Bowe Bergdahl II: Return of Bowe

[Censored by Laurie]

41 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Oh it's a bullshit defense.

three things. 

1. what leads you to this conclusion? 
2. if "bullshit", then what were his actual motives? 
3. what evidence supports your answer to question 2? 

[Army of Dad]

17 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

three things. 

1. what leads you to this conclusion? 
2. if "bullshit", then what were his actual motives? 
3. what evidence supports your answer to question 2? 

So you are supportive and agree with that defense, why is that?

[Censored by Laurie]

33 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

So you are supportive and agree with that defense, why is that?

I don't believe I've expressed any sort of opinion.

you did...and fervently...so I assumed there was both a rationale behind your opinion and perhaps even an alternate explanation for the events and was curious so as to further the conversation.  am I wrong in that assumption? 

[Army of Dad]

23 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I don't believe I've expressed any sort of opinion.

you did...and fervently...so I assumed there was both a rationale behind your opinion and perhaps even an alternate explanation for the events and was curious so as to further the conversation.  am I wrong in that assumption? 

No you did a 'let's draw out the argument so I can form my counter once I've seen all the cards' gambit. I know it and like that tactic as well.

1. The Army has a well known set of reporting mechanisms for reporting grievances. All soldiers have been instructed/trained on those mechanisms. He is attempting to cast his cowardice and misbehavior in a positive light by being the white knight. One never needs to saunter off outside the wire alone to bring a complaint.

2. I'm not sure what my opinion of his motive has to do with his defense being bullshit.

[Censored by Laurie]

I mean, having an understanding of one's stance and from where and how they're formed is kind of a major foundation for a good discussion/argument. I understand, given the location, how that might seem so rare as to appear manipulative...wasn't my intent.

1. but what if those mechanisms, at least in his mind (which, to me, is the crux of all of this) were compromised or wholly failed? if he truly believed his superiors...chain of command...were/would willingly endanger his or his company's life, does then action outside of those in place mechanisms merit at least some consideration? 

2. his defense is his (expressed) motive. if your opinion is that his defense is bullshit, then so to his is (expressed) motive. to call it such implies, at least to me, that you hold some belief as to his actual motive. I was simply curious what you believe that to be and what evidence or assumptions lead you toward that conclusion. 

[Army of Dad]

1 hour ago, Censored by Laurie said:

I mean, having an understanding of one's stance and from where and how they're formed is kind of a major foundation for a good discussion/argument. I understand, given the location, how that might seem so rare as to appear manipulative...wasn't my intent.

1. but what if those mechanisms, at least in his mind (which, to me, is the crux of all of this) were compromised or wholly failed? if he truly believed his superiors...chain of command...were/would willingly endanger his or his company's life, does then action outside of those in place mechanisms merit at least some consideration? 

2. his defense is his (expressed) motive. if your opinion is that his defense is bullshit, then so to his is (expressed) motive. to call it such implies, at least to me, that you hold some belief as to his actual motive. I was simply curious what you believe that to be and what evidence or assumptions lead you toward that conclusion. 

Sorry if I misread your intent.

1. No, there are even ways outside of his direct chain of command to raise an issue. The Army has its own inspectors general and he could have contacted his congressman as well. These investigations are not unheard of and if he really felt the need to go over the head of his battalion commander he could have requested to speak with senior leadership above him. Yes, that is frowned upon but the Army officers there are obligated to allow it. 

2. I don't know what his motive is, and I don't think that is a required element for the prosecution for the charges he is facing. (But it's been a few years since I've read over the UCMJ).

 

[Censored by Laurie]

54 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

Sorry if I misread your intent.

1. No, there are even ways outside of his direct chain of command to raise an issue. The Army has its own inspectors general and he could have contacted his congressman as well. These investigations are not unheard of and if he really felt the need to go over the head of his battalion commander he could have requested to speak with senior leadership above him. Yes, that is frowned upon but the Army officers there are obligated to allow it. 

2. I don't know what his motive is, and I don't think that is a required element for the prosecution for the charges he is facing. (But it's been a few years since I've read over the UCMJ).

 

1. was that possible at OP Mest? 

2. then I don't understand how you can call him a coward. 

[EagleMBA]

I can't buy his bullshit when the scumbag packed up his shit and sent it home. Totally planned and premeditated acts. He is just throwing shit out to see what might stick.

[Cerebus]

37 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

1. was that possible at OP Mest? 

I'm pretty sure a letter would have worked if nothing else.  The simple fact is no matter what you think he intended to do, or how bad he was treated by the bad guys, he committed a major crime by walking off a watch post.  He had a duty to perform and he shirked it.  That has gotten people life imprisonment before, in fact a whole lot less has.   He didn't have to intend to help the Taliban, he didn't have to want to try and join their forces.   The Army simply has to prove he left without permission in a combat zone and it can throw the book at him if it wants, and it is very easy for them to prove that.  

 

ETA: Remember when you sign up for the armed forces you more or less give up your constitutional rights and agree to instead be governed by the UCMJ.  

Edited March 16, 2016 by Cerebus

[Censored by Laurie]

21 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

I'm pretty sure a letter would have worked if nothing else.  The simple fact is no matter what you think he intended to do, or how bad he was treated by the bad guys, he committed a major crime by walking off a watch post.  He had a duty to perform and he shirked it.  That has gotten people life imprisonment before, in fact a whole lot less has.   He didn't have to intend to help the Taliban, he didn't have to want to try and join their forces.   The Army simply has to prove he left without permission in a combat zone and it can throw the book at him if it wants, and it is very easy for them to prove that.  

to the bolded part...if you believed your life were being put in danger, would you take to a pen a paper? 

to the balance...I think we may be having two different conversations. I don't disagree that a completely dispassionate view of Bergdahl's actions makes him guilty...he left without permission and for doing so the Army is entitled to punish him...a punishment he seemed at the time willing to accept for his actions. 

my point and/or question is whether or not it is just...or perhaps more, to what severity is a punishment just? 

[Cerebus]

8 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

my point and/or question is whether or not it is just...or perhaps more, to what severity is a punishment just? 

He volunteered to live under a standard that put what he did squarely into the "life imprisonment" punishment level.  If Bush or Obama had bothered to fill out the proper paperwork to administratively classify the military involvement a little differently, then the Article 99 punishment he would be looking at is death.  

The military courts are open to interpret things a little more freely than the judicial branch can.  The president, as commander in chief, has the ability to pressure the outcome he wants.  Carey got the hammer dropped on him because Ike wanted to make him an example.  I think Obama wants to be more lenient in this case.  I thing BB gets a dishonorable for sure, a good chance of getting the 5 years tacked on, and almost no chance of anything harsher than that.  

[EagleMBA]

Seeing him strut to and from the courthouse on the news in full uniform made me want to puke. Somewhere along the way I wish him a happy reunion with his squad. Just a private little affair...perhaps a blanket party.

[Army of Dad]

2 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

1. was that possible at OP Mest? 

2. then I don't understand how you can call him a coward. 

He abandoned his post, his duty to his country, and his fellow service members in a war zone. He's a coward.

I suppose your lack of understanding comes from different life experiences. Have you ever served in the military? I have, and those actions in a war zone are cowardice. 

 

1 hour ago, EagleMBA said:

Seeing him strut to and from the courthouse on the news in full uniform made me want to puke. Somewhere along the way I wish him a happy reunion with his squad. Just a private little affair...perhaps a blanket party.

While I'm sure that might be gratifying to some of his former comrades in arms, I would rather they not be given the chance to sully their records.

[KRAM1]

3 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

He abandoned his post, his duty to his country, and his fellow service members in a war zone. He's a coward.

I suppose your lack of understanding comes from different life experiences. Have you ever served in the military? I have, and those actions in a war zone are cowardice. 

 

Yep...as a Viet Nam era veteran I concur with your thoughts.

[Censored by Laurie]

3 hours ago, Army of Dad said:

He abandoned his post, his duty to his country, and his fellow service members in a war zone. He's a coward.

I suppose your lack of understanding comes from different life experiences. Have you ever served in the military? I have, and those actions in a war zone are cowardice. 

 

While I'm sure that might be gratifying to some of his former comrades in arms, I would rather they not be given the chance to sully their records.

in his mind, he abandoned his post in order to fulfill his duty to his country and fellow service members. that may make him irrational, foolish, naive, delusional...maybe mentally not fit to serve (which his psych-evaluation from the coast guard suggest). that's not a coward. that said...its far from a hero. it just kinda is.

 

[KRAM1]

11 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

in his mind, he abandoned his post in order to fulfill his duty to his country and fellow service members. that may make him irrational, foolish, naive, delusional...maybe mentally not fit to serve (which his psych-evaluation from the coast guard suggest). that's not a coward. that said...its far from a hero. it just kinda is.

 

Or...is that  simply his own rationalization for desertion in the face of the enemy?  I highly doubt you or anyone else (including me) knows what was "in his mind".  Seems he was the only member of his unit to  take such a course of action "to fulfill his duty to his country".  Leaving ones post in a war zone and knowingly decreasing your units readiness strength is a court martial offense and is seen as cowardly by every veteran I have discussed this situation with...especially my Viet Nam era buddies.  I do think those who served have a different view of this situation than those who have not.  And, that's probably understandable.

[Censored by Laurie]

4 minutes ago, KRAM1 said:

Or...is that  simply his own rationalization for desertion in the face of the enemy?  I highly doubt you or anyone else (including me) knows what was "in his mind".  Seems he was the only member of his unit to  take such a course of action "to fulfill his duty to his country".  Leaving ones post in a war zone and knowingly decreasing your units readiness strength is a court martial offense and is seen as cowardly by every veteran I have discussed this situation with...especially my Viet Nam era buddies.  I do think those who served have a different view of this situation than those who have not.  And, that's probably understandable.

perhaps. here...in that case, I'll let Major General Kenneth Dahl speak for me.

[KRAM1]

6 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

perhaps. here...in that case, I'll let Major General Kenneth Dahl speak for me.

Yes..have read his position.  Doesn't change mine.  We will all see where this goes.  I think we could both find plenty of support from current and former members of the armed services for our various positions.  Not surprising at all given this case and the times we live in today.

Edited March 17, 2016 by KRAM1

[Army of Dad]

7 minutes ago, Eagle1855 said:

I wasn't arguing against any of this. I was just offering my opinion, which is simply that the idea he was just goofing off with terrorists is probably a far-cry from reality. 

We know they treated him far better than their other captives.

How you might ask?

He was returned with his head still attached to his body...

[Censored by Laurie]

52 minutes ago, Army of Dad said:

We know they treated him far better than their other captives.

How you might ask?

He was returned with his head still attached to his body...

what other American SOLDIER captives have the Taliban held? 

[UNT90]

On March 16, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Censored by Laurie said:

in his mind, he abandoned his post in order to fulfill his duty to his country and fellow service members. that may make him irrational, foolish, naive, delusional...maybe mentally not fit to serve (which his psych-evaluation from the coast guard suggest). that's not a coward. that said...its far from a hero. it just kinda is.

 

Criminals always come up with excuses for their behavior after they face consequences. That seems to be something you completely leave out of the equation. 

You shouldn't.

[Censored by Laurie]

3 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Criminals always come up with excuses for their behavior after they face consequences. That seems to be something you completely leave out of the equation. 

You shouldn't.

so much so as to fool a Major General tasked with his investigation...but not you?

[EagleMBA]

3 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

so much so as to fool a Major General tasked with his investigation...but not you?

Don't confuse that Major General with Patton...I researched his background. Probably never got his fingers dirty.

[Censored by Laurie]

13 minutes ago, EagleMBA said:

Don't confuse that Major General with Patton...I researched his background. Probably never got his fingers dirty.

so?

[EagleMBA]

13 minutes ago, Censored by Laurie said:

so?

He chatted with the putz for a day and a half and got on the stand to testify for the Defense, using his degree in Social Psychology to go along with his military credentials. The fix is in.