Army Charges Bergdahl as a Deserter

[francoHFW]

Any hater dupes heard of innocent until proven guilty? My take is he's a free spirit who didn't fit in the army, took a walk and got captured. Dumb, but not criminal.

 

[francoHFW]

Seriously, what more does Obama have to do to violate his oath of office?

You do realize that these 5 guys were already leaving guantanomo, as a judge had already ordered, right?

So what Obama did was trade 5 men who were about to be released for one hostage who wasn't.

Fox and Foxbots etc call all Gitmo prisoners terrorists, even if it's PROVEN they're not. Great jobs, Boooshies, if you're TRYING to make all Muslims and 3rd worlders hate us. Kudos, ugly American chickenhawk, war mongering, ignoramus dupes of greedy idiot military/industrial billionaires lol.

 

[Decus]

And so it begins... he will become the left's latest Cindy Sheehan.

For leaving his post he deserves whatever the Army decides to do with him.

thats not the issue. The issue is that obama traded 5 pieces of muslim terrorist shit for him.

Absolutely!

 

[ogibillm]

And so it begins... he will become the left's latest Cindy Sheehan.

For leaving his post he deserves whatever the Army decides to do with him.

thats not the issue. The issue is that obama traded 5 pieces of muslim terrorist shit for him.

Absolutely!

what did they do?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

No man left behind. Just ask a member of POW/MIA, or a Marine.

 

[francoHFW]

Nothing.

 

[paperview]

Seriously, what more does Obama have to do to violate his oath of office?

You do realize that these 5 guys were already leaving guantanomo, as a judge had already ordered, right?

So what Obama did was trade 5 men who were about to be released for one hostage who wasn't.

That's what I recall.

 

[idb]

The five Afghanis released weren't listed as terrorists.

The US secured the release of a captive soldier in exchange for prisoners that were due to be released anyway.

Continuously calling the prisoners terrorists and Bergdahl a deserter does not change the facts.

He has the right to face due process which is all his 'liberal supporters' are asking for.
Conservative support for the military seems to be completely predicated on Obama's actions.

 

[Moonglow]

No man left behind. Just ask a member of POW/MIA, or a Marine.

These ardent patriots seem to have forgotten that,,,,

 

[paperview]

MYTH: This sets a dangerous precedent that the U.S. will negotiate with terrorists

...
MYTH: These five Taliban are the hardest of the hardcore

.....

MYTH: Six to eight U.S. soldiers died looking for Bergdahl

....
MYTH: The swap shows Obama's willful disregard for the law and his embracing of an imperial presidency

Bowe Bergdahl Four Myths That Need to Be Destroyed

Click the link to read why the above statements are myths.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Do you mean patriots or nationalists?

 

[2aguy]

And in this guy's opinion as well:

"Desertion is a very specific charge under U.S. military law. And there are crucial differences between civilian and military criminal justice that make Bergdahl's conviction, or even a trial, unlikely.

As former Judge Advocate General lawyer and South Texas College of Law professor Geoffrey Corn told Business Insider, in the U.S. military, a conviction for desertion requires very narrow criteria to be met. The prosecutor would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bergdahl "quit his unit with an intent to remain absent permanently — and he had to have that specific intent," Corn explained."

Bowe Bergdahl Probably Won t Be Court Martialed - Business Insider

The fact that he was "captured" by the enemy would also make it harder to say he didn't plan on coming back.....since he couldn't because he was a POW....

 

[jwoodie]

Seriously, what more does Obama have to do to violate his oath of office?

You do realize that these 5 guys were already leaving guantanomo, as a judge had already ordered, right?

So what Obama did was trade 5 men who were about to be released for one hostage who wasn't.

Then why did the terrorists give up their "hostage?"

 

[HenryBHough]

OK with me?

No.

Am I surprised?

No.

Nothing to see here but a petulant boy-child doing His thing. Move along.....

 

[paperview]

Seriously, what more does Obama have to do to violate his oath of office?

You do realize that these 5 guys were already leaving guantanomo, as a judge had already ordered, right?

So what Obama did was trade 5 men who were about to be released for one hostage who wasn't.

Then why did the terrorists give up their "hostage?"

He wasn't a "hostage" - he was a Prisoner of War.

As to why, this might help explain it:

(if you're not much into reading, skip to the least line.)

"The United States is engaged in an armed conflict in Afghanistan against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces authorized by Congress under the 2001 Authorizations to Use Military Force. It is remains controversial whether this armed conflict extends beyond Afghanistan and the border regions of Pakistan, but what is not in doubt is that of the enemy forces party to this conflict, the Taliban is confined to Afghanistan and Pakistan. President Obama recently announced that the combat role for the United States in the armed conflict in Afghanistan will end this year and all participation will completely cease by 2016.

When wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released. These five Guantanamo detainees were almost all members of the Taliban, according to the biographies of the five detainees that the Afghan Analysts Network compiled in 2012. None were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions. It remains an open question whether the end of U.S. involvement in the armed conflict in Afghanistan requires that all Guantanamo detainees must be released. But there is no doubt that Taliban detainees captured in Afghanistan must be released because the armed conflict against the Taliban will be over.

Sgt. Bergdahl was a U.S. soldier captured in an active zone of combat. The circumstances of his capture make him a Prisoner of War, not a hostage as some have erroneously claimed. In traditional conflicts, both sides would release their prisoners at the conclusion of hostilities. This is not a traditional conflict, however, and the Obama administration rightly had no expectation that Sgt. Bergdahl would have been released when U.S. forces redeployed out of Afghanistan. As that date neared, any leverage the United States possessed would have been severely undermined."

Why The Five Taliban Detainees Had To Be Released Soon No Matter What

 

[BullKurtz]

What are the official charges? Have they listed the Articles and counts yet?

First they Article 32 him and if there's enough evidence (and there obviously is) he'd be subject to an Article 10 court martial for what the 32 hearing asserted. He could get anything from death to time in captivity which is what I believe the outcome to be. What we know for sure is he wasn't in any danger from Terry and Obozo got okey-doked once again.

 

[bodecea]

What are the official charges? Have they listed the Articles and counts yet?

nope

Well that's odd, considering the title of this thread. Don't you think so?

 

[BULLDOG]

The fuckup was signing up someone like Bergdahl to start with. Someone who washed out of Boot Camp for the Coast Guard.

and then the army kept promoting him in his absense.

Of course, of course. How stupid of me to even think that Obama made a bed call here.

I'm pretty sure Obama doesn't have time to deal with enlistment of individual soldiers, or promotions. What kind of idiot thinks he does?

What kind of idiot deflects responsibility away from the President?

A: All of them.

I caught three red lights in a row this morning DAMN YOU OBAMA!!!

 

[bodecea]

What are the official charges? Have they listed the Articles and counts yet?

First they Article 32 him and if there's enough evidence (and there obviously is) he'd be subject to an Article 10 court martial for what the 32 hearing asserted. He could get anything from death to time in captivity which is what I believe the outcome to be. What we know for sure is he wasn't in any danger from Terry and Obozo got okey-doked once again.

I know that an Article 32 comes first. In fact, I believe it may very well have been going on already. But what are the charges (the Articles) since the OP states that the Army is charging him?

 

[BullKurtz]

The five Afghanis released weren't listed as terrorists.
The US secured the release of a captive soldier in exchange for prisoners that were due to be released anyway.

The 5 were Taliban commanders in combat with American forces....they were NOT due to be released you lying douche.