American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

I haven't buried my head in the least, I just fully believe in "innocent until proven guilty," which IMO is one of the quintessential American ideals.

It is sad that you don't understand.

 

It doesn't matter what anyone chooses to believe before trial. All suspects are considered innocent until declared guilty by the appropriate legal venue. With the assumption of innocence, the suspect retains all the rights and privileges of US citizenship, or in this case, rights and privileges of a US soldier unless modified by an officer of the court for the safety of the accused or the citizenry.

If you don't believe in that and support that, you don't support the basic tenets of being American.

"The United States has always had a pretty sacred rule. That is we don't leave our men or women in uniform behind," Obama said.

"We saw an opportunity, we were concerned about Sergeant Bergdahl's health ... and we seized that opportunity," Obama said.

 

What's sad is that you don't seem to understand what that means "innocent until proven guilty" is only in a court of law, it doesn't mean that you have to turn a blind eye to the obvious truth. OJ was never found guilty in a criminal court, does that mean you think he's innocent? If so, we can just stop here.

 

I respect your consistency on the topic.

Didn't they send an extraction team after him, with regrettable results?

 

No, that's exactly what it means, barring risks to the public.

 

Not that I know of, the people who were lost weren't going directly after him, they were just in search teams. I'm honestly not sure why they didn't try an op to get him extracted, probably thought it was too risky...that or the OP he walked out on was pretty close to the Pakistan border so they might not have been able to do an op because he wasn't being held in Afghanistan.

 

Can someone believe in "it doesn't look good" without abandoning innocent until proven guilty? That's all we're saying.

Most of you are using innocent until proven guilty to defend bringing him home, to defend Obama bringing him home, and to defend the circumstances by which Obama brought him home. Sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating innocent until proven guilty in order to drown out all other viewpoints is something a child would do.

I think the innocent until proven guilty argument can wait until there is word he will be tried, otherwise you're arguing something that isn't yet a possibility and you're doing to defend Obama's actions. We are questioning Obama's actions and innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply.

 

Ah, I had the 'search' party and the 'extraction' party conflated.

Yeah, sets a bad precedent from the 'negotiating with terrorists' angle, but it was effective at bringing the guy home. He may turn out to be a jackass, but I'll let the courts decide.

Thanks for your input.

 

I would argue that it would be questionable to release 5 Taliban leaders (really 10 if you count the 5 they had to release to start negotiations) to get back ANYONE. Factor in that he's certainly a deserter and probably more than that and it's really bad. Even if it was for the soldier of the year, it sets a precedent that you are willing to give up top prisoners for random soldiers which just gives them an incentive to kidnap more soldiers to use as bargaining chips along with legitimizing the Taliban government. Karzai's government is going to have a hard enough time keeping the Taliban from taking control of the country again, no need to make it harder on them.

 

No worries, thanks for being civil.

 

No it doesn't. This is flat out dumb. Does a spouse have to wait until a court finds a husband guilty of assault before she can believe he is abusive?

Invent until proven guilty is a legal tenet. In society we have to make informed decisions all the time about innocence and guilt without courts weighing in.

Would someone be discriminating if they wouldn't hire Casey Anthony to take care of their infant?

 

Republicans should be wary they've been caught in Obama's little traps like this before. That confidential file could very well reveal that Bergdahl was involved in some sort of weird covert activity; you just never know. I wouldn't be surprised this story has a major twist since Obama is making such a big deal of it and released relatively high priority prisoners to bring him back to America. I also doubt he would have been promoted while in captivity if he was known to be a deserter. At any rate innocent until proven guilty and Fox News has already raked him over the coals.

Tread lightly republicans until all the facts are reported.

 

Sure you can think that, I think that; but in actions, you have to act like he is innocent. That's the difference between rule of law and the whims of opinion. Guilt is not a fact until conviction. And until you are convicted, the law and the government must act as though you are innocent.


The U.S. Army will not ignore any misconduct by released Taliban detainee Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, but he should be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff said.


Obama on Tuesday defended the operation to rescue Bergdahl, saying the United States was committed to freeing its prisoners of war regardless of how they were captured.

but also:
The Pentagon says Bergdahl is in a stable condition at the U.S. Army's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, where doctors were assessing his condition after five years of captivity. Officials have indicated there is little desire to pursue any disciplinary action against him given what he has been through.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/03/us-usa-afghanistan-bergdahl-dempsey-idUSKBN0EE14720140603

 

So you're calling the Joint Chiefs of Staff a child?

 

You are taking innocent until proven guilty way too far in your theoretical world. If innocent until proven guilty means that you have to act like everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty, then the state, city, gov, etc. violates the tent every time the execute a search warrant or an arrest.

The tenet is a legal one for trial meaning all defendants get the benefit of being treated as innocent in a court of law until proven otherwise. Outside of the court room there is nothing that mandates people be treated as innocent by other citizens.

 

Your personal actions are your own, institutional actions are subject to law.
And there are always considerations made for public safety, remanded without bail, protection orders etc.

In this case we are considering whether you leave a US soldier in the hands of of the enemy or make every effort to free him. That must be done without any opinion of his worthiness, because you couldn't discern the truth of it without trial and you can't try him if he cannot participate in his own defense.

It's pretty simple really if you take the emotion out of it and just follow the law.

 

The Washington post is reporting that the pentagon opted against a rescue operation previously because they didn't want to risk lives for a deserter.

 

It may seem like "truth" to you, but this guy hasn't even had his day in court yet and you are treating him like he is a proven traitor.

OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial, but a civil court found him guilty, so I am fully comfortable saying OJ is guilty.

The obvious difference is that only one of those two have seen a courtroom to answer for accused transgressions.

 

Also, if you really were innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the government, things like arrests where the charges were dropped wouldn't count against you when you were trying to get a security clearance, but they do. That's just one of those things that people bring up whenever it suits them to do so.

 

We will soon know. I'm completely open to the possibility of this. You might be right that he was a deserter - we will find out. You might be wrong - we will find out. It's possible this was just a POW exchange and nothing more - we will know. Or it might be more than that, we will know. I'm open to those possibilities since we don't yet know.

Now if you decided already that he is a deserter and that this was nothing more than an exchange, then you really don't need to know more, do you? My suggestion is you leave the door just a little bit open to other possibilities. But it's your choice.

I choice to wait and see.