The UCMJ even covers soldiers who leave their posts. Even if they get captured! Allegations of desertion and supposed notes critical of the USA do not separate a soldier from falling under the requirements of the UCMJ.
Hell, I know a sailor that stabbed another sailor. And guess what… he was still covered by the UCMJ!
Retired General McChrystal, who has no political reason to carry the President’s water, agrees with General Dempsey:
Glad to see people are thinking twice about this guy. Wait until he’s exonerated then hold the parade.
OK. Terr. Imagine a bank robber. A no-shit, we-got-his-ass-on-color-monitors-in-HD-robbing-the-bank bank robber.
This feckless soul is arrested and held for his bail hearing the next morning.
That night he escapes from jail. He’s on the run for five years.
Then he’s returned to custody.
You understand that at that point, he still gets all the rights that are guaranteed to accused criminals, right? They still need to get a waiver of his Miranda rights before using anything he says against him, he’s still entitled to a lawyer, to confront witnesses against him, to not incriminate himself at trial, etc.
Yes?
No, he is ACCUSED of leaving, ACCUSED of removing himself from Army jurisdiction. Until he actually faces the accusers, though, the accusation remains unproven. You are assuming that the accusations are true to justify why he has no right to face the accusers to prove whether or not the accusations are true. That’s a logical hole.
I think Terr’s point is, Bricker, if he was arrested in Turkey during his 5 year absence, we have no obligation to try to get him extradited.
I have come to think this might have been a bad trade but it’s certainly not bad that the government tried hard to get him back.
I’m not sure I agree. Obviously we have to decide how to allocate scare law enforcement resources – we don’t have some absolute obligation to extradite him – but we do kinda have the obligation to call the Turkish folks and say that you’ve got a guy we have a warrant for – send me over, please.
I have no idea how good or bad the trade was…because I don’t have anywhere near enough information to reach an informed decision.
As stated in one of these threads, it’s perfectly plausible some other agreements were part of this swap. So I agree we don’t know how good or bad this swap was.
Not even a little bit, if you want to look at the legalities of it. The Turks might have an obligation under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to make consular notification that they have one of our citizens in custody. Notification.
But if the arrested party states he does not wish that consular notification be made then, depending upon the countries involved, it is possible that no notification is required.
As to whether there is a moral obligation… well, that is a different question entirely.
Yes, I am saying that UCMJ cannot “strip” the protection from someone that it is not capable of extending to the man in the first place, such as that described in Article 32 of the UCMJ, section b.
Let’s put it this way. If someone is somewhere outside the United States, can US government possibly “strip” him of the First Amendment protections? It’s absurd even to contemplate.
Yes. How is that in any way related to what is being discussed?
Airbeck claims that NOT trading Bergdahl for five high level enemy commanders would be “stripping” Bergdahl of protection under Article 32 of the UCMJ, section b. It’s absurd on its face.
My point is (which Bricker managed to miss, completely, with his kneejerk response) is that if he was arrested in Turkey, we have no obligation to try to get him extradited for the purpose of extending to him the US Constitution protections. Which is the equivalent of what Airbeck is claiming. His logic is that by not extraditing the man, we’d be stripping him of his US civil rights. It’s absurd but that’s what he’s saying.
So you are indeed saying that all POWs are unprotected by any rights. Wow. You are all the way down the rabbit hole at this point.
That is not at all what I said. How can you read this thread and come to that conclusion?
Where is that cite by the way?
Jesus Christ man. Stop massacring my argument so badly. You are the one saying he is not worthy of trying to bring home because someone alleged something about him. You are literally saying that an accusation is the same as a conviction, and that any soldier not in U.S. territory is not protected under the UMCJ. Listen to yourself! And I’m the absurd one? You are freaking looney tunes at this point!
It’s not because “someone alleged”. EVERY soldier who served with him at the time that talked to the press said he deserted. Including his squad commander. Not one soldier that served with him contradicted that.
Then you have no idea what “literally” means. I am saying that under the circumstances, US government has no moral obligation to get him back, and ESPECIALLY if it costs giving up five senior enemy combatants. A deserter for five high enemy commanders is not a good trade. And NOT getting him back does not mean “stripping” him of any rights. Which is what you’re claiming.
No that is not what I’m claiming. Not even close. Maybe things wouldn’t seem so absurd to you if you stopped misstating my argument. You said that we should not have attempted to get him home because there is evidence that he may be a deserter. You advocate leaving an American soldier behind imprisoned by the enemy because there are some people that have claimed some things about him that aren’t so great. You are saying leave him behind, and let him rot when he has not had any chance to address the allegations against him BECAUSE of the allegations against him, which he cannot defend himself against. You are using that which you refuse to allow him to contest, to condemn him. Its a good thing our military leadership disagrees vehemently with you.
Still waiting for that cite by the way. Are you just waiting until everyone forgets that you were asked? You’ve made specific, and extreme claims wrt to military law. You should back that up already or consider dropping this.
Sure, the U.S. government could take actions that would strip him of First Amendment protections while abroad. Suppose for example, that a U.S. citizen wanted to publish a book about why our policy in Afghanistan is wrong, Bush was a fool, and Obama is an idiot. The U.S. government decides this book is insulting and seizes all copies. Does the constitutionality of that action differ if the author was in Connecticut as opposed to Canada? What if the government doesn’t know for sure where the author is?
How about an example more relevant to this case: what if the U.S. military authorities had found Bergdahl before the Taliban? They walk into a village, and he’s sitting at the cafe having a cup of tea. Can the U.S. authorities arrest him and throw him in the stockade, or, since he’s outside the United States and removed himself from their control, is he home free and can sit there giggling and mocking the MPs?
If they can arrest him (and I believe they can), then he is still under military jurisdiction, including the time before they actually arrest him.
In my hypothetical, overwhelming evidence, so yes. In case of Bergdahl, there is, according to a dozen people who served with him, strong evidence of desertion, but the Army is refusing to release the results of the investigation, so that’s the only thing to go on. So I would say yes, we should have attempted to get him back, but definitely NOT for the price of releasing five senior enemy combatants. And guess what - refusing that price is not “stripping” Bergdahl of any civil rights.
What exact cite are you expecting? I must have missed it.
Exactly how does a US citizen seize the book copies abroad? The whole point is that you cannot “strip” someone of the right if you’re not in a position to extend that right to him. You cannot “strip” someone of the right to face his accusers if that person is not physically present. That’s the absurdity of the claim.
Yes, he is under military jurisdiction for the purposes of extending any UCMJ protection if he is physically present. No, he is not under military jurisdiction for those purposes if he is not physically present. You cannot possibly extend the protection of facing your accusers to someone who physically is not present to face them. That’s the absurdity you and Airbeck are pursuing.