About time:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/25/bergdahl-to-be-charged-with-desertion-official-says/

Excellent.

Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

In my opinion this Administration was right to bring him home (the manner in which it was done is another matter entirely), but it is also right that he is held accountable for his actions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

I would like to be generous and say that this Administration heeded the 'no man left behind" when political expediency may have left him in the Taliban's hands to prevent a dangerous precedent being set. Until he is actually convicted of desertion it is still an accusation.

Gonna agree with Dreadclaw69 on this one.

If he elects to be judged by his peers they would be hard press to find non partial jurors (if/when it goes to Court Martial)

Well deserved, his actions are said to have got mern killed looking for him, he needs to answer for what he did be it simple dishonorable discharge or life in jail.

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

 Jihadin wrote:
If he elects to be judged by his peers they would be hard press to find non partial jurors (if/when it goes to Court Martial)

Best to throw himself to the mercy of the judge, who will probably see his imprisonment at time served, then promptly deny his back pay during said time served as punishment for deserting and getting another dude shot to death. (as one of you said in the other thread)

*bangs gabble*

Next!

Is a gabble a talkative gavel?

Shut up, you!

Er, a gabble is a flock of gavels.

I like the Roman Legion punishments for falling asleep on post or deserting your post.

They'd drag you back in chains and kill you in front of your unit, because the unit is the one that you wounded. By neglecting your post you put every single one of their lives at risk. Even back then, long before one loan jihadi with a vest of highex could sneak onto a FOB or PB and cause some serious damage.

Add in the men who died trying to "rescue" him?

They won't do it, but if there's a man who's worth a hanging by the neck this is him.

If he's actually convicted, wouldn't that ding Obama?

Anyhoo... could he skate by these charges by claiming mental issues? He was held captive, after all.

 whembly wrote:
If he's actually convicted, wouldn't that ding Obama?

Anyhoo... could he skate by these charges by claiming mental issues? He was held captive, after all.

It already dinged Obama being the US Army has to slam Bergdahl. There's no compassion or emotions involve in UCMJ. They charged him with two of the highest Articles that can mean life or imprisonment for a good chunk. A NCO was killed due to his action in the search afterwards for him.Maybe Obama would pardon him or something but that's couple years down the road.

I have not followed this case. What is it?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

I would like to be generous and say that this Administration heeded the 'no man left behind" when political expediency may have left him in the Taliban's hands to prevent a dangerous precedent being set. Until he is actually convicted of desertion it is still an accusation.

Exactly. Even he is an donkey-cave, he is an American donkey-cave and he is our donkey-cave to deal with and not the Talibans.

Besides, it's a no-win situation because if he would have been featured in the latest episode of "fundamentalist extremists behead US serviceman" video there would have been cries of "sure he was a deserter, but he was American and we should have saved him!"

 kronk wrote:
Shut up, you!

Er, a gabble is a flock of gavels.

Thanks... I have now mentally combined this with your profile pic and have an image of Judge kronk banging out a epic drum solo with a gavel in each hand as he hands down a sentence.

I'm not upset with this decision. Give him his day in court.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ooooh, pretty new flag.

He serve with Honor and Distinction

His excuse for desertion is a beaut:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html

I'm sure it's a comfort to the families of soldiers put in jeopardy
or killed looking for him.

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

This is how I see it. Bergdahl has to answer to the US for his actions and will be judged, punished, or acquitted by the US, and that can't happen if the enemy holds him, and there's no reason to give the enemy the satisfaction in the first place.

It also doesn't hurt for soldiers to know that "hey, if *that* guy is gonna get rescued, I will to if something bad happens".

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

This is how I see it. Bergdahl has to answer to the US for his actions and will be judged, punished, or acquitted by the US, and that can't happen if the enemy holds him, and there's no reason to give the enemy the satisfaction in the first place.

It also doesn't hurt for soldiers to know that "hey, if *that* guy is gonna get rescued, I will to if something bad happens".

UCMJ is the process. Not a regular trial through the Justice System

So... Let me get this straight. They get a guy out of Taliban prison (for a high cost) only to lock him up in the US?

Also, how does one desert in the middle of Afghanistan? Where was he planning to go?

 Iron_Captain wrote:
So... Let me get this straight. They get a guy out of Taliban prison (for a high cost) only to lock him up in the US?

Also, how does one desert in the middle of Afghanistan? Where was he planning to go?

The xzibit yo dawg meme comes to mind.

"Yo dawg, we heard you like your desert so we put a deserter in your desert so he can desert with our dessert."

I don't buy the whole "leaving to go to another base" thing. He was counting on his survival skills? Then wtf did he not bring his weapons?!?!

Idaho, or Afghanistan, I ain't going out into the wild without a weapon. Dude was looking for what he got. Unless you are absolutely flying rodent gak crazy, the only reason you'd walk off into the wild in Afghanistan like that, unarmed, would be to meet up with them folks.

Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

 Jihadin wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

This is how I see it. Bergdahl has to answer to the US for his actions and will be judged, punished, or acquitted by the US, and that can't happen if the enemy holds him, and there's no reason to give the enemy the satisfaction in the first place.

It also doesn't hurt for soldiers to know that "hey, if *that* guy is gonna get rescued, I will to if something bad happens".

UCMJ is the process. Not a regular trial through the Justice System

Right, but it will be *a* US justice system, we're not letting the enemy have him if he's done something he needs to answer to us for first.

 djones520 wrote:
I don't buy the whole "leaving to go to another base" thing. He was counting on his survival skills? Then wtf did he not bring his weapons?!?!

Idaho, or Afghanistan, I ain't going out into the wild without a weapon. Dude was looking for what he got. Unless you are absolutely flying rodent gak crazy, the only reason you'd walk off into the wild in Afghanistan like that, unarmed, would be to meet up with them folks.

Never underestimate the power of people to do something stupid, just because.

People do stupid things without a plan every day.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

I seriously doubt the planned to get caught.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

I seriously doubt the planned to get caught.

That doesn't matter. It's effin Afghanistan. You don't go out without a weapon. Period.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Kind of wondering either way why he didn't bring a weapon - if he intended to hand his gear over to the enemy anyway, why not provide them with a rifle?

I seriously doubt the planned to get caught.

Caught, or defect?

Either way, he was "caught" by some very bad people who cut heads off for fun. Something kept his lily white ass alive, and I doubt it's his charming demeanor.

Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

Thing is, we didn't leave him behind. He made his own decision and left the base on his own two feet.

Yea, I can see trying to get him back but not at the cost of lives of other servicemen.

 Breotan wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Alex C wrote:
Why are they using the "no man left behind" BS excuse for bringing him back if he was a deserter? Didn't he choose to not be part of the military any more when he deserted his fething post?

Because "no man left behind" isn't BS. Even if he committed a crime, he is still ours to deal with, and it is our responsibility to determine whether or not he is guilty - not our enemy's.

Thing is, we didn't leave him behind. He made his own decision and left the base on his own two feet.

Yea, I can see trying to get him back but not at the cost of lives of other servicemen.

Did they know for certain that he left on his own when they started searching for him? Even if they did, his horrible decision making doesn't absolve us of our responsibility not to leave him behind.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him. You know what is wrong? Deserting and costing a fellow serviceman his life because your sorry ass deserted like a cowardly gak.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him. You know what is wrong? Deserting and costing a fellow serviceman his life because your sorry ass deserted like a cowardly gak.

I agree, what he did is wrong. It is still wrong to assume that he is a terrorist. He may be, I don't know, but you are accusing someone of being a terrorist with absolutely no evidence. If you don't see the problem with that, then there is something seriously wrong here.

You said "in league with the terrorists." They kept him alive and well fed when they've made it clear they are very comfortable killing Americans.

If you think he wasn't "in league" with them somehow, then I think that's a little naive.

Are you kidding me! He was a prisoner. If he was in league with them, why wasn't he fighting along side them?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Yeah, the guy is obviously and idiot, but insinuating that he was in league with the terrorists is a stretch, not to mention something you shouldn't do.

Um. Why? The Taliban and ISIS have made it very clear they have no problem killing Americans. They kept him alive despite (a now shattered) stance that we don't negotiate with terrorists.

He should spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

Because it's wrong, that's why. You have no evidence, and your reasoning is flimsy and best. And the "don't negotiate with terrorists" thing was proved false long ago.

What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him. You know what is wrong? Deserting and costing a fellow serviceman his life because your sorry ass deserted like a cowardly gak.

The search was a pretty big operation and made it easy for the Taliban to enact ambushes and use IEDs since they knew patrols were out looking. PFC Matthew Michael Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Robert Curtiss, SSG Clayton Bowen, PFC Morris Walker, SSG Michael Murphrey, 2LT Darryn Andrews, were all KIA while searching for Bergdahl.

Didn't we establish many threads ago that these "rescue missions" were almost all just regular missions with an "by the way, remember to keep an eye out for him" added to the mix?

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't we establish many threads ago that these "rescue missions" were almost all just regular missions with an "by the way, remember to keep an eye out for him" added to the mix?

I doubt it.

Other ops lost assets (especially ISR, but also air and other support) to cover the search and search teams. Pretty much all ISR assets in country got re-tasked for this. Those ops were harder to conduct. Other ops got put on hold or canceled to facilitate the search. That resulted in more bad guys not capped by the good guys who were unable to conduct these ops. The extra time those bad guys had on the battlefield means more IEDs emplaced and more ambushes conducted.

That is really just the tip of the ice berg when it comes to determining the real impact this desertion had. For example, I would be willing to bet ROE changes and various risk mitigation factors were implemented as a result of his 'capture' that had an effect on ops as well.

As for 'Why' we searched for a guy that even at the time some folks believed deserted, there are reasons. Initially, there may have been even a little doubt, and you always try to get your guy back. Finding his desecrated corpse and knowing his family is watching his beheading on YouTube is pretty bad for morale.

Reporting a guy missing prompts certain actions, and again, the first thing is to try and get the trooper back, regardless of why/how he went missing. (They don't get to choose to just walk away.)

Then there are other considerations. Even as a low ranking guy, he knows things that can help the bad guys tactically. From the layout of his COP, exact numbers of troops, weapons types and their locations/fields of fire, unit SOPs, at least some knowledge of their mission, when the unit is rotating out and so on. He is also potentially a damned fine propaganda tool if he really does join up with the bad guys.

Lots of reasons.

And, I suspect (but do not know) that official reporting probably had him as missing, and even if that was caveated with 'may have deserted', again, it causes certain things to take place.

There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

I guess in my opinion it doesn't matter.

 CptJake wrote:

I guess in my opinion it doesn't matter.

Legally and morally it should though.

IIRC trying the insanity defense doesn't work most of the time. And even when it does it means you'll be locked up in an institution, usually for a longer time than the prison you tried to avoid.

In any case he has to stand trial - there's no doubt he left his post even if the reason is unclear.

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't we establish many threads ago that these "rescue missions" were almost all just regular missions with an "by the way, remember to keep an eye out for him" added to the mix?

Yes, more than once, but I think we've also quite clearly established that if you repeat a lie enough, eventually everyone believes it, anyway.

 cincydooley wrote:
What makes the assumption wrong? He was a POS deserter kept alive by terrorists that like killing Americans. I'm not uncomfortable about any judgement made about him.

In this country, we assume that people are innocent until they are convicted. At the time he disappeared, he hadn't even been charged, let along convicted, of anything.

Unless you think it's wise that we establish a precedent that we don't try to get back servicemen if maybe they weren't such good soldiers? That seems hard to quantify, but hey, whatever you're into. I'd prefer we make every effort to return the men and women who serve home, even if that home is eventually a brig, because it's an American brig.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

And this has been supported by a diagnosis from a certified mental health professional? It is my understanding that it is difficult to make a proper diagnosis across the internet. Even more so if the diagnosis is being done without the patient being interviewed.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It is my understanding that it is difficult to make a proper diagnosis across the internet.

Impossible, not just difficult. Perhaps this is why I didn't offer a diagnosis?

I am not suggesting that there is an insanity plea, if such a thing even exists in court marshals, but there would most probably be mitigating factors.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Impossible, not just difficult. Perhaps this is why I didn't offer a diagnosis?

Then why would you say;

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

No one in a sane frame of mind would go offbase on their own unless they are mentally unbalanced.

You don't have access to the patient, or anything concerning his medical or mental health history, yet you feel that you can proclaim that "[t]here is a definite mental health issue here". Absent actual evidence to support your claim this is nothing more than speculation masquerading as a fact.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Then why would you say;

That's not a diagnosis.

No one in their right mind would do what he apparently did so the most obvious possibility is that he wasn't in his right mind. Anyone who has been to Afghan would know just how stupid leaving the wire by yourself would be.

 Ouze wrote:


In this country, we assume that people are innocent until they are convicted. At the time he disappeared, he hadn't even been charged, let along convicted, of anything.

Unless you think it's wise that we establish a precedent that we don't try to get back servicemen if maybe they weren't such good soldiers? That seems hard to quantify, but hey, whatever you're into. I'd prefer we make every effort to return the men and women who serve home, even if that home is eventually a brig, because it's an American brig.

I'm not saying any of that. I agree with your last point, and fully. We should bring him home. And put him in an American prison for the rest of his life, or execute him if it's warranted (I don't think it is with the facts we know in this instance).

My greater point is that I do believe he was "in league," as it was put, with the terrorists with whom he was 'imprisoned' by. Does that mean giving them information? Probably. He was kept alive and healthy for a reason, and I have trouble believing it was with the assumption by the terrorists that they'd get people back in trade.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

That's not a diagnosis.

No one in their right mind would do what he apparently did so the most obvious possibility is that he wasn't in his right mind. Anyone who has been to Afghan would know just how stupid leaving the wire by yourself would be.

You proclaimed that he had a mental health issue. Clearly you must have some idea as to which one he was suffering from, so which one did you believe he was afflicted by?

And you have had sufficient interaction with him to state that he "wasn't in his right mind"?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:


No one in their right mind would do what he apparently did so the most obvious possibility is that he wasn't in his right mind. Anyone who has been to Afghan would know just how stupid leaving the wire by yourself would be.

Unless he planned on terrorist finding and making contact with him?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

I guess in my opinion it doesn't matter.

Legally and morally it should though.

Legally?Really? Even if he did have mental issues,he knew what he was doing and knew right from wrong. It may be used as a mitigating factor in sentencing, but should have zero baring on is he guilty of desertion. The legal elements of desertion don't mention a damned thing about mental condition.

As for morally, I again disagree. I can't see how his mental condition has any moral connection to his guilt or innocence. Again,it may be a mitigating factor for sentencing.

 CptJake wrote:
it may be a mitigating factor for sentencing.

Which is what I already said.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Clearly you must have some idea as to which one he was suffering from, so which one did you believe he was afflicted by?

Why clearly? I already stated that I wasn't even attempting to make a diagnosis.

I can see that Off Topic never changes.

Innocent until proven guilty. Let's not forget that fundamental principal.

Personally, I think he's as guilty as hell and deserves his punishment, but that's for a court of law to decide.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Why clearly? I already stated that I wasn't even attempting to make a diagnosis.

If you were not attempting to make a diagnosis then how can you claim, as you initially did;

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
There is a definite mental health issue here.

For you to claim that there is a "definite mental health issue" surely you must have some basis to suspect that the behaviours exhibited corresponded with a mental health disorder. You did not speculate as to whether there was a mental health component, you instead stated as a fact that there was. So which disorder do you believe Bergdahl to have been suffering from? What lead you to make the diagnosis that Bergdahl was suffering from a mental health issue?

 Ouze wrote:
In this country, we assume that people are innocent until they are convicted. At the time he disappeared, he hadn't even been charged, let along convicted, of anything.

A presumption of innocence is required of the courts, not people posting on Dakka.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
I can see that Off Topic never changes.

In the space of less than two months since this account was active how much did you believe the forum was going to change?

It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

 CptJake wrote:
It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

If people from this forum get their way, they'll be discharging him from a cannon!

Not criticising you, CptJake, but there seems to be a whiff of the kangaroo court on this forum.

Look, I'm just saying there's still a place for a noose in this world. I'm not saying Bergdahl should be collocated with that place briefly. That's for a court to decide.

 Breotan wrote:
The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

I very seriously doubt he gets 5 years. I would be surprised at 2.

We'll see though.

 CptJake wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

I very seriously doubt he gets 5 years. I would be surprised at 2.

We'll see though.

I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

If people from this forum get their way, they'll be discharging him from a cannon!

Not criticising you, CptJake, but there seems to be a whiff of the kangaroo court on this forum.

Well, unlike a lot of cases we do know certain facts going in.

He left his post, in a combat zone. That is not at question. What we don't know for sure is his intent (one of the elements in a desertion charge), though there have been some indicators published which are pretty damning. Best case for him is no one can prove intent to desert, but then you are still left with AWOL (instead of desertion) with the special circumstances of going AWOL in a combat zone (which is going to nail shut the 'with intent to avoid hazardous duty' portion.

If stating these things comes across as 'kangaroo court' I'm sorry. I know a bit about how the system works and is supposed to work and I'm pretty darned confident I'm accurate here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

There is little to NO chance of that happening. In fact, the political pressure has been the exact opposite, to avoid an article 32 hearing and a court martial. Remember, the administration hailed his service as honorable and with distinction while knowing there was a darned good chance it was not.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

If people from this forum get their way, they'll be discharging him from a cannon!

Not criticising you, CptJake, but there seems to be a whiff of the kangaroo court on this forum.

Well, unlike a lot of cases we do know certain facts going in.

He left his post, in a combat zone. That is not at question. What we don't know for sure is his intent (one of the elements in a desertion charge), though there have been some indicators published which are pretty damning. Best case for him is no one can prove intent to desert, but then you are still left with AWOL (instead of desertion) with the special circumstances of going AWOL in a combat zone (which is going to nail shut the 'with intent to avoid hazardous duty' portion.

If stating these things comes across as 'kangaroo court' I'm sorry. I know a bit about how the system works and is supposed to work and I'm pretty darned confident I'm accurate here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

There is little to NO chance of that happening. In fact, the political pressure has been the exact opposite, to avoid an article 32 hearing and a court martial. Remember, the administration hailed his service as honorable and with distinction while knowing there was a darned good chance it was not.

I think we're re-treading old ground here, but he could plead mental health issues for the reason why he walked. Hard to prove one way or another.

As for the political point, he made the White House look like idiots - they may want some payback.

Stating he left, but because he had mental health issues is nothing but admitting to guilt, and hoping the mental issue mitigates during sentencing. This isn't something 'I didn't mean to, I was crazy' can be used to get a not guilty verdict. The ONLY factor in desertion or AWOL is intent to be gone for good, or intent to return. That is all the judge or panel is going to care about when figuring out guilt/innocence on that charge.

As for the political part, you are very much misreading the administration if you think they would now pressure the DoD to have a harsh sentence. That isn't going to happen.

This guy will not go before a civilian court, so pleading "mental health issues" is not going to see him walk free. That's not how the UCMJ or a Court Martial works.

The only thing the "not guilty because I was insane" defense attempts to do is prove that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong, that your mental state was so off-center that you did not know the difference between right and wrong, and so murder, cannibalism, whatever was, to your warped view of reality, a perfectly optional, viable course of action. It is a very, very, very difficult defense to mount, because there's a lot of crazy people in the world who still know that doing this or that is wrong.

Him being stressed, afraid, suffering from PTSD, etc. is not actually a mitigating factor in this case, because none of these aspects indicate that he did not know desertion was wrong. That's just not how the system works.

Yes, this guy will need to stand trial. Leaving him behind "because he deserted and feth that guy anyway" is a terrible precedent to set because, as others have mentioned, such actions have a far higher chance of blowing up in our collective faces than they do as being some kind of farcical "karmic justice".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

I very seriously doubt he gets 5 years. I would be surprised at 2.

We'll see though.

I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

CptJake has it right. After the Rose Garden and the illegal way his release was obtained in the first place, the last thing Obama wants is to have the man get busted for desertion. I won't be surprised to see his unit get dragged through the mud in a defense effort to get him off.

That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

The only people in this thread who I've seen suggest that Obama would press for a tough sentence are not Americans.

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

No there is not a 'winning strategy' for the President, nor should there be. He should (and very likely will at this point) stay the feth out of it. It should not be a political issue at this point (though that will be a factor in if the Army accepts/offers a plea deal and what the conditions of that deal are). If it does get to a panel they are going to look at the facts of the case and I doubt politics will play at all at that point.

An unrelated story shows how unfortunately, politics and political correctness can enter the DoD justice system.

http://www.militarytimes.com/longform/military/2015/03/04/task-force-violent-the-unforgiven/23940295/

Poor fethers got hung out to dry, and even though they were eventually exonerated they suffered for it big time.

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

That's what I am hoping that he will do. Otherwise, as Commander In Chief, there is the risk of command influence.

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

If he gets convicted, it will be in spite of Obama's string pulling to get him exonerated. I do like your suggestion for him, though.

The President is the CinC of the US Armed Forces, he is part and parcel of the process, whether he wants to be or not.

 Psienesis wrote:
The President is the CinC of the US Armed Forces, he is part and parcel of the process, whether he wants to be or not.

No one is disputing that. What I, and I'm sure others as well, would like to see is the Court Martial not be burdened by any statement made by the POTUS which may undermine its ability to act impartiality.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The President is the CinC of the US Armed Forces, he is part and parcel of the process, whether he wants to be or not.

No one is disputing that. What I, and I'm sure others as well, would like to see is the Court Martial not be burdened by any statement made by the POTUS which may undermine its ability to act impartiality.

I'll dispute it, and I'll be correct too.

POTUS is the Commander in Chief. However, he plays ZERO role in any UCMJ proceeding. Any role he tried to insert himself into would be undue command influence. He is never a convening authority for a court martial nor can he initiate an article 32 hearing. He can not pass out non-judicial punishment under Article 15.

So no, he is not 'part and parcel of the process' in any way, unless you want to consider his pardoning ability, and it is not tied to his role as Commander in Chief.

His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

Now, re-reading my post above I was wrong on a point. POTUS can be a convening authority, but it is rare and would generally take place when a high ranking GO really screwed the pooch. He is NOT the convening authority for this case.

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically, could Obama intervene with an executive order (not saying he will), or is that 100% illegal for the president?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically, could Obama intervene with an executive order (not saying he will), or is that 100% illegal for the president?

I do not think so. I mean, what order could he issue? An order to contravene the Title 10 laws governing the UCMJ for this particular case? I guess in theory it could happen, but Executive Orders are tied to statutory authority of the Pres, and in this case he does not have it. Even though POTUS is the CinC, it is the Congress that has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ", and that includes the power/authority to create/update the UCMJ. In theory, an Executive Order written to change how the UCMJ was to be carried out, especially in a particular case, could be challenged.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but can the president pardon him? And if he can do you think he will?

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically, could Obama intervene with an executive order (not saying he will), or is that 100% illegal for the president?

I do not think so. I mean, what order could he issue? An order to contravene the Title 10 laws governing the UCMJ for this particular case? I guess in theory it could happen, but Executive Orders are tied to statutory authority of the Pres, and in this case he does not have it. Even though POTUS is the CinC, it is the Congress that has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ", and that includes the power/authority to create/update the UCMJ. In theory, an Executive Order written to change how the UCMJ was to be carried out, especially in a particular case, could be challenged.

That's real freaking dicey. Obama not going to (hope not) tell the US Army to not go through UCMJ process on Bergdahl. That would totally unhinge UCMJ in the Armed Services. The only thing Obama can more likely do is pardon him (Bergdahl) at the end of his term. If everyone worried about Bergdahl care after his ETS (if he doesn't do jail time) would depend on the Veterans Affair. If he does do jail time then he would continue to see medical care.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but can the president pardon him? And if he can do you think he will?

Yes, POTUS can pardon him.

No, I don't think he will, for a couple of reasons.

1. I don't think he is going to be convicted, I still think he pleas out and avoids the court martial. No conviction = nothing to pardon.

2. Even if it goes to a court martial and he is convicted, I suspect he won't get much time, and I think once convicted the story dies and there is no motivation to bring it back up, which a pardon would do.

I guess if convicted, Pres Obama could include Bergdahl in the group of pardons most presidents sign right before they leave office, but I don't see it happening.

Now, assuming I'm wrong on the plea, and on a light sentence if convicted, there could be an appeal. If there is, this could drag out longer than Pres Obama has left in office, so again, it would lessen likelihood of a pardon.

Thinking a couple years jail time, Less than Honorable Discharge coded in a way to make VA decision to care for him easier, Disability pay, and Reduction in Rank

I do not think he will receive that 300K plus PoW pay being he, of his own accord, searched out Taliban (Haqquni)

I suspect the promotion goes away too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Article laying out probable defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/bowe-bergdahl-defense-disputed-by-platoon/index.html

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect the promotion goes away too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Article laying out probable defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/bowe-bergdahl-defense-disputed-by-platoon/index.html

So the defense is, he was going to report his concerns about his platoon. And the best way that he had decided to do this was not to wait until the next day when their rotation would have returned them to the FOB. Instead he was going to walk along a route known for IEDs, without permission or informing his superiors, and he was doing so without his rifle and gear. Seems legit.....

 CptJake wrote:
Now, re-reading my post above I was wrong on a point. POTUS can be a convening authority, but it is rare and would generally take place when a high ranking GO really screwed the pooch.

Has that ever happened, to your knowledge? I've never heard of that but I don't know very much about military law.

 Ouze wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Now, re-reading my post above I was wrong on a point. POTUS can be a convening authority, but it is rare and would generally take place when a high ranking GO really screwed the pooch.

Has that ever happened, to your knowledge? I've never heard of that but I don't know very much about military law.

I don't have time to do a search right now, but no, I can't think of any cases where it has happened. There are so many layers of command with convening authority that I don't see it ever happening.

I can't find anything but the civil war, perhaps, would be my guess. Just curious really.

Talking POTUS intervening in Court Martial proceeding? Never heard of anything like that. Closest thing I heard is the GO officer dropping all charges for lack "evidence" on a Field Grade (Questionable as all Hell). There's a press for Congress to remove "Command Authority" or something from Proceeding's

The only reason I could think of for the President to act as the convening authority on a court martial would be to charge a General Officer directly below him on the chain of command, or maybe a General Officer below that if the General in between was unable or unwilling to be the convening authority for whatever reason.

 Hordini wrote:
The only reason I could think of for the President to act as the convening authority on a court martial would be to charge a General Officer directly below him on the chain of command, or maybe a General Officer below that if the General in between was unable or unwilling to be the convening authority for whatever reason.

Which means the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or one of the service chiefs.

Ain't gonna happen for an E5.

Talk about "Micro Management" if he did LOL

 CptJake wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The only reason I could think of for the President to act as the convening authority on a court martial would be to charge a General Officer directly below him on the chain of command, or maybe a General Officer below that if the General in between was unable or unwilling to be the convening authority for whatever reason.

Which means the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs or one of the service chiefs.

Ain't gonna happen for an E5.

Yeah, exactly!