Jump to content

Bergdahl Goes Free


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

I still think UCMJ could’ve won the case but carelessly saying “y’all already know my views” got a traitor off scotch free. 

Trump really fricked up this one.

https://www.justsecurity.org/39541/president-trump-bowe-bergdahl-unlawful-command-influence/

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

I still think UCMJ could’ve won the case but carelessly saying “y’all already know my views” got a traitor off scotch free. 

Trump really fricked up this one.

https://www.justsecurity.org/39541/president-trump-bowe-bergdahl-unlawful-command-influence/

Haven't read your link yet, but I'm truly glad we've reached some common ground, Jeff. 

How about Cam and them Panthers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Bigbens42 said:

Trump affirmed his statements after he became CiC. That's where he screwed up and UCI became a legitimate concern. Colonel Nance, going by his arguments, wrote them off as the rhetoric they were until they were affirmed once he had command influence. 

I see your point. I think its a grey area. I'd be interested to see what Nance would say about Susan Rice's/Obama's comments back in 2015 though. On it's face, seems like there's a better argument for UCI there. But I realize that an attorney needs to bring it up in court if they think its an issue[?]. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe this was at least partly political. If it weren't then Obama's comments in 2011 would have gotten Manning off on a lighter sentence. They didn't. Manning still received a 35 year sentence.

Only now are presidential comments being heavily applied to get someone a lighter sentence. 

Those families who lost loved one's looking for Bergdahl get no justice by this ruling. Judge Nance put politics above justice. Anyone saying Nance did the right thing might as well just preface that by saying how much they dislike Trump. Because that's what this all boiled down to. 

Jeff, your link only touched on Obama's 2011 comments. There's clearly a double standard being applied with UCI. Obama's comments should have gotten Manning a lighter sentence if  UCI a standard for military courts. 

Nance took the easy way out. He was more worried about Trump's comments being used by the media to question his ruling than making sure there was justice for the families of loved one's who died looking for Bergdahl.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I see your point. I think its a grey area. I'd be interested to see what Nance would say about Susan Rice's/Obama's comments back in 2015 though. On it's face, seems like there's a better argument for UCI there. But I realize that an attorney needs to bring it up in court if they think its an issue[?]. 

Exactly, Susan Rice said Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Which everyone now knows was a lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

Exactly, Susan Rice said Bergdahl served with honor and distinction. Which everyone now knows was a lie.

Yep. And UCI applies to comments in general - regardless of whether they're in favor of or against the the party. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bigbens42 said:

Haven't read your link yet, but I'm truly glad we've reached some common ground, Jeff. 

 

Yep. If Trump’s gaffes have to be our set common ground, I’ll continue meeting you at the quarterback.

34 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

How about Cam and them Panthers?

Cam played with fire today and he almost rushed for 100. Overall it was a good day but it’s pretty apparent that our offense is extremely limited in talent and in design. Cam and McCaffery are the only players worth building around. It’s always nice to get a win against the dirty birds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Yep. And UCI applies to comments in general - regardless of whether they're in favor of or against the the party. 

True. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we didn't keep taking guys like Bergdahl who lacked the temperament for service, it would be easier to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, we're going in the other direction:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2017 at 12:20 PM, TexasTiger said:

If we didn't keep taking guys like Bergdahl who lacked the temperament for service, it would be easier to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, we're going in the other direction:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/12/army-lifts-ban-recruits-history-self-mutilation-other-mental-health-issues/853131001/

It’s just going to make the NCO’s work harder trying to make sure their joes have their bipolar meds before going to the field for a week or to the range. Will be a volatile, less cohesive situation without proper direction....something that may not be able to be avoided during combat...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, aujeff11 said:

It’s just going to make the NCO’s work harder trying to make sure their joes have their bipolar meds before going to the field for a week or to the range. Will be a volatile, less cohesive situation without proper direction....something that may not be able to be avoided during combat...

Or we could reinstate the draft and think a bit more about the conflicts we get into instead of having that burden fall exclusively to a small group of Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Or we could reinstate the draft and think a bit more about the conflicts we get into instead of having that burden fall exclusively to a small group of Americans.

Or not. If you wanted the argument to head that direction, why even link the mental health waiter article as your starting point? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

Or not. If you wanted the argument to head that direction, why even link the mental health waiter article as your starting point? 

Volunteer force doesn't meet demand, obviously, of continuous war. Bergdahl was never up to what he signed up for. There was ample indication of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Volunteer force doesn't meet demand, obviously, of continuous war. Bergdahl was never up to what he signed up for. There was ample indication of that.

I agree that war shouldn’t be a continuous aspect of our lives but reinstating the draft isn’t the solution

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aujeff11 said:

I agree that war shouldn’t be a continuous aspect of our lives but reinstating the draft isn’t the solution

 

It engages a society to a much deeper level than merely telling the few who make all the sacrifices "thank you for your service." It makes us really question the need for a conflict in ways we don't do now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

It makes us really question the need for a conflict in ways we don't do now.

Interesting point and you’re probably right about this. So who gets drafted these days? Both men and women? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...