Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

A bit surprised that this "subject" hasn't been brought up yet...

Thoughts?

BDK just does a shitty job naming his threads.

I really hope somebody clubs him to death in a dark alley in Chicago. He's not an American so I don't give a squirt of piss about him other than he deserves a horrible death for killing our soldiers 3 different ways.

I think that even if nobody was saying he left his post, etc., they should not have released five Taliban guys in exchange. I've heard different opinions on how important the Taliban guys are but regardless I don't think they should've done that.

Otherwise, the Constitution says that the President "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" so I don't think it really matters if Congress really did make a law about a 30 day notice to Congress, etc. The Constitution supersedes any Act of Congress. The Constitution pretty much explicitly says he can let anybody he wants to off the hook at any time.

Don't agree with him doing it. But I can't see Congress being able to tell him he can't or that he has to give 30 day notice or anything like that.

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that even if nobody was saying he left his post, etc., they should not have released five Taliban guys in exchange. I've heard different opinions on how important the Taliban guys are but regardless I don't think they should've done that.

Otherwise, the Constitution says that the President "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" so I don't think it really matters if Congress really did make a law about a 30 day notice to Congress, etc. The Constitution supersedes any Act of Congress. The Constitution pretty much explicitly says he can let anybody he wants to off the hook at any time.

Don't agree with him doing it. But I can't see Congress being able to tell him he can't or that he has to give 30 day notice or anything like that.

They were so important that we kept them on ice for years without pressing any charges.


Why would we not want this guy back? Even if he deserted, which the Army has not accused him of yet, we still want him back to face the UCMJ.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that even if nobody was saying he left his post, etc., they should not have released five Taliban guys in exchange. I've heard different opinions on how important the Taliban guys are but regardless I don't think they should've done that.

Otherwise, the Constitution says that the President "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" so I don't think it really matters if Congress really did make a law about a 30 day notice to Congress, etc. The Constitution supersedes any Act of Congress. The Constitution pretty much explicitly says he can let anybody he wants to off the hook at any time.

Don't agree with him doing it. But I can't see Congress being able to tell him he can't or that he has to give 30 day notice or anything like that.

They were so important that we kept them on ice for years without pressing any charges.


Why would we not want this guy back? Even if he deserted, which the Army has not accused him of yet, we still want him back to face the UCMJ.

your first sentence is ignorant of the legal ramifications of charging those guys in court, and the inability to use certain classified sources of evidence

your second sentence is a correct, if not surprising display of logic

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that even if nobody was saying he left his post, etc., they should not have released five Taliban guys in exchange. I've heard different opinions on how important the Taliban guys are but regardless I don't think they should've done that.

Otherwise, the Constitution says that the President "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" so I don't think it really matters if Congress really did make a law about a 30 day notice to Congress, etc. The Constitution supersedes any Act of Congress. The Constitution pretty much explicitly says he can let anybody he wants to off the hook at any time.

Don't agree with him doing it. But I can't see Congress being able to tell him he can't or that he has to give 30 day notice or anything like that.

They were so important that we kept them on ice for years without pressing any charges.


Why would we not want this guy back? Even if he deserted, which the Army has not accused him of yet, we still want him back to face the UCMJ.

What charges do we ring them up on? Willingness to lead other into killing Americans in battle?

And I agree with your second part.

JohnStOnge wrote:I think that even if nobody was saying he left his post, etc., they should not have released five Taliban guys in exchange. I've heard different opinions on how important the Taliban guys are but regardless I don't think they should've done that.

Otherwise, the Constitution says that the President "...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment" so I don't think it really matters if Congress really did make a law about a 30 day notice to Congress, etc. The Constitution supersedes any Act of Congress. The Constitution pretty much explicitly says he can let anybody he wants to off the hook at any time.

Don't agree with him doing it. But I can't see Congress being able to tell him he can't or that he has to give 30 day notice or anything like that.

The thing about reprieves and pardons is that that one has to be issued and that they are a forgiveness of a crime. If Obama is issuing one, then what is the crime? However, it's pointless to discuss this since our transparent administration has said nothing about any criminal conduct on Bowe's part.

andy7171 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
They were so important that we kept them on ice for years without pressing any charges.


Why would we not want this guy back? Even if he deserted, which the Army has not accused him of yet, we still want him back to face the UCMJ.

What charges do we ring them up on? Willingness to lead other into killing Americans in battle?

And I agree with your second part.

Treason?

Ibanez wrote:Treason?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Treason?

If the stories of his desertion, then aiding the enemy are true then I think that falls under treason. It's a violation of allegiance. You have to admit, for people that loved to kill Americans, the Taliban sure did take care of Bowe. He appeared to be in good health. He was walking just fine. He was alive. He was even given gifts upon his "release." For someone that was supposedly tortured, locked in cages, etc... he seemed at ease with this captors. There's some rotten in the state of Khost.

Ibanez wrote: If the stories of his desertion, then aiding the enemy are true then I think that falls under treason. It's a violation of allegiance. You have to admit, for people that loved to kill Americans, they sure did take care of Bowe. He wasn't malnourished. He was even given presents upon his "release."

They were talking about the 5 Taliban in Guantanamo. Not Bergdahl.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote: If the stories of his desertion, then aiding the enemy are true then I think that falls under treason. It's a violation of allegiance. You have to admit, for people that loved to kill Americans, they sure did take care of Bowe. He wasn't malnourished. He was even given presents upon his "release."

They were talking about the 5 Taliban in Guantanamo. Not Bergdahl.

Fuck. Got ahead of myself. My bad.

andy7171 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
They were so important that we kept them on ice for years without pressing any charges.


Why would we not want this guy back? Even if he deserted, which the Army has not accused him of yet, we still want him back to face the UCMJ.

What charges do we ring them up on? Willingness to lead other into killing Americans in battle?

And I agree with your second part.

There must be something, since they're very high-ranking Taliban leaders..

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
They were so important that we kept them on ice for years without pressing any charges.


Why would we not want this guy back? Even if he deserted, which the Army has not accused him of yet, we still want him back to face the UCMJ.

your first sentence is ignorant of the legal ramifications of charging those guys in court, and the inability to use certain classified sources of evidence

your second sentence is a correct, if not surprising display of logic

You try so hard...

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ibanez wrote: If the stories of his desertion, then aiding the enemy are true then I think that falls under treason. It's a violation of allegiance. You have to admit, for people that loved to kill Americans, they sure did take care of Bowe. He wasn't malnourished. He was even given presents upon his "release."

They were talking about the 5 Taliban in Guantanamo. Not Bergdahl.

This!

houndawg wrote:

andy7171 wrote:
What charges do we ring them up on? Willingness to lead other into killing Americans in battle?

And I agree with your second part.

There must be something, since they're very high-ranking Taliban leaders..

What do you charge a person of another country, in another country, not abiding by US laws?

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
your first sentence is ignorant of the legal ramifications of charging those guys in court, and the inability to use certain classified sources of evidence

your second sentence is a correct, if not surprising display of logic

You try so hard...

No really

I was surprised

andy7171 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
There must be something, since they're very high-ranking Taliban leaders..

What do you charge a person of another country, in another country, not abiding by US laws?

That's irrelevant.

Ibanez wrote:

andy7171 wrote: What do you charge a person of another country, in another country, not abiding by US laws?

That's irrelevant.

Thanks for catching up.

andy7171 wrote:

Ibanez wrote: That's irrelevant.

Thanks for catching up.

I hate your face.

andy7171 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
There must be something, since they're very high-ranking Taliban leaders..

What do you charge a person of another country, in another country, not abiding by US laws?

We are the US of A. We can make something up.

Investigation report went to Pentagon Gen. Mark Miley on December 24,2014.

Apparently, sometime in the past two weeks, Bergdahl's attorney was served with the formal charges. White House National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes has ordered a blackout on the charges, presumably to avoid political embarrassment and a possible Congressional Oversight investigation (The WH did not confer with thr Pentagon or Congress prior to executing the prisoner swap...a possible criminal violation).

Announced by O'Reilly today, but also covered by several defense bloggers.

http://youtu.be/x9y44Nqofjg

BTW...Ben Rhodes is brother of CBS News President Mark Rhodes.
Wanna guess which network will be the first to break the story?

The Genreal doesn't have to say or do anything with this report. As far as I know, the Military doesn't have to disclose anything. I could be wrong, and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am.

What's done is done. I just hope those 5 don't filter back into battle and kill more Americans. I'm sure the new Yemeni warlords will honor our agreement and keep them in country.

I'm glad we got him back. But if he did in fact desert his platoon, he needs to deal with the repercussions of what he did.