Its called an analogy. Really? Come on, don’t be obtuse. I’m asking him if he would be ok facing the same loss of civil rights over allegations as he is advocating for one of our soldiers. I have a hard time believing that you sincerely don’t understand the point I was making.
Is it your contention that only Terr is allowed to make hypotheticals in this thread?
What “right to trial” would be waived? What “sentencing” would be immediate? What are you ranting about?
Again, what is your rant about? What “civil right” would the person in my hypothetical not be entitled to, exactly?
It wasn’t a ‘rant’, but nice attempt at smearing me to try to diminish my points. It was a hypothetical, just like yours.
You want to leave an American soldier to rot in captivity over allegations he’s had no chance to defend himself against. You are sentencing him to death with no due process. He may even be mentally ill, yet you say let him die because someone claimed something about him. I’m trying to get you to put yourself in his shoes, but I guess empathy is simply beyond you. Why are you even participating in this thread if you have no interest in an intellectually honest conversation. Just to trash Obama?
Also, the civil rights he would be denied in your scenario are due process, the right to confront his accusers, innocent until proven guilty. Do these ring any bells? Are you seriously trying to act like you have no idea what I’m referring to?
In my hypothetical - over overwhelming evidence that he deserted. Yes. Deserters, in my opinion, don’t deserve the effort to get them back.
Doesn’t all this belong in the “should we barter with terrorists” thread?
Overwhelming what? Without allowing a defense, what is being overwhelmed?
Again, I have ‘overwhelming evidence’ that you committed murder. Do you still want a trial, or do we just summarily execute you since the evidence is so overwhelming?
That is what you are advocating for our soldiers.
So says various news articles. Hopefully this will be resolved – and if necessary, resolved by trial/court martial.
Again, it is disingenuous to claim that it is “without defense”, if a court-martial is not allowed in absentia.
You would hope so, but I don’t think there will be a trial/court martial. It is politically extremely embarrassing to Obama and Democrats in general to have such a trial/court martial, so it will not happen. I am trying to figure out how exactly they will manage to twist this into an honorable discharge, though.
… and apparently Bergdahl’s hometown decided they don’t celebrate deserters.
I think the answer to the question posed in the thread title is now apparent. Bergdahl hasn’t been swiftboated. There is genuine cause for concern here and it’s a concern voiced by those on both sides of the political divide.
Well, some.
That’s a pretty gross misrepresentation of what that article says.
I expect better from this site but for some reason, when it comes to politics, everything flies off the rails.
Its not disingenuous, its literally true. He could have been under duress, he could have been framed, he could have been mentally ill. You offer him no opportunity to speak to or defend himself against the allegations being made about him. You can’t just handwave away you stripping away his rights because you’ve crafted a tortured hypothetical where the decision has already been made to abandon him to the terrorists to rot and die in a cell. I am saying that your hypothetical itself is what strips away his rights to defend himself, and you are handwaving it away by saying there’s no way he’d be allowed to defend himself under your hypothetical so its moot. Its not moot, its the entire freaking point!
There pretty much HAS to be a courtmartial at this point, right? Given its weight, the accusation of desertion has to stand trial.
Even from the other side of the political spectrum, the charge doesn’t seem wholly dismissable, and given what the nation gave up to bring home the last POW, even I want to know if this guy was “worth it.”
This could be a trial of the decade kind of thing.
You keep repeating this. Can you explain what exact “rights” I am advocating be stripped? The exact right please.
No, there doesn’t have to be. There are no automatic court-martials, and considering just how embarrassing it would be to Obama, I don’t expect there to be one.
Already answered this in post #323.
Stop acting like I’m not being forthcoming when you aren’t reading my posts. Its insulting and just seems like deflecting.
You didn’t specify the exact right(s). Can you?