MDM4AU 332 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Get it out there, back off later if required. Sadly, this seems to be the MO of most news organizations these days. And the "if required" really means "if the public has not forgotten about our poor journalistic skills on this story." What I like is the "getting it out there" is always the lead story in broadcasting (front page in print). But the retraction is always a comment buried in the back pages or briefly noted at the end of the broadcast. Exactly. Most of the print/digital articles I read today would get an "F" in the journalism classes I took. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Is this really about the "emperor"? This YOUNG man VOLUNTEERED to serve and protect our country. Now, whether he could not fulfill that duty because of cowardice or conscience, does he not deserve some consideration and respect? He at least made an effort, an effort that the majority of us did not make. Do you really want to destroy him for the sake of politics? If so, you should be ashamed of yourself. not for the sake of politics. For the sake of the lives lost and risked as a result of his actions. For the precedence it would set for future soldiers considering the same bailout. I am not military. I am very close to a recently retired person who was involved in the investigation and intelligence on where he was being held. He wouldn't go into details. He did say they had some pretty good chances for a successful rescue but the decision makers didn't feel he was worth risking another life. We've had Sailors purposely jump from our ships in the middle of the ocean. One happened on my ship. In our case the Sailor made sure he was seen jumping. Did we keep going? Nope, we turned a billion dollar warship around and put the lives of our aircrew and rescue swimmers at risk to get this Sailor. were the rescuers going to take enemy fire? i hope the sailor was charged with whatever he can be charged with for jumping off a ship. much different than joining the enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,472 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Attack arguments, not people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So let me see. Bergdahl is automatically guilty based on News reports and witness accounts? That certainly wasn't the argument during the Mike Brown shooting case. It was all, wait until all the facts come out. What has changed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I guess if Bergdahl was a police officer who shot a black man, he would be getting the benefit of the doubt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So let me see. Bergdahl is automatically guilty based on News reports and witness accounts? That certainly wasn't the argument during the Mike Brown shooting case. It was all, wait until all the facts come out. What has changed? Bergdahl was gone for years, and many lives were lost in trying to get him back. The facts of the case aren't really in dispute here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I guess if Bergdahl was a police officer who shot a black man, he would be getting the benefit of the doubt? Why would you com to that conclusion ? One case has exactly zero to do w/ the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 DOES anyone DOUBT the facts of this case? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So let me see. Bergdahl is automatically guilty based on News reports and witness accounts? That certainly wasn't the argument during the Mike Brown shooting case. It was all, wait until all the facts come out. What has changed? Bergdahl was gone for years, and many lives were lost in trying to get him back. The facts of the case aren't really in dispute here. How do you know. Are you part of the Army investigation team? You know squat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I guess if Bergdahl was a police officer who shot a black man, he would be getting the benefit of the doubt? Why would you com to that conclusion ? One case has exactly zero to do w/ the other. I'm talking about the rush to judgment. It's completely relevant. The investigation hasn't even been concluded or a Court Martial convened, yet he is a Deserting Treason Commie who should be shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 DOES anyone DOUBT the facts of this case? Seriously? Those of us who aren't infected with ODS doubt that all of the facts have been released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigeremt 6,600 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 This entire issue would be second or third page if he hadn't been traded for 4 terrorists. Simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarTim 3,456 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Good point EMT. The fact that he WAS traded makes ALL the difference........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Whether or not Bergdahl volunteered to serve is immaterial. Moreover, the situation also has NOTHING whatsoever to do with politics. It is simply a matter of military law and conduct it deems criminal and will not tolerate. Aside from volunteering for duty, let us not forget he also voluntarily walked off his post looking for the enemy, not to attack, mind you, but to join. he also cost several soldiers in his unit their lives in their search and rescue missions. Is it strictly coincidental that US fatalities increased significantly after his departure? It could be but it very well could be because he taught them how to place and detonate mines to maximize efficiency. I get it though. Desertion and even treason is evidently viewed as honorable conduct among those who blame America fist for everything. Furthermore, it's not a surprise to see whose arguing to defend what according to the military is indefensible. The DOD, given the facts of this case, had no choice in this matter but to confirm what the evidence proved. I get it though. American values such as "innocent until proven guilty" don't apply to the military if an excuse to criticize Obama is at stake. You so don't get the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Just for clarification.......The jonestowners want to believe he is innocent and totally dismiss the witness of ALL his fellow soldiers. Now THAT is patriotism! Just for clarification, you can't make the distinction between assuming he's guilty and waiting to see how the complete investigation falls out. Now THAT is stupidity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Blue....not everyone thought he was guilty. Go back and read the earlier thread on it and see the posts of some right here. Not exactly. Not everyone assumed he was guilty. At the time there wasn't enough information to think he was. I never heard anyone who didnt think he was guilty. i dont read every article though. if someone has different info to link..... Well I didn't. Like I said, the first thing that crossed my mind is mental illness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Does anyone doubt the political motives at work here? That is the question. Allow due process to work. If he is guilty, fine. Sentence him. However, don't allow that sentence to be determined by the political implications. Unless it can be proven that he hurt our cause or aided our enemies, treat him a human being, who under difficult circumstances, made a poor choice. Do not allow this young man's fate to be determined by partisan politics. If this were your son, even if you believed he was wrong, you would want him to be treated fairly. You would want him judged by his actions and the consequences of those actions, not because there is a large number of people interested in discrediting the President. Do not make this kid part of the administration. He has enough problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So let me see. Bergdahl is automatically guilty based on News reports and witness accounts? That certainly wasn't the argument during the Mike Brown shooting case. It was all, wait until all the facts come out. What has changed? Obviously, it's all about what political ax you have to grind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 DOES anyone DOUBT the facts of this case? Seriously? DOES anyone KNOW the facts of this case? Seriously? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,122 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 He deserted American lives were lost in trying to find / rescue him He hurt our cause. He's guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Good point EMT. The fact that he WAS traded makes ALL the difference........... Well apparently it makes a difference in the willingness to assume he is guilty without a trial or investigation. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted January 27, 2015 Author Share Posted January 27, 2015 How can anyone say the investigation has or has not been completed? Facts or evidence please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,462 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Good point EMT. The fact that he WAS traded makes ALL the difference........... Really? Bergdahl had no control over that. I guess this is just about about politics,,,,,,,,,,,,,,for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So let me see. Bergdahl is automatically guilty based on News reports and witness accounts? That certainly wasn't the argument during the Mike Brown shooting case. It was all, wait until all the facts come out. What has changed? Obviously, it's all about what political ax you have to grind. no political ax here. the facts came out fairly quick in both cases. the video of the "gentle giant" that squashed all the poor innocent tales, along with the inconsistent witnesses. then berghahl, not one person with inside knowledge has said anything that would indicate bergdahl didnt desert. not one. if so please link it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,367 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 So let me see. Bergdahl is automatically guilty based on News reports and witness accounts? That certainly wasn't the argument during the Mike Brown shooting case. It was all, wait until all the facts come out. What has changed? Obviously, it's all about what political ax you have to grind. no political ax here. the facts came out fairly quick in both cases. the video of the "gentle giant" that squashed all the poor innocent tales, along with the inconsistent witnesses. then berghahl, not one person with inside knowledge has said anything that would indicate bergdahl didnt desert. not one. if so please link it. I don't want to hijack this thread, but that's a very weak example of a critical fact concerning the Ferguson shooting. It's not even directly relevant. Also, heresay outside of a hearing or investigation is not sufficient to determine guilt, even if it's 100% consistent. And without the investigation, how does one even know it's 100%? Finally, lacking the self-awareness that one's conclusions are politically motivated doesn't make them less so. The mere fact one is willing to express a definitive conclusion outside of a trial or investigation demonstrates that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.