Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The myth of the October Surprise.
Off the top of my head, this is to my knowledge the only president who has assumed executive order to include breaking the law. I am sure a deeper look into previous administrations would reveal otherwise. If there are other examples in American history please enlighten. This would be an interesting discussion.
Off the top of my head, this is to my knowledge the only president who has assumed executive order to include breaking the law. I am sure a deeper look into previous administrations would reveal otherwise. If there are other examples in American history please enlighten. This would be an interesting discussion.
The whole idea of executive order is to bypass law, I think.
The whole idea of Executive Orders is to bypass Congress.The whole idea of executive order is to bypass law, I think.
Were you not alive in the 80's and 90's?Any example of what you think you know you are talking about?
Article 85—DesertionHe deserted his post in a time of war while deployed in a combat zone. That isn't the same as missing formation on a Saturday morning down at Fort Stewart. All you want to know is the notion he went AWOL. But again, from others who have been there:
Were you not alive in the 80's and 90's?
Article 85Desertion
(a) Any member of the armed forces who
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
Notice the bolded portion. You don't know his intent when we was captured. He was AWOL, but to say he was deserter means you know his intent, which you don't
According to the agreement these five will be held in Qatar for one year. Even if this occurs subsequent to that year they will be free to go where they will and do what they will.
That's not the point. He's also not a sociopath.The 2014 elections will be over before that year passes.
It's pretty clear that's what would have happened. Politics has some pretty recognizable patterns. The death of a POW in a Taliban camp is going to be jumped on by someone, and if there had been a debate about his track record, those who attacked Obama's actions would both offer the argument that Bergdahl shouldn't have died regardless without a proper court martial (like I'm arguing now), or they would have attempted to open up an investigation into whether his claims about the military were true that would have lasted until long after it fell out of the public eye.You don't know that. Bergdahl wasn't captured while conducting combat operations against the enemy. He was a PFC when he dropped his weapon, abandoned his post and went looking for the Taliban.
After all the lies from Bush, hearing this makes me yawn.
That didn't take long.
The Bush administration set in motion one of the most dangerous foreign policies in modern America. Whether it was motivated by good intentions or not, there's no excuse for that amount of wreckless incompetence.
Were you not alive in the 80's and 90's?
Notice the bolded portion. You don't know his intent when we was captured. He was AWOL, but to say he was deserter means you know his intent, which you don't.
More likely than not, they involve some means of tracking the prisoners, a requirement for surveillance, and probably severe travel restrictions even after they can leave Qatar.
That's not the point.
The death of a POW in a Taliban camp is going to be jumped on by someone...
You are moving the goalposts. You talked about negotiating with terrorists, now you have added quite a list of specific criteria.I will rephrase. When has the United States ever exchanged any, not to mention five, high ranking captured enemy combatants for a single US PFC? One who deserted his post, no less? When has such an exchange occurred while hostilities against said enemy combatants were still ongoing?
I wasn't aware that Reagan was president for the entirety of the 80's and 90's.As for attempting to equate this with Reagan, even if he had been as derelict in his duties as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, it would be an Appeal to Common Practice fallacy to use that as a basis for an argument.
When I was reading on this topic I found an article that talked about this. Intent is critical to desertion. It's also very hard to prove. That's there are so few prosecutions for desertion. Apparently, even if a soldier leaves all of his gear writes a letter saying that he's deserting, but changes his mind and returns of his own accord he's technically only AWOL. The point is that since Bergdahl was taken prisoner we'll never know if he was going to come back. I'll see if I can find the article again.As Vylo said, the manner in which he left his post and headed off into enemy territory makes his intent clear. In addition, this isn't the first time I have encountered a situation like this one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?