I have serious doubts that the GOP will be able to use this to its advantage. We just saw someone get beheaded. All anyone has to do is say this kid would be dead on TV right now if we didn't do anything and I can't see any response, unless it's yeah, let him die.
Absolutely. All you have to do is point at the James Foley tape and say "We're trying to prevent more of those" and you should be in the clear. Anyone who wants to argue about budgetary approvals and parliamentary procedural horse shit at that point can fucking pound sand.
I don't know, you have to remember during the primary when the moderator said "So we should just let people without insurance die?" and Ron Paul said "Yes!" and the audience cheered.
There's a slight difference between the ultra-libertarian view of "sorry you should have gotten insurance and should therefore die" and "sorry we're going to let the terrorists cut your head off".
I have serious doubts that the GOP will be able to use this to its advantage. We just saw someone get beheaded. All anyone has to do is say this kid would be dead on TV right now if we didn't do anything and I can't see any response, unless it's yeah, let him die.
Absolutely. All you have to do is point at the James Foley tape and say "We're trying to prevent more of those" and you should be in the clear. Anyone who wants to argue about budgetary approvals and parliamentary procedural horse shit at that point can fucking pound sand.
I don't know, you have to remember during the primary when the moderator said "So we should just let people without insurance die?" and Ron Paul said "Yes!" and the audience cheered.
There's a slight difference between the ultra-libertarian view of "sorry you should have gotten insurance and should therefore die" and "sorry we're going to let the terrorists cut your head off".
to be honest i can easily imagine some people being of the opinion that, 'he's a journalist. he chose to go there, its his own damn fault'. a very small number of people i would hope, but still...
The point is that you point to situations like Foley's to demonstrate why we get our people back.
And while I'm not suggesting we cave to every ransom for every journalist, specifically in the case of Bergdahl I think you combine the military "leave no man behind" attitude with the demonstrative Foley incident and it should be pretty easy to come up with "Do you really want to make a big deal about this? Think hard."
So your suggesting that every single person that goes into a dangerous, semi-dangerous, or even remotely crime-prone country and gets kidnapped need to be rescued by the army? They (supposidly) tried to find foley and failed. it took us years to find Osama dispite him living in what was practically the most obvious place they should have been looking for him.
Without GPS tagging every single tourist or hell every single person in our country, just how are they going to have a 100% success rate? It didnt have to be a journalist they killed, it could have been a contractor, tourist, grunt, businessman.
Your making a suggestion that sounds nice but isnt realistic. the policy not to negotiate for ransom demands has to exist for a successful country to avoid constant blackmail.
I think you combine the military "leave no man behind" attitude with the demonstrative Foley incident and it should be pretty easy to come up with "Do you really want to make a big deal about this? Think hard."
I don't understand what you mean by this then. You seem to be suggesting that we apply no man left behind to incidents like foley, but what and who determines who is important enough to rescue?
The GAO also says the Pentagon's use of funds to conduct the transfer, when no money was available, was a violation of the Antideficiency Act which bars spending by agencies above the amount of money that Congress has obligated.
Ok, the GAO says this was kind of sort of illegal. Technically someone could raise a stink about it. However, the military has a policy that they recover their own, and extremest factions have shown, via the Foley incident, they are still willing to brutally execute hostages. Actually pushing the issue on the Antideficiency Act would imply that complying with the act should take precedence over rescuing soldiers from situations where torture and execution are a distinct possibility. Doing so would make the person raising such an objection look fairly repugnant. Clear?
I think you combine the military "leave no man behind" attitude with the demonstrative Foley incident and it should be pretty easy to come up with "Do you really want to make a big deal about this? Think hard."
I don't understand what you mean by this then. You seem to be suggesting that we apply no man left behind to incidents like foley, but what and who determines who is important enough to rescue?
Long story short, the military has a long standing policy that their own people are important enough to rescue full stop.
I understand that part....*sigh*. I mean how are you going to apply this to non military personel. Yes The military has a responsibility to recover its soliders because they put them in harms way. A Journalist or a contractor is not under the same thing just because they are an american. The fact that many Journalists will go out of his or her way to specifically avoid the military makes this impossible. Not saying they deserve it or anything, its just not fesible to enforce it outside of the military.
I understand that part....*sigh*. I mean how are you going to apply this to non military personel. Yes The military has a responsibility to recover its soliders because they put them in harms way. A Journalist or a contractor is not under the same thing just because they are an american. The fact that many Journalists will go out of his or her way to specifically avoid the military makes this impossible. Not saying they deserve it or anything, its just not fesible to enforce it outside of the military.
Well, "could" have happened, "would" is a bit deterministic. But yes. Things like Foley are why Bergdahl was rescued and why violating the Antideficiency Act is something that should be overlooked.
Well, "could" have happened, "would" is a bit deterministic. But yes. Things like Foley are why Bergdahl was rescued and why violating the Antideficiency Act is something that should be overlooked.
Well their argument is that all the money needed to be spent on a group of very specific things that only they are allowed to determine, and they didn't want to spend that money getting Bergdahl back.
The administration's argument will probably be some combination of "This is what emergency funding was made for" "Fine, we'll build one less plane this year, now we can afford to save a million people." and "So, your argument is it would've been better to let a soldier die than to set aside a half-million dollars or so?"
I don't think it's right to ever just "overlook" someone breaking the law, but I think it will be incredibly easy to find the funds in our opulent military budget.
I doubt its a simple a question as 'we didnt want to spend the money'. The more important reason not to pay it is 'we dont want them to HAVE the money'.
I doubt its a simple a question as 'we didnt want to spend the money'. The more important reason not to pay it is 'we dont want them to HAVE the money'.
I'm talking about the money spent on the trade of five Guantanamo prisoners for that P.O.W. which is the reason for the lawsuit. Paying for guards, transport, etc.
The GAO also says the Pentagon's use of funds to conduct the transfer, when no money was available, was a violation of the Antideficiency Act which bars spending by agencies above the amount of money that Congress has obligated.
Ok, the GAO says this was kind of sort of illegal. Technically someone could raise a stink about it. However, the military has a policy that they recover their own, and extremest factions have shown, via the Foley incident, they are still willing to brutally execute hostages. Actually pushing the issue on the Antideficiency Act would imply that complying with the act should take precedence over rescuing soldiers from situations where torture and execution are a distinct possibility. Doing so would make the person raising such an objection look fairly repugnant. Clear?
I'd love the to challenge it. Because if you want to press the mater the Antideficiency act is probably unconstitutional as it violates the president's ability to operate as CiC
I am not sure what the huge deal was other than gitmo ermagerd. It was a POW swap with the taliban which was the army of the afganistan government at the time of the invasion so pretty standard fare. Every war has seen POW swaps and this one is no different other than we we are getting better and better at getting our own guys back and not getting them captured to begin with. Once back in our custody he is being treated as per the uniform code of military justice as he should be.
Really for anybody people should be really afraid of making this a huge deal even if he is guilty of all he was charged with because it just means in the future presidents and military officials are going to be less and less willing to expend any effort/energy in getting captured soliders back and with an all volunteer army that would be disastrous to morale.
I am not sure what the huge deal was other than gitmo ermagerd. It was a POW swap with the taliban which was the army of the afganistan government at the time of the invasion so pretty standard fare. Every war has seen POW swaps and this one is no different other than we we are getting better and better at getting our own guys back and not getting them captured to begin with. Once back in our custody he is being treated as per the uniform code of military justice as he should be.
Really for anybody people should be really afraid of making this a huge deal even if he is guilty of all he was charged with because it just means in the future presidents and military officials are going to be less and less willing to expend any effort/energy in getting captured soliders back and with an all volunteer army that would be disastrous to morale.
Look at the thread title and op and you'll get a sense of where the right is coming from on this and basically all other issues.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
It never was a big deal to anyone other than people who look for every opportunity possible to paint President Obama in a negative light. They would have had a reaction just as negative if he refused to make the swap, then instead he would have been accused of abandoning one of our soldiers during a war.
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
RedTide on
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
It never was a big deal to anyone other than people who look for every opportunity possible to paint President Obama in a negative light. They would have had a reaction just as negative if he refused to make the swap, then instead he would have been accused of abandoning one of our soldiers during a war.
Several people did indeed have that exact reaction. Like there were twitters where someone would be demanding obama take the deal to bring him home, and then once it was made, calling Obama a traitor for bringing a traitor home. SAME FUCKING TWITTER!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Could just stay the course, say this proves he should never have been brought home to begin with. Maybe credit our fine fighting men and women with charging him and blame Obama trying to set him free for it taking months because he loves terrorism and hates Christmas.
Could just stay the course, say this proves he should never have been brought home to begin with. Maybe credit our fine fighting men and women with charging him and blame Obama for it taking months because he hates Christmas.
Gah I hate you so much because I know that's almost word for word what some idiot thinks.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
That's exactly what I heard on AM radio this morning. In fact these 5 terrorists are actively PLOTTING RIGHT NOW to bring nukes to Iran and kill americans and Benghazzziiiiiii
DisruptedCapitalist on
"Simple, real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." -Mustrum Ridcully in Terry Pratchett's Hogfather p. 142 (HarperPrism 1996)
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
Could just stay the course, say this proves he should never have been brought home to begin with. Maybe credit our fine fighting men and women with charging him and blame Obama for it taking months because he hates Christmas.
Gah I hate you so much because I know that's almost word for word what some idiot thinks.
This is pretty much what any talking head saying Bergdahl shouldn't have been traded for is arguing.
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
My only caveat: he shouldn't get a dishonorable discharge unless he gets special dispensation for medical treatment through the VA. A dishonorable discharge normally disqualifies you for that, though mechanisms might already be in place for POWs and combat casualties. I don't know the rules and regs well enough to say with absolute certainty.
Edit: I fully believe he deserves a dishonorable discharge, but I feel like he deserves medical treatment as well.
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
I agreed at first but really, dishonorable discharge is reserved for reprehensible acts and has long term consequences beyond just losing benefits. If he did just wander off I don't really see that as applying.
I'd be inclined towards a general discharge personally but would understand a bad conduct discharge.
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
I agreed at first but really, dishonorable discharge is reserved for reprehensible acts and has long term consequences beyond just losing benefits. If he did just wander off I don't really see that as applying.
I'd be inclined towards a general discharge personally but would understand a bad conduct discharge.
This is where my lack of knowledge about the military and it's processes shows. As a civilian with no friends or family in the military the only type of discharge I ever hear about is the dishonorable kind, but it's good to know there are levels to it. And yeah, doing it in a manner that doesn't remove his medical benefits and cause long term consequences to him and his family is best because he has suffered enough.
Although, I wouldn't be surprised to learn he was treated better than any POW in gitmo or just about anyone in our criminal justice system.
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
I agreed at first but really, dishonorable discharge is reserved for reprehensible acts and has long term consequences beyond just losing benefits. If he did just wander off I don't really see that as applying.
I'd be inclined towards a general discharge personally but would understand a bad conduct discharge.
Ah yeah I forgot there are more discharges than just honorable, general, and dishonorable.
Still, depending on the findings of the court martial a dishonorable could be justified. Desertion is an extremely serious charge for an infantryman. On a deployment it easily makes the short list for most serious.
That said, I believe he should get medical treatment. He's not likely to get employment with a dishonorable discharge, so no civilian medical benefits there.
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
I agreed at first but really, dishonorable discharge is reserved for reprehensible acts and has long term consequences beyond just losing benefits. If he did just wander off I don't really see that as applying.
I'd be inclined towards a general discharge personally but would understand a bad conduct discharge.
This is where my lack of knowledge about the military and it's processes shows. As a civilian with no friends or family in the military the only type of discharge I ever hear about is the dishonorable kind, but it's good to know there are levels to it. And yeah, doing it in a manner that doesn't remove his medical benefits and cause long term consequences to him and his family is best because he has suffered enough.
Although, I wouldn't be surprised to learn he was treated better than any POW in gitmo or just about anyone in our criminal justice system.
Yeah, there are a number of levels to it. But there's no way he walks away from this with a general discharge. That would be fairly absurd, IMHO.
An OTH (Other than Honorable) discharge is really the best he could hope to get. He would likely still get medical treatment in that case. But given that they've chosen to charge him with pretty severe crimes, I'm not sure that I can see the military being satisfied with that.
So I can assume now that he has been charged the same people claiming he should be charged are accusing Obama of not supporting the troops and they are in full throated support of Berghdahl once again?
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
I agreed at first but really, dishonorable discharge is reserved for reprehensible acts and has long term consequences beyond just losing benefits. If he did just wander off I don't really see that as applying.
I'd be inclined towards a general discharge personally but would understand a bad conduct discharge.
Ah yeah I forgot there are more discharges than just honorable, general, and dishonorable.
Still, depending on the findings of the court martial a dishonorable could be justified. Desertion is an extremely serious charge for an infantryman. On a deployment it easily makes the short list for most serious.
That said, I believe he should get medical treatment. He's not likely to get employment with a dishonorable discharge, so no civilian medical benefits there.
I'm really conflicted by this.
I'm pretty conflicted too. My infantey blood boils but my disgusting liberal heart is like wtf do I do now?
It's an interesting dilemma and I can foresee an endless list of fuck muppetry the Feds / va can do to alter the actual punishment. Who knows it's possible a POW ribbon trumps a dishonorable in the VA system and gets him care regardless of discharge. Then again they could say he wasn't a real POW cause of desertion / only kinda a time of war / his captures are terrorists not a foreign Army. When it comes to the army the muppetry is endlesssssss.
I imagine his future employment prospects are going to be punishment enough. But then I imagine I was the one on a dismounted patrol looking for him and ehhhhh. It's a mess definitely.
Posts
The point is that you point to situations like Foley's to demonstrate why we get our people back.
There's a slight difference between the ultra-libertarian view of "sorry you should have gotten insurance and should therefore die" and "sorry we're going to let the terrorists cut your head off".
to be honest i can easily imagine some people being of the opinion that, 'he's a journalist. he chose to go there, its his own damn fault'. a very small number of people i would hope, but still...
And while I'm not suggesting we cave to every ransom for every journalist, specifically in the case of Bergdahl I think you combine the military "leave no man behind" attitude with the demonstrative Foley incident and it should be pretty easy to come up with "Do you really want to make a big deal about this? Think hard."
Without GPS tagging every single tourist or hell every single person in our country, just how are they going to have a 100% success rate? It didnt have to be a journalist they killed, it could have been a contractor, tourist, grunt, businessman.
Your making a suggestion that sounds nice but isnt realistic. the policy not to negotiate for ransom demands has to exist for a successful country to avoid constant blackmail.
The military's policy of not leaving military personnel behind.
Simply that, not that we kowtow to the enemy.
I don't understand what you mean by this then. You seem to be suggesting that we apply no man left behind to incidents like foley, but what and who determines who is important enough to rescue?
"Our general attitude about personnel is 'leave no man behind'"
"Look what happened to Foley"
"Do we want that happening to the men we leave behind? Do we want people to assume we condemn any MIA or captured personnel to death?"
"Then this is probably a reasonable budgetary expenditure."
Ok, the GAO says this was kind of sort of illegal. Technically someone could raise a stink about it. However, the military has a policy that they recover their own, and extremest factions have shown, via the Foley incident, they are still willing to brutally execute hostages. Actually pushing the issue on the Antideficiency Act would imply that complying with the act should take precedence over rescuing soldiers from situations where torture and execution are a distinct possibility. Doing so would make the person raising such an objection look fairly repugnant. Clear?
Long story short, the military has a long standing policy that their own people are important enough to rescue full stop.
I didn't in any way suggest we should?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Well their argument is that all the money needed to be spent on a group of very specific things that only they are allowed to determine, and they didn't want to spend that money getting Bergdahl back.
The administration's argument will probably be some combination of "This is what emergency funding was made for" "Fine, we'll build one less plane this year, now we can afford to save a million people." and "So, your argument is it would've been better to let a soldier die than to set aside a half-million dollars or so?"
I don't think it's right to ever just "overlook" someone breaking the law, but I think it will be incredibly easy to find the funds in our opulent military budget.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'm talking about the money spent on the trade of five Guantanamo prisoners for that P.O.W. which is the reason for the lawsuit. Paying for guards, transport, etc.
I'm not talking about ransom.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I'd love the to challenge it. Because if you want to press the mater the Antideficiency act is probably unconstitutional as it violates the president's ability to operate as CiC
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2015/03/25/bowe-bergdahl-army-decision-next-steps/70436058/
The charges seem reasonable. Hopefully the punishment will be similarly tempered if convicted.
Really for anybody people should be really afraid of making this a huge deal even if he is guilty of all he was charged with because it just means in the future presidents and military officials are going to be less and less willing to expend any effort/energy in getting captured soliders back and with an all volunteer army that would be disastrous to morale.
Look at the thread title and op and you'll get a sense of where the right is coming from on this and basically all other issues.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
pleasepaypreacher.net
Hey now, there is a delay in between putting your hand on the stove and your brain telling you that your sleeve is on fire. Wait for Fox News to go full throttle with the next set of talking points.
Edit: For what its worth, I'm betting they go with some sort of "cover up" or "silencing" angle.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Several people did indeed have that exact reaction. Like there were twitters where someone would be demanding obama take the deal to bring him home, and then once it was made, calling Obama a traitor for bringing a traitor home. SAME FUCKING TWITTER!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Gah I hate you so much because I know that's almost word for word what some idiot thinks.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm gonna go with "drop it and pretend it didn't happen"
As for punishment if found guilty, dishonorable discharge + time served as a POW should be enough.
This is pretty much what any talking head saying Bergdahl shouldn't have been traded for is arguing.
My only caveat: he shouldn't get a dishonorable discharge unless he gets special dispensation for medical treatment through the VA. A dishonorable discharge normally disqualifies you for that, though mechanisms might already be in place for POWs and combat casualties. I don't know the rules and regs well enough to say with absolute certainty.
Edit: I fully believe he deserves a dishonorable discharge, but I feel like he deserves medical treatment as well.
I agreed at first but really, dishonorable discharge is reserved for reprehensible acts and has long term consequences beyond just losing benefits. If he did just wander off I don't really see that as applying.
I'd be inclined towards a general discharge personally but would understand a bad conduct discharge.
This is where my lack of knowledge about the military and it's processes shows. As a civilian with no friends or family in the military the only type of discharge I ever hear about is the dishonorable kind, but it's good to know there are levels to it. And yeah, doing it in a manner that doesn't remove his medical benefits and cause long term consequences to him and his family is best because he has suffered enough.
Although, I wouldn't be surprised to learn he was treated better than any POW in gitmo or just about anyone in our criminal justice system.
Ah yeah I forgot there are more discharges than just honorable, general, and dishonorable.
Still, depending on the findings of the court martial a dishonorable could be justified. Desertion is an extremely serious charge for an infantryman. On a deployment it easily makes the short list for most serious.
That said, I believe he should get medical treatment. He's not likely to get employment with a dishonorable discharge, so no civilian medical benefits there.
I'm really conflicted by this.
Yeah, there are a number of levels to it. But there's no way he walks away from this with a general discharge. That would be fairly absurd, IMHO.
An OTH (Other than Honorable) discharge is really the best he could hope to get. He would likely still get medical treatment in that case. But given that they've chosen to charge him with pretty severe crimes, I'm not sure that I can see the military being satisfied with that.
I'm pretty conflicted too. My infantey blood boils but my disgusting liberal heart is like wtf do I do now?
It's an interesting dilemma and I can foresee an endless list of fuck muppetry the Feds / va can do to alter the actual punishment. Who knows it's possible a POW ribbon trumps a dishonorable in the VA system and gets him care regardless of discharge. Then again they could say he wasn't a real POW cause of desertion / only kinda a time of war / his captures are terrorists not a foreign Army. When it comes to the army the muppetry is endlesssssss.
I imagine his future employment prospects are going to be punishment enough. But then I imagine I was the one on a dismounted patrol looking for him and ehhhhh. It's a mess definitely.