Bowe Bergdahl

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Last I checked no one has violated any of his civil rights or military rights yet. So why argue about something that hadn't even happened?

Jeez, Matts1983, this thread started out with the accusation that Bergdahl is a deserter and you yourself claimed on page 4 of this thread that you can claim he's guilty of leaving his post but we can't or shouldn't assume he's innocent. Other people on here would have "left him to rot", meaning Bergdahl, and others want to hear his side of the story. You also claimed in one of your posts that Bergdahl forfeited his constitutional rights when he enlisted and when it was pointed out to you that that is not the case, you questioned what "due process" I might have been referring to. Me thinks you knew full well what "due process" I was referring to, so yea, why argue about something that hasn't happened?

And thank you for your service. I admire anyone who voluntarily signs up to serve our nation, even if I may disagree with our government's policies that put our service members in harms way.

Peace.

Geez Halifax, last time I checked I wasn't in any position of authority that effects Bowe. Do I have my opinions, yes. Am I taking any of his liberties away? Nope. Geez... Let's think before we try and make a point?

Yes I asked you about what due process you were talking about. Will he get the same rights of a civilian court? Nope. Will he go before a military court? Yes.

So I stand by it, why are you trying to argue something that hasn't even happened yet? I guess me expressing my opinion is in violation of his rights, but you expressing yours isn't? That makes sense...

It's your persistence stating of your opinion as fact that I have a problem with. Why don't you trying thinking about the difference?

Peace,

Difference in what? Because from all accounts he sounds like he is guilty of at the least AWOL? I believe he is. If you know want to take this stance of no speculation and no opinions and only solid facts, I welcome you to take your own advice. You post multiple times on your opinions to different issues. You should no longer do that. You are actually using your own speculation in this thread assuming he did nothing wrong. Funny how that works huh?

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Last I checked no one has violated any of his civil rights or military rights yet. So why argue about something that hadn't even happened?

Jeez, Matts1983, this thread started out with the accusation that Bergdahl is a deserter and you yourself claimed on page 4 of this thread that you can claim he's guilty of leaving his post but we can't or shouldn't assume he's innocent. Other people on here would have "left him to rot", meaning Bergdahl, and others want to hear his side of the story. You also claimed in one of your posts that Bergdahl forfeited his constitutional rights when he enlisted and when it was pointed out to you that that is not the case, you questioned what "due process" I might have been referring to. Me thinks you knew full well what "due process" I was referring to, so yea, why argue about something that hasn't happened?

And thank you for your service. I admire anyone who voluntarily signs up to serve our nation, even if I may disagree with our government's policies that put our service members in harms way.

Peace.

Geez Halifax, last time I checked I wasn't in any position of authority that effects Bowe. Do I have my opinions, yes. Am I taking any of his liberties away? Nope. Geez... Let's think before we try and make a point?

Yes I asked you about what due process you were talking about. Will he get the same rights of a civilian court? Nope. Will he go before a military court? Yes.

So I stand by it, why are you trying to argue something that hasn't even happened yet? I guess me expressing my opinion is in violation of his rights, but you expressing yours isn't? That makes sense...

It's your persistence stating of your opinion as fact that I have a problem with. Why don't you trying thinking about the difference?

Peace,

Difference in what? Because from all accounts he sounds like he is guilty of at the least AWOL? I believe he is. If you know want to take this stance of no speculation and no opinions and only solid facts, I welcome you to take your own advice. You post multiple times on your opinions to different issues. You should no longer do that. You are actually using your own speculation in this thread assuming he did nothing wrong. Funny how that works huh?

Please point out to me where in this thread I said I was assuming "he did nothing wrong." And you say, "because from all accounts he SOUNDS like he is guilty of at least AWOL." Wow, SOUNDS like he's guilty, prior to any form of due process! I haven't declared whether I think he's guilty, of anything, or innocent of anything. And I sure as hell haven't made any patently false statements and tried to present them as facts in this thread like your statement, "Actually, when you are an active service member you waiv your constitutional rights." My opinion is just that, my opinion.

Hey Jethro. What's that? Sounds like that fella up the road killed that family down the road. Yea, I heard that too. Sounds like he's guilty to me. Yup. He go to court yet? Nope, but I reckon he's guilty cuz it sure SOUNDS like he is and his housemates said so.

I stand by my opinion, "Funny how you guys screaming about your rights being trampled on are the first ones to toss them aside when something happens that doesn't fit your pre-conceived notions of what democracy is. So much for Bergdalh's constitutional rights, huh?"

Peace.

And if you missed the reading of everyone's prepared statements, find them or a repeat of the hearing and watch and listen. Then comprehend the questions asked and the answers given. Take the blinders off and listen.
Peace.

So yes I stand by my points. 1) the president did not notify congress which he is supposed to be legally responsible to do. 2) it appears he went at least AWOL.

Your point of his rights not being recognized or disregarded? Sounds like a big ol opinion, based on nothing more than what you think.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2014/07/14/latest-destination-in-the-wild-ride-of-bowe-bergdahl-active-duty/


By Dan Lamothe July 14

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s whirlwind year has included the following: captivity in Pakistan, an exchange for Taliban officials in Afghanistan that yielded his freedom, and a highly publicized and politicized debate about whether the Obama administration botched the handling of his case.

Now, it will include the following, too: a new active-duty unit.

Army officials confirmed the move on Monday morning, saying the sergeant has completed the final phase of his reintegration process and will be assigned to U.S. Army North and Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston.

“He will now return to regular duty within the command where he can contribute to the mission,” Tatjana Christian, a spokeswoman for the Army, said in an e-mail. “The Army investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the disappearance and capture of Bergdahl is still ongoing.”

The news was first reported late Sunday by the New York Times. Bergdahl will take a new job even though he could still face charges as a deserter — an investigation into how Bergdahl fell into the hands of insurgent forces in eastern Afghanistan in 2009 is still ongoing, and it’s likely that he will be among the last to be interviewed, CNN reported. That is a somewhat common practice in federal investigations as authorities work their way toward the main subject of an investigation.

An Army investigation conducted shortly after Bergdahl disappeared on June 30, 2009, is said to have determined that he chose to walk away from his unit’s patrol base in Paktika province. To charge him with desertion, however, the Army will need to determine his intent. In the meantime, his pending change in status has drawn reactions like these:
JΞSTΞR ✪ ACTUAL™ @th3j35t3r
Follow

BREAKING: Bergdahl has finished counseling in Texas, could return to active duty as early as today. Because everything's just peachy.
6:14 AM - 14 Jul 2014
DM @imemdoc
Follow

Former POW Bergdahl set to return to active duty http://news.yahoo.com/former-pow-bergdahl-set-return-u-army-active-122821457.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory … via @YahooNews Thought he was a traitor/AWOL...ugh, politics.
10:10 AM - 14 Jul 2014
Karen Vaughn @ForOurSon
Follow

Warriors in combat are getting pink slips...but Bergdahl is back on the job. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2691165/Sgt-Bowe-Bergdahl-return-duty-US-Army-MONDAY-one-month-counseling-following-controversial-release-five-years-captivity-Taliban.html … http://ow.ly/i/6dR6h
9:35 AM - 14 Jul 2014

By Dan Lamothe July 14

Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s whirlwind year has included the following: captivity in Pakistan, an exchange for Taliban officials in Afghanistan that yielded his freedom, and a highly publicized and politicized debate about whether the Obama administration botched the handling of his case.

Now, it will include the following, too: a new active-duty unit.

Army officials confirmed the move on Monday morning, saying the sergeant has completed the final phase of his reintegration process and will be assigned to U.S. Army North and Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston.

“He will now return to regular duty within the command where he can contribute to the mission,” Tatjana Christian, a spokeswoman for the Army, said in an e-mail. “The Army investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the disappearance and capture of Bergdahl is still ongoing.”

The news was first reported late Sunday by the New York Times. Bergdahl will take a new job even though he could still face charges as a deserter — an investigation into how Bergdahl fell into the hands of insurgent forces in eastern Afghanistan in 2009 is still ongoing, and it’s likely that he will be among the last to be interviewed, CNN reported. That is a somewhat common practice in federal investigations as authorities work their way toward the main subject of an investigation.

An Army investigation conducted shortly after Bergdahl disappeared on June 30, 2009, is said to have determined that he chose to walk away from his unit’s patrol base in Paktika province. To charge him with desertion, however, the Army will need to determine his intent. In the meantime, his pending change in status has drawn reactions like these:

That last tweet is from Karen Vaughn. Her son Aaron, a Navy SEAL, was among the U.S. personnel killed Aug. 6, 2011, when Taliban fighters shot down a helicopter carrying 38 men and a military working dog. All aboard were killed.

Bergdahl’s change in status comes after two new twists in the last week. In the first, the Taliban released what appeared to be a photo of the soldier with Badruddin Haqqani, a leader of the militant Haqqani network who was killed in a suspected U.S. airstrike in August 2012. Pentagon officials have dismissed that as “100 percent propaganda,” saying Bergdahl faced brutal conditions while in captivity for five years.

On Thursday, Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.) also released letters from each of the Joint Chiefs that showed they supported the repatriation of Bergdahl, though the service chiefs each said they were not consulted before the decision was made.

“I was not consulted in any way, either in my role as Chief of Staff of the Army or as member of the Joint Chiefs, prior to the release SGT Bergdahl,” said Army Gen. Ray Odierno in his letter, dated July 9. “I firmly believe that the recovery of any American service member held as a captive, hostage or prisoner of war, regardless of the circumstances, is both a moral imperative and vital to keeping faith within our Army.”

“I am confident that the exigency of Sgt Bergdahl’s release was balanced against an assessment of the dangers posed by the release of the Taliban detainees,” said Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos in his letter. “That said, absent the context of the deliberations and discussions surrounding this decision, I am simply not in a position to provide an informed response.”

HOMELAND

hedonist said:

What's the difference between recovery and repatriation?

I don't get the two paragraphs before the last; they weren't consulted but provided support? Granted I don't know much about the process, but it strikes me as sort of like a doctor giving a diagnosis without having examined the patient.

Anyway, it seems, to me anyway, like an awfully short time for someone who was a POW for five years being put back on active duty.

as to your first question, I think it s just choice of wording.

two , according to whats been reported, Sec Def, Sec State and others in the intelligence as well as the analysts were involved, that their input wasnt deemed to be needed? Perhaps because , we dont leave anyone behind if it can be helped?

I'd be hard pressed to believe any of the Chiefs would have objected.

Can he play ping-pong?

This makes complete sense, mickey.

I guess what I just don't get is how - whether charges to be filed or not - it takes a mere six or so weeks to be ready (not militarily but emotionally, mentally, humanly) to return to duty. After five years in captivity?

Maybe I'm missing something, but this aspect seems so...swift.