Bowe Bergdahl to be charged with desertion

[DesertBerean]

Joel, even in the civilian world one cannot just quit without consequences. If I were one who up and walked out on an employer, I had better be prepared to explain myself (especially if I want to work again!)

Even if I had good cause to walk out, people are going to want to know why I violated the agreement to work for my employer. Just saying I didn't believe in it anymore isn't really a good justification.

[Joel]

Joel, even in the civilian world one cannot just quit without consequences.

Sure, all actions have consequences.
Not all actions are illegal.

Just saying I didn't believe in it anymore isn't really a good justification.

It might if, e.g., you work for an abortion clinic and then came to the conclusion that you were aiding and abetting murder.

[Cow Poke]

It might if, e.g., you work for an abortion clinic and then came to the conclusion that you were aiding and abetting murder.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with abandoning your fellow soldiers when took an oath to defend your country. You're entering the world of jackassery to defend a really dumb position, and frankly, I'm surprised.

[Joel]

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with abandoning your fellow soldiers when took an oath to defend your country. You're entering the world of jackassery to defend a really dumb position, and frankly, I'm surprised.

I was just using an example of what DesertBerean was talking about (and one in the private sector as he was discussing). The military equivalent would be a soldier who came to the conclusion that what he was doing was unjust killing (i.e. murder, and likely on a larger scale than an abortion clinic), either because he became a pacifist, or because he came to the conclusion that what the military was doing in particular was unjust.

[DesertBerean]

Sure, all actions have consequences.
Not all actions are illegal.


It might if, e.g., you work for an abortion clinic and then came to the conclusion that you were aiding and abetting murder.

Not ALL such actions are illegal...true. Bringing us right back to this military guy actually committing an ILLEGAL action! Because he broke the law in such a manner that is so associated with the act of treachery, he has to face the music.

[DesertBerean]

I was just using an example of what DesertBerean was talking about (and one in the private sector as he was discussing). The military equivalent would be a soldier who came to the conclusion that what he was doing was unjust killing (i.e. murder, and likely on a larger scale than an abortion clinic), either because he became a pacifist, or because he came to the conclusion that what the military was doing in particular was unjust.

See my response above.

And ... I'm a SHE!!!!!

[Cow Poke]

I was just using an example of what DesertBerean was talking about (and one in the private sector as he was discussing). The military equivalent would be a soldier who came to the conclusion that what he was doing was unjust killing (i.e. murder, and likely on a larger scale than an abortion clinic), either because he became a pacifist, or because he came to the conclusion that what the military was doing in particular was unjust.

Again, that has NOTHING to do with this thread. Bergdahl abandoned his post - he didn't just "have a change of heart". If anything, he was being attracted to an even more BRUTAL killing organization.

[Joel]

Not ALL such actions are illegal...true. Bringing us right back to this military guy actually committing an ILLEGAL action! Because he broke the law in such a manner that is so associated with the act of treachery, he has to face the music.

It seemed like you were trying to say that X having negative consequences was tantamount to X being illegal. I was just countering that by pointing out that they are different.

Here it seems like you are begging the question. Here it seems you are arguing that he should be punished because he committed a malum prohibitum. But I'm raising the question of whether it should be illegal in the first place.

And ... I'm a SHE!!!!!

Doh. I'm sorry.

Again, that has NOTHING to do with this thread. Bergdahl abandoned his post - he didn't just "have a change of heart". If anything, he was being attracted to an even more BRUTAL killing organization.

I was responding to DesertBerean's comments about an employee having a change of heart, not about Berghdal in particular. The intent was to show how that can be a legitimate reason to quit. That it can even be a morally imperative one.

One could argue that quitting should not be illegal because there can be such (good) reasons to quit. But that's not really the argument I'm making, which I think applies even when people don't have a good reason. In a previous post I acknowledged that desertion may very well be an imprudent and immoral action. But that imprudent and immoral do not imply "should be illegal."

[Cow Poke]

I was responding to DesertBerean's comments about an employee having a change of heart, not about Berghdal in particular.

Please feel free to start your own thread on that subject, and cease derailing this one, OK?

[lilpixieofterror]

Perhaps it would be helpful to see why they were brought up in the Declaration of Independence. They are stated there in opposition to the Hobbesian theory that you (or your ancestors) somehow, perhaps implicitly, transferred all your rights to the state, in exchange for protection from the state. The result of the Hobbesian view is that the state has unrestrained, absolute power, and the people have no rights. The state would say something like, "You chose to live here knowing full well the rules, that you give me all your rights, so you have no moral claim against me, no matter what I do to you." The response to that is that you have unalienable rights, that you cannot have transferred to the state, implicitly or explicitly. It is upon this response that the Revolutionary War was morally justified.

But your argument falls apart when you consider that our modern military is a 100% volunteer force that every last person that is currently in, signed up under their own free will. The military has made no secret of its rules and policies towards how you can get out and why. In fact, our military has had some of the best retention rates in its history. Many end up staying past their first enlistment, so your argument doesn't seem to work out as well. It is quite simple, if you don't want to live under those rules, don't sign up. Nobody is forcing you to live under those rules. You choose them and they were not kept secret.

[Sparko]

and in this case he deserted TO the enemy. That is essentially treason.

[Pinoy]

On June 30, 2009, in Mest Malak, Afghanistan, Bowe Bergdahl left his unit and deserted the U.S. Army. We know he deserted because we were there when he did it.

We are confident that the overdue report from political and military leaders on Bergdahl's actions, sitting on a general's desk since October, comes to the same conclusion. It has to because the facts are clear.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinio...lumn/22751871/

[Paprika]

We can get into a philosophical discussion of the arguments for or against them if you like.

I would like to do so, but it doesn't have to be in this thread.

But perhaps it would be sufficient for now to point out that the Declaration of Independence declares them to exist, it was passed by the Congress and never repealed.

Perhaps, if the Declaration had such legal significance. I am not aware that it does.

Perhaps it would be helpful to see why they were brought up in the Declaration of Independence.

Yes, it would be helpful to see that they're just justification for high treason.

[Cow Poke]

Anybody with half a brain would see that Bergdahl's case satisfies the requirements of Articl 85, and the official conviction is only a matter of time -- unless, of course, the UCMJ is thwarted for political reasons.

Meanwhile, the Bergdahl Hearing is Postponed Until September, apparently at the request of the defense team.

[One Bad Pig]

Update:

2017-10-09-2808a200_large.jpg