Post: #26

(06-04-2014 09:34 AM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 09:15 AM)monster Wrote:  

(06-04-2014 08:03 AM)AntiTrace Wrote:  I just hate the "innocent until proven guilty" defense that most liberals use.

The reason the "innocent until proven guilty" clause is SO IMPORTANT is because it is intended to protect those falsely accused, not to protect those who really are guilty.

And with today's loose morals and political machinations & backstabbing of everyone in powerful positions, everyone is trying to throw someone under the bus for something.

Unless someone's been accused of something when he's innocent, however, one doesn't really understand the importance of "innocent until proven guilty." But once you have been accused of something and you really are innocent you understand just how important and critical "innocent until proven guilty" is.

Even though this particular situation is different, I would expect members of this board to be more understanding of "innocent until proven guilty" given the prevalence of false rape accusations against men. And its important to approach all alleged wrongdoings from the same frame of due process.

you missed the point.

The point was this: "Innocent until proven guilty" is not a valid defense. It is a statement of fact of the operation of the US legal system. People use it an attempt to attack the accusers.

Like this:
Person 1 - *Logical argument favoring why person X is guilty*
Person 2 - "People always forget that your innocent until proven guilty" <-- provides no logical counter argument. Attacks the other person by insulting their intelligence. Attempts to undermine the accuser without providing counterpoints

You don't have to tell me people are innocent until proven guilty. A thirtd grader has that much knowledge about the legal system. In my original post I said I want to see get a court martial. Hence, I'm for putting him through trial and not burning him at the stake.

I cannot remember the last time I've heard anyone - "liberal" or "conservative" - use "innocent until proven guilty" as a defense argument.

In fact, in stark contradiction to that statement it seems as if today in our society everyone is automatically "guilty unless proven innocent." We live in a place today where there are witch-hunts everywhere. There is mass schadenfreude among people to see someone skewered.

These mass-vilifications and witchhunts are propogated en-masse through media trying to make a quick buck and often skewering public opinion through withholding or even making up "facts." The same things are propogated through Facebook via all these local community mugshot pictures where people are ruthlessly cold even if the evidence of someone committing a crime is scant (or if the crime is even really unethical).

I've seen people lose jobs because they were arrested for something that's a lie (false domestic abuse reports the most common reason). And that's the day after their arrest - no trial, no due process, no nothing...just "guilty unless proven innocent" mentality and the damage is already done regardless of if they are eventually proven innocent.

In short, I don't ever see "innocent until proven guilty" ever used as a defense. And this is unfortunate because this rationale is meant to protect the millions who are falsely accused, and false accusations and arrests are all too common. This is really unfortunate because many great lives are ruined by this dangerous mentality.

Post: #27

I have a very close friend that served in Bergdahl's unit in afghanistan on the same deployment of his desertion. Even since before Bergdahls release my buddy has been saying he is a traitor. Hes been blowing up facebook with link after link of posts from fellow guys from the same unit with their comments about the events of his desertion, as well as in interviews with big media.

Bergdahl voluntarily left his unit to, for whatever reason, achieve contact with the taliban. By confusion and limited information it was spun that he was captured and the taliban portrayed it as a capture as well. Bergdahl's dad is a muslim, which in this context matters, and probably added to a personal conflict already within Bergdahl, alongside his bizarre and stupid "meant for something better" beliefs. Because of this, men in his unit were killed looking for him.

Bergdahl should be thrown in a CIA interrogation room and every piece of information he knows about his time in Pakistan squeezed dry. Then face military trial and dealt the proper consequences.

Also, I sure as hell hope the US has ensured that they are somehow able to monitor or track the 5 terrorists they released. I sort of have this outlandish thought that maybe the US surgically implanted tracking devices in the terrorists without them knowing...

Post: #28

The guy is just a deserter. No big deal here.

He apparently broke down under the psychological strains of being in Afghanistan. These things happen in every war. Some guys just wig out and lose their shit.

Probably should be court martialed, be forced to do a little bit of brig time, and then a dishonorable discharge.

Post: #29

If all this is true about Begdahl being a traitor I'm not sure the fault lies so much with Bergdahl as with the administration that even bothered to secure his release. obviously the administration had access to all this intel...so why trade one US traitor for the release of 5 terrorists?

Is this a mistake on behalf of the white house who did not expect word of bergdahl's traitoring to become public and were instead thinking they would be the hero: I remember seeing a headline a couple days ago where Obama said about this that "it goes to show that America will never lead a soldier behind."

Why did the Whitehouse go behind all the usual avenues (congress, etc) to arrange for his release?

There's obviously more to the story because the American government is one of the quickest in the world to turn their back on their own (contrary to Obama's proclamation to leave no one behind), so someone obviously wants something from Bergdahl.

This almost seems like Homeland.

Post: #30

(06-04-2014 11:53 AM)monster Wrote:  If all this is true about Begdahl being a traitor I'm not sure the fault lies so much with Bergdahl as with the administration that even bothered to secure his release. obviously the administration had access to all this intel...so why trade one US traitor for the release of 5 terrorists?

Is this a mistake on behalf of the white house who did not expect word of bergdahl's traitoring to become public and were instead thinking they would be the hero: I remember seeing a headline a couple days ago where Obama said about this that "it goes to show that America will never lead a soldier behind."

Why did the Whitehouse go behind all the usual avenues (congress, etc) to arrange for his release?

There's obviously more to the story because the American government is one of the quickest in the world to turn their back on their own (contrary to Obama's proclamation to leave no one behind), so someone obviously wants something from Bergdahl.

This almost seems like Homeland.

Imo at the very least it was used as a distraction after the VA scandal.

There's too many things that "just so happened":

VA scandal uncovered-->Obama takes a "surprise" visit to afghanistan-->identity of the CIA station chief in Kabul was leaked-->bergdahl was released after years in captivity

Something smells rotten...

Post: #31

Quote:"We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them..."

Dehumanization in war. Soldiers talk like this because you have to cope with the situation somehow. Killing a child bothers everyone except the very minute percentage of complete sociopaths.

What you don't see is televised national celebrations of killing thousands of innocent people and burning their home country flag. But guess who did that after 9/11? Hmmmm...



"I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting...There are a few more boxes coming to you guys. Feel free to open them, and use them."

Yep, America is disgusting.

But a culture that beheads their captives on live tv, threatens innocent people with murder if they don't do comply with demands, and routinely has mass celebrations of the murdering of innocent people isn't?

He is a radical muslim.

When you have a softer military and a media that is set on believing(and stirring) distrust in military, these dramatic "war crimes" and desertion tales will become more common and it will be payed by privates being the casualties.

Basil, no you misunderstanding my position. My personal hopes on Bergdahl is that he gets life in prison for being no better definition than the worst representation of a soldier possible and betraying most creeds we live by, but other are open to have their opinion of him being wrong or right.

Post: #32

@Laurifer What is the source of your information that Bergdahl's dad is a Muslim? I've seen the pictures of him, and yes he does have that appearance, but reading an article on Reuters, they made it seem like while he became interested in learning about Islam and even learned some Pashto, he was continuing to attend a Presbyterian Church regularly. That church was their support group it seemed.

I'm curious as to whether that is a media whitewashing and he has actually converted, or if you were assuming he is Muslim based on his beard and dress?

Post: #33

Quote:WASHINGTON — Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was held captive by the Taliban for five years after leaving his remote post in Afghanistan, has been charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, according to a source familiar with the case.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world.../70437482/

Post: #34

Post: #35

He couldn't do his job and he couldn't hack it in the 'Stan.

So he decided to dip off his post and got caught.

I still question why we gave 5 prisoners for him.

I think Seth is right, it was just magic behind the curtains to distract the American public.

Post: #36

Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Post: #37

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Please elaborate.

Post: #38

(06-04-2014 11:51 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  The guy is just a deserter. No big deal here.

He apparently broke down under the psychological strains of being in Afghanistan. These things happen in every war. Some guys just wig out and lose their shit.

Probably should be court martialed, be forced to do a little bit of brig time, and then a dishonorable discharge.

People died going after this shitstain, and the US traded five genuine scumbags for him. He should rot, but you're right he will probably only do a little bit of time.

Post: #39

(03-25-2015 03:19 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Please elaborate.

Premises:
1. If your job involves running over children, you need an especially morally compelling reason to be doing it, i.e. it is presumed to be immoral unless demonstrated otherwise.
2. Trying to bottle smoke in Afghanistan is not sufficiently morally compelling.
3. The interests of his country are not identical to the interests of his government and its powerful special interests.
4. Refusing to serve the interests of his government and its powerful special interests is not identical to betraying his country.
4a. The other soldiers are, in this context, agents of the government. (They are also other things but the salient characteristic here is acting as agents of the government.)

Tell me which one(s) you disagree with. I suspect 2.

Post: #40

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Maybe if he was conscripted your point would be valid. If you don't want to be the corporate man's bitch don't volunteer in his army.

Post: #41

(03-25-2015 03:37 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Maybe if he was conscripted your point would be valid. If you don't want to be the corporate man's bitch don't volunteer in his army.

Your point is well taken and I basically agree, but what other job can you have where you aren't allowed to quit? Allowing them to quit would be quite a brake on getting mixed up in quagmires halfway around the world.

Post: #42

"Your point is well taken and I basically agree, but what other job can you have where you aren't allowed to quit? Allowing them to quit would be quite a brake on getting mixed up in quagmires halfway around the world."

Boo hoo. This little bitch knew what he signed up for and he took an oath. As a soldier you don't get to pick and choose what war you want to participate in. You man up and follow fucking orders.

Post: #43

(03-25-2015 03:41 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:37 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Maybe if he was conscripted your point would be valid. If you don't want to be the corporate man's bitch don't volunteer in his army.

Your point is well taken and I basically agree, but what other job can you have where you aren't allowed to quit? Allowing them to quit would be quite a brake on getting mixed up in quagmires halfway around the world.

It's a war zone, you can't quit, you can't take a break when you want, war is hell and chaos sometimes.

If he didn't want to get mixed up in a quagmire halfway around the world, he shouldn't of VOLUNTEERED to join the army then.

This deserter also got his fellow soldiers killed looking for him.

Screw him, let him rot.

Post: #44

(03-25-2015 04:09 PM)Uzisuicide Wrote:  "Your point is well taken and I basically agree, but what other job can you have where you aren't allowed to quit? Allowing them to quit would be quite a brake on getting mixed up in quagmires halfway around the world."

Boo hoo. This little bitch knew what he signed up for and he took an oath. As a soldier you don't get to pick and choose what war you want to participate in. You man up and follow fucking orders.

(03-25-2015 04:15 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:41 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:37 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Maybe if he was conscripted your point would be valid. If you don't want to be the corporate man's bitch don't volunteer in his army.

Your point is well taken and I basically agree, but what other job can you have where you aren't allowed to quit? Allowing them to quit would be quite a brake on getting mixed up in quagmires halfway around the world.

It's a war zone, you can't quit, you can't take a break when you want, war is hell and chaos sometimes.

If he didn't want to get mixed up in a quagmire halfway around the world, he shouldn't of VOLUNTEERED to join the army then.

This deserter also got his fellow soldiers killed looking for him.

Screw him, let him rot.

Both of these rely on what the rules are, not what the rules ought to be. I'm not saying Bergdahl has a leg to stand on legally-he knew the framework he was signing up for and probably has no defense in court. I'm questioning the extra layer of moral condemnation. He broke a contract. It's not clear he let his country down.

Post: #45

(03-25-2015 03:36 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:19 PM)AntiTrace Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 03:05 PM)Grange Wrote:  Refusing to perform an immoral and unproductive job makes you a traitor because you left the other people who also shouldn't be doing it? The guy seems unbalanced but he's more right than wrong about the war.

Please elaborate.

Premises:
1. If your job involves running over children, you need an especially morally compelling reason to be doing it, i.e. it is presumed to be immoral unless demonstrated otherwise.
2. Trying to bottle smoke in Afghanistan is not sufficiently morally compelling.
3. The interests of his country are not identical to the interests of his government and its powerful special interests.
4. Refusing to serve the interests of his government and its powerful special interests is not identical to betraying his country.
4a. The other soldiers are, in this context, agents of the government. (They are also other things but the salient characteristic here is acting as agents of the government.)

Tell me which one(s) you disagree with. I suspect 2.

As a soldier, whilst I think you are wrong, I understand where you are coming from and I don't think it is without merit.

In your defence, I don't think it is true that by signing up you agree to abdicate all sense of moral rectitude, or free thought. In contract law there is the concept of an Implied Term - ie something that is not explicitly written but is none-the-less an inherent part of the understanding between contracting parties. I do personally believe that there is an implied term in your contract for service that you will not be forced to do the morally repugnant, and that should the army ask you to do something heinous, they are in breach of their contract. Many western armies have a set of core values that have to be recited ad nausiam through basic training, and which you'll be reminded of annually, if not more often, throughout your service.

It simply isn't as clear cut as saying that if you join the army you simply do as your told. Where does that leave you if they told you to march millions of children barefoot across Siberia? Or machine gun a village full of women and children? Look at the Nuremberg trials, and how even a good many low level Nazi soldiers were held accountable for their actions. It is clear that in some cases you may actually be expected to exercise your own discretion and refuse to obey orders. The trouble is, there are not these in extremis clauses in a standard service contract, so it must be an implied term or condition of service that you will not act in an inherently immoral way.

With all of that said, I personally feel that any man who would put the lives of his mates at risk ahead of his principles is not a man I would want beside me in combat. When push comes to shove, it's as simple as us vs them, and that's a primal truth. If that means sacrificing some of his other principles, then he needs to make peace with that and do his job. When his tour is over, he can make his arrangements and his mates will understand if he feels a war is immoral and he can no longer serve, but you do not have a crisis of conscience in a combat zone - loyalty to your mates, even if you think the mission is fucked, comes above everything in that situation. You don't desert your friends, and you sure as hell don't create a situation where 5 of them are KIA as a result. This man betrayed his friends, men who were relying on him to do his part, and is directly responsible for 5 steadfast blokes losing their lives. So fuck him, he'll get no compassion from me, he's the lowest of the low as far as I'm concerned.

Post: #46

(03-25-2015 04:54 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  As a soldier, whilst I think you are wrong, I understand where you are coming from and I don't think it is without merit.

In your defence, I don't think it is true that by signing up you agree to abdicate all sense of moral rectitude, or free thought. In contract law there is the concept of an Implied Term - ie something that is not explicitly written but is none-the-less an inherent part of the understanding between contracting parties. I do personally believe that there is an implied term in your contract for service that you will not be forced to do the morally repugnant, and that should the army ask you to do something heinous, they are in breach of their contract. Many western armies have a set of core values that have to be recited ad nausiam through basic training, and which you'll be reminded of annually, if not more often, throughout your service.

It simply isn't as clear cut as saying that if you join the army you simply do as your told. Where does that leave you if they told you to march millions of children barefoot across Siberia? Or machine gun a village full of women and children? Look at the Nuremberg trials, and how even a good many low level Nazi soldiers were held accountable for their actions. It is clear that in some cases you may actually be expected to exercise your own discretion and refuse to obey orders. The trouble is, there are not these in extremis clauses in a standard service contract, so it must be an implied term or condition of service that you will not act in an inherently immoral way.

With all of that said, I personally feel that any man who would put the lives of his mates at risk ahead of his principles is not a man I would want beside me in combat. When push comes to shove, it's as simple as us vs them, and that's a primal truth. If that means sacrificing some of his other principles, then he needs to make peace with that and do his job. When his tour is over, he can make his arrangements and his mates will understand if he feels a war is immoral and he can no longer serve, but you do not have a crisis of conscience in a combat zone - loyalty to your mates, even if you think the mission is fucked, comes above everything in that situation. You don't desert your friends, and you sure as hell don't create a situation where 5 of them are KIA as a result. This man betrayed his friends, men who were relying on him to do his part, and is directly responsible for 5 steadfast blokes losing their lives. So fuck him, he'll get no compassion from me, he's the lowest of the low as far as I'm concerned.

Does that mean you don't believe what he was asked to do was enough to justify ditching his unit or that even if it was enough the duty to stay with his unit was still more important? The latter leads to the question of what is enough to justify ditching the unit.

Post: #47

(03-25-2015 03:01 PM)kaotic Wrote:  He couldn't do his job and he couldn't hack it in the 'Stan.

So he decided to dip off his post and got caught.

I still question why we gave 5 prisoners for him.

I think Seth is right, it was just magic behind the curtains to distract the American public.

If the Army now has enough intel to make a case for desertion among other charges, then there's a good chance that they had this info a year ago when he was released. I mean he was being held captive by the Taliban for 5 years, it's not like they had 0 intel on him. This likely means Obama and his advisers knew full and well the actions that Bergdahl took, and in spite of that still went ahead with the prisoner swap.

I'm really looking forward to how Obama explains his way out of this one...



On another note, I think a lot of you are missing the point that he not only deserted his post, but likely headed straight towards enemy territory. People are saying he was "captured" by Taliban, but I think it's more than likely he planned to rendezvous with them at some point.

It's too soon to tell, but we'll just have to wait for the trial. Hopefully they don't sweep the details under the rug though.

Post: #48

(03-25-2015 05:24 PM)Grange Wrote:  

(03-25-2015 04:54 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  As a soldier, whilst I think you are wrong, I understand where you are coming from and I don't think it is without merit.

In your defence, I don't think it is true that by signing up you agree to abdicate all sense of moral rectitude, or free thought. In contract law there is the concept of an Implied Term - ie something that is not explicitly written but is none-the-less an inherent part of the understanding between contracting parties. I do personally believe that there is an implied term in your contract for service that you will not be forced to do the morally repugnant, and that should the army ask you to do something heinous, they are in breach of their contract. Many western armies have a set of core values that have to be recited ad nausiam through basic training, and which you'll be reminded of annually, if not more often, throughout your service.

It simply isn't as clear cut as saying that if you join the army you simply do as your told. Where does that leave you if they told you to march millions of children barefoot across Siberia? Or machine gun a village full of women and children? Look at the Nuremberg trials, and how even a good many low level Nazi soldiers were held accountable for their actions. It is clear that in some cases you may actually be expected to exercise your own discretion and refuse to obey orders. The trouble is, there are not these in extremis clauses in a standard service contract, so it must be an implied term or condition of service that you will not act in an inherently immoral way.

With all of that said, I personally feel that any man who would put the lives of his mates at risk ahead of his principles is not a man I would want beside me in combat. When push comes to shove, it's as simple as us vs them, and that's a primal truth. If that means sacrificing some of his other principles, then he needs to make peace with that and do his job. When his tour is over, he can make his arrangements and his mates will understand if he feels a war is immoral and he can no longer serve, but you do not have a crisis of conscience in a combat zone - loyalty to your mates, even if you think the mission is fucked, comes above everything in that situation. You don't desert your friends, and you sure as hell don't create a situation where 5 of them are KIA as a result. This man betrayed his friends, men who were relying on him to do his part, and is directly responsible for 5 steadfast blokes losing their lives. So fuck him, he'll get no compassion from me, he's the lowest of the low as far as I'm concerned.

Does that mean you don't believe what he was asked to do was enough to justify ditching his unit or that even if it was enough the duty to stay with his unit was still more important? The latter leads to the question of what is enough to justify ditching the unit.

Maybe if they did something like this:

Post: #49

First, let me say I have never served but have tremendous respect for those who have.

From what I have read and watched it seems very important to all service personnel this sort of unwritten promise that you will never be forgotten or left behind. It seems such a strong belief that men will die to honor this promise. I think Obama did what he did to honor this promise.

This guy is getting punished for what he did which is also part of the military system. That dishonorable behavior gets punished.

While this is no comsolation to the families of those who have died trying to save him(I believe that some men have died in this matter), it is important for military personnel to know that they will not be forsaken.

I hope I have not written incorrectly. Anyone who has served please feel free to correct me. I tread delicately on this subject only because I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a soldier and stranded somewhere or captured and abandoned by his country. Which is why I think this unwritten promise must be upheld or at least serious attempts are made to honor that unwritten promise.

Post: #50

It's inexcusable for a soldier to abandon their unit on the battlefield and put lives in jeapardy because he has become disillusioned with the mission. Furthermore, Bergdahl went and joined the enemy. Where else did he think he was going? As a father of a soldier in the US Arny I would be utterly ashamed and embarrassed If my son did what Bergdahl did. A soldier doesn't get to decide the morality of the cause.