Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The moral implication of your statement was quite clear. Deny it now if you want. If Bergdahl was incompetent without a lawyer present, then the possible of incompetence for court-martial arises. Slap him into a mental ward until he is competent. I imagine Bergdahl and his family would want that as a first alternative to a court-martial until they get a deal they can accept.Bergdahl's replies to investigators questions are the only evidential facts that can convict him. The boy talked without a lawyer. JoeB is right on this, I think; a plea deal will emerge for ten years or less.
Yeah ... Bergdahl certainly couldn't tell the truth without a lawyer present..
We have fifth amendment rights for a reason, BS. Your moral considerations about that are irrelevant.
Of course we have rights and so does Bergdahl ... All I posted is that I am sure Bergdahl was incapable of telling the truth without his lawyer present. You are the one that made a moral consideration towards that ... Not me ... I agreed with you.
Stop the nonsense about getting fellow soldiers killed. They died later on different missions.
100% so. I told a sgt of mine if we had to go and she refused I would have her in the MP lock up within 30 minutes and her child in protective custoy with the country.Joe
You still sign the papers when you join and you do it knowing you have to fight in any war the President sends you to, regardless of the reasons.
If anyone can't accept that, don't join. After all, it's not mandatory, you know.
No, it is not at all. The judge will not permit it such a line of testimony. Your feelings are nonsense because they died on other missions.Stop the nonsense about getting fellow soldiers killed. They died later on different missions.
Then I am sure that will come out in trial ... It is associated to what he has been charged with ... Bergdahl has a lawyer. As to whether or not I feel getting his fellow soldiers killed is nonsense ... Well, that is as irrelevant as your desire to say he didn't.
.
The moral implication of your statement was quite clear. Deny it now if you want. If Bergdahl was incompetent without a lawyer present, then the possible of incompetence for court-martial arises. Slap him into a mental ward until he is competent. I imagine Bergdahl and his family would want that as a first alternative to a court-martial until they get a deal they can accept.Bergdahl's replies to investigators questions are the only evidential facts that can convict him. The boy talked without a lawyer. JoeB is right on this, I think; a plea deal will emerge for ten years or less.
Yeah ... Bergdahl certainly couldn't tell the truth without a lawyer present..
We have fifth amendment rights for a reason, BS. Your moral considerations about that are irrelevant.
Of course we have rights and so does Bergdahl ... All I posted is that I am sure Bergdahl was incapable of telling the truth without his lawyer present. You are the one that made a moral consideration towards that ... Not me ... I agreed with you.
Your feelings are just that, feelings; yes, you implied it. If he is declared incompetent, he will remain in a mental ward. If he is court-martialed and convicted (probably the result), he will serve in Leavenworth. If I were ever to have to serve in federal lockup, that is the place, I would choose.The moral implication of your statement was quite clear. Deny it now if you want. If Bergdahl was incompetent without a lawyer present, then the possible of incompetence for court-martial arises. Slap him into a mental ward until he is competent. I imagine Bergdahl and his family would want that as a first alternative to a court-martial until they get a deal they can accept.Bergdahl's replies to investigators questions are the only evidential facts that can convict him. The boy talked without a lawyer. JoeB is right on this, I think; a plea deal will emerge for ten years or less.
Yeah ... Bergdahl certainly couldn't tell the truth without a lawyer present..
We have fifth amendment rights for a reason, BS. Your moral considerations about that are irrelevant.
Of course we have rights and so does Bergdahl ... All I posted is that I am sure Bergdahl was incapable of telling the truth without his lawyer present. You are the one that made a moral consideration towards that ... Not me ... I agreed with you.
What moral implication did I apply ... You are the one that brought it up?
Unfortunately ... as far as incompetence to stand trial and where they would send him is a lot different in the military.
Just like the fact that Bergdahl is not charged with a civilian crime ... Will be prosecuted under the UCMJ ... And will spend any time he may or may not be given as a result in a wonderful institution like Leavenworth.
.
BS and JoeB. Neither of you have any idea of a court-martial works. Also you are both making comments unsupported by the facts. JoeB, if the Army says you go, you go. BS, those soldiers were killed on other missions.
Your feelings are just that, feelings; yes, you implied it. If he is declared incompetent, he will remain in a mental ward. If he is court-martialed and convicted (probably the result), he will serve in Leavenworth. If I were ever to have to serve in federal lockup, that is the place, I would choose.
Joe
You still sign the papers when you join and you do it knowing you have to fight in any war the President sends you to, regardless of the reasons.
If anyone can't accept that, don't join. After all, it's not mandatory, you know.
It figures the left is sticking up for a coward and traitor, I expected nothing less from cowards and traitors
It figures the left is sticking up for a coward and traitor, I expected nothing less from cowards and traitors
I always thought that the left wing should support our military, now I am not sure.
It figures the left is sticking up for a coward and traitor, I expected nothing less from cowards and traitors
I always thought that the left wing should support our military, now I am not sure.
I always thought that the left wing should support our military, now I am not sure.
It figures the left is sticking up for a coward and traitor, I expected nothing less from cowards and traitors
I always thought that the left wing should support our military, now I am not sure.
My father was a US Navy MCPO, he served with honor and pride and the pos Berghdal isn't worthy to shine my father's boots. I've known since a very young age the left has this faux respect and support for out military
It figures the left is sticking up for a coward and traitor, I expected nothing less from cowards and traitors
I always thought that the left wing should support our military, now I am not sure.
The Constitution does not require him to fight in an Unconstitutional war.
I am sorry about Chris Kyle's death , but he was no hero serving in an UNlawful war.
Ergo, suck my rod.
.
The war in Iraq was as constitutional as it gets. The US Congress authorized it as well as the United Nations. You calling it unconstitutional merely displays your ignorance.
If you read the constitution is says it takes an act of congress to declare war. An act, not an authorization.
Oh, and Joe........
About all of your claims that Bergdahl was in an unjust war over oil. I would like to remind you (again) that he was in Afghanistan. They don't even have any oil.
At least get your facts straight before you mount your defense of Bergdahl. Otherwise, people tend to think you're living proof that the military DOES enlist mental cases and idiots.
It figures the left is sticking up for a coward and traitor, I expected nothing less from cowards and traitors
I always thought that the left wing should support our military, now I am not sure.
After the left believing and parroting every unsubstantiated anti-military accusation all through the Iraq war, I thought it was pretty clear. How did you get through all that and suddenly this makes you question them?
