Bergdahl To Be Charged With Desertion?

[homersapien 11,371]

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.

it is directly relevant. Where as eric holder's claim of being racially profiled decades ago 1000 miles away was not. You are right no need to hijack but you brought in this analogy which was weak. Not sure who is lacking self awareness. The bottom line is this guy walked off and joined the enemy. No person has disputed that. The ONLY chance he has got is mental illness. i don't play politics i didn't oppose Obama's or DoD trade to get him back. I just hope there was secondary agendas that can't be revealed behind the swap. Because on the cover it made zero sense.

You need to clean that up, it's hard to understand.

My "weak analogy" refers to the ferguson sample you threw out. It's background info all right, but not determinative to the circumstances of the shooting. That's all I am going to say on that.

And like I said, anyone who is satisfied with this soldiers guilt based on information being provided outside of and prior to the final ruling has a ulterior motivation.

[homersapien 11,371]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

I didn't occur to me at the time. I don't really have an opinion of NBC as I rarely watch or read their news. I do have a strong negative opinion of Fox, but that's no secret. Is taking a partisan slant toward the news as typical for NBC as it is Fox?

Regardless, it appears that neither bothered to confirm the story. I imagine in Fox's case, they had the story they preferred. Maybe the same is true for NBC or maybe they were just careless.

Not sure what "politic much" means.

I saw no partisan slant by NBC or Fox nor any of the other non-mentioned reports widely available for public view.

Are you certain they did not confirm their respective stories? It has been widely reported the investigation concluded and was sent up the chain for sentencing decisions with recommendations. Those decisions/recommendations were leaked to news outlets. Later the WH intervened and put the conclusions/recommendations on hold. If, and I mean if, the reports are accurate that is not exactly the same as not confirming.

Actually, going back and reading the Fox article you are correct. It was not politically slanted. I was wrong about their not checking with official sources. The title of the article actually leads with that.

My mistake.

The political prejudice on this has been reflected more by the participates on this form than by Fox. They are the ones assuming guilt and assuming a "stone wall", not Fox.

[homersapien 11,371]

Rear Adm. John Kirby ‏@PentagonPresSec 2h2 hours ago

Contrary to media reporting, no decision made by Army leadership with respect to Sgt. Bergdahl's case. The process will be respected

But, but, Faux News can't be wrong! :-\

Thanks for your display of critical thinking homes. Bravo!

Well, that's what's what I get for hammering Fox before actually reading the article in question.

But, not to be picky, that's not a lack of critical thinking, it was an act of negligence which allowed me the indulgence of speaking in ignorance.

[homersapien 11,371]

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.

it is directly relevant. Where as eric holder's claim of being racially profiled decades ago 1000 miles away was not. You are right no need to hijack but you brought in this analogy which was weak. Not sure who is lacking self awareness. The bottom line is this guy walked off and joined the enemy. No person has disputed that. The ONLY chance he has got is mental illness. i don't play politics i didn't oppose Obama's or DoD trade to get him back. I just hope there was secondary agendas that can't be revealed behind the swap. Because on the cover it made zero sense.

Walked off, yes. Joined the enemy? I think we need to see some proof on that one.

BTW, I think Homer's point is, that facts come out in a trial, not through the press.

That's a neatly succinct way of putting it. Only ten words.

But, still there's no guarantee.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

I didn't occur to me at the time. I don't really have an opinion of NBC as I rarely watch or read their news. I do have a strong negative opinion of Fox, but that's no secret. Is taking a partisan slant toward the news as typical for NBC as it is Fox?

Regardless, it appears that neither bothered to confirm the story. I imagine in Fox's case, they had the story they preferred. Maybe the same is true for NBC or maybe they were just careless.

Not sure what "politic much" means.

I saw no partisan slant by NBC or Fox nor any of the other non-mentioned reports widely available for public view.

Are you certain they did not confirm their respective stories? It has been widely reported the investigation concluded and was sent up the chain for sentencing decisions with recommendations. Those decisions/recommendations were leaked to news outlets. Later the WH intervened and put the conclusions/recommendations on hold. If, and I mean if, the reports are accurate that is not exactly the same as not confirming.

Actually, going back and reading the Fox article you are correct. It was not politically slanted. I was wrong about their not checking with official sources. The title of the article actually leads with that.

My mistake.

The political prejudice on this has been reflected more by the participates on this form than by Fox. They are the ones assuming guilt and assuming a "stone wall", not Fox.

I pointed out earlier this was the case and it was two sided. Go figure.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Rear Adm. John Kirby ‏@PentagonPresSec 2h2 hours ago

Contrary to media reporting, no decision made by Army leadership with respect to Sgt. Bergdahl's case. The process will be respected

But, but, Faux News can't be wrong! :-\

Thanks for your display of critical thinking homes. Bravo!

Well, that's what's what I get for hammering Fox before actually reading the article in question.

But, not to be picky, that's not a lack of critical thinking, it was an act of negligence which allowed me the indulgence of speaking in ignorance.

[homersapien 11,371]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

Did you read the Sky article? It is referring to the NBC report.

I read the homer report, aka "the political hit piece." It is clear there are political motives here. And clearly non one sided. Just sayin'.

In all seriousness, I don't think I did. I will check it out. Thanks!

Are you implying I am guilty of political partisanship on this?

[homersapien 11,371]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

I didn't occur to me at the time. I don't really have an opinion of NBC as I rarely watch or read their news. I do have a strong negative opinion of Fox, but that's no secret. Is taking a partisan slant toward the news as typical for NBC as it is Fox?

Regardless, it appears that neither bothered to confirm the story. I imagine in Fox's case, they had the story they preferred. Maybe the same is true for NBC or maybe they were just careless.

Not sure what "politic much" means.

I saw no partisan slant by NBC or Fox nor any of the other non-mentioned reports widely available for public view.

Are you certain they did not confirm their respective stories? It has been widely reported the investigation concluded and was sent up the chain for sentencing decisions with recommendations. Those decisions/recommendations were leaked to news outlets. Later the WH intervened and put the conclusions/recommendations on hold. If, and I mean if, the reports are accurate that is not exactly the same as not confirming.

Actually, going back and reading the Fox article you are correct. It was not politically slanted. I was wrong about their not checking with official sources. The title of the article actually leads with that.

My mistake.

The political prejudice on this has been reflected more by the participates on this form than by Fox. They are the ones assuming guilt and assuming a "stone wall", not Fox.

I pointed out earlier this was the case and it was two sided. Go figure.

How is it being partisan to insist on the release of the final reports before condemning this guy? That's American, not partisan.

One side alludes to treason and firing squads and then follow's that up with: "He deserted. American lives were lost in trying to find / rescue him. He hurt our cause. He's guilty."

The other side say, lets wait for the results of the investigations before reaching a conclusion.

If that constitutes "two sided" partisanship, then I suppose I for one, will have to plead guilty.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

Did you read the Sky article? It is referring to the NBC report.

I read the homer report, aka "the political hit piece." It is clear there are political motives here. And clearly non one sided. Just sayin'.

In all seriousness, I don't think I did. I will check it out. Thanks!

Are you implying I am guilty of political partisanship on this?

Given NBC leans left and Fox right I thought your motive was rather clear.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

I didn't occur to me at the time. I don't really have an opinion of NBC as I rarely watch or read their news. I do have a strong negative opinion of Fox, but that's no secret. Is taking a partisan slant toward the news as typical for NBC as it is Fox?

Regardless, it appears that neither bothered to confirm the story. I imagine in Fox's case, they had the story they preferred. Maybe the same is true for NBC or maybe they were just careless.

Not sure what "politic much" means.

I saw no partisan slant by NBC or Fox nor any of the other non-mentioned reports widely available for public view.

Are you certain they did not confirm their respective stories? It has been widely reported the investigation concluded and was sent up the chain for sentencing decisions with recommendations. Those decisions/recommendations were leaked to news outlets. Later the WH intervened and put the conclusions/recommendations on hold. If, and I mean if, the reports are accurate that is not exactly the same as not confirming.

Actually, going back and reading the Fox article you are correct. It was not politically slanted. I was wrong about their not checking with official sources. The title of the article actually leads with that.

My mistake.

The political prejudice on this has been reflected more by the participates on this form than by Fox. They are the ones assuming guilt and assuming a "stone wall", not Fox.

I pointed out earlier this was the case and it was two sided. Go figure.

How is it being partisan to insist on the release of the final reports before condemning this guy? That's American, not partisan.

One side alludes to treason and firing squads and then follow's that up with: "He deserted. American lives were lost in trying to find / rescue him. He hurt our cause. He's guilty."

The other side say, lets wait for the results of the investigations before reaching a conclusion.

If that constitutes "two sided" partisanship, then I suppose I for one, will have to plead guilty.

I must have missed the condemnation. I see a side stating the Army released its findings and the WH is holding up the release and asking why?

The other side claiming the investigation isn't complete although "leaks" suggest otherwise.

I thought the firing squad and crucify crucify comments were tongue in cheek.

Personally, I think he is guilty of desertion. Possibly due to mental illness.

[homersapien 11,371]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

Did you read the Sky article? It is referring to the NBC report.

I read the homer report, aka "the political hit piece." It is clear there are political motives here. And clearly non one sided. Just sayin'.

In all seriousness, I don't think I did. I will check it out. Thanks!

Are you implying I am guilty of political partisanship on this?

Given NBC leans left and Fox right I thought your motive was rather clear.

You thought I was "protecting" NBC? Like I said, I am not even that familiar with their news.

And compared to Fox, all the major networks lean left.

[cptau 169]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

I didn't occur to me at the time. I don't really have an opinion of NBC as I rarely watch or read their news. I do have a strong negative opinion of Fox, but that's no secret. Is taking a partisan slant toward the news as typical for NBC as it is Fox?

Regardless, it appears that neither bothered to confirm the story. I imagine in Fox's case, they had the story they preferred. Maybe the same is true for NBC or maybe they were just careless.

Not sure what "politic much" means.

I saw no partisan slant by NBC or Fox nor any of the other non-mentioned reports widely available for public view.

Are you certain they did not confirm their respective stories? It has been widely reported the investigation concluded and was sent up the chain for sentencing decisions with recommendations. Those decisions/recommendations were leaked to news outlets. Later the WH intervened and put the conclusions/recommendations on hold. If, and I mean if, the reports are accurate that is not exactly the same as not confirming.

Actually, going back and reading the Fox article you are correct. It was not politically slanted. I was wrong about their not checking with official sources. The title of the article actually leads with that.

My mistake.

The political prejudice on this has been reflected more by the participates on this form than by Fox. They are the ones assuming guilt and assuming a "stone wall", not Fox.

I pointed out earlier this was the case and it was two sided. Go figure. :dunno:/>

How is it being partisan to insist on the release of the final reports before condemning this guy? That's American, not partisan.

One side alludes to treason and firing squads and then follow's that up with: "He deserted. American lives were lost in trying to find / rescue him. He hurt our cause. He's guilty."

The other side say, lets wait for the results of the investigations before reaching a conclusion.

If that constitutes "two sided" partisanship, then I suppose I for one, will have to plead guilty.

I must have missed the condemnation. I see a side stating the Army released its findings and the WH is holding up the release and asking why?

The other side claiming the investigation isn't complete although "leaks" suggest otherwise.

I thought the firing squad and crucify crucify comments were tongue in cheek.

Personally, I think he is guilty of desertion. Possibly due to mental illness.

After listening to his father at the White House, the mental problem may be inherited. They remind me 1960s flower children.

[homersapien 11,371]

Once again Fox News lets the Sheeple down: US Army Denies Desertion Charge For Bergdahl: http://news.sky.com/...ge-for-bergdahl

I was just about to say: Reporting on heresay from a retired officer.... Yep, that sounds like Faux News alright. Get it out there, back off later if required.

No mention of NBC? Imagine that? Politic much?

I didn't occur to me at the time. I don't really have an opinion of NBC as I rarely watch or read their news. I do have a strong negative opinion of Fox, but that's no secret. Is taking a partisan slant toward the news as typical for NBC as it is Fox?

Regardless, it appears that neither bothered to confirm the story. I imagine in Fox's case, they had the story they preferred. Maybe the same is true for NBC or maybe they were just careless.

Not sure what "politic much" means.

I saw no partisan slant by NBC or Fox nor any of the other non-mentioned reports widely available for public view.

Are you certain they did not confirm their respective stories? It has been widely reported the investigation concluded and was sent up the chain for sentencing decisions with recommendations. Those decisions/recommendations were leaked to news outlets. Later the WH intervened and put the conclusions/recommendations on hold. If, and I mean if, the reports are accurate that is not exactly the same as not confirming.

Actually, going back and reading the Fox article you are correct. It was not politically slanted. I was wrong about their not checking with official sources. The title of the article actually leads with that.

My mistake.

The political prejudice on this has been reflected more by the participates on this form than by Fox. They are the ones assuming guilt and assuming a "stone wall", not Fox.

I pointed out earlier this was the case and it was two sided. Go figure.

How is it being partisan to insist on the release of the final reports before condemning this guy? That's American, not partisan.

One side alludes to treason and firing squads and then follow's that up with: "He deserted. American lives were lost in trying to find / rescue him. He hurt our cause. He's guilty."

The other side say, lets wait for the results of the investigations before reaching a conclusion.

If that constitutes "two sided" partisanship, then I suppose I for one, will have to plead guilty.

I must have missed the condemnation. I see a side stating the Army released its findings and the WH is holding up the release and asking why?

The other side claiming the investigation isn't complete although "leaks" suggest otherwise.

I thought the firing squad and crucify crucify comments were tongue in cheek.

Personally, I think he is guilty of desertion. Possibly due to mental illness.

Well, it seemed to me that none of our local rightists have expressed any doubt of his guilt.

And I agree with ICHY, they are predisposed to that position because the prisoner exchange is something they can use to attack Obama.

I tend to suspect the same as you regarding the desertion, but being as this is an American soldier I am not prepared to arrive at a conclusion outside of a thorough investigation.

Whether it helps or hurts Obama politically is not really something I care about. I think Obama did the proper thing regardless of the outcome. Is anyone really prepared to argue we should have let the guy rot without even hearing his side of the story?

That would be a hell of a way to treat an American soldier. And in wartime, no less.

If Bergdahl is convicted of whatever, it has no bearing on the validity of Obama's decision. Ironically, if anything it would indicate that Obama was willing to do the right thing even though it was a political risk.

[cptau 169]

Bergdahl needed to be exchanged, but it was a questionable deal. 5 senior Moslem terrorists for one E4. It makes it look like obama makes poor deals or he saw a chance to release more terrorists out of Gito.

The father's appearance at the White House and his speech just made it worse. Why even drag them from Idaho to DC, political theater? just poor decision making by the White House staff.

[japantiger 4,051]

Bergdahl needed to be exchanged, but it was a questionable deal. 5 senior Moslem terrorists for one E4. It makes it look like obama makes poor deals or he saw a chance to release more terrorists out of Gito.

The father's appearance at the White House and his speech just made it worse. Why even drag them from Idaho to DC, political theater? just poor decision making by the White House staff.

It wasn't a questionable deal; it was a bad deal. The reason it makes it look like Obama makes poor deals is because he does in fact always makes poor deals. The Parent's appearance was pure political theatre for the left. Drag a couple of anti-war hippie leftovers in front of the press and the leftist base goes wild supporting the man that ended the war and brought one of their poor abandoned anti war brothers home...he just knew America would rally around bringing one of the "boys" home...power to the people...And, to cap it off, he got to release more bad buys from Gitmo in the process...he kills two birds with one stone...a double win for the leftist base. Now, if he can only run out the clock until he is out of office "Mission Accomplished"...

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

+100

[WinForAuburn 128]

Of course they do now with the WH putting on the pressure. Time will tell. Carry on with your self imposed silence.

You mad? Here's an Idea, how about we let the Army do its investigation before we convict someone?

Just like Officer Wilson right?

[AUUSN 823]

Of course they do now with the WH putting on the pressure. Time will tell. Carry on with your self imposed silence.

You mad? Here's an Idea, how about we let the Army do its investigation before we convict someone?

Just like Officer Wilson right?

I think I made that argument already. Can you explain why this was directed at me?

[homersapien 11,371]

Bergdahl needed to be exchanged, but it was a questionable deal. 5 senior Moslem terrorists for one E4. It makes it look like obama makes poor deals or he saw a chance to release more terrorists out of Gito.

The father's appearance at the White House and his speech just made it worse. Why even drag them from Idaho to DC, political theater? just poor decision making by the White House staff.

It wasn't a questionable deal; it was a bad deal. The reason it makes it look like Obama makes poor deals is because he does in fact always makes poor deals. The Parent's appearance was pure political theatre for the left. Drag a couple of anti-war hippie leftovers in front of the press and the leftist base goes wild supporting the man that ended the war and brought one of their poor abandoned anti war brothers home...he just knew America would rally around bringing one of the "boys" home...power to the people...And, to cap it off, he got to release more bad buys from Gitmo in the process...he kills two birds with one stone...a double win for the leftist base. Now, if he can only run out the clock until he is out of office "Mission Accomplished"...

What a bizarre take on this.

[DKW 86 7,419]

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.

Desertion was written with all that in mind decades ago. You do not desert your buddies in the field, in a combat zone. You go AWOL in a peace zone, or you defend your self from being drafted etc in a courtroom setting. But once in the combat zone, the UCMJ defines desertion very specifically and clearly. The fact there were others wounded and killed looking for him means far more to those in his Unit than you can know.

Do they not merit even a moments reflection or consideration from you?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

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.

Desertion was written with all that in mind decades ago. You do not desert your buddies in the field, in a combat zone. You go AWOL in a peace zone, or you defend your self from being drafted etc in a courtroom setting. But once in the combat zone, the UCMJ defines desertion very specifically and clearly. The fact there were others wounded and killed looking for him means far more to those in his Unit than you can know.

Do they not merit even a moments reflection or consideration from you?

Of course they do. One does not exclude the other.

[DKW 86 7,419]

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. :-\

Darren Wilson says hi....

[WarTim 3,456]

Now THAT is hitting it outta' the park! LOL. Well Done!!!

[AUUSN 823]

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.

Desertion was written with all that in mind decades ago. You do not desert your buddies in the field, in a combat zone. You go AWOL in a peace zone, or you defend your self from being drafted etc in a courtroom setting. But once in the combat zone, the UCMJ defines desertion very specifically and clearly. The fact there were others wounded and killed looking for him means far more to those in his Unit than you can know.

Do they not merit even a moments reflection or consideration from you?

Solid points but let's not get wrapped up in the fact that others died looking for him. History is riddled with failed rescue attempts that resulted in deaths. At the time of these rescue attempts, the Military knew full well that he was a possible deserter but that doesn't diminish the fact that you don't leave a Soldier behind.

[homersapien 11,371]

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. :-\

Darren Wilson says hi....

Are you suggesting I proclaimed Darren Wilson guilty?