Bergdahl

I'm sure folks get tired of my drivel, but this Bergdahl thing is most bothersome. I read (for hours) the Uniform Code of Military Justice and have copied here certain components. Basically it reads that if a soldier leaves his post during wartime activities he is automatically considered a deserter Simple AWOL is not an option. ( Even if he returns voluntarily, he is a deserter and must stand trial). Paperwork is to be completed and he becomes wanted and subject to arrest by most legal authorities. He is arrested and held in military custody until a Court Martial (not a Summary Court Martial) decides his guilt or innocence - there is no provision to wait and hear the deserter's story before charging him as this administration is doing. Much the same as in civilian criminal law, if several people claim to be eyewitnesses to a crime and identify the culprit, he is arrested and charged with the crime, held until bailed out (the military doesn't have that)
or until trial. The guilt must be proven at that point ( pretty easy with
multiple credible witnesses).
The law doesn't wait to hear his side of the story before arrest. PERIOD!!
Hussein and his administration have spun this mess and usurped the authority of the military in an effort to cover their idiocy. Sadder each day, the antics of this treasonous administration.

From the UCMJ:

If the intent of the absence was to "shirk important duty," such as a combat deployment, then the "intent to remain away permanently" to support a charge of desertion is not necessary. However, Such services as drill, target practice, maneuvers, and practice marches are not ordinarily "important duty." "Important duty" may include such duty as hazardous duty, duty in a combat zone, certain ship deployments, etc. Whether a duty is hazardous or a service is important depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and is a question of fact for the court-martial to decide. (My note – says goes to Court Martial as the only place for facts. Elsewhere it is stated if one leaves their post during combat, AWOL is no longer considered, it automatically rises to desertion

Hillary

Hillary is showing her true colors. She is blasting the Supreme Court decision allowing closely held (meaning privately owned) corporations to opt out of the Hussein mandate that contraceptive devices must be provided to female employees. She claims the court has gotten onto a "slippery slope". First, not all contraception is included in the ruling. The ruling is specific to four means of contraception, which can be effectively used after a pregnancy has begun and can be construed as a form of abortion. Secondly, the ruling simply affirmed a part of the Constitution upholding the freedom of religion as the owners of the company have strong feelings about abortion. The ruling did not say the female workers could not use contraception nor even that they cannot have an abortion - it simply allows the employer, acting on their religious beliefs, to avoid paying for those things.
As an allegedly responsible, highly visible woman in this country, why doesn't Hillary suggest some level of abstinence to her minions rather than loudly objecting to the lack of a law providing contraception? It would certainly seem reasonable that a woman could provide her own contraception using anything from a crossed leg procedure to purchasing her own pills out of her own pocket. To go so far as to say that the prevention of pregnancy is a necessary protection of a woman's health is an awfully long reach.
Taking a step further in the whole mess, what are the rights of a company that is required to provide contraception? Suppose the company does pay for the pills or devices and yet a female employee becomes pregnant. The employer's insurance must now pay for both the birth costs and provide a paid leave for the employee and then offer health insurance to the child until age 26. Would it be fair to argue that the employer offered the contraception with their insurance and the employee simply refused to avail herself of same and allowed herself to become pregnant? Why, then would the company's insurance be required to pay for her refusal to use that which is provided? Should there be a limit on the number of times an employee could become pregnant despite the availability of employee provided contraception? If a company can provide that an employee can be terminated for using certain drugs the employer deems harmful, could it not be reasonably argued that an employee be terminated for failing to use certain drugs provided by that employer? Talk about a "slippery slope".
If an employer has to provide insurance to cover, for example, flu shots, should the employee be required to receive that shot? What if an employee opts to forego that inoculation, gets the flu and then infects numerous other employees who miss work and cost a company a great deal of absenteeism? Is there any recourse for the company?
It is a frightful thing to think Hillary is the current front runner for the next presidential election. Hopefully, her true ignorance of the Constitution and the foundations of this Nation, through her outspoken tongue wagging, will doom her chances and she can go on being a "broke" grandmother.