So to restate, he's being held without charges and psychologically tortured, but it's okay because he's in the military and the rules of the military say that's okay.
Would you support a military rule that required officers to eat ten newborn babes apiece to be eligible for promotion? Let's say it's a specific rule and it's in place for a reason.
> So to restate, he's being held without charges and psychologically tortured, but it's okay because he's in the military and the rules of the military say that's okay.
That's not what I'm saying. It's not psychological torture against someone who's completely unprepared for it and never signed up for it. It's imprisonment under the terms of a contract he willingly signed up for. He is being charged with breaking that contract in a manner where the rules and consequences are clear. That's the call he had to make, that's the trade-off he had to make and that's something he must've known before he did what he did, otherwise he's taken a massive uncalculated risk without thinking about the potential consequences.
Would you support a military rule that required officers to eat ten newborn babes apiece to be eligible for promotion? Let's say it's a specific rule and it's in place for a reason.