out that Bergdahl will likely face a lesser charge of desertion described in the Uniform Code of Military Justice as leaving a post to avoid duty or shirk an important assignment, based on his actions when he left a remote outpost in June 2009.
Those charges carry a maximum sentence of 5 years in prison upon conviction, but sources tell NBC News the Army is considering crediting Bergdahl for the 5 years he spent in captivity and be given the opportunity to avoid prosecution by leaving the Army with a "less than honorable discharge."
If accepted, Bergdahl could be denied as much as $300,000 in back pay and benefits and be reduced in rank from Sergeant to Private First Class or lower.
The charges will apparently not allege that Bergdahl left with the intent never to return. Bergdahl was reportedly captured by the Haqqani terrorist network in Pakistan and was later released in a prisoner swap for five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay in May.
Army General Mark Milley, the command authority in the Bergdahl case, has not publicly released his findings, and Pentagon Spokesman Read Admiral Kirby reiterated said on Tuesday that "no decision has been made" yet.
I doubt he be getting the 200K still sitting in the account. He get VA benefits for treatment and all that because they have a say to what the Army has to say.
