HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Non-Sports > Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated"
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Political Discussion - "on-topic & unmoderated" Rated PG13, unmoderated but threads must stay on topic - that means you can flame each other all you want as long as it's legal

Bowe Bergdahl and cover-up

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-11-2014, 10:22 AM
  #176
theotis77
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,273
vCash: 500
So we have another "I'm not a right-wing, straight-line Republican, I just happen to parrot all their talking points, agree with everything they says?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the USMCJ still have the overall concept of innocent until proven guilty? Secondarily, wasn't this guy literally the only US POW currently held in Afghanistan? If so, wouldn't choosing to leave this guy in Taliban hands because he has been accused of deserting be tantamount to convicting and sentencing him without a trial?

theotis77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 10:32 AM
  #177
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurtosis View Post
Well the army really didn't dupe any of us since most are under the assumption that he indeed did desert his post.
What about 2009-may 2014?

For the last four years, I was under the impression he was captured. It wasn't until i went downrange and did some homework for me to realize there was a cover up.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 10:33 AM
  #178
Kurtosis
RTJ
 
Kurtosis's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Norwood Park
Country: United States
Posts: 20,441
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
What about 2009-may 2014?

For the last four years, I was under the impression he was captured. It wasn't until i went downrange and did some homework for me to realize there was a cover up.
I hadn't even heard of the guy until about last week.

Kurtosis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 10:37 AM
  #179
Epsilon
#TeamRaccoon
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 39,695
vCash: 500
I like how GWOW plays the superiority card towards posters here due to his security clearance, but then is bashing on the Secretary of Defense.

But I suppose you have access to all the same intelligence that Chuck Hagel does, right?

Epsilon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:08 AM
  #180
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Epsilon View Post
I like how GWOW plays the superiority card towards posters here due to his security clearance, but then is bashing on the Secretary of Defense.

But I suppose you have access to all the same intelligence that Chuck Hagel does, right?
Im not lying. He is.

But politicians never ever lie, right.

My issue with Hagel is that he's lying about information thats already been declassified, let alone the stuff that is secret.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:23 AM
  #181
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by theotis77 View Post
So we have another "I'm not a right-wing, straight-line Republican, I just happen to parrot all their talking points, agree with everything they says?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the USMCJ still have the overall concept of innocent until proven guilty? Secondarily, wasn't this guy literally the only US POW currently held in Afghanistan? If so, wouldn't choosing to leave this guy in Taliban hands because he has been accused of deserting be tantamount to convicting and sentencing him without a trial?
Bergdahl violated UCMJ just by leaving. Give it time. He will be court martialed. Whether or not its determined he collaborated remains to be seen.

The military had enough evidence in 2009 to charge Bergdahl with desertion. Why didn't they charge him in 2009?

I dont think anyone of note wanted to leave him in Afghanistan. Efforts were made to find/acquire him.
My issue is more with the Army/SECDEF and the subsequent lionizing (albeit 24 hours worth) of Bergdahl when it was known he was a deserter, and possibly a traitor.

The court of public opinion always rules first.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:29 AM
  #182
Shrimper
Trick or ruddy treat
 
Shrimper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Essex
Country: United Kingdom
Posts: 78,724
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Bergdahl violated UCMJ just by leaving. Give it time. He will be court martialed. Whether or not its determined he collaborated remains to be seen.

The military had enough evidence in 2009 to charge Bergdahl with desertion. Why didn't they charge him in 2009?

I dont think anyone of note wanted to leave him in Afghanistan. Efforts were made to find/acquire him.
My issue is more with the Army/SECDEF and the subsequent lionizing (albeit 24 hours worth) of Bergdahl when it was known he was a deserter, and possibly a traitor.

The court of public opinion always rules first.
I'm looking on the outside in here but they probably did that to actually help him. If they publicly say he is a deserter then the Taliban who have him held hostage won't care as much because he won't be as "prized an asset" as other serving soldiers, he'll just be a man. They'd probably kill him then.

Shrimper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 11:53 AM
  #183
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
I think it took me even less time to get sick of this manufactured controversy than it did to get sick of Benghazi. The more people shriek about it, the less I can bring myself to care.

Ugmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 12:39 PM
  #184
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
But the resolution should prove popular with Americans: A majority disapprove of the deal that freed Bergdahl from his Taliban captors, and nearly three-quarters think he should face criminal charges if he deserted his unit, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. If it is shown that Bergdahl did indeed desert his post, 73 percent say that he should be charged with a military crime, according to the poll. Twenty percent oppose charging Bergdahl. Support for such charges is nearly universal, with 70 percent of Democrats and 82 percent of Republicans agreeing.
This isnt a party-affiliation issue. At least thats what polled Americans believe.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 12:43 PM
  #185
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
I think it took me even less time to get sick of this manufactured controversy than it did to get sick of Benghazi. The more people shriek about it, the less I can bring myself to care.
While i agree that its being overblown in terms of the operational impact, and it gives the right an excuse to attack the President on a broader front, you cant deny that the public deserves to know if one of their Soldiers was in fact an enemy of the state.

You've keep posting in this thread, but then you say you could care less.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 12:55 PM
  #186
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrimper View Post
I'm looking on the outside in here but they probably did that to actually help him. If they publicly say he is a deserter then the Taliban who have him held hostage won't care as much because he won't be as "prized an asset" as other serving soldiers, he'll just be a man. They'd probably kill him then.
On the contrary. Why would the Taliban kill a guy who can help them tactically?

Additionally, several have reported that the Army knew he was a deserter and scaled back SOF efforts to find him, not to mention detailed reports of his whereabouts were not acted on as time progressed.

The US knew he was alive, healthy, and probably happy, so they didnt tear apart Paktika looking for him.
Haqqani knew that, so they kept him alive.

Still, the Army could have still formally (not publicly) initiated UCMJ. Maybe they did. I dont think they did.

You dont need a sworn statement from the accused to initiate UCMJ.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 12:55 PM
  #187
Ugmo
Registered User
 
Ugmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Country: Austria
Posts: 11,716
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
While i agree that its being overblown in terms of the operational impact, and it gives the right an excuse to attack the President on a broader front, you cant deny that the public deserves to know if one of their Soldiers was in fact an enemy of the state.
I can understand that this issue is important to you because you're in the military, but this seems incredibly insignificant compared to all the other things America has gone through over the past 13 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
You've keep posting in this thread, but then you say you could care less.
Not quite, what I said is the more people hyperventilate over it, the less I care. At this point the discussion is more about the disproportionate reaction to the deal than the deal itself. Kinda like Benghazi.

Ugmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-11-2014, 01:24 PM
  #188
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugmo View Post
I can understand that this issue is important to you because you're in the military, but this seems incredibly insignificant compared to all the other things America has gone through over the past 13 years.
I dont disagree, but its still newsworthy. I said it was political folly on Obama's part more from a PR standpoint and how this event has somehow managed to bridge a gap along party lines.



Quote:
Not quite, what I said is the more people hyperventilate over it, the less I care. At this point the discussion is more about the disproportionate reaction to the deal than the deal itself. Kinda like Benghazi.
Well, if you support Obama, its not going to reel you in.

Like a fan of a team already eliminated from the playoffs. You stop giving a **** to most news after a while.

Conversely, the other team holds on to any development as a glimmer of hope, which in this case is that this is just the beginning of some grand conspiracy.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2014, 06:22 PM
  #189
Ilkka Sinisalo
Amazing American
 
Ilkka Sinisalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Perth, W.A.
Country: Australia
Posts: 13,099
vCash: 500
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/...-bergdahl-ctd/

Quote:
That the president has somehow managed to extricate the US from those two catastrophes without such a rightist revolt is, to my mind, the real story here. You can put that down to various factors:

the public’s own utter exhaustion with the war; the freshness of the disasters in people’s minds; and the canniness of Obama’s long game in Afghanistan – giving the military much of what it wanted in the “surge”, showing the impossibility of a permanent solution, and slowly, painstakingly, withdrawing over the longest time-table available to him – eight long years. This has been one of Obama’s least noticed achievements, and shrewdest political moves: ending two wars without being blamed for surrender.

What the Bergdahl deal does is give the right a mini-gasm in which to vent all their emotions about the wars they once backed and to channel them into their pre-existing template of the traitor/deserter/Muslim/impostor presidency of Barack Hussein Obama. This venting has been a long time coming, it springs from all the frustrations of losing wars, and it can have pure expression against a soldier with a hippie dad and a president they despise. It’s a bonanza of McCarthyite “stab-in-the-back” paranoia and culture war aggression. They don’t have to vent against Cheney, the true architect of the defeats, because now they have a cause celebre to pursue Obama over.

They also get to avoid the messy awful reality that Cheney bequeathed us: an illegal internment/torture camp with 149 prisoners with no possibility of justice or release. Permanent detention and brutal torture of prisoners are not issues to the right. They invariably refuse to acknowledge the extraordinary cost of Gitmo to the moral standing of the US or its increasingly tenuous claim to be a vanguard of Western values. Instead, they wallow in terror of the inmates – being so scared of them that they cannot even tolerate them on American soil – and impugn the very integrity and patriotism of a twice-elected president when he tries to untie the knot Bush left him.

They have no constructive solution to this problem, of course. They have no constructive solution to anything else either – whether it be climate change, healthcare or immigration. But they know one thing: how to foment and channel free-floating rage at an impostor/deserter president for inheriting the national security disaster they created. This they know how to do. This is increasingly all they know how to do.

Ilkka Sinisalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 08:18 AM
  #190
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilkka Sinisalo View Post
Of course it's a story the right will jump all over.

And as someone who served in two wars under two different Presidents, I refuse to give either any credit for "ending" them.

Obama's handling of both wars, like Bush, is marginal at best.

Bush's failures in Iraq were legendary, but Obama's pandering to Karzai (speaking of Bush) and the shackles his administration put on kinetic operations easily make him one of the worst wartime Presidents in history.

At least militarily.

Find me one field grade officer who is happy the way the war in Afghanistan has been run.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-13-2014, 03:11 PM
  #191
hisgirlfriday
Moderator
 
hisgirlfriday's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 14,173
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Of course it's a story the right will jump all over.

And as someone who served in two wars under two different Presidents, I refuse to give either any credit for "ending" them.

Obama's handling of both wars, like Bush, is marginal at best.

Bush's failures in Iraq were legendary, but Obama's pandering to Karzai (speaking of Bush) and the shackles his administration put on kinetic operations easily make him one of the worst wartime Presidents in history.

At least militarily.

Find me one field grade officer who is happy the way the war in Afghanistan has been run.
I doubt you will find any civilian happy with the way it has been run either.

But none of this is happening in a vacuum or in an isolated way. Toxic politics has led to bad decision after bad decision after bad decision so that we are only left with bad and worse options at every turn.

Just have to sort out what is the bad outcome not the even worse outcome and try to move on to a better strategy for the future.

hisgirlfriday is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 07:39 AM
  #192
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Giving this a bump.

Just got a text from a buddy that Bergdahl is being charged with several UCMJ violations, including desertion.

But after a quick search, I saw the "confirmation" came from a retired O-5 on Fox News who said he has sources. The process he talks about is right, but for the record, the Army doesnt comment on UCMJ until the trial/appeals are done.

If true, well. You know lol.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 10:51 AM
  #193
Sevanston
Registered User
 
Sevanston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 12,974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
Giving this a bump.

Just got a text from a buddy that Bergdahl is being charged with several UCMJ violations, including desertion.

But after a quick search, I saw the "confirmation" came from a retired O-5 on Fox News who said he has sources. The process he talks about is right, but for the record, the Army doesnt comment on UCMJ until the trial/appeals are done.

If true, well. You know lol.
Looks like your buddy was right

This should be fun.

Sevanston is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 12:05 PM
  #194
4Orr
Registered User
 
4Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: GWOW Boston Troll
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Not so fast:


http://www.armytimes.com/story/milit...orts/22396367/


Quote:
The Army says there is no truth to media reports claiming a decision has been made to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl with desertion.
Welcome to the internet gentleman.

4Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 01:24 PM
  #195
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Orr View Post
Not so fast:


http://www.armytimes.com/story/milit...orts/22396367/




Welcome to the internet gentleman.
It's Army Policy.

It's a non-denial denial.

They simply said (like I stated) a decision hasn't been made. Nobody can go on record to reveal the results because it violates Army policy to discuss an ongoing investigation.

The investigation is complete after sentencing. Then the Army can comment on the findings.

But, when you provide a subject with a charge sheet, it's almost like a death notice.

In order:

1) subject is accused. Afforded due process.
2) army appoints investigating officer
3) IO conducts formal investigation
4) IO completes investigation with recommendations.
5) UCMJ violations discovered (if any) during investigation get forwarded to Army legal apparatus/Criminal Investigations
6) legal office scrubs violations.
7) legal office informs chain of command of charges.
8) subject is given list of charges
9) subject is given court martial opportunity
10) commanding general decides if courts martial is necessary based on violations.
11) Courts martial convenes.
12) Courts martial decides.
13) Subject appeals.

Somewhere between 12-13 is when the Army will make an official statement.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 01:34 PM
  #196
4Orr
Registered User
 
4Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: GWOW Boston Troll
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
It's Army Policy.

It's a non-denial denial.

They simply said (like I stated) a decision hasn't been made. Nobody can go on record to reveal the results because it violates Army policy to discuss an ongoing investigation.

The investigation is complete after sentencing. Then the Army can comment on the findings.

But, when you provide a subject with a charge sheet, it's almost like a death notice.

In order:

1) subject is accused. Afforded due process.
2) army appoints investigating officer
3) IO conducts formal investigation
4) IO completes investigation with recommendations.
5) UCMJ violations discovered (if any) during investigation get forwarded to Army legal apparatus/Criminal Investigations
6) legal office scrubs violations.
7) legal office informs chain of command of charges.
8) subject is given list of charges
9) subject is given court martial opportunity
10) commanding general decides if courts martial is necessary based on violations.
11) Courts martial convenes.
12) Courts martial decides.
13) Subject appeals.

Somewhere between 12-13 is when the Army will make an official statement.
You obviously have inside insight and he may eventually be charged but he is not charged right now. Right?

4Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 01:35 PM
  #197
Troy McClure
Registered User
 
Troy McClure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The KlINGberg
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 28,567
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
They simply said (like I stated) a decision hasn't been made. Nobody can go on record to reveal the results because it violates Army policy to discuss an ongoing investigation.

The investigation is complete after sentencing. Then the Army can comment on the findings.
But the Army is commenting by denying the report. The statement didn't simply say a decision hasn't been made. The statement says the reports about a decision being made are not true. If the Army has decided to charge him with a crime, this denial statement is a lie.

If they were trying to issue a no comment, denying a report isn't a good way to do so.

Troy McClure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 01:38 PM
  #198
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Orr View Post
You obviously have inside insight and he may eventually be charged but he is not charged right now. Right?
He might be. I dont know how the retired LTC knows, then has the balls to go on national TV and be so matter-of-fact.

But rumors spread. Bergdah has a commander and 1SG who must account for him. They must be informed. If one of them has a political axe to grind, he or she could hypothetically contact the media, or blurt out in a conversation what's going on.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 02:00 PM
  #199
4Orr
Registered User
 
4Orr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: GWOW Boston Troll
Country: United States
Posts: 2,293
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GWOW View Post
He might be. I dont know how the retired LTC knows, then has the balls to go on national TV and be so matter-of-fact.

But rumors spread. Bergdah has a commander and 1SG who must account for him. They must be informed. If one of them has a political axe to grind, he or she could hypothetically contact the media, or blurt out in a conversation what's going on.
GWOW, I want to have a fair conversation with you. You bumped the thread claiming he was charged. Fine, fair enough. The US Army comes out and reports, that the media is wrong and Bergdahl has not been charged. I am not debating the merits of the case. Only thing, he has NOT been charged. Correct?

4Orr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-27-2015, 02:15 PM
  #200
DM23BK30
HFB Partner
 
DM23BK30's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 17,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4Orr View Post
GWOW, I want to have a fair conversation with you. You bumped the thread claiming he was charged. Fine, fair enough. The US Army comes out and reports, that the media is wrong and Bergdahi has not been charged. I am not debating the merits of the case. Only thing, he has NOT been charged. Correct?
I never claimed he was charged. I said somebody told me he was, and in my post I said I was skeptical.

He might have been charged.

My questions:

1) they did an investigation in 2009 without Bergdahl. That investigation was classified as top secret. Who classified it as such, and why did the investigative officer in 2009 not come to the same conclusions as 2015 with Bergdahl?

2) who ordered the gag order on Bergdahl's platoon?

3) has Bergdahl's platoon leader, platoon sergeant, company commander, company 1SG, Battalion CDR and battalion CSM been contacted by the media and if so, who's not in the army anymore.

Just weird. I can't tell who is covering up. The Army on its own or the Army by way of the White House.

DM23BK30 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:58 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.