Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

About time:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/25/bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official-says/

Excellent.

Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

In my opinion this Administration was right to bring him home (the manner in which it was done is another matter entirely), but it is also right that he is held accountable for his actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

I would like to be generous and say that this Administration heeded the 'no man left behind" when political expediency may have left him in the Taliban's hands to prevent a dangerous precedent being set. Until he is actually convicted of desertion it is still an accusation.

Gonna agree with Dreadclaw69 on this one.

If he elects to be judged by his peers they would be hard press to find non partial jurors (if/when it goes to Court Martial)

Well deserved, his actions are said to have got mern killed looking for him, he needs to answer for what he did be it simple dishonorable discharge or life in jail.

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

 Jihadin wrote:
If he elects to be judged by his peers they would be hard press to find non partial jurors (if/when it goes to Court Martial)

Best to throw himself to the mercy of the judge, who will probably see his imprisonment at time served, then promptly deny his back pay during said time served as punishment for deserting and getting another dude shot to death. (as one of you said in the other thread)

*bangs gabble*

Next!

Is a gabble a talkative gavel?

Shut up, you!

Er, a gabble is a flock of gavels.

I like the Roman Legion punishments for falling asleep on post or deserting your post.

They'd drag you back in chains and kill you in front of your unit, because the unit is the one that you wounded. By neglecting your post you put every single one of their lives at risk. Even back then, long before one loan jihadi with a vest of highex could sneak onto a FOB or PB and cause some serious damage.

Add in the men who died trying to "rescue" him?

They won't do it, but if there's a man who's worth a hanging by the neck this is him.

If he's actually convicted, wouldn't that ding Obama?

Anyhoo... could he skate by these charges by claiming mental issues? He was held captive, after all.

 whembly wrote:
If he's actually convicted, wouldn't that ding Obama?

Anyhoo... could he skate by these charges by claiming mental issues? He was held captive, after all.

It already dinged Obama being the US Army has to slam Bergdahl. There's no compassion or emotions involve in UCMJ. They charged him with two of the highest Articles that can mean life or imprisonment for a good chunk. A NCO was killed due to his action in the search afterwards for him.Maybe Obama would pardon him or something but that's couple years down the road.

I have not followed this case. What is it?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

I would like to be generous and say that this Administration heeded the 'no man left behind" when political expediency may have left him in the Taliban's hands to prevent a dangerous precedent being set. Until he is actually convicted of desertion it is still an accusation.

Exactly. Even he is an donkey-cave, he is an American donkey-cave and he is our donkey-cave to deal with and not the Talibans.

Besides, it's a no-win situation because if he would have been featured in the latest episode of "fundamentalist extremists behead US serviceman" video there would have been cries of "sure he was a deserter, but he was American and we should have saved him!"

 kronk wrote:
Shut up, you!

Er, a gabble is a flock of gavels.

Thanks... I have now mentally combined this with your profile pic and have an image of Judge kronk banging out a epic drum solo with a gavel in each hand as he hands down a sentence.

I'm not upset with this decision. Give him his day in court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooooh, pretty new flag.

He serve with Honor and Distinction

His excuse for desertion is a beaut:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html

I'm sure it's a comfort to the families of soldiers put in jeopardy
or killed looking for him.

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

This is how I see it. Bergdahl has to answer to the US for his actions and will be judged, punished, or acquitted by the US, and that can't happen if the enemy holds him, and there's no reason to give the enemy the satisfaction in the first place.

It also doesn't hurt for soldiers to know that "hey, if *that* guy is gonna get rescued, I will to if something bad happens".

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

This is how I see it. Bergdahl has to answer to the US for his actions and will be judged, punished, or acquitted by the US, and that can't happen if the enemy holds him, and there's no reason to give the enemy the satisfaction in the first place.

It also doesn't hurt for soldiers to know that "hey, if *that* guy is gonna get rescued, I will to if something bad happens".

UCMJ is the process. Not a regular trial through the Justice System

So... Let me get this straight. They get a guy out of Taliban prison (for a high cost) only to lock him up in the US?

Also, how does one desert in the middle of Afghanistan? Where was he planning to go?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So... Let me get this straight. They get a guy out of Taliban prison (for a high cost) only to lock him up in the US?

Also, how does one desert in the middle of Afghanistan? Where was he planning to go?

The xzibit yo dawg meme comes to mind.

"Yo dawg, we heard you like your desert so we put a deserter in your desert so he can desert with our dessert."

I don't buy the whole "leaving to go to another base" thing. He was counting on his survival skills? Then wtf did he not bring his weapons?!?!

Idaho, or Afghanistan, I ain't going out into the wild without a weapon. Dude was looking for what he got. Unless you are absolutely flying rodent gak crazy, the only reason you'd walk off into the wild in Afghanistan like that, unarmed, would be to meet up with them folks.

Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

 Jihadin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

This is how I see it. Bergdahl has to answer to the US for his actions and will be judged, punished, or acquitted by the US, and that can't happen if the enemy holds him, and there's no reason to give the enemy the satisfaction in the first place.

It also doesn't hurt for soldiers to know that "hey, if *that* guy is gonna get rescued, I will to if something bad happens".

UCMJ is the process. Not a regular trial through the Justice System

Right, but it will be *a* US justice system, we're not letting the enemy have him if he's done something he needs to answer to us for first.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't buy the whole "leaving to go to another base" thing. He was counting on his survival skills? Then wtf did he not bring his weapons?!?!

Idaho, or Afghanistan, I ain't going out into the wild without a weapon. Dude was looking for what he got. Unless you are absolutely flying rodent gak crazy, the only reason you'd walk off into the wild in Afghanistan like that, unarmed, would be to meet up with them folks.

Never underestimate the power of people to do something stupid, just because.

People do stupid things without a plan every day.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

I seriously doubt the planned to get caught.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

I seriously doubt the planned to get caught.

That doesn't matter. It's effin Afghanistan. You don't go out without a weapon. Period.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

I seriously doubt the planned to get caught.

Caught, or defect?

Either way, he was "caught" by some very bad people who cut heads off for fun. Something kept his lily white ass alive, and I doubt it's his charming demeanor.