Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

[bonnie]

Probably those that understand when you once begin to negotiate it is never ending.Will there be more that are captured and held for exchange.I suspect the possibility is very real.

Can you give me the names of the prisoner exchange under Reagan?

Wrong or right Iran Contra was not about exchanging one prisoner for five hard core terrorists that most acknowledge will likely go right back to their terrorists activities.

[Windsor]

Quote:

Because a person is not tried for their actions they don't become innocent.

It makes them: Not Guilty!

I have to laugh at people who make comments like this. Being found guilty in a court of law is only one definition of guilty, probably what I would consider the least important definition given the corruption inherent in any court of law conducted on a sinful planet. In fact merriam webster doesn't even mention "court of law". If you take a piece of your wife's pie when she was saving it for company, you are guilty of taking it. No state authorized judge required.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

I have to laugh at people who make comments like this. Being found guilty in a court of law is only one definition of guilty, probably what I would consider the least important definition given the corruption inherent in any court of law conducted on a sinful planet. In fact merriam webster doesn't even mention "court of law". If you take a piece of your wife's pie when she was saving it for company, you are guilty of taking it. No state authorized judge required.

YOu can laugh all that you want to. In one sense, you are correct. It is not against the law to take a piece of your wife's pie. Therefore, there is not judge required to determine your guilt.

Yes, a court of law is only one definition, as you have said in relation to a piece of pie and with which I agree.

But, the context of the conversation about Sgt. Bergdahl is clearly a context that requires a court of law. He has been alleged to have committee a crime, Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), of desertion. He has been alleged to have committed other crimes under the UCMJ.

Any allegation that one has committed a crime requires a decision form a court of competent jurisdiction. Under the system of law, in the United States, one alleged to have committed a crime is considered "not guilty" until that court of competent jurisdiction declares otherwise.

I have no doubt that Sgt. Bergdhall will be investigated in depth. He should be so investigated. Under the UCMJ, that investigation will probably include an Article 32 investigation. If such an investigation concludes that there is reason to charge him with a crime and to bring him to trial, I have no doubt that such will happen.

Under our law, and the UCMJ, such an investigation and trial will have to be fair, with opportunity for Sgt. Bergdahl to present evidence in his favor. If I were on his defense team, I know of some evidence that I would present in his favor.

Perhaps, the investigation will find some misconduct on his part? Perhaps the Article 32 will recommend trail. I do not know. I only know that he will get his just and fair day in court. that is where it is act.

If you want to compare the crimes with which he is alleged to have committed to that of a husband eating a piece of a pie that his wife baked, in our system of free speech, you may do so. But, I can tell you that you will probably stand alone among those reading this thread in doing so. I do not know of any other person who would place what Bergdahl is alleged to have done to the level of eating a piece of pie.

Also, in making your comparison and in laughing about it, you demonstrate your lack of understanding of a legal system that says that in regard to an alleged crime, you are to be considered "not guilty" until a court has ruled otherwise.

You may laugh at your freedoms and treat them lightly, but it is for those freedoms that our military men and women have fought, died and been injured. By laughing as you have done and comparing their value to that of eating a piece of pie that was not intended for you mock the men and women who have sacrificed for you.

[Windsor]

Sorry but I don't form my opinions solely based on what a jury or judge says. Per Merriam Webster OJ Simpson is as guilty of murder as was Cain. I don't really care what the jury said. Innocent in court but guilty in reality. The latter is what matters.

[Gregory Matthews]

Windsor said:

Quote:

Sorry but I don't form my opinions solely based on what a jury or judge says. Per Merriam Webster OJ Simpson is as guilty of murder as was Cain. I don't really care what the jury said. Innocent in court but guilty in reality. The latter is what matters.

In February, 1997, this is what a jury/court determined:

Quote:

Writing one of the final chapters in O. J. Simpson's long legal case, a civil court jury here ordered him today to pay a financially debilitating $25 million in punitive damages to the families of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald L. Goldman.

The huge award constituted still another pointed contradiction of the much-disputed 1995 criminal court verdict that found Mr. Simpson not guilty of the double slaying that has gripped the nation with its uncomfortable questions about murder, wife battering, racism, celebrity and the quality of American justice.

The same jury had awarded the Goldman family 8.5 million in compensatory damages last week.

Under the applicable law, in order to obtain that judgment, the jury had to find Simpson guilty of murder.

You may not care about what the court said. You may believe that the court completely absolved Simpson of murder, but you are not totally correct.

The Simpson case is an interesting one due to the fact that Simpson was found "not guilty" of the crime of murder. But, a 2nd court in effect said that regardless of being not guilty of the crime of murder, he did kill his wife.

[Windsor]

Sorry but you are the one going off topic. The OP who utilized the word guilty which you are still stuck on as a court term never said anything about their having already been a trial for Bergdahl. You knew that yet you still jumped on her and now me.

[bonnie]

Sorry but you are the one going off topic. The OP who utilized the word guilty which you are still stuck on as a court term never said anything about their having already been a trial for Bergdahl. You knew that yet you still jumped on her and now me.

We all know Bergdahl has not been tried.A jury has not found him guilty.I seriously doubt if he will be. If he walked away voluntarily and it seems pretty certain he did,he is guilty of walking away voluntarily.

A court of law is unlikely to change the minds of those that served with him. It means he won't serve any time or have "guilty" on his record.

When I was pulled over for speeding and did not receive a much deserved ticket,it didn't mean I had not been speeding.I was as guilty as I could get. It just didn't show on my record.

OJ being found not guilty did not mean he didn't kill his wife.That act can't be made to go away. It meant for whatever reason a jury did not officially and legally in a court of law find him guilty.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

A jury has not found him guilty. I seriously doubt if he will be.

You are more confident than I.

Yet, you may be correct?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

If he walked away voluntarily and it seems pretty certain he did, he is guilty of walking away voluntarily.

If he did walk away voluntarily, it is not certain that he is guilty of anything. It is believed that he had walked away before and then returned. How many other members of his unit had done the same. It just may be that such was allowed to happen?

This is a valid question. The rules under which military members operate in combat are not a rigid as some here would make them out to be.

If he is guilty, then there should be a fair determination as to what the punishment should be.

[bonnie]

If he did walk away voluntarily, it is not certain that he is guilty of anything. It is believed that he had walked away before and then returned. How many other members of his unit had done the same. It just may be that such was allowed to happen?

This is a valid question. The rules under which military members operate in combat are not a rigid as some here would make them out to be.

If he is guilty, then there should be a fair determination as to what the punishment should be.

The couple of times it is reported to have "walked away" and returned is hardly a pattern.

None of us here know.I still think those that served with him

know far more than either you or I.

Most soldiers do not turn on their own because one is called a hero. At least those I know and family members form a pretty tight bond with those they serve with.