How’s that, now? A negotiation over a POW exchange is in no way a “criminal prosecution”.
Thanks Elvis. I get so pissed reading this crap that I appreciate it honestly. Made me laugh. I needed it.
Magiver/Terr/others … It’s a bond you’ll never get. I don’t expect you too, you can’t really. You’re not part of it.
The best example I can think of is a team mate yelling at another team mate because their urine smelled too strong. They weren’t drinking enough water.
Israeli Defense Force? You lost me there. Seriously I plead ignorance. What is that?
Not a joke and I didn’t google it.
Hypothetical: Federal government refuses to negotiate for release of a prisoner because he’s Jewish. But will negotiate for release of Christian prisoners. Constitutional violation or not?
No, you haven’t. POW exchange is not a right.
Answer my hypothetical in last post.
Yes. Israeli Defense Forces. Or “Tzahal” if you prefer.
That would be discrimination on the basis of religion, which is a nono. You can definitely discriminate based on the person’s behavior. Otherwise it would be illegal not to hire someone on the basis that he is an obnoxious asshole.
I’m not a lawyer, but I don’t see how that could be a 6th Amendment violation. 14th Amendment, possibly, if it was a formal policy and not a one-off case.
Point taken then. I have nothing but respect for your nations armed forces.
You folks do shit a bit differently than we do.
How each nation deals with their own being taken prisoner differs. The French have a unique take on it (that’s not a joke) so does Israel and so does the US.
Dude if you’re IDF what the fuck dog do you have in this fight? I understand you have an opinion but wtf?
I respect you, hope to buy you a beer some day but could give zero fucks about your opinion on this matter.
I mean it about the beer.
Yes, Israel does ridiculous things like trading 1000 live terrorists who will go on to kill more Israelis for two soldiers’ bodies. I don’t approve of that either.
I live in the US and am a US citizen. And hell, even if I didn’t and wasn’t, that would not deter me from having an opinion or discussing it.
So you agree that failing to negotiate for a prisoner could in some cases be a constitutional violation?
As as employee of the federal government can you discriminate against someone based on his criminal background? Let’s say you can, but can you discriminate against someone based on what you think his criminal background should have been, if only that damned uncooperative jury had convicted him?
In what capacity?
No. Discrimination based on religion would be. Not sure if it would be a Constitutional violation though. Maybe 14th.
You know what, I answered your question, now you answer mine. There are two POWs. For one, a dozen of people in his unit say that he walked off the base and consider him a deserter, and there are reports from the Afghans that he went looking for the Taliban. The other fought off the enemy for hours in a remote outpost and was the sole survivor of that battle, taken prisoner. You as a federal employee can only trade one of them. Are you claiming that it would be a Constitutional violation if you traded for the second one based on his behavior and not for the first one?
Hel Kesher (communications corps) in regular. Totchanim (artillery) in reserves. It was “kravi” (frontline troop) in both. Why does it matter?
I admit I haven’t slogged through this whole thread but is there some second war hero being held captive by this same group of Taliban that I am unaware of? If so I agree we should negotiate for his return as well. If not than I don’t see the point of this question. I would answer that we should negotiate for both or else for the one for which there was the greatest chance for release, or for the one that best advances our strategic interests or …
It doesn’t. I respect the Israeli military very much. But we are not them. Bergdahl is free that’s the end game.
You’re evading. For the sake of argument, same chance of release. Not sure how one soldier’s release “advances our strategic interests” but again, for the sake of argument, equal. And again, for the sake of argument, you can only get one. Are you allowed, Constitutionally, to pick the second one based on his behavior?
For those upset that Congress was not properly notified (a reasonable concern), the latest is that they were not notified because the Taliban threatened to kill Bergdahl if the deal was leaked prematurely. The White House evidently felt that it wasn’t worth risking his life in order to comply with a law that they didn’t think was constitutional.
It wouldn’t be a Constitutional violation, but it would be a violation of the duty and commitment of the United States to members of its armed forces.
You may not understand, but there it is. Thankfully, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff understands.