Donald Trump says Bowe Bergdahl should have been executed

[heatedmonk]

We've had plenty of deserters, and we haven't executed a guy since WW2 for doing so. He will just do jail time like every other one.

Quite possibly so. And while behind bars if he arrives at the realization he's female we'll be paying for his changes. Ain't desertion grand?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Quite possibly so. And while behind bars if he arrives at the realization he's female we'll be paying for his changes. Ain't desertion grand?

Nice allusion to Manning, but he has nothing to do with this thread. What Manning did was far worse than what Bowe did.

 

[heatedmonk]

Oh, I disagree. If BB deserves to be shot, Manning deserves to be first in line. They both betrayed America and put lives at risk. BB cost lives, we don't know how many lives Manning's betrayal cost. They're both enemies of America. And they deserve to be treated like one.
What they don't deserve is to be sentenced as a man and transformed into a woman on our dime, when they're serving nearly 60 years in a cell.

What an advert. Can't afford a sex change? No problem, turn traitor, get sentenced, even though it isn't for treason, and poof! You've got boobs! At tax payer expense! See? There are rewards for betraying a nation.

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Oh, I disagree. If BB deserves to be shot, Manning deserves to be first in line. They both betrayed America and put lives at risk. BB cost lives, we don't know how many lives Manning's betrayal cost. They're both enemies of America. And they deserve to be treated like one.
What they don't deserve is to be sentenced as a man and transformed into a woman on our dime, when they're serving nearly 60 years in a cell.

What an advert. Can't afford a sex change? No problem, turn traitor, get sentenced, even though it isn't for treason, and poof! You've got boobs! At tax payer expense! See? There are rewards for betraying a nation.

I don't really care about Manning. He is serving his time just like Bowe will. Justice will b served according to the law and regulations that dictate them.

 

[heatedmonk]

I don't think there was any question of that was there?

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

Yes there was from another poster.

 

[dgiharris]

They should have just let the Taliban keep him.

Politically you just can't let the enemy keep an American soldier especially when that American's soldiers family is pleading for him. There is just no scenario where we let the Taliban keep him. If he is aiding the Taliban we want him back to stand trial. If he actively had a hand in killing Americans then we want him back so we can hang him. If he was a coward and deserted his post or was just plain stupid, then we want him back so we can imprison him....

Yes, emotionally I would like nothing more than for him to get what he deserves and just let the Taliban have him, but from a political science aspect, you simply can't allow that under any circumstance.

If there was enough evidence then he would have been charged with aiding the enemy but he wasn't. If the death penalty is on the table then there needs to be hard evidence.

Seriously this. The death penalty is not something you hand out like candy for crying out loud...

....Aside from the Taliban testifying how would that be accomplished?

So your point is, whenever we don't have hard evidence we just go ahead and proceed with punishments like the death penalty because it makes us feel good? I sincerely hope your job has absolutely nothing to do with the Justice department. You shouldn't even be allowed to be a janitor at a courtroom if you can't fathom why your viewpoints are horrifically bad.

Evidence is the bedrock of any fair Justice System-- not innuendo, not emotion, not guesses, EVIDENCE. Without hard evidence you shouldn't entertain notions of hard sentences. Or put another way, how would you like to be convicted of a crime and given a harsh punishment when there is no evidence against you?

 

[football5680]

Politically you just can't let the enemy keep an American soldier especially when that American's soldiers family is pleading for him. There is just no scenario where we let the Taliban keep him. If he is aiding the Taliban we want him back to stand trial. If he actively had a hand in killing Americans then we want him back so we can hang him. If he was a coward and deserted his post or was just plain stupid, then we want him back so we can imprison him....

Yes, emotionally I would like nothing more than for him to get what he deserves and just let the Taliban have him, but from a political science aspect, you simply can't allow that under any circumstance.

If the Taliban wanted to return him free of charge then I would definitely accept him for the reasons you stated, but they were given something in return. Many innocent people have lost their lives because of our policy to not negotiate with terrorists but in this case we did negotiate with terrorists and it was definitely not worth it. He intentionally put himself in this situation by choosing to desert. He may not have planned to get captured by the Taliban but this was the consequence of his decision to abandon the Army.

 

[dgiharris]

If the Taliban wanted to return him free of charge then I would definitely accept him for the reasons you stated, but they were given something in return. Many innocent people have lost their lives because of our policy to not negotiate with terrorists but in this case we did negotiate with terrorists and it was definitely not worth it. He intentionally put himself in this situation by choosing to desert. He may not have planned to get captured by the Taliban but this was the consequence of his decision to abandon the Army.

This matter isn't so much about him, it is about precedent. And the US military which prides itself on "No Man Left Behind" cannot set the precedent of abandoning a US soldier to the enemy. The nation simply will not stand for it. There really is no good choice here. Obama is in a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation in which no matter what he does, 50% of the nation is going to call it a bad choice.

During this whole thing, even prominent GOP figures agreed with the choice, McCain comes to mind as does several others. They didn't like the trade by any stretch, but they agreed the President had to get him back and that politically, the Commander in Chief can't knowingly let a soldier remain in enemy hands, especially when said soldier's family is pleading for him back. I get your point, I really do, but this is bigger than the guy and I just can't see any president not getting him back in some way shape or form.

 

[Bible Page]

Politically you just can't let the enemy keep an American soldier especially when that American's soldiers family is pleading for him.

The inconsistency in that presumption is that Obama entered into negotiations with Iran in the nuclear talks and did not seek to get back the 4 American hostages currently in Iran's custody.

So your point is, whenever we don't have hard evidence we just go ahead and proceed with punishments like the death penalty because it makes us feel good?

The snark personal attack is ignorant so I deleted it.
It's called circumstantial evidence! That can be arrived at when the field reports that show, as one soldier interviewed about BB's absence said, the enemies tactics and maneuvers altered so as to counter the Army's moves after Bergdahl deserted.

And aside from that, the UCMJ Article 85 3(c), outlines the conditions wherein death is warranted for desertion.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

And aside from that, the UCMJ Article 85 3(c), outlines the conditions wherein death is warranted for desertion.

That would be fine and dandy if…


The United States formally declared war on the Taliban, but they did not. Because of this formality, the death penalty will not be given if he is convicted.

 

[Armoured]

The inconsistency in that presumption is that Obama entered into negotiations with Iran in the nuclear talks and did not seek to get back the 4 American hostages currently in Iran's custody.

Were they military PWs? Oh, no, that's right, they're criminals. Chalk and cheese.

The snark personal attack is ignorant so I deleted it.
It's called circumstantial evidence! That can be arrived at when the field reports that show, as one soldier interviewed about BB's absence said, the enemies tactics and maneuvers altered so as to counter the Army's moves after Bergdahl deserted.

And aside from that, the UCMJ Article 85 3(c), outlines the conditions wherein death is warranted for desertion.

You understand the whole point of "circumstantial evidence" is that it's not permitted to be considered legally, right?