Andy9o8

Read it and weep, suckers.

What ever happened to main side disengages and tracks at pull time? There's a reason for that.

Hey, shaddap. That's not what I'm forcing you not to disclose.

I have no such "want". I understand your "want" for everyone who doesn't agree with you to be painted with that "agenda"; it's standard "us-vs.-them" politics-think. Fact is, I'm simply thinking this through like a lawyer, based on evidence and UCMJ statute, as I've been trained to do as someone who's been a litigator longer than half the people in this thread have been alive. You're thinking about this the way it's being tried in the court of public opinion. I'm thinking about it the way it will be viewed and handled, if need be, in a military court. And at the end of the day, it's the latter way that will decide.

Fair enough - if the mil judges decide there's enough evidence to bring him to trial. Well, then you can't decide that until he has a trial, either. "Deserter" is a specific term under the UCMJ. So is "AWOL/UA", and they're not the same. It saddens me to see how many ex-military personnel don't understand that, or choose to ignore it.

It's also possible that, for example, he stupidly wandered off by himself, not intending it to be permanent (which is the less serious offense of AWOL, not the more serious offense of desertion), and then got his ass captured before he could clear his head and get back to the right side of the wire* - which is not "going" to the enemy. Shades of grey, dude. Embrace them. (*which is the scenario I'm increasingly thinking may be likely)

Chinese? Making penis jokes? I could get 10 pages of material out of that one.

Do you have problems with comprehending what I've written?

Ooh, now you got him on the ropes.

Right. So you have zero non circumstantial evidence. Intellectual honesty is acknowledging the difference between reasonable suspicion (which it seems to be) and proof (which it isn't, pending further investigation).

Has he confessed to this? If not, what non-circumstantial evidence of this do you have? As I said above, I don't deny the circumstantial evidence, but so far that's all it is: circumstantial (unless he's confessed in the meantime, or you know something about the evidence I don't).

Men own Priuses, but they don't cut their penises off.

I had aerial photographs of the intersection, photographs of the damage to my car, photographs of the site of the accident, video of traffic at that time of day and graphic analysis of the event - Arlo Guthrie, 1967

Maybe he did... but maybe he didn't. We really don't know yet. There needs to be a very thorough investigation into the facts. Yes, the circumstantial evidence offered by some of his fellow soldiers, plus the e-mails to his parents, suggests he may have been motivated to go AWOL or desert. But it also still remains possible that a soldier who was a serious malcontent just happened to get captured while on post. I know you're sensitive to how the criminal justice system can unjustly over-reach. Well, don't abandon those instincts here just because he expressed very poor morale in e-mails to his parents, and some of his fellow soldiers thought he was an asshole and already have their minds made up. Historically, as you well know, lots of soldiers in-country in combat zones develop and express poor morale; and bookish loners are often not well-received by young enlisted personnel with high school level interests and social skills. Circumstantial evidence can be a very damning thing, but it sometimes leads in the wrong direction. Remember when Richard Jewell was "convicted" in the court of public opinion for the Atlanta Olympics bombing, based in large part on circumstantial evidence? Turned out he was eventually exonerated, but not before his life was basically ruined. Until the investigation into the facts - and possibly court proceedings - are completed, I think it's too early to either convict or exonerate this guy.

My point (Point (b), above) being, if his prior listing was archived somewhere on the internet, then Yes, it might very well still be discovered by a prospective employer with a thorough search.

He did initially have to register, and spent a total of about 5 years on the list. And even once he was formally off it: (a) once you're "known" by people, they think of you you that way forever, and (b) nothing dies on the internet; it's archived, and out there to find, pretty much forever.

This is my favorite thing about Speaker's Corner: "It's more complicated than you silly people think, so in the interest of better and fuller understanding, stop asking questions and having discussion." That level of debate - cherry-picking a sentence and spinning someone else's words - is below your intellect and ability to articulate, Bill. That's not at all what I was saying, or implying. I'm disappointed.

I have a more typical example of a miscarriage of justice from the sex offender registry, which I handled as a lawyer. I previously posted about it here: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2793507#2793507 That's just 1 of several similar cases I've either handled or been closely familiar with. And as I've mentioned in previous discussions, I have 2 daughters myself, so I don't take this subject lightly. Far fewer things in this world are as black-or-white as it appears you often seem to think. I urge you to start more deeply appreciating all the shades of grey. FWIW, it's a life-long pursuit.

What are you referring to?

Indeed!

It's all about choosing one's own level of risk to assume. Remember, 99% of the population think you and I are utterly mad for engaging in even the most docile and conservative of parachute jumps. Do DZs and skydiving equipment manufacturers have no shame by advertising their products? Does jumping out of airplanes with only fabric parachutes to save one's life need more encouragement? Hell in a handbasket.

My first impression was "Single" and staying that way.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=all&search_string=lasik&search_type=AND&search_fields=sbjbdy&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=post_time&mh=500

Paragraph breaks are your friend. Sorry if that sounds stone cold, dude.