A Letter To Col. Jeffrey Nance

I don't much like the trial's outcome either. Like CW Bullet, I am active duty military with a fair amount of sandbox and Korea time. That said, we were not in that court room and we don't know the issues that judge had to weigh. Sometimes judgements are meant to preserve the sanctity of the law, or UCMJ in this regard, more than the individual getting justice in the eyes of an angry mob. Keep in mind the highly politicized nature of the trail, tweets from POTUS and more that may have caused much more harm than good in terms of sentencing. Also, I am a little more familiar with Bergdahl's situation in captivity than most, and it was not a joy ride. He was indeed a prisoner, maybe his own making, but held against his will nonetheless. I doubt a military career JAG decided to go lenient on a treasonous military member out of the goodness of his heart, but was unfortunately swayed by some of the complications above. So, just me, but be happy that at least this went to trial despite the heavy political influence (both the current and last POTUS) and did produce a guilty verdict. Bergdahl did not walk away without any stigma, far from it. He will be a pariah for the rest of his life, perhaps as it should be.

He won't be a pariah to the lefties

TIME TO LOCK THIS THREAD

OK kids, here's your lesson regarding appropriate political posting.
Check out the last two posts (before the call for a lock). One of them is, A) thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent, respectful, coming from a perspective of experience, and not intended to simply snipe away at "the other side" with useless barbs and insults. The other is, B) silly, ignorant, childish, and exactly the sort of useless crap we don't need around here.
I'll let you all decide which is which.

s6

Good point, Mark.

RIB said:

He won't be a pariah to the lefties

Click to expand...

cwbullet said:

Due to a lot of confusion on what is verboten on the forum, the politics rule has been updated:

"Clarification: Some members have read this and interpreted it to mean that any political topic or even the mention of the word "politics" is automatically off-limits. Others have read it and believed that civil discourse is prohibited. Neither is true. In general, the rule of thumb or "line int he sand" that moderators have generally used is "partisan politics" if you start naming individual candidates, elected representatives, parties, or clearly partisan issues or platforms, that's out of bounds. If you talk about US policy in this or that country, or how the international community is dealing with a particular issue or US policy in general, as long as those conversations remain civil and free of partisan rants, that sort of thing has been allowed. Once again, we aren't going to make lists of what is allowed and what is not. Moderator discretion is allowed, civil discourse is always welcome, but any drift into partisan politics or divisive subjects will get posts deleted, threads locked, infractions handed out, etc. The best solution is simply "don't go there."

I hope this helps.

Click to expand...



I can see why the ruling is causing consternation, but I suppose we need to put faith and trust in the judge who has heard all the evidence and made an appropriate decision.

Many cases, including in the regular legal system, sometimes come out with seemingly odd outcomes. I think it is partly caused because we have not heard all the evidence, and partly by the skewed representation by mass media. We can only trust the judge...

stealth6 said:

OK kids, here's your lesson regarding appropriate political posting.
Check out the last two posts (before the call for a lock). One of them is, A) thoughtful, reasoned, intelligent, respectful, coming from a perspective of experience, and not intended to simply snipe away at "the other side" with useless barbs and insults. The other is, B) silly, ignorant, childish, and exactly the sort of useless crap we don't need around here.
I'll let you all decide which is which.

s6

Click to expand...

This post is the only reason that other posts (those he references) have not been deleted and possibly the reason that this thread has not been locked.

This is right.

It certainly appeared to me that Bergdahl was guilty and deserved severe punishment, but I wasn't in the courtroom and didn't hear the evidence. We have courts, judges and juries for a reason. Trial by mob is NOT justice. Part of living in a society is having to live with court decisions, election results and other decisions that you may not agree with, but were the result of other people doing their duty as citizens.

Zeus-cat said:

...Part of living in a society is having to live with court decisions...

Click to expand...

"Justice" in this nation...

Is Two-Tiered at best...

It amazes me that anyone...

Still believes in "equal-justice"...

Under the LAW...

remember who the people are who 'write' the laws...
And who gave them the power to do so..

dr wogz said:

remember who the people are who 'write' the laws...
And who gave them the power to do so..

Click to expand...

Yes, the consent...

Of the governed...

KidRockET said:

Yes, the consent...

Of the governed...

Click to expand...

As written on the side of a local building:

"If voting could change the system, it would be made illegal"

dr wogz said:

As written on the side of a local building:

"If voting could change the system, it would be made illegal"

Click to expand...

So, was one of your primaries...

Rigged in Canada too...

Show me where it isn't!!

dr wogz said:

Show me where it isn't!!

Click to expand...

Which is why I have...

Rescinded my consent...

We have become subjects...

Rather than citizens...

KidRockET said:

Which is why I have...

Rescinded my consent...

We have become subjects...

Rather than citizens...

Click to expand...

So what does it mean to have rescinded your consent? Do you not vote at all? Do you still pay taxes? Would you take a pot shot at a cop coming to your door?

If you've just decided not to vote, you've solved every politician's problem. They definitely know that they don't have to care at all about what you think. They probably didn't care very much about what you (individually) thought before, but they definitely would have cared if there were a lot of voters that think the same way in their districts.

boatgeek said:

So what does it mean to have rescinded your consent? Do you not vote at all? Do you still pay taxes? Would you take a pot shot at a cop coming to your door?

If you've just decided not to vote, you've solved every politician's problem. They definitely know that they don't have to care at all about what you think. They probably didn't care very much about what you (individually) thought before, but they definitely would have cared if there were a lot of voters that think the same way in their districts.

Click to expand...

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight...

Inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven...

Numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at..

Controlled, estimated, valued, censured, and...

Commanded, by those who have neither the...

Wisdom nor the virtue to do so...




Grudging, prudential acquiescence...

Is not the same thing as consent...

Especially when the people acquiesce...

As I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation...

KidRockET said:

Grudging, prudential acquiescence...

Is not the same thing as consent...

Especially when the people acquiesce...

As I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation...

Click to expand...

I'm just saying that if you still acquiesce, even in indignant resignation, you've consented to be governed. At least, that's the view from the government. As long as you still pay your taxes and obey the law, they don't really care how you feel about it.

Yes, and unicorns exist...

KidRockET said:

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight...

Inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven...

Numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at..

Controlled, estimated, valued, censured, and...

Commanded, by those who have neither the...

Wisdom nor the virtue to do so...




Grudging, prudential acquiescence...

Is not the same thing as consent...

Especially when the people acquiesce...

As I do, only in simmering, indignant resignation...

Click to expand...

Is this a poem? I'm having trouble with finding the meter.