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.

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.

 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.

Relapse wrote:

 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.

We should work to bring him home anyway.

 Ouze wrote:

We should work to bring him home anyway.

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

 whembly wrote:
Is this legit?

Not sure of it's authenticity; http://www.apd.army.mil/jw2/xmldemo/r525_15/main.asp

23 July 2010

Effective date: 23 August 2010

UNCLASSIFIED

Military Operations

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!*


*honestly... is it really that disrepectful???

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".

http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

Interesting if true: are the Taliban in fact not recognized as a terrorist organization by is?

 Ouze wrote:

I'm also willing to cut him some slack as a smoker trying to quit.

Yeah... I thought of that too. I'd rather have him gnawing on that gum than smoking in any formal setting.

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

AR 525-13 9/11/2008 ANTITERRORISM - (Available ONLY from Army Knowledge On-Line. Click the available link to go to AKO web site.)

http://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/525_Series_Collection_1.html

Think I might have open a can of worms on here

 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.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
freudian slip somehow.

Not at all. Truthfully Lego should probably autocorrect "gum" to "gun", this being the OT

<---Cold Turkey. Pickles though were screaming my name

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

Interesting if true: are the Taliban in fact not recognized as a terrorist organization by is?

Found this:

http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm

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?

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

Interesting if true: are the Taliban in fact not recognized as a terrorist organization by is?

Found this:

http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm

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.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

Interesting if true: are the Taliban in fact not recognized as a terrorist organization by is?

Found this:

http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:
More fun news:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/us/bergdahl-undisciplined-unit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

John Yoo believes the deal was probably illegal, and the President overreached and exceeded his power, and in the process, damaged the presidency.


hey


hey, guys


Remember back when John Yoo argued that the President could legally order a child's testicles to be crushed if it would compel their parent to talk?

So what you're trying to say is that we should listen to this Yoo guy, right?

 Ouze wrote:
John Yoo believes the deal was probably illegal, and the President overreached and exceeded his power, and in the process, damaged the presidency.


hey


hey, guys


Remember back when John Yoo argued that the President could legally order a child's testicles to be crushed if it would compel their parent to talk?

Man... I remember him. He was always someone I thought who was "off".

He's glorious. I'm sure there'll be an equivalent from this administration in 6 years time, but until then, Yoo will have to do.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

Interesting if true: are the Taliban in fact not recognized as a terrorist organization by is?

Found this:

http://m.state.gov/md123085.htm

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

We negotiated via Qatar officials I believe...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
More fun news:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/06/us/bergdahl-undisciplined-unit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Eh... its a moot point really. Let the miltary investigate/prosecute if there's any wrong doing.