Relapse wrote: From what I've read, a judge ruled that at least a couple soldiers were seriously wounded because they were out on missions looking for him.
Should definitely have abandoned an American to torture by the Taliban despite the fact the details of his case were unclear at the time.
TBH kind of surprised he was convicted at all with all that undue command influence people used to be so concerned with.
Relapse wrote: From what I've read, a judge ruled that at least a couple soldiers were seriously wounded because they were out on missions looking for him.
OK.. I might have to revise the death penalty percentage.
He broke a bond of trust. A oath and got people wounded for life.
Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
Relapse wrote: From what I've read, a judge ruled that at least a couple soldiers were seriously wounded because they were out on missions looking for him.
Should definitely have abandoned an American to torture by the Taliban despite the fact the details of his case were unclear at the time.
TBH kind of surprised he was convicted at all with all that undue command influence people used to be so concerned with.
Since the details are now clear that he deserted and people looking for him got wounded, I'm pretty sure that will play into the sentencing.
Relapse wrote: From what I've read, a judge ruled that at least a couple soldiers were seriously wounded because they were out on missions looking for him.
OK.. I might have to revise the death penalty percentage.
He broke a bond of trust. A oath and got people wounded for life.
him and thousands of others, Wassef Hassoun deserted twice and only got 2 years.
feeder wrote: I thought the death penalty only applied in war time?
America has been at war since before it was born. I know people like to play word games with what is a "war" but all that stuff in the middle east, it's a war.
feeder wrote: I thought the death penalty only applied in war time?
America has been at war since before it was born. I know people like to play word games with what is a "war" but all that stuff in the middle east, it's a war.
War on terror... Technically there at war with NK still.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
I really hope you are not trying to play off the lives of the SOF guys that deliberately went looking for him? I mean I've read some remarkably horrible things from you but I hope I am misunderstanding you here. There were also many sent to the search, thinnign already undermanned units which has been shown to have directly contributed to other deaths in other attacks. No mercy for him. He should get life in federal pound you in the ass prison surrounded by other Soldiers who would place him at the bottom of the barrel.
Staff Sergeant Clayton Bowen, 29, of San Antonio, Texas, and Private 1st Class Morris Walker, 23, of Chapel Hill, N.C., were killed by a roadside bomb in Paktika province on Aug. 18, 2009, while trying to find Bergdahl. Like Bergdahl, they were part of the 4th BCT from Fort Richardson, Alaska.
feeder wrote: I thought the death penalty only applied in war time?
America has been at war since before it was born. I know people like to play word games with what is a "war" but all that stuff in the middle east, it's a war.
War on terror... Technically there at war with NK still.
If you wanna play word games.
The ones who play word games are the ones who would tell you we we're never at war with NK because congress never declared war on them. They'll tell you we haven't been at war since WWII. It really was the war to end all wars it seems.
But it seems we would agree that we did have a war with NK.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
I really hope you are not trying to play off the lives of the SOF guys that deliberately went looking for him? I mean I've read some remarkably horrible things from you but I hope I am misunderstanding you here.
Read my remarks however you want. I'm not rehashing the old thread.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
These two were wounded on missions specifically organized to search for Bergdahl.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
These two were wounded on missions specifically organized to search for Bergdahl.
Im pretty sure D-usa can not fathom what he did that is so bad and why many of us who served find it so repulsive and worth of capital punishment in accordance with the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. I am not sure what the old thread remarks hes referring to but I would bet he would be ok with just sending him home to momma and saying no harm no foul.
Okay... Jen Lawrence gif... that's an exalt no matter what.
However, this is strictly a UCMJ proceeding... which is quite different than regular judicial process.
He had his trial.
Two things I thought was interesting:
1) like Ouze, I'm surprised how this ended due to Obama's and Trump's statements.
2) why the hell didn't he want a jury???
whembly wrote: Okay... Jen Lawrence gif... that's an exalt no matter what.
However, this is strictly a UCMJ proceeding... which is quite different than regular judicial process.
He had his trial.
Two things I thought was interesting:
1) like Ouze, I'm surprised how this ended due to Obama's and Trump's statements.
2) why the hell didn't he want a jury???
It is assumed it's because he couldn't get a fair trial. A form of no-contest where the only option is to plead guilty.
whembly wrote: Okay... Jen Lawrence gif... that's an exalt no matter what.
However, this is strictly a UCMJ proceeding... which is quite different than regular judicial process.
He had his trial.
Two things I thought was interesting:
1) like Ouze, I'm surprised how this ended due to Obama's and Trump's statements.
2) why the hell didn't he want a jury???
You never want a jury trial in a court martial, All those chiefs sitting there are pissed because they're there and because you're on trial and it's made it to a court martial they already think you're guilty.
It's slightly better if you can get a jury of junior officers.
At a court martial, I wouldn’t put my faith in a sole holdout. I would consider it guaranteed that 12 jurors or 1 judge, everyone is going to find me guilty. But a rational judge will most likely be better for sentencing than 12 angry peers.
d-usa wrote: At a court martial, I wouldn’t put my faith in a sole holdout. I would consider it guaranteed that 12 jurors or 1 judge, everyone is going to find me guilty. But a rational judge will most likely be better for sentencing than 12 angry peers.
from his POV that would stand to reason. Im pretty sure he'll get half the max so north of 50 years
whembly wrote: Okay... Jen Lawrence gif... that's an exalt no matter what.
However, this is strictly a UCMJ proceeding... which is quite different than regular judicial process.
He had his trial.
Two things I thought was interesting:
1) like Ouze, I'm surprised how this ended due to Obama's and Trump's statements.
2) why the hell didn't he want a jury???
Cause he's pretty universally hated across all of the services.
whembly wrote: Okay... Jen Lawrence gif... that's an exalt no matter what.
However, this is strictly a UCMJ proceeding... which is quite different than regular judicial process.
He had his trial.
Two things I thought was interesting:
1) like Ouze, I'm surprised how this ended due to Obama's and Trump's statements.
2) why the hell didn't he want a jury???
Cause he's pretty universally hated across all of the services.
So the question is of they send him to the US Military jail or the regular US jail system.
Obama released a single military prisoner, if I recall correctly. And if the prison would have acted more professional, that probably wouldn’t have happened either.
d-usa wrote: Obama released a single military prisoner, if I recall correctly. And if the prison would have acted more professional, that probably wouldn’t have happened either.
Huh?
They released like 5 from gitmo for Bergdahl.
My issue isn't strictly that... as, I believe we shouldn't leave anyone behind. It's the whole spin that came out after his release.
I read about this when it happened and decided not to share it as every article there were people who couldn't keep from wagging their political genitals about and I didn't want that to happen here...but here we are anyway.
Ahtman wrote: I read about this when it happened and decided not to share it as every article there were people who couldn't keep from wagging their political genitals about and I didn't want that to happen here...but here we are anyway.
I went to google to look for something along the lines of "monocle popping out in surprise" but that doesn't give dakka friendly search results...
If Obama (or Hilary) were still in office, I think he'd have a decent shot, as his prisoner release was a big deal for the Obama administration.
But with Trump in office? I'm sure he'll do everything in his power to throw the book at bergdahl just to spite Obama.
I'm sure trump has got people looking into a firing squad - it's legal in Oklahoma according to Wikipedia!
But yeah, bergdahl is ultraboned.
So trump is the judge of the case?
When did coercing judges become legal?
If trump tries any of his usual insanity that should be a easy win for Bergdahl. by win I mean mistrial or some sort of technicality that let's him go free. Bonus points for the judge to hold trump in contempt and have him tossed in jail, preferably with a gag order. Bergdahl should have asked for a jury, trumps nonsense could easily be seen as jury tampering.
If Obama (or Hilary) were still in office, I think he'd have a decent shot, as his prisoner release was a big deal for the Obama administration.
But with Trump in office? I'm sure he'll do everything in his power to throw the book at bergdahl just to spite Obama.
I'm sure trump has got people looking into a firing squad - it's legal in Oklahoma according to Wikipedia!
But yeah, bergdahl is ultraboned.
So trump is the judge of the case?
When did coercing judges become legal?
If trump tries any of his usual insanity that should be a easy win for Bergdahl. by win I mean mistrial or some sort of technicality that let's him go free. Bonus points for the judge to hold trump in contempt and have him tossed in jail, preferably with a gag order. Bergdahl should have asked for a jury, trumps nonsense could easily be seen as jury tampering.
Yes. But even if trial collapsed, they might move for retrial sans jury and still jail him after. Even if his charges and jail less. I doubt they let him go.
Ahtman wrote: I read about this when it happened and decided not to share it as every article there were people who couldn't keep from wagging their political genitals about and I didn't want that to happen here...but here we are anyway.
Done in the first sentence of the first post, which even by Dakka standards is impressive.
Ahtman wrote: I read about this when it happened and decided not to share it as every article there were people who couldn't keep from wagging their political genitals about and I didn't want that to happen here...but here we are anyway.
Done in the first sentence of the first post, which even by Dakka standards is impressive.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
These two were wounded on missions specifically organized to search for Bergdahl.
I understand what desertion is, and he's looking at up to five years for that.
But "misbehavior in front of the enemy" with possible lifetime? This sounds like something you could charge anyone with for anything - even that guy who turned up to his emergency post in pink underpants (fully loaded with vest, helmet and rifle) when his base was attacked. He's shown the enemy he doesn't use regulation underpants!
Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 69.)
Doesn't quite fit the bill D.
These are the official charges delivered.
CHARGE I: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 85
SPECIFICATION: In that Sergeant Robert (Bowe) Bowdrie Bergdahl, United States Army, did, on or about 30 June 2009, with the intent to shirk important service and avoid hazardous duty, namely: combat operations in Afghanistan; and guard duty at Observation Post Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan; and combat patrol duties in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, quit his place of duty, to wit: Observation Post Mest, located in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, and did remain so absent in desertion until on or about 31 May 2014.
CHARGE II: VIOLATION OF THE UCMJ, ARTICLE 99
SPECIFICATION: In that Sergeant Robert (Bowe) Bowdrie Bergdahl, United States Army, did, at or near Observation Post Mest, Paktika Province, Afghanistan, on or about 30 June 2009, before the enemy, endanger the safety of Observation Post Mest and Task Force Yukon, which it was his duty to defend, by intentional misconduct in that he left Observation Post Mest alone; and left without authority; and wrongfully caused search and recovery operations.
If Obama (or Hilary) were still in office, I think he'd have a decent shot, as his prisoner release was a big deal for the Obama administration.
But with Trump in office? I'm sure he'll do everything in his power to throw the book at bergdahl just to spite Obama.
I'm sure trump has got people looking into a firing squad - it's legal in Oklahoma according to Wikipedia!
But yeah, bergdahl is ultraboned.
So trump is the judge of the case?
When did coercing judges become legal?
If trump tries any of his usual insanity that should be a easy win for Bergdahl. by win I mean mistrial or some sort of technicality that let's him go free. Bonus points for the judge to hold trump in contempt and have him tossed in jail, preferably with a gag order. Bergdahl should have asked for a jury, trumps nonsense could easily be seen as jury tampering.
I'm not saying that the T-man is going to be judge, jury, and executioner, but it's probably fair to assume that given his position, he will have some influence on how things turn out.
If Obama (or Hilary) were still in office, I think he'd have a decent shot, as his prisoner release was a big deal for the Obama administration.
But with Trump in office? I'm sure he'll do everything in his power to throw the book at bergdahl just to spite Obama.
I'm sure trump has got people looking into a firing squad - it's legal in Oklahoma according to Wikipedia!
But yeah, bergdahl is ultraboned.
So trump is the judge of the case?
When did coercing judges become legal?
If trump tries any of his usual insanity that should be a easy win for Bergdahl. by win I mean mistrial or some sort of technicality that let's him go free. Bonus points for the judge to hold trump in contempt and have him tossed in jail, preferably with a gag order. Bergdahl should have asked for a jury, trumps nonsense could easily be seen as jury tampering.
I'm not saying that the T-man is going to be judge, jury, and executioner, but it's probably fair to assume that given his position, he will have some influence on how things turn out.
Which is incredibly illegal in our system, and can get his conviction thrown out in a heartbeat if it's found that Trump did attempt to exert influence.
Which is incredibly illegal in our system, and can get his conviction thrown out in a heartbeat IF it's found that Trump did attempt to exert influence .
That's one hell of an 'IF'. I'm not much for conspiracy theories, but I think it's incredibly naïve to think that the president, any president, can't (or won't) pull some strings to make a political example of someone, especially if it A) makes his predecessor look bad and B) Makes him look good to his supporters. And throwing the book at bergdahl is a slam-dunk in both categories for trump.
The military is probably the one area of government most likely to withstand political posturing, and I would expect Mattis to slap down any attempt by Trump to do so.
d-usa wrote: The military is probably the one area of government most likely to withstand political posturing, and I would expect Mattis to slap down any attempt by Trump to do so.
True. Mattis is one of thr most likely to stand up to trump over a problem. He does not seem one to be one whom is easy to force into acting against his principles.
d-usa wrote: The military is probably the one area of government most likely to withstand political posturing, and I would expect Mattis to slap down any attempt by Trump to do so.
True. Mattis is one of thr most likely to stand up to trump over a problem. He does not seem one to be one whom is easy to force into acting against his principles.
I guess we'll just have to wait and see if there are any "so-called judge" tweets or similar things.
d-usa wrote: The military is probably the one area of government most likely to withstand political posturing, and I would expect Mattis to slap down any attempt by Trump to do so.
Perhaps, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think berghdal is exactly popular in most military circles. I wouldn't expect much support for him from that direction.
Hell, I don't pretend to understand the nuances of exactly how much power and influence the president can wield, and maybe I've seen too much house of cards. But I'm going to be really, REALLY surprised if bergdahl gets off with a minimum sentence.
Well, it’s one thing to consider that a military judge or a jury of military peers who are pissed off at the behavior of a fellow soldier might let their emotions be a factor in making a determination involving manners where they have a range of options. It’s another thing to consider that Trump is going to coerce members of the military to treat a soldier differently because he hates anything that Obama has ever touched, and the military giving up their independence in order to appease Trump. Members of the military overwhelmingly supported Trump, but I don’t know that they would let him use the military to settle political scores.
Last year, I pointed out (not on here) that Trumps comments then about him would likely lead to the possibility of a claim of unlawful command influence.
It looks like Bergdahl may be trying to set that up. He's already been on the record for stating that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial.
Trump has repeatedly expressed his belief that the man was guilty, even going as far as to infer he should have been shot for his desertion.
Granted, all of this was said before Trump was the CinC, so legal grey area, more then likely. I'm not aware of any Trump comments on the matter since he took office, but maybe someone whose really invested in this can find something.
And just to be clear, I’m not addressing command influence. Just addressing the claim about possible clandestine operation between Trump and the military to punish him because Obama.
d-usa wrote: And just to be clear, I’m not addressing command influence. Just addressing the claim about possible clandestine operation between Trump and the military to punish him because Obama.
I'm on board with that being a bs thing. I still have no clue what Ouze was trying to make a point of.
d-usa wrote: And just to be clear, I’m not addressing command influence. Just addressing the claim about possible clandestine operation between Trump and the military to punish him because Obama.
I'm on board with that being a bs thing. I still have no clue what Ouze was trying to make a point of.
Team R complaining about Obama's comments having undue influence on the military judicial process. Those same complaints are not being repeated now that Team R is in the WH.
d-usa wrote: And just to be clear, I’m not addressing command influence. Just addressing the claim about possible clandestine operation between Trump and the military to punish him because Obama.
I'm on board with that being a bs thing. I still have no clue what Ouze was trying to make a point of.
Team R complaining about Obama's comments having undue influence on the military judicial process. Those same complaints are not being repeated now that Team R is in the WH.
That's my understanding of Ouze's point.
As I stated... has there been any?
I also already pointed out my complaint. Can't help that this has been the first time his case has been discussed on Dakka, in ever.
I'd also like to point out that the thread Ouze linked, it was military members who were raising the issue, for the most part. Not republicans, military members, because the topic was a military one. It wasn't a political thing, as I tried to make a point of multiple times in there.
d-usa wrote: Is it possible to be speaking both as a member of the military, as well as a Republican?
Is it possible yes I suppose. Is our core values the real issue with our anger at Bowe Berghdal, absolutely. He did willfully and intentionally break the trust of his fellow Soldiers, whom he was supposed to defend. Any excuse he attempts to give to make that OK will not fly, because if you have been deployed in the Army you realize the amount of BS we deal with on a daily basis is compounding based on the stress of the situation at any given moment, and we don't just leave a guard post and say feth it.
As for undue political influence both Presidents, former and current, have had vocal opinions that I can almost guarantee a judge or jury will not even care about. All involved except the accused are professional and capable of following instructions. As it is now up got he judge I am confident he will weigh the evidence, and come to a logical conclusion. One that will send waves throughout not only his former Brigade and Battalion, but across the Army. Morale will either go up, or down based on this. Daily we watch Soldiers get destroyed for silly gak and to watch this coward walk away with nothing would literally be one of the most demoralizing things I can think of happening. How do you as a leader explain to a young Soldier in Afghanistan he has to stand his post, defend it, and not retreat under any conditions knowing that someone already did it and got away with it on national television?
As for the misbehavior charge that is the one that matters. IMO. I don't see how he could receive less than half the possible max for this. He plead guilty, its on record, it's not like anyone doubted he left his post, he admitted it years ago, he was simply trying to get off on a technicality this whole time because his actions are not in question. His reasoning for his actions are what he is trying to use as a defense and anyone who has served will know that its not an actual reason.
d-usa wrote: So all the people who complained about undue command influence with Obama and none about Trump are doing that because?
Because it's only undue influence if their statements affect the outcome. Not sure put him in front of a firing squad is any different thought than by and large the majority of other Soldiers, especially other scouts and grunts. So in all honestly its hard to influence the majority when the agreed with you before you said it.
d-usa wrote: So all the people who complained about undue command influence with Obama and none about Trump are doing that because?
Because it's only undue influence if their statements affect the outcome. Not sure put him in front of a firing squad is any different thought than by and large the majority of other Soldiers, especially other scouts and grunts. So in all honestly its hard to influence the majority when the agreed with you before you said it.
The possible outcomes are:
- two not guilty verdicts - Not guilty on #1, guilty on #2 - Guilty on #1, not guilty on #2 - two guilty verdicts - a very large number of possible sentences, and since he already said guilty that's the big variable now although he will have a good shot at claiming that command influence made the first three options unrealistic.
But I guess it's only command influence if you disagree with the commander?
That seems like the least military thing to say, honestly. You don't have to like gak your commander says, you just have to follow the orders. Some guy runs away from his post and you have to hunt him down and get some of your guys hurt or killed in the process, I guess they knew what they signed up for. Or do people not agree with command on that one?
d-usa wrote: So all the people who complained about undue command influence with Obama and none about Trump are doing that because?
Because it's only undue influence if their statements affect the outcome. Not sure put him in front of a firing squad is any different thought than by and large the majority of other Soldiers, especially other scouts and grunts. So in all honestly its hard to influence the majority when the agreed with you before you said it.
The possible outcomes are:
- two not guilty verdicts
- Not guilty on #1, guilty on #2
- Guilty on #1, not guilty on #2
- two guilty verdicts
- a very large number of possible sentences, and since he already said guilty that's the big variable now although he will have a good shot at claiming that command influence made the first three options unrealistic.
But I guess it's only command influence if you disagree with the commander?
That seems like the least military thing to say, honestly. You don't have to like gak your commander says, you just have to follow the orders. Some guy runs away from his post and you have to hunt him down and get some of your guys hurt or killed in the process, I guess they knew what they signed up for. Or do people not agree with command on that one?
I think they might want to make a example.
Why running away and causing gak gets you gak in return.
Its not he missed a parade or was late off leave and missed PT.
d-usa wrote: So all the people who complained about undue command influence with Obama and none about Trump are doing that because?
To play Devil's Advocate a distinction can be made; Obama made statements while POTUS, and Commander in Chief. Trump made comments as a candidate, and not yet Commander in Chief.
So the potential question would be if “this is how it’s gonna be when I’m in command” has the same weight as “I’m in command, this is how it’s gonna be”. Who knows if that will ever be examined though.
Has “POTUS said stuff” ever really come into play to get anything changed?
d-usa wrote: So the potential question would be if “this is how it’s gonna be when I’m in command” has the same weight as “I’m in command, this is how it’s gonna be”. Who knows if that will ever be examined though.
Has “POTUS said stuff” ever really come into play to get anything changed?
It would appear that it doesn't have the same weight, and I find myself in agreement. When Trump made those comments, he had no legal authority to make them an order. When Obama made his comments, he worded them as an order "I expect consequences...". Trump's comments had no such power behind them, and the judge presiding seemed to have agreed when he dismissed the motion. The justice system is a system of word games. RAW, not RAI. There is so much grey area open for abuse, you can't play RAI.
And if anyone accuses me of "supporting Trump simply because of R" well get the hell over yourself. Given my position as a service member, it would not be smart of me to go into what I really think of the man, but I was quite vocal of what I thought of him, before he took office. (Dates mean things, get the running theme here?)
Probably will get life or close to it, there will be a gakstorm for a week or two on social media, and then nobody will remember in three to seven years when the Dems get back in.
Crazyterran wrote: Probably will get life or close to it, there will be a gakstorm for a week or two on social media, and then nobody will remember in three to seven years when the Dems get back in.
Manning was released, but there was also several political issues that got alot of attention plus thr obvious personal issues.
I doubt he get the same support and pressure as Manning did.
Crazyterran wrote: Yeah, which is why he will be almost completely forgotten by the time the next change of government rolls in. Especially since he pled guilty.
Manning had a whole pile of other issues that I'm sure the US military wont let happen again.
Yeah. They was released almost to ease the pressure, it was less trouble to release Manning and let them go than carry on the gak storm sourounding it.
Plus the relevant debates at time adding fuel.
No one's gonna put there neck out for a deserter, with a iffy captiviyy and a former hot issues on thr swap.
So the question is of they send him to the US Military jail or the regular US jail system.
He going to be in a for a good few years likely..
No question at all. He'll serve any time given at the military prison/disciplinary barracks at Ft Leavenworth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Last year, I pointed out (not on here) that Trumps comments then about him would likely lead to the possibility of a claim of unlawful command influence.
It looks like Bergdahl may be trying to set that up. He's already been on the record for stating that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial.
Trump has repeatedly expressed his belief that the man was guilty, even going as far as to infer he should have been shot for his desertion.
Granted, all of this was said before Trump was the CinC, so legal grey area, more then likely. I'm not aware of any Trump comments on the matter since he took office, but maybe someone whose really invested in this can find something.
It is impossible he is setting himself up for an appeal based on undue influence. He pled guilty. TO claim undue influence he would have to go through the trial and be convicted, then claim the conviction was due to Trump's influence. He chose his outcome himself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: Probably will get life or close to it, there will be a gakstorm for a week or two on social media, and then nobody will remember in three to seven years when the Dems get back in.
I will be VERY surprised if he gets over 10 years. My guess would be in the 5-10 range with the higher number very unlikely.
redleger wrote: No mercy for him. He should get life in federal pound you in the ass prison surrounded by other Soldiers who would place him at the bottom of the barrel.
redleger wrote: No mercy for him. He should get life in federal pound you in the ass prison surrounded by other Soldiers who would place him at the bottom of the barrel.
Dakkadakka.com is not your personal erotica site.
He end up in military jail it seens They surprisingly disaplined, orgonized and very well run compared to their civilian versions.
They are strict but they know how to run a very tight ship.
redleger wrote: No mercy for him. He should get life in federal pound you in the ass prison surrounded by other Soldiers who would place him at the bottom of the barrel.
Dakkadakka.com is not your personal erotica site.
He end up in military jail it seens They surprisingly disaplined, orgonized and very well run compared to their civilian versions.
They are strict but they know how to run a very tight ship.
I am putting you on record as against the private prison industrial system. Thanks!
redleger wrote: No mercy for him. He should get life in federal pound you in the ass prison surrounded by other Soldiers who would place him at the bottom of the barrel.
Dakkadakka.com is not your personal erotica site.
He end up in military jail it seens They surprisingly disaplined, orgonized and very well run compared to their civilian versions.
They are strict but they know how to run a very tight ship.
I am putting you on record as against the private prison industrial system. Thanks!
feeder wrote: I thought Manning's real crime was embarrassing the military? Or am I getting confused with another whistleblower?
Probably thinking of another as Manning committed actual crimes and is an embarrassment. She just illegally grabbed as much military secrets as she could without knowing what they were and threw them out to unscrupulous people to get attention.
redleger wrote: Berghdal told the judge he knew what he did was illegal and he did it anyway. So sentencing will probably reflect that as well.
Is there actually any soldier who DOESN'T know desertion is illegal? It would seem like a very crucial thing to tell them so they don't just wander off when bored (or scared).
redleger wrote: Berghdal told the judge he knew what he did was illegal and he did it anyway. So sentencing will probably reflect that as well.
Is there actually any soldier who DOESN'T know desertion is illegal? It would seem like a very crucial thing to tell them so they don't just wander off when bored (or scared).
And deserting in a war zone too. A active war zone on current oporations.
It's not like he absconded and went back to Kansa, or decided I quit and walked out the Base and went to the local motel for a few days.
In previous filings, lawyers for Bergdahl cited at least 45 instances where Trump called their client a traitor. In Monday's discussion, the defense emphasized comments from Trump the same day Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
"I can't comment on Bowe Bergdahl," Trump told reporters last Monday. "But I think people have heard my comments in the past."
So we went from “this is what will happen when I’m president” vs “I’m the president, this is what will happen” to “I’m not saying it, but this is what I said”?
In previous filings, lawyers for Bergdahl cited at least 45 instances where Trump called their client a traitor. In Monday's discussion, the defense emphasized comments from Trump the same day Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.
"I can't comment on Bowe Bergdahl," Trump told reporters last Monday. "But I think people have heard my comments in the past."
So we went from “this is what will happen when I’m president” vs “I’m the president, this is what will happen” to “I’m not saying it, but this is what I said”?
I assume this change is due to advisers knocking him metaphorically over the head again and again telling him to quit saying dumb gak.
redleger wrote: Berghdal told the judge he knew what he did was illegal and he did it anyway. So sentencing will probably reflect that as well.
Is there actually any soldier who DOESN'T know desertion is illegal? It would seem like a very crucial thing to tell them so they don't just wander off when bored (or scared).
Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
Spetulhu wrote: Is there actually any soldier who DOESN'T know desertion is illegal?
Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences.
Aye. Just thought it would be rather pointless for him to claim he didn't know, so admitting he knew what he did was wrong is simply basic honesty unlikely to affect the outcome of the case.
redleger wrote: Berghdal told the judge he knew what he did was illegal and he did it anyway. So sentencing will probably reflect that as well.
Is there actually any soldier who DOESN'T know desertion is illegal? It would seem like a very crucial thing to tell them so they don't just wander off when bored (or scared).
Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
To be fair, you can't really be 100% definitive about "the lives he caused to be lost" without proving that operations where the lives were lost were specifically intended to be rescue missions for Bergdahl.
I think that's an important distinction to be made:
Were lives lost specifically while searching for him or were people just trying to say that because someone pointed out "Oh yeah and be on the lookout for info about Bergdahl" it suddenly became a search & rescue mission?
To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:
"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."
d-usa wrote: To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:
"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."
I think we all understand this. There were soldiers, however, permanently seriously crippled in actions related specifically to missions whose purpose was to find Bergdahl. They will or have already testified before the judge in the case.
redleger wrote: Berghdal told the judge he knew what he did was illegal and he did it anyway. So sentencing will probably reflect that as well.
Is there actually any soldier who DOESN'T know desertion is illegal? It would seem like a very crucial thing to tell them so they don't just wander off when bored (or scared).
Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
To be fair, you can't really be 100% definitive about "the lives he caused to be lost" without proving that operations where the lives were lost were specifically intended to be rescue missions for Bergdahl.
I think that's an important distinction to be made: Were lives lost specifically while searching for him or were people just trying to say that because someone pointed out "Oh yeah and be on the lookout for info about Bergdahl" it suddenly became a search & rescue mission?
Not true. Lives could have been lost/or troopers wounded on ops not related to Bergdahl because ISR and other support assets were dedicated to the search which otherwise would have been available to their units. His search got priority for a lot of assets that would otherwise have been used for other missions.
If he is found as anything other then mentally ill this is just sad.
He was ovbiously mentally ill at the time, no one just wonders off into an enemy city unarmed with no money or anything. Just wondering through the town for fun during a open conflict.
If this shows anything it is the lack of people being aware of the mental health of soldiers.
redleger wrote: Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
I was one of the people who originally was saying that no one knows for sure what the situation was when he first disappeared. There were rumors that he has deserted but at the time it was far from clear what had actually happened. Now that a better picture has emerged, then I don't see any problem with him prosecuted and sentenced appropriately, with the fact he was tortured for as long as he was as a mitigating factor when he's sentenced. I have no idea what an appropriate sentence would be so won't speculate on that.
The only reason that I mentioned the undue command influence is that there sure were a lot of of people on this very forum who popped monocles and called for their fainting couches when the former president said, essentially, "people who commit crimes should be prosecuted", but now a few years later wouldn't say gak if they had a mouthful when the current president specifically names a suspect and says he should be shot, he should be pushed out of an airplane without a parachute, and so on, and so forth, over and over again.
However I realize how very stupid I was to think I had a good point because there has been overwhelming evidence over the last few months that integrity and intellectual honestly have taken a far, far distant back seat to rooting for the red team despite the fact it now has the worst imaginable quarterback. So, more the fool was I.
redleger wrote: Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
I was one of the people who originally was saying that no one knows for sure what the situation was when he first disappeared. There were rumors that he has deserted but at the time it was far from clear what had actually happened. Now that a better picture has emerged, then I don't see any problem with him prosecuted and sentenced appropriately, with the fact he was tortured for as long as he was as a mitigating factor when he's sentenced. I have no idea what an appropriate sentence would be so won't speculate on that.
The only reason that I mentioned the undue command influence is that there sure were a lot of of people on this very forum who popped monocles and called for their fainting couches when the former president said, essentially, "people who commit crimes should be prosecuted", but now a few years later wouldn't say gak if they had a mouthful when the current president specifically names a suspect and says he should be shot, he should be pushed out of an airplane without a parachute, and so on, and so forth, over and over again.
However I realize how very stupid I was to think I had a good point because there has been overwhelming evidence over the last few months that integrity and intellectual honestly have taken a far, far distant back seat to rooting for the red team despite the fact it now has the worst imaginable quarterback. So, more the fool was I.
Actually I was anti-Berghdal long before the Trump presidency. It was known within his unit he walked off long before he was illegally traded for. So the fact that I am not a republican nor am I on team Trump which means your accusation does not hold water. All I ever wanted and expected was a just trial, and a just sentencing. Seeing as how several people had their lives ruined and turned upside down due to his decisions I have no problem with life in prison.
Here is just one reason you will be hard pressed to find anyone (who served in combat during current GWoT) willing to offer any emotional empathy to his plight:
"One of those injured included an Army National Guard sergeant who was shot in the head during a search mission that resulted in a traumatic brain injury that put him in a wheelchair with no ability to speak."
redleger wrote: Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
I was one of the people who originally was saying that no one knows for sure what the situation was when he first disappeared. There were rumors that he has deserted but at the time it was far from clear what had actually happened. Now that a better picture has emerged, then I don't see any problem with him prosecuted and sentenced appropriately, with the fact he was tortured for as long as he was as a mitigating factor when he's sentenced. I have no idea what an appropriate sentence would be so won't speculate on that.
The only reason that I mentioned the undue command influence is that there sure were a lot of of people on this very forum who popped monocles and called for their fainting couches when the former president said, essentially, "people who commit crimes should be prosecuted", but now a few years later wouldn't say gak if they had a mouthful when the current president specifically names a suspect and says he should be shot, he should be pushed out of an airplane without a parachute, and so on, and so forth, over and over again.
However I realize how very stupid I was to think I had a good point because there has been overwhelming evidence over the last few months that integrity and intellectual honestly have taken a far, far distant back seat to rooting for the red team despite the fact it now has the worst imaginable quarterback. So, more the fool was I.
Actually I was anti-Berghdal long before the Trump presidency. It was known within his unit he walked off long before he was illegally traded for. So the fact that I am not a republican nor am I on team Trump which means your accusation does not hold water. All I ever wanted and expected was a just trial, and a just sentencing. Seeing as how several people had their lives ruined and turned upside down due to his decisions I have no problem with life in prison.
Here is just one reason you will be hard pressed to find anyone (who served in combat during current GWoT) willing to offer any emotional empathy to his plight:
"One of those injured included an Army National Guard sergeant who was shot in the head during a search mission that resulted in a traumatic brain injury that put him in a wheelchair with no ability to speak."
I don't think Ouze's statement was directed at you.
Now that all the facts are out, I think Bergdahl is a fool or worse and should spend his life in prison. We will see if 45's stupid mouth will mitigate that, though.
OgreChubbs wrote: If he is found as anything other then mentally ill this is just sad.
He was ovbiously mentally ill at the time, no one just wonders off into an enemy city unarmed with no money or anything. Just wondering through the town for fun during a open conflict.
If this shows anything it is the lack of people being aware of the mental health of soldiers.
Dude... I serve with Soldiers. A lot of them are stupid. Really frakking stupid. And yes, I've met those that I'd believe are stupid enough to have done this.
redleger wrote: Yes we all know its illegal, its second week basic training classes discussing the law of war and UCMJ. The point I was making was regardless of undue influence defence he tried to make, he admitted to willfully and unlawfully doing exactly what he was charged with even though he understood the consequences. So all those thinking he deserves to be let off with a slap on the wrist and do not care about the lives he caused to be lost may not get what they want.
I was one of the people who originally was saying that no one knows for sure what the situation was when he first disappeared. There were rumors that he has deserted but at the time it was far from clear what had actually happened. Now that a better picture has emerged, then I don't see any problem with him prosecuted and sentenced appropriately, with the fact he was tortured for as long as he was as a mitigating factor when he's sentenced. I have no idea what an appropriate sentence would be so won't speculate on that.
The only reason that I mentioned the undue command influence is that there sure were a lot of of people on this very forum who popped monocles and called for their fainting couches when the former president said, essentially, "people who commit crimes should be prosecuted", but now a few years later wouldn't say gak if they had a mouthful when the current president specifically names a suspect and says he should be shot, he should be pushed out of an airplane without a parachute, and so on, and so forth, over and over again.
However I realize how very stupid I was to think I had a good point because there has been overwhelming evidence over the last few months that integrity and intellectual honestly have taken a far, far distant back seat to rooting for the red team despite the fact it now has the worst imaginable quarterback. So, more the fool was I.
Actually I was anti-Berghdal long before the Trump presidency. It was known within his unit he walked off long before he was illegally traded for. So the fact that I am not a republican nor am I on team Trump which means your accusation does not hold water. All I ever wanted and expected was a just trial, and a just sentencing. Seeing as how several people had their lives ruined and turned upside down due to his decisions I have no problem with life in prison.
Here is just one reason you will be hard pressed to find anyone (who served in combat during current GWoT) willing to offer any emotional empathy to his plight:
"One of those injured included an Army National Guard sergeant who was shot in the head during a search mission that resulted in a traumatic brain injury that put him in a wheelchair with no ability to speak."
OgreChubbs wrote: If he is found as anything other then mentally ill this is just sad.
He was ovbiously mentally ill at the time, no one just wonders off into an enemy city unarmed with no money or anything. Just wondering through the town for fun during a open conflict.
If this shows anything it is the lack of people being aware of the mental health of soldiers.
He pled guilty, therefore that IS going to be the verdict.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the guilty plea negates any 'undue influence' defense, since there is no trial to be subject to undue influence. He avoids the trial by pleading guilty.
OgreChubbs wrote: If he is found as anything other then mentally ill this is just sad.
He was ovbiously mentally ill at the time, no one just wonders off into an enemy city unarmed with no money or anything. Just wondering through the town for fun during a open conflict.
If this shows anything it is the lack of people being aware of the mental health of soldiers.
He pled guilty, therefore that IS going to be the verdict.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the guilty plea negates any 'undue influence' defense, since there is no trial to be subject to undue influence. He avoids the trial by pleading guilty.
In this case can he even appeal. Or is the guilt p! ee and sentence final he gonna have to serve what he gets?
OgreChubbs wrote: If he is found as anything other then mentally ill this is just sad.
He was ovbiously mentally ill at the time, no one just wonders off into an enemy city unarmed with no money or anything. Just wondering through the town for fun during a open conflict.
If this shows anything it is the lack of people being aware of the mental health of soldiers.
He pled guilty, therefore that IS going to be the verdict.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the guilty plea negates any 'undue influence' defense, since there is no trial to be subject to undue influence. He avoids the trial by pleading guilty.
Could undue influence (in general, not just this specific case) be used to appeal a sentence by claiming "I would have gotten X instead of Y without it"?
OgreChubbs wrote: If he is found as anything other then mentally ill this is just sad.
He was ovbiously mentally ill at the time, no one just wonders off into an enemy city unarmed with no money or anything. Just wondering through the town for fun during a open conflict.
If this shows anything it is the lack of people being aware of the mental health of soldiers.
He pled guilty, therefore that IS going to be the verdict.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And the guilty plea negates any 'undue influence' defense, since there is no trial to be subject to undue influence. He avoids the trial by pleading guilty.
Could undue influence (in general, not just this specific case) be used to appeal a sentence by claiming "I would have gotten X instead of Y without it"?
Yes, as was the issue with the thread that Ouze linked earlier.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
These two were wounded on missions specifically organized to search for Bergdahl.
Im pretty sure D-usa can not fathom what he did that is so bad and why many of us who served find it so repulsive and worth of capital punishment in accordance with the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. I am not sure what the old thread remarks hes referring to but I would bet he would be ok with just sending him home to momma and saying no harm no foul.
As the judge and potential jury are military (not sure who decides the punishment phase in a military trial), those deciding hi fate will indeed have a military history.
Having plead guilty he won't get the military's version of the death penalty. Thats already agreed to be off the table I am sure.
d-usa wrote: Every mission is a search and rescue mission if you throw in an "oh yeah, don't forget we are still looking for that dumbass, so if you see anything on this mission that has nothing to do with this at all please make a note of it" at the end of the briefing.
These two were wounded on missions specifically organized to search for Bergdahl.
Im pretty sure D-usa can not fathom what he did that is so bad and why many of us who served find it so repulsive and worth of capital punishment in accordance with the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. I am not sure what the old thread remarks hes referring to but I would bet he would be ok with just sending him home to momma and saying no harm no foul.
As the judge and potential jury are military (not sure who decides the punishment phase in a military trial), those deciding hi fate will indeed have a military history.
Having plead guilty he won't get the military's version of the death penalty. Thats already agreed to be off the table I am sure.
So did he plea in exchange for life in jail?
Wanting to avoid that option entirely and not risking it.
Not sure about military trials, but in criminal trials juries are often tasked with suggesting the sentencing or to decide if the death penalty should be used.
Sentencing in a trial by court-martial is carried out by the same forum that adjudicated guilt. In other words, if an accused service member elects to have court-martial members determine his or her guilt, those same court-martial members will adjudge a sentence upon a conviction. If an accused service member elects to be tried by military judge sitting alone, then that military judge will sentence the accused if a conviction results.[34] A sentence to death requires trial by court-martial members and all the members must unanimously concur in that sentence.
He is not going to get the death penalty. In the period of time after the civil war US military has only executed 1 single deserter. 1 in the past 150 years, he deserted multiple times and refused a 3rd chance. We has 21,000 deserters in ww2, 49 got the death penalty, but only 1 was executed and the other 48 only got prison time.
I watched this the other night, was worth it and I think quite interesting.
I understand that this is something of a controversial topic in the states (as it was bound to be), but these are my impressions of him and the situation as an outsider.
Firstly, he seems like a fairly complex and (I'm not sure of the best way to put this) an 'odd' character. Not just after his incarceration, but the accounts of how he was a person before-hand as well. The stories of him disappearing off to go and sit on mountains etc. I do wonder what the hell he was doing joining the army, given that he lost his job in the Coast Guard for his inability to follow orders - he was moving into an environment that is absolutely about maintaining discipline and following orders. So, some of the blame has to fall the Army recruitment services for not picking up what was going to be a fairly obvious problem.
I got the picture of a very strict, unrelenting Christian upbringing and then him rebelling against authority (previously his father, then moving on to the army)
That being said, it was his own choice to go a wandering (for whatever reason) and I don't think there is any question that he shouldn't be court martialled. The army has absolutely no choice over this, as to not do so would set a precedent that it's acceptable to behave in that way. This is aside from the punishment he received in captivity - that was of course horrible - but I don't think it should figure in whether he receives punishment or not (which, I get the feeling, is likely to be incarceration for a limited time).
Are people seriously talking about a death penalty? I know his behaviour seems to have been politicised to the 9th degree, but isn't that more than a little ridiculous?
I don't think anyone here wants him to get the death penalty, but are just pointing out penalties for desertion and the possibility of them being handed out.
I watched this the other night, was worth it and I think quite interesting.
I understand that this is something of a controversial topic in the states (as it was bound to be), but these are my impressions of him and the situation as an outsider.
Firstly, he seems like a fairly complex and (I'm not sure of the best way to put this) an 'odd' character. Not just after his incarceration, but the accounts of how he was a person before-hand as well. The stories of him disappearing off to go and sit on mountains etc. I do wonder what the hell he was doing joining the army, given that he lost his job in the Coast Guard for his inability to follow orders - he was moving into an environment that is absolutely about maintaining discipline and following orders. So, some of the blame has to fall the Army recruitment services for not picking up what was going to be a fairly obvious problem.
I got the picture of a very strict, unrelenting Christian upbringing and then him rebelling against authority (previously his father, then moving on to the army)
That being said, it was his own choice to go a wandering (for whatever reason) and I don't think there is any question that he shouldn't be court martialled. The army has absolutely no choice over this, as to not do so would set a precedent that it's acceptable to behave in that way. This is aside from the punishment he received in captivity - that was of course horrible - but I don't think it should figure in whether he receives punishment or not (which, I get the feeling, is likely to be incarceration for a limited time).
Are people seriously talking about a death penalty? I know his behaviour seems to have been politicised to the 9th degree, but isn't that more than a little ridiculous?
Death is extreme. If he comited treason that got US or allies killed the. Yes. The scantion should be death.
But he did not.
However he did cause one hell of a problem. And other issues. Jail time is fair.
10-15. Well maybe if he behaves and is not a idiot in levenworth he might get out earlier because I'm pretty sure the guards teetering tolerance for gak is about between zero and nothing.
The judge, Col. Jeffrey Nance, sentenced Bergdahl to a reduction in rank to private, a payment of $1,000 per month for 10 months and a dishonorable discharge, according to multiple reports.
Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
djones520 wrote: Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
Dishonorable discharge, well that's never working in a govement job ever again.
And name. Yeah his life is not going to be easy by any factor.
djones520 wrote: Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
I absolutely agree, and I also have also seen the knee-jerk reactions based mostly on feelings rather than thought. I understand being upset but some have taken it to a whole new level of insidiousness and allowing it to take up to much of their mind space and his stupidity doesn't deserve that level of attention. I imagine if he were caught trying to leave it would be a different story but since he was already a tortured prisoner the military court took that into consideration as time already spent and a Dishonorable Discharge is no joke and will follow him the rest of his days. Honestly we have better things to be worrying about and getting this idiot's story done and over with is probably for the best.
To add my $0.02 in, I'm not terribly surprised personally.
Looking at past precedent, the military almost never treats these as harshly as some imagine, the military doesnt really go out of its way to be vindictive about these things. Jenkins wilfully and intentionally defected to North Korea...and got...30 days. Looking further back, even Slovik had to basically go out of his way to really force his own execution against the wishes of everyone involved who tried to give him every out possible. Personally, I'm ok with that state of affairs. It curbs potential abuses and doesnt seem to harm discipline.
The judge also said that Trump's remarks may factor into sentencing beforehand, but didnt say if they actually did afterwards. I dont think there was anything to gain by paying for the guy to stay at Club Fed, especially given what he's already been through, that should be enough of a cautionary tale for anyone.
To echo the sentiments of others, he'll take his DD, go home, and now has to rebuild a life from scratch as a convicted felon with no applicable education or job experience for anything, with basically no prospects and few friendly faces in life. He's going to be paying for the rest of his life either way.
Vaktathi wrote: To echo the sentiments of others, he'll take his DD, go home, and now has to rebuild a life from scratch as a convicted felon with no applicable education or job experience for anything, with basically no prospects and few friendly faces in life. He's going to be paying for the rest of his life either way.
Oh bugger... And that's the lenient sentence?
I'd imagine many of the people that wanted his death, if themself charged for the same, would actually be happy if they could choose the death penalty instead of a Dishonorable Discharge.
djones520 wrote: What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
I received similar vitriol for voicing my opinion that Danny Nightingale got what was coming to him (a much less severe charge, that time with military personnel wanting him to get away with it, but nevertheless). My integrity doesn't allow me to let my own service bias my reaction to these incidents (or at least try not to).
The death penalty is too extreme for the crime here but I believe he should at least have been given a year or two in the brig. People are given brig time for less.
He’ll get a book written and some other deals that will see him alright for a bit. For regular employment his name is nortorious, I can’t see what he could do.
Howard A Treesong wrote: He’ll get a book written and some other deals that will see him alright for a bit. For regular employment his name is nortorious, I can’t see what he could do.
Theres places.
He might get on some of thr more radical groups and political edge type organisations to hire him... Maybe.
djones520 wrote: Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
I remember you getting hassled on this forum when disagreeing with someone who thought he should have been left behind to be tortured. Now there's a viewpoint I'll never understand.
Bergdahl is appealing the dishonorable discharge (which to me seems iffy because man, you got to know when you're ahead). So, one piece of his case is still active. Here's a little more of what I assume no one thinks is undue command influence:
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump
The decision on Sergeant Bergdahl is a complete and total disgrace to our Country and to our Military.
He was much more in line with us civilians, that’s for sure, even though we didn’t know what we are talking about according to some. I remember it being a slam dunk case and a given that he would see major jail time.
I think that the military is very good at instilling a team mentality, but it can also result in a distorted “us vs them” mindset for some.
d-usa wrote: He was much more in line with us civilians, that’s for sure, even though we didn’t know what we are talking about according to some. I remember it being a slam dunk case and a given that he would see major jail time.
I think that the military is very good at instilling a team mentality, but it can also result in a distorted “us vs them” mindset for some.
If by us VS them you mean honorable vs dishonorable that is true. No one is faster to turn on disgraces to the uniform faster than uniformed personnel. Overwhelming fire power(over reaction to the situation) though I admit is something many of us have a hard time controlling in situations like Berghdal's. I believe I was the one disagreing with him being brought back, but not because he was brought back, but due to the complete policy breaking way it was conducted. Had nothing to do with not wanting him out of the hands of the enemy, although I lack any empathy over his pain, as that was self inflicted.
As for the dishonorable discharge, what would be the civilian equivalent of causing multiple people to get wounded so bad they lost limbs and in some cases any functionality whatsoever? Would it be a piece of paper that prevents you from working a government job for the rest of your life, or would there be more than 5 years of jail time potentially involved? So with life in prison being the max I was predicting 50ish percent of that, but the Dishonorable Discharge, free and clear to roam with his health seems a bit lax to me.
And no, there is absolutely no civilian equivalent of an action that could cause multiple people to get wounded so bad that they lose limbs and in some cases any functionality whatsoever. There is no civilian piece of paper that prevents you from working a government job for the rest of your life.
I know you have a hard time addressing the arguments others make, but do you think your own arguments through before you make them?
d-usa wrote: He was much more in line with us civilians, that’s for sure, even though we didn’t know what we are talking about according to some. I remember it being a slam dunk case and a given that he would see major jail time.
I think that the military is very good at instilling a team mentality, but it can also result in a distorted “us vs them” mindset for some.
If by us VS them you mean honorable vs dishonorable that is true. No one is faster to turn on disgraces to the uniform faster than uniformed personnel. Overwhelming fire power(over reaction to the situation) though I admit is something many of us have a hard time controlling in situations like Berghdal's. I believe I was the one disagreing with him being brought back, but not because he was brought back, but due to the complete policy breaking way it was conducted. Had nothing to do with not wanting him out of the hands of the enemy, although I lack any empathy over his pain, as that was self inflicted.
As for the dishonorable discharge, what would be the civilian equivalent of causing multiple people to get wounded so bad they lost limbs and in some cases any functionality whatsoever? Would it be a piece of paper that prevents you from working a government job for the rest of your life, or would there be more than 5 years of jail time potentially involved? So with life in prison being the max I was predicting 50ish percent of that, but the Dishonorable Discharge, free and clear to roam with his health seems a bit lax to me.
Agreed it was very lax.
when I was in I had a solider who's wife and unborn child got killed in a car wreck while we were deployed. He got into drugs and had run ins with the law, nothing major, but enough to warrant his dismissal.
Even with his circumstances, he got a DD, which I still feel was excessive, given what he went through.
Now take this piece of gak, who knowingly deserted his post and put his fellow soldiers in danger, only gets a DD. That to me, is a abortion of justice.
not only that, but to add insult to injury, some of the people we traded for him have went back to conflict areas to fight.
To me the military is telling the families of the soldiers who were injured or died in missions to locate him, that their sons lives aren't even worth giving this guy prison time. It's like if you had a son killed by a drunk driver and they didn't go to jail.
I hope that he can never find meaningful employment ever again, and if a company does hire him, that veterans across the nation will contact his employer and let them know that as long as Bergdahl is an employee, that they, nor their family or friends, will patronize their business.
I hope that veteran groups around the country make his life a living hell everywhere he goes.
redleger wrote: So with life in prison being the max I was predicting 50ish percent of that, but the Dishonorable Discharge, free and clear to roam with his health seems a bit lax to me.
redleger wrote: So with life in prison being the max I was predicting 50ish percent of that, but the Dishonorable Discharge, free and clear to roam with his health seems a bit lax to me.
And no, there is absolutely no civilian equivalent of an action that could cause multiple people to get wounded so bad that they lose limbs and in some cases any functionality whatsoever. There is no civilian piece of paper that prevents you from working a government job for the rest of your life.
I know you have a hard time addressing the arguments others make, but do you think your own arguments through before you make them?
I think you misunderstand my point. There is civilian equivalent of actions that can cause unintended harm. One example is a building inspector who takes bribes to overlook flaws. Now that building collapses and hurts some people. No one dies, by sheer luck, but a few are now paraplegics, one is a vegetable, etc. What would the possible minimum sentence of that be? Is it a different charge for each person hurt in this way? If you compare it to something like that, which we know would result in jail time if it could be proven, makes what he got seem a bit lax.
He also got years of solitary confinement in a cave with physical and psychological torture. It’s not like he spend that time sitting in a beach drowning in women impresses by his war stories.
But maybe that doesn’t count, because we weren’t the ones doing that to him.
Not up on my law, but Is it possible to appeal a ruling and get a worse penalty as a result? Just trying to see if he has a downside of appealing the verdict. Is the appeal like a reset of the verdict or a bank the results and roll again for better?
An appeal isn't a reset of the verdict, but an attempt to invalidate a verdict based upon some error introduced at trial. So no, you can't get a worse result, appeals are pretty narrowly driven upon whatever errors you are claiming occurred.
As for the dishonorable discharge, what would be the civilian equivalent of causing multiple people to get wounded so bad they lost limbs and in some cases any functionality whatsoever? Would it be a piece of paper that prevents you from working a government job for the rest of your life, or would there be more than 5 years of jail time potentially involved? So with life in prison being the max I was predicting 50ish percent of that, but the Dishonorable Discharge, free and clear to roam with his health seems a bit lax to me.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your question, but are you asking what would be the civilian equivalent of causing severe, lasting trauma to a lot of people and then being branded a pariah for the rest of your life once it's been revealed? We currently have a thread on that very subject.
Probably the absolute best Bergdahl can hope for is a book deal, a few speaking engagement fees, and then living off the kindness of others for the rest of his life. This is a brand that will never go away.
Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Certainly, he could change his name, which will help him out on various low-level jobs like the ones you mentioned. But anything that requires even the most cursory of background checks? It'll likely come out, and that's where my "kindness of others" comment earlier will come into play. He'll be absolutely dependent on employers who are willing to give him a chance.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.
Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.
Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)
Really? Employers ask about that? I guess I have had it easy my whole life, where the employer is asking me to help them out. Then I got into acedemia, and my life, other than what I have published and researched and taught, was a complete non issue. I'm just going to bow out now, as I think I am completely unequipped to discuss this intelligently. But I will still read what others want to contribute.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.
Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)
Really? Employers ask about that? I guess I have had it easy my whole life, where the employer is asking me to help them out. Then I got into acedemia, and my life, other than what I have published and researched and taught, was a complete non issue. I'm just going to bow out now, as I think I am completely unequipped to discuss this intelligently. But I will still read what others want to contribute.
If you're required to disclose that you are a felon, he'll have to disclose the DD.
A DD rap is a criminal offense? Huh. I knew a criminal act might lead to one, but I didn't know it was considered one iteself. Evidently it is a lot harder to get than I had perceived. See, I wonder if I am the weird one that doesn't know that and would hire without a second thought, or if most people really get the stigma that it brands a person with?
Gordon Shumway wrote: A DD rap is a criminal offense? Huh. I knew a criminal act might lead to one, but I didn't know it was considered one iteself. Evidently it is a lot harder to get than I had perceived. See, I wonder if I am the weird one that doesn't know that and would hire without a second thought, or if most people really get the stigma that it brands a person with?
No, a DD is part of the punishment of a criminal offense.
Bergdahl is a convicted felon, for breaking Federal Law.
And just so I'm not clueless when talking to people about it, the law he broke was that he ran away? And that was what "you know who" said should be punisishable by death? That seems rather silly and a but of overkill.
Gordon Shumway wrote: And just so I'm not clueless when talking to people about it, the law he broke was that he ran away? And that was what "you know who" said should be punisishable by death? That seems rather silly and a but of overkill.
Desertion, and Misbehavior Before the Enemy, both criminal offenses in the military justice system. Both carry a maximum penalty of death.
10 U.S. Code § 885 - Art. 85. Desertion
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(a) Any member of the armed forces who—
(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;
(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or
(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;
is guilty of desertion.
(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.
(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.
10 U.S. Code § 899 - Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—
(1) runs away;
(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 69.)
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.
Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)
Answers good Dakkaite
. Dishonorable
A dishonorable discharge (DD), like a BCD, is a punitive discharge rather than an
administrative discharge. It can only be handed down to an enlisted member by a general
court-martial. Dishonorable discharges are handed down for what the military considers
the most reprehensible conduct. This type of discharge may be rendered only by
conviction at a general court-martial for serious offenses (e.g., desertion, sexual assault,
murder, etc.) that call for dishonorable discharge as part of the sentence.
With this characterization of service, all veterans' benefits are lost, regardless of any past
honorable service. This type of discharge is universally regarded as shameful, and the
social stigma attached to it makes it very difficult to obtain gainful post-service
employment. Additionally, US federal law prohibits ownership of firearms by those who
have been dishonorably discharged.[2] In most cases, a person who receives a
dishonorable discharge loses the right to vote and the right to receive governmental
assistance of any kind. They cannot obtain a bank loan and they are unable to find work at
the state or government level. Finding gainful civilian employment is also an arduous
task for someone with a DD as most states now require employers to conduct background
checks and the results of military records and discharges are often disclosed. Going to
college is another pitfall because government loans and grants are unavailable for anyone
with a DD. This is a permanent record that will follow the individual for the duration of
their lives anywhere in the world. In some US states, the United Kingdom and other
countries this
Not sure if you’re playing down the seriousness of that action. He wasn’t running away from a fight in the street, he deserted his post in a war zone and soldiers were injured and killed as a result of looking for him. A DD is the minimum he could expect for this behaviour, he knew that when joining he military.
Not sure if you’re playing down the seriousness of that action. He wasn’t running away from a fight in the street, he deserted his post in a war zone and soldiers were injured and killed as a result of looking for him. A DD is the minimum he could expect for this behaviour, he knew that when joining he military.
Haven't we been over this;
To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:
"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."
djones520 wrote: Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
Dishonorable discharge, well that's never working in a govement job ever again.
And name. Yeah his life is not going to be easy by any factor.
He'll wait a couple years and get the BCD changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 'seriousness of the action' and 'past precedence', I have a family member who went AWOL a couple of weeks before a deployment and turned themselves in about 5 months later.
He got 10 months in a disciplinary barracks and a BCD. I personally thought that was a light sentence.
Deserting in an active combat theater/misconduct in the face of the enemy or whatever the charge Bergdahl pled guilty to SHOULD get you more of a sentence than a stateside AWOL...
To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:
"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."
Probably because it’s a very difficult thing to pin down that searching for him “directly” led to deaths and injuries because of how complex situations are and what decisions are made. Undoubtedly people undertook actions putting themselves at risk that they wouldn’t have done without him deserting. Soldiers in his battalion say that injuries resulted from such operations, and while some would pin every tenuous injury upon Bergdahl’s capture, I wouldn’t readily dismiss all of them.
djones520 wrote: Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
Dishonorable discharge, well that's never working in a govement job ever again.
And name. Yeah his life is not going to be easy by any factor.
He'll wait a couple years and get the BCD changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 'seriousness of the action' and 'past precedence', I have a family member who went AWOL a couple of weeks before a deployment and turned themselves in about 5 months later.
He got 10 months in a disciplinary barracks and a BCD. I personally thought that was a light sentence.
Deserting in an active combat theater/misconduct in the face of the enemy or whatever the charge Bergdahl pled guilty to SHOULD get you more of a sentence than a stateside AWOL...
He did get more then that. His actions directly resulted in him spending 5 years in captivity, as a Prisoner of War.
I don't know why people keep acting like that doesn't mean anything.
"A military judge spared Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from prison for walking off his post in Afghanistan in 2009, sentencing him on Friday to a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank but no time behind bars. "
Which of course is because trump is an idiot:
"On the other hand, President Trump's unprincipled effort to stoke a lynch-mob atmosphere while seeking our nation's highest office has cast a dark cloud over the case," he continued, referring to criticism Trump made about Bergdahl in the past. "
For most of us it wasn’t “should he be punished” but “was he already punished enough”.
Edit: I think for the other side it’s less about him getting punished, and more about wanting to be the one doing the punishing. Which can probably devolve into a “justice vs revenge” argument.
To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:
"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."
Probably because it’s a very difficult thing to pin down that searching for him “directly” led to deaths and injuries because of how complex situations are and what decisions are made. Undoubtedly people undertook actions putting themselves at risk that they wouldn’t have done without him deserting. Soldiers in his battalion say that injuries resulted from such operations, and while some would pin every tenuous injury upon Bergdahl’s capture, I wouldn’t readily dismiss all of them.
There is a Stars and Stripes link in this thread that says while no soldiers deaths may be linked to searches for Bergdahl, there were soldiers permanently seriously crippled in missions to search for him.
- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?
- Repeat in a couple days.
d-usa wrote: Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:
- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.
Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?
What did you read there that made you take that ridiculous leap?
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
My guess would be that that he meant that he wasn't actively avoiding the people that went out to look for him and that caused them to get hurt?
He did make the active decision to avoid his military service by initially slipping away though. The reason the military had to keep on looking for him was because they couldn't find him after he got captured, but it wasn't because he was hiding from them. The extended search and resulting injuries while he was captured wasn't his intend, but it was caused by his initial decision to walk away from his post in the middle of nowhere surrounded by people that would love to have an american soldier to capture.
djones520 wrote: Not surprised. Not upset either. Dude's life is beyond fethed, and will never be un-fethed. He's paid for what happen, and will continue paying the rest of his life.
What kills me is how I've been called a disgrace to the uniform, for voicing that opinion on other venues.
Dishonorable discharge, well that's never working in a govement job ever again.
And name. Yeah his life is not going to be easy by any factor.
He'll wait a couple years and get the BCD changed.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 'seriousness of the action' and 'past precedence', I have a family member who went AWOL a couple of weeks before a deployment and turned themselves in about 5 months later.
He got 10 months in a disciplinary barracks and a BCD. I personally thought that was a light sentence.
Deserting in an active combat theater/misconduct in the face of the enemy or whatever the charge Bergdahl pled guilty to SHOULD get you more of a sentence than a stateside AWOL...
He did get more then that. His actions directly resulted in him spending 5 years in captivity, as a Prisoner of War.
I don't know why people keep acting like that doesn't mean anything.
No, he did not get more. He got a BCD. Other troops actions and the consequences don't effect sentencing. For example, the family member I referenced basically lived homeless for a few months. Boo Hoo Hoo. Did not and should not have effected his sentence. Walking to the bad guys tends to make folks lose sympathy when the bad guys take you in but don't treat you as nice as you had hoped.
He got 5 years of isolation and torture at the hands of the enemy.
Stop pretending he didn't get punished and just admit that you are pissed because he didn't suffer at our hands instead.
The argument is not "he didn't get punished", the argument is "we didn't get to be the ones that punished him".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: Other troops actions and the consequences don't effect sentencing.
If what happened to him doesn't matter, then whatever happened to anybody else doesn't matter either.
You have two options here:
1) Consequences don't matter: Getting captured and held prisoner for 5 years is either the same matter-of-fact consequence or running away as getting injured while looking for someone that ran away, and has no effect on anything.
2) Consequences matter: Getting captured and held prisoner for 5 years is a consequence that should be taken into consideration when it comes to sentencing, the same as the injuries sustained by those that were looking for him.
You can't really have it both ways, you are trying to have what happened matter except when you don't want it to matter.
So he has almost no chance of getting a job, no chance of getting an education, and not eligible for any sort of government benefits. There doesn't appear to be any benefit to him to even try to be a productive member of society...
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and held prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Our Code of Conduct does require us to make every effort possible to escape. There is the question of, how much did he try? I don't really know the answer to that.
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Yes, we make movies about that. He was certainly avoiding the military when he deserted.
I think part of the disconnect here on the military vs civilian view on this... you are all aware he could have basically just quit right?
If you walk up to your first sergeant or LT or whatever and just say "I can't do this anymore. I'm going to lose it." you might have to jump through some hoops, but they will get you out of there, because no one wants you watching their back if you aren't committed. That's why we have a volunteer military now. If you flat out quit like that you will probably face some negative consequences, but not on par with five years of 'torture' at the hands of the Taliban. I think that's why this case infuriates so many military people - there are real legitimate ways to repudiate your oaths and give up on the job that don't involve wandering off on your own like a crazy person. But he had to do this, because reasons, and so we had to trade terrorists for him and people had to get hurt looking for him.
I'm not up on the legalities but is there a way to stop him getting it changed to a BCD or is that just a 100% thing?
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Yes, we make movies about that. He was certainly avoiding the military when he deserted.
No we don't. Stop it. He avoided the military when he deserted. But he was then captured and tortured for 5 years with no way of escaping. Unless you are saying he would have rather been tortured than saved, which is a ridiculous stance to take.
I think part of the disconnect here on the military vs civilian view on this... you are all aware he could have basically just quit right?
Whaaaaaaaaaaat? No way! Is that what desertion means? Holy crap, this whole thread could have been avoided if we had just known that from the first post.
There is no disconnect between the military vs civilian here. Stop trying to play the "us vs you" card. We understand what happened. We understand that the Army recruited a man with a history of doing this sort of thing. We understand when he did this, he was captured and punished for it for 5 years by an enemy who is not merciful. The army messed up when they recruited him. They cannot even say they didn't see this one coming.
You can't really just "quit" the military either, it's not that easy and will almost always be considered a breach of contract. It can probably be argued that, at least stateside, deserting your post and then getting caught by the military later is probably the most reliable way of getting an early discharge. Saying "I can't take this" doesn't usually get you a discharge, rather it gets you a treatment of basically making your life so miserable that you realize that finishing your contract is a better option than dealing with that crap.
What Bergdahl did is crap, but let's not pretend that getting out of your enlistment contract is a matter of simply walking up to someone and saying "I quit" either.
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Yes, we make movies about that. He was certainly avoiding the military when he deserted.
No we don't. Stop it. He avoided the military when he deserted. But he was then captured and tortured for 5 years with no way of escaping. Unless you are saying he would have rather been tortured than saved, which is a ridiculous stance to take.
I think part of the disconnect here on the military vs civilian view on this... you are all aware he could have basically just quit right?
Whaaaaaaaaaaat? No way! Is that what desertion means? Holy crap, this whole thread could have been avoided if we had just known that from the first post.
There is no disconnect between the military vs civilian here. Stop trying to play the "us vs you" card. We understand what happened. We understand that the Army recruited a man with a history of doing this sort of thing. We understand when he did this, he was captured and punished for it for 5 years by an enemy who is not merciful. The army messed up when they recruited him. They cannot even say they didn't see this one coming.
We absolutely, unequivocally make movies about people escaping from confinement from a wartime foe. I don't understand why you took the time to try to deny that. It's silly. People escape from things all the time. Al qaeda is hardly setting the benchmark for inescapable prisons. However, this is all not really necessary to discuss as it is a whole deviation from the argument created by you.
I frankly have no idea what you are talking about for the latter half of your comment. I was not in any way shape or form conflating 'quitting' which I used as a colloquialism for undergoing the possibly arduous but completely legal method of separating yourself from the armed services for whatever reason and the crime of desertion, which I thought was a fairly obvious distinction but now I've had to spell it out for you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: You can't really just "quit" the military either, it's not that easy and will almost always be considered a breach of contract. It can probably be argued that, at least stateside, deserting your post and then getting caught by the military later is probably the most reliable way of getting an early discharge. Saying "I can't take this" doesn't usually get you a discharge, rather it gets you a treatment of basically making your life so miserable that you realize that finishing your contract is a better option than dealing with that crap.
What Bergdahl did is crap, but let's not pretend that getting out of your enlistment contract is a matter of simply walking up to someone and saying "I quit" either.
It'll get you out of the combat zone and away from all of the things he supposedly had a problem with. Not saying it's easy. Saying it's easier than walking off post in Afghanistan and being interred for five years.
Okay cool. Did he escape? Do we make movies about people who do not escape? Does every PoW escape? No. So we do not make movies about that.
The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
As far as the soldiers that got hurt and their families go, I think that being able to stand in front of Bergdahl to tell him and show him the price they had to pay (and will continue to pay) because of his actions will probably do more for them than any punishment inflicted to him by us or the enemy.
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone.
I am going to politely decline that advisement. Sure, it would be a hard job. But when you make a mistake, you have to hold the people who made it accountable for it. If d-usa, who has a very stressful job as a nurse, gives the wrong medication and it seriously injures or kills a person, we do not let him go on by saying "Man, he has a tough job, these things happen." No, that is unacceptable. You made a mistake, if you cannot handle the job, you need a new one.
That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
the recruiters job is to fill a bus, bergdahl made it on the bus and through boot camp, which is the stress test to find those "red flags" but he passed and server for years so going back to try and blame the recruiter for missing anything is just a witch hunt really.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
the recruiters job is to fill a bus, bergdahl made it on the bus and through boot camp, which is the stress test to find those "red flags" but he passed and server for years so going back to try and blame the recruiter for missing anything is just a witch hunt really.
Also some may slip the net. Not everyone is going to be screened out by the various processes and training
They might always miss the 1 in 100. That's just how life is.
d-usa wrote: Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:
- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.
Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?
What did you read there that made you take that ridiculous leap?
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Not a ridiculous leap given the history of the poster.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
the recruiters job is to fill a bus, bergdahl made it on the bus and through boot camp, which is the stress test to find those "red flags" but he passed and server for years so going back to try and blame the recruiter for missing anything is just a witch hunt really.
How is it a witch hunt? It is questioning what happened? The Coast Guard caught it. Why did the Army not catch it? Why did the Army not see the "uncharacteristized discharge" for Psychological reasons? I assume he had to disclose any prior military experience. Did he lie about it? Did he hide it? It is possible, but I find that hard to believe. I would think they would do a little digging to find out more about the guy.
d-usa wrote: Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:
- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.
Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?
What did you read there that made you take that ridiculous leap?
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Not a ridiculous leap given the history of the poster.
Nothing he said indicates what you said and nothing in his posting history indicates he would make that claim.
Why do you continue to make ridiculous leaps in logic like this?
Because at times I disagree with our military tactics, behavior of our military members, and behavior of our veterans.
So, despite 8 years of service caring caring for our veterans, being from a military family, and commissioning in the uniformed services next month, I am somehow anti-military and anti-veteran.
Which of course doesn’t change the fact that the reply to the example that the oft repeated argument of “people died” gets changed to “well, they got hurt” once you point out that the DoD admits nobody died only to get changed back to “people died” shortly thereafter was: “but they got hurt, don’t you care”.
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?
A very good point. I wonder if the same pressure is on the DI's in boot camp to graduate a certain percentage of their training platoon. Someone as off the wall as Bergdahl would have been noticed in that pressure cooker enviornment and should have been washed out. It'd be an interesting thing to see what impression he made on the recruits in his training platoon.
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?
A very good point. I wonder if the same pressure is on the DI's in boot camp to graduate a certain percentage of their training platoon. Someone as off the wall as Bergdahl would have been noticed in that pressure cooker enviornment and should have been washed out. It'd be an interesting thing to see what impression he made on the recruits in his training platoon.
Probably depends on timing. In peace time they can be more choosey. At times they probbly had to take those who might have washed out to full the ranks.
How many people are rejected today, and would they have gotten waivers 8 or 12 years ago?
Yes, needing a waiver doesn’t automatically make you a bad soldier. But I think the number of waivers granted can probably be used to get a basic idea about how desperate we were to meet recruiting targets.
d-usa wrote: How many people are rejected today, and would they have gotten waivers 8 or 12 years ago?
Yes, needing a waiver doesn’t automatically make you a bad soldier. But I think the number of waivers granted can probably be used to get a basic idea about how desperate we were to meet recruiting targets.
They needed men. They had no choice but to expand the recruitment pool to meet targets.
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone. That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
I think that in the same token, the same stress on the recruiters can also result in people like Bergdahl making it in. Less of the blame on the recruiters, but more on the environment that the recruiters have to function and the targets they are forced to meet?
A very good point. I wonder if the same pressure is on the DI's in boot camp to graduate a certain percentage of their training platoon. Someone as off the wall as Bergdahl would have been noticed in that pressure cooker enviornment and should have been washed out. It'd be an interesting thing to see what impression he made on the recruits in his training platoon.
Probably depends on timing. In peace time they can be more choosey. At times they probbly had to take those who might have washed out to full the ranks.
In the platoon I was in at MCRD, we had a recruit that was literally listed as being dangerously stupid in his paperwork. He would pee on the squad bay floor in the morning so he wouldn't have to run by the DI's. The training platoon had a roughly 30% attrition rate, yet he made it through to graduation.
In infantry school we had a guy whose knee was defective from birth and prevented him from getting good trading scores or completeing humps in field gear. There was an attempted blanket party on him because of this by a group of other recruits which was broken up by another recruit and myself.
This all happened during a time before Desert Storm, when there weren't the demands on the military as there are today, so you might be onto something there.
There are 3 tiers, or major process you have to go through to become a full Soldier. I am knowledgeable of Army ways, but no so much the other services, even though I would venture to guess they are similar in nature.
1. Recruitment-Many have pointed out that recruiting goals were raised, and standards were lowered to meet the numbers needed for the surge. Berghdal I am sure simply made it in with a waiver based on current recruiting station mission numbers. They don't usually lie about standards, but they will stretch and fill out waivers and wait till certain windows open where standards are relaxed for a small bit.
2. Basic Combat Training-Those of you who went through 20+ years ago would not recognize much of what you see as far as interaction between recruits and DS's. Although there is still some difficutly the problem comes from BCT Brigade commanders will not accept anything over a very small percentage of failures. That results in writing in fake scores in physical fitness test paperwork. I have spoken to DS's about this and although they hate it, it comes from the top. It's unspoken and if they got caught they would get in trouble, but not doing so, and therefore allowing that percentage to be be broken also means trouble. Its a no win situation when a recruit does not put for the effort. Even the Army has fallen into the trap of not laying blame on the actual person responsible, its always the DSs fault.
3 Advanced Individual Training-This is the last step in the process and is also the last place to catch personnel who are not capable. It is usually less physical and more mental. However it is easy within the first week when they take the Physical Fitness Test to see if the DS fudged the paperwork or not. And so they get stuck in AIT for months. Every week they take a PFT and if they pass we send them on, if not its another step closer to kicking them out. But you see its not a fast process. The money spent to get a civilian that far into the process is not easily dismissed or wasted, so we keep trying to train them and motivate them. During a meeting just this last week the AIT Brigade commander asked the school chief how he could make the course more intellectually rigorous. He said he could not and would not unless the BDE commander was willing to accept a higher failure rate. The end result, zero change to rigor.
The Bottom Line Up Front is his deficiency from the CG could have been waivered. His fragility could have been identified in BCT. His stupidity could have been noticed in AIT. None of that would have been a reason at the top to remove him because of numbers and percentages. The ultimate in welfare IMO was given out by the US Army because of waivers between 2008-2015
I once had a Soldier in my AIT class. He failed all tests academically, but passed all physical tests. He was so ignorant that he required constantly someone standing over his shoulder telling him what to do. Never ascertained if it was an act or real, but as hard as I rode him, I am sure it was real.
I went across the tracks to talk to his DS. Apparently some training room person lost his chapter packet, he shouldn't have made it out of BCT but it happened.
He graduated AIT because I was forced to work with him every night until 2100 (9pm), get up, meet him at 0500 (5am) make sure he was up, room clean, etc. I was not allowed to grade his last two tests which is why he finally passed. He was a rock. He could have gotten a job as a paperweight but his drool would ruin the papers. He went on to be someones problem in the 101, despite my best efforts to create a packet to get him removed. He literally broke every barracks policy and pass policy over his 7 weeks and still couldn't get him chaptered.
The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.
So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.
redleger wrote: The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.
So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.
Horrible story, but who then should be blamed? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, for wanting X amount of soldiers? Bergdahl, for being unsuited to life as a soldier despite passing?
I'm not asking that just to be contrary, and I have no stake in the case anyways. But when people say hindsight is useless when something has already happened, they fail to see that maybe it could be used to make sure such things don't happen again.
There are lessons to be learned as far as who we let in, the standards we should care about and how we created that wall only the truly qualified can overcome. Problem is when you make it too tough to get in people start claiming serving is a right, which it is not. So there are so many things to be solved before that.
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
redleger wrote: The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.
So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.
Horrible story, but who then should be blamed? The Joint Chiefs of Staff, for wanting X amount of soldiers? Bergdahl, for being unsuited to life as a soldier despite passing?
I'm not asking that just to be contrary, and I have no stake in the case anyways. But when people say hindsight is useless when something has already happened, they fail to see that maybe it could be used to make sure such things don't happen again.
blame should always be placed on the one who made the decision. (bergdahl)
to understand why at that point in time he deserted, the search starts with the man to his right and the man to his left and their current work environment. Over time, people change, and some will struggle with what they imagined military life is, and the reality of it. No one has the ability to predict the future, you make decisions based on the facts at hand. it's an impossible task to try and figure out who will desert or hand over classified information at some point in the future and figure out how to screen for that behavior.
Or you could accept that the military has created a system where numbers are more important than the welfare and safety of the members of the military.
It’s a logical fallacy to pretend that because everybody screwed up, nobody screwed up. That if everybody is to blame, then nobody is to blame. If somebody dies because of the rock you graduated, then you will share part of the blame for that death.
Did you put your job on thie line to get him out? Were you willing to stand up to your leadership and tell them that they will have to get rid of you before he makes it past you? Did you decide that your career isn’t worth the risk he poses to your fellow soldiers? Or did you decide that you are just one more person that was forced to let him slide, and therefore you’re not going to be the one responsible for his eventual fethup that will get someone killed? Your career still went on, so you could have tried harder to get rid of him. You can blame culture, but you are still part of that culture and you also perpetuated it.
And I’m not gaking on you or the military here, it’s something we see every day. I have seen it at work in nursing, people die because of nurses going “that’s the way we do things”, “this comes from the top, we can’t change it”, and “if we fight this it will be a career ender”. I’ve had multiple targets on my back from senior leadership because I made that stand and decided that I will risk my career before I put one of my veterans in a dangerous situation. It was a rough two years of constantly watching my back before someone else passed ofnleadership and their target changed, but I put the lives of my patients above my career. I knew that I would most likely be fired for it, but I did it despite the risk it presented to me and my family. It was a hard decision, which paid off in the end so I was lucky, but I couldn’t sit back and pretend that I was just another small powerless piece and that I wouldn’t be the one to blame because everyone is at fault and therefore it’s an institutional problem and not a personal problem.
Not everyone that does something stupid will get caught in the safety nets, but if people compromise their own standards (leadership, recruiters, DIs, you, me) to meet goals, then they do share part of the blame. They don’t share it in a legal “gonna get charged with something” way, but everyone that had an opportunity to get rid of someone despite the wishes of meeting quotas needs to at least feel partially responsible and evaluate if they compromised their own values for their own job security. I’m not saying that you contributed to a tragedy down the line, but I am pointing out the danger of feeling at ease because you are part of a system that “forces” you to graduate people that shouldn’t graduate.
I’m not saying it’s an easy decision to sacrifice your career to make a stand, but just because it’s an incredible hard thing to do doesn’t absolve you from the responsibility when you and nobody else in the system did it.
I know this sounds like I’m gaking on you, which is not my intend. And maybe you did all the things I said you could have done. I’m posting this just to get thoughts and discussions going, and not to be “right” or prove anyone “wrong”. I’m not trying to prove that the system is gakky and that you are just another cog in a system of screwed up gears. I’m just thinking this might be an opportunity to evaluate the system and how we operate in it.
And that doesn’t just go for the military, but all of us working anywhere.
All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
The bad guys that shot the soldiers that were looking for Bergdahl, or the ones that planted IEDs, are they less than 100% to blame for the injuries they caused? If Bergdahl wouldn’t have run away, people wouldn’t have looked for him, and they wouldn’t have injured the people that looked for him. So is Bergdahl 100% responsible for every injury and the bad guys 0%, is it 50/50, or some other percentage?
I think part of the issue may be that people feel that by wanting to look to see where others may have failed to screen him out, we are trying to reassign blame elsewhere. That there is only a finite amount of blame to go around, and if anybody else it to blame, that takes blame away from Bergdahl.
I don’t think that’s the case. He will have 100% made that decision on his own, and he will 100% own the consequences. Even if someone else takes the blame of passing him instead of screening him out, that doesn’t affect the blame for walking away from his post. I am not trying to take any blame away from that.
The enemy was always trying to inflict casualties, berghdals actions did not create that motivation. They did however put certain individuals in that position which is why I say the blame lies on him. Can't blame the enemy for doing what they were always gonna try to do. Blame them for doing but its not a shared blame its a separate blame. I'm not sure if I am able to explain it in a way that makes sense but its two separate things in my mind.
I'm always ok with taking every situation and taking a step back to see how future iterations of a situation can be prevented but you can not use that as an excuse to shift blame, but instead look at it as an attempt to mitigate future instances of that situation.
d-usa wrote: It makes sense, that’s the same way I feel about the issue of letting people through. It’s a separate blame and issue than his running away.
We disagree on an appropriate sentence but on this we agree.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
That is not necessarily true. There is a hesitation to send say a cavalry scout to work in supply simply because he doesn't want to do that job anymore. It sets a precedent that opposes good order and discipline. No one really wants to walk into the suck, they simply do it because that's the road they chose to take and they do it. If every time someone didn't want to pick up their rifle and do their job we said, hey that's cool, you would start to see larger issues unfold.
I saw on a military site a bunch of military guys calling the Judge a traitor and wanting him killed as well as anyone who pointed out how ridiculous that is.
Ahtman wrote: I saw on a military site a bunch of military guys calling the Judge a traitor and wanting him killed as well as anyone who pointed out how ridiculous that is.
Ahtman wrote: I saw on a military site a bunch of military guys calling the Judge a traitor and wanting him killed as well as anyone who pointed out how ridiculous that is.
While that behavior is extreme I think everyone has failed to understand the level of anger and hatred within the military*. The equivalent of them raging on a website, most of which are usually vetted to keep civilians out, can be justified in the context of not having an outlet and having a protest that turns into rioting. Only in this case the majority would never actually do that. Rioting is looked at unfavorably so they rage online, and then they get over it. Even I have had my faculties shaken over this subject. So yea they are stupid, I've seen the memes, but its outrage needing to flow somewhere.
* Towards Berghdal. Im not talking about the normal amounts of nicotine and anger that are normally present every day.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
I don't think you understand the US Army to well.
Fort Campbell last year, there was a man who self reported himself into the hospital on base because he felt like he was about to snap, go into work, and kill people.
Self reported himself to seek medical help before he hurt people.
His command levied criminal charges on him.
If ever you will find an organization that will pick the wrong thing to do to its employees, for the better of that employee, it will be the US Army.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
That is not necessarily true. There is a hesitation to send say a cavalry scout to work in supply simply because he doesn't want to do that job anymore. It sets a precedent that opposes good order and discipline. No one really wants to walk into the suck, they simply do it because that's the road they chose to take and they do it. If every time someone didn't want to pick up their rifle and do their job we said, hey that's cool, you would start to see larger issues unfold.
True but if someone truly does not fit then it's way to make good on the very expensive training and investment put into the person.
I'd imagine it's a fair few thousands of dollers just to pass someone in basic training.
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Our Code of Conduct does require us to make every effort possible to escape. There is the question of, how much did he try? I don't really know the answer to that.
I was really hoping someone would bring up the C. O. C., and also the Army Values, both of which Patty Hearst there disregarded when he skipped post. Not to mention the fact that he was also an NCO, so we can throw the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer as another list of values/tenets that this guy pissed all over.
For those not following along, the Code of Conduct dictates our behavior in combat, and if captured. You know that cool thing you see in the movies where the POW gives their name, rank, and serial/service number? That's actually a thing.
d-usa wrote:As far as the soldiers that got hurt and their families go, I think that being able to stand in front of Bergdahl to tell him and show him the price they had to pay (and will continue to pay) because of his actions will probably do more for them than any punishment inflicted to him by us or the enemy.
You assume that Patty Hearst gives any sort of gak about what misery he caused anyone. EVERY behavior he exhibited with this shows self-centered attitude, possibly even narcissism.
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone.
I am going to politely decline that advisement. Sure, it would be a hard job. But when you make a mistake, you have to hold the people who made it accountable for it. If d-usa, who has a very stressful job as a nurse, gives the wrong medication and it seriously injures or kills a person, we do not let him go on by saying "Man, he has a tough job, these things happen." No, that is unacceptable. You made a mistake, if you cannot handle the job, you need a new one.
That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
That nurse analogy is a pretty bad comparison. Try this one instead: you sell someone a car, they get drunk and plaster into a crowd of people, killing several and wounding more. Are you to blame for the death toll? It is FAR time the left lean away from blaming the instrument and start blaming the person BEHIND the instrument. Even if that instrument is something like the recruiting corps.
redleger wrote:There are lessons to be learned as far as who we let in, the standards we should care about and how we created that wall only the truly qualified can overcome. Problem is when you make it too tough to get in people start claiming serving is a right, which it is not. So there are so many things to be solved before that.
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
Not only that, but this guy made it to Sergeant. How did he hit THAT MANY quality gates and not get flagged? I don't normally swing for conspiracy theories, but I think the guy's intent was to side with the enemy, and the smartest thing the Army did with all of this was make sure this guy never went near ANYTHING of strategic value to the enemy ever again.
As far as the rage felt by the servicemembers: I think it's more rage at the precedent being set. Between this toolbag and Manning, you have two massive slaps on the wrist for a plethora of violations of regulations, AND pretty much the evisceration of every code/tenet we strive for. What motivation is there going to be for people to follow orders now, when all they have to do is get press to guarantee them leniency? In their mind at least, we'll have to see the practical applications to see how it plays out. But I wouldn't be surprised if there winds up a larger disciplie issue because of this.
redleger wrote: All good points, some bad assumptions but overall I can not disagree except one one point. Letting someone through who is pushing the boundary on substandard behavior usually leads to first line supervisors having to reign them in. Rarely if ever does it lead to desertion. In fact no one I know ever considered it an option no matter how miserable we are. There is a value we have called selfless service and we do believe we give up a lot to serve, which we really do.
As for me. My only response is there is a reason I retired as a Staff Sergeant despite my BSM, stellar physical fitness, and ability train Soldiers. I always tell people when they are wrong. I don't sugar coat or tell people what they want to hear. It ruined me in Afghanistan thanks to my Lieutenant and wasnt popular in a training environment either. But at the end of the day when told to do something directly you do it. That's the difference between a good Soldier and berghdal. (Disclaimer, illegal orders are different so don't use that as a rebuttal)
Also even of not suitable for front line. Someone can be sent to supply or admin or wherever they need work doing.
Theres options between keeping em where they are and booting them out.
That is not necessarily true. There is a hesitation to send say a cavalry scout to work in supply simply because he doesn't want to do that job anymore. It sets a precedent that opposes good order and discipline. No one really wants to walk into the suck, they simply do it because that's the road they chose to take and they do it. If every time someone didn't want to pick up their rifle and do their job we said, hey that's cool, you would start to see larger issues unfold.
True but if someone truly does not fit then it's way to make good on the very expensive training and investment put into the person.
I'd imagine it's a fair few thousands of dollers just to pass someone in basic training.
It is NOT a way to make 'good on the very expensive training'. Removing someone from the job they were trained and experienced in and putting them into a job they were not trained for tends to be a bad match. Add in there are man power caps and each slot has an assigned MOS and rank against it and you would be taking a troop out of a slot where his MOS/rank was needed, making a hole, and using him/her either in a position which is not an actual position needing to be filled or filling a position in a way ensuring the correct MOS/Rank troop can't get it (and who may have needed it for career progression).
Recruiters don't just recruit #s, they recruit those numbers against actual MOS requirements. You don't recruit and train infantrymen or radio repair folks to fill supply slots. You don't recruit and train supply troops to fill infantrymen slots.
Not only that, but this guy made it to Sergeant. How did he hit THAT MANY quality gates and not get flagged? I don't normally swing for conspiracy theories, but I think the guy's intent was to side with the enemy, and the smartest thing the Army did with all of this was make sure this guy never went near ANYTHING of strategic value to the enemy ever again.
He was promoted to SGT due to time in service while he was a guest of the Talibs. He did not progress in the ranks and go through the promotion boards the way his peers did. He was given the rank because 'he probably would have made it' in the five years he was a captive.
d-usa wrote: For someone so in the know, Tony managed to get just about everything wrong and missed the actual point of every argument.
I don't know. He seems to have called out what many of the extreme left leaning personnel here have been doing on every thread in OT where someone does something bad. They try to blame something else. You yourself have done this. church shooting is guns fault, Berghdal should have been moved, (spoken by people who are absolutely not in the know, nor would they ever be wiling to be), They guy in New York wasn't a bad person who did something bad, its the ideologies fault, oh no wait its not, you cant blame Islam, its somehow someone elses fault.
I know you don't want to think people do this, but it happens. And that is the point you seem to miss is that we believe in personal accountability, not outward blame.
He didn’t know why he was a Sergant, and makes multiple arguments that this behavior should have been caught during his promotions (that didn’t actually happen the way he thinks they happened) and that not catching this during those promotions should be followed up on. So he seems to make the argument that people promoting him might be to blame, while also arguing that it’s wrong to blame anybody else but him. So he doesn’t know why he was promoted, and he’s inconsistent in his own argument.
His counter argument to how testifying made the injured and their families feel is about how it didn’t make Bergdahl feel anything, which completely misses the point. It doesn’t matter one bit how it made Bergdahl feel or if it had any effect on him of any kind. It makes about how it made the people testifying feel.
Comparing stressful job analogies to drunk driving is just stupid and misses the point of the argument completely as well.
He might have made a point or two, but he didn’t actually address any of the actual arguments that are being made and he got more things wrong than right.
d-usa wrote: For someone so in the know, Tony managed to get just about everything wrong and missed the actual point of every argument.
I don't know. He seems to have called out what many of the extreme left leaning personnel here have been doing on every thread in OT where someone does something bad. They try to blame something else. You yourself have done this. church shooting is guns fault, Berghdal should have been moved, (spoken by people who are absolutely not in the know, nor would they ever be wiling to be), They guy in New York wasn't a bad person who did something bad, its the ideologies fault, oh no wait its not, you cant blame Islam, its somehow someone elses fault.
I know you don't want to think people do this, but it happens. And that is the point you seem to miss is that we believe in personal accountability, not outward blame.
That's dramatically misrepresenting what d-usa has said and what others have argued in regards to some of the horrific events that have happened recently.
Whenever a mass shooting occurs, nobody thinks it is "the gun's fault" that the shooting occurs. That's a strawman you created.
By that same vein, Bergdahl did a bad thing. Nobody is pretending he did not do so. What has been said is that due to extenuating circumstances(the whole "abducted and tortured by insurgents" thing probably wasn't a picnic, eh?), this relatively light punishment is probably the right judgement to have been passed down.
redleger wrote: There are 3 tiers, or major process you have to go through to become a full Soldier. I am knowledgeable of Army ways, but no so much the other services, even though I would venture to guess they are similar in nature.
1. Recruitment-Many have pointed out that recruiting goals were raised, and standards were lowered to meet the numbers needed for the surge. Berghdal I am sure simply made it in with a waiver based on current recruiting station mission numbers. They don't usually lie about standards, but they will stretch and fill out waivers and wait till certain windows open where standards are relaxed for a small bit.
2. Basic Combat Training-Those of you who went through 20+ years ago would not recognize much of what you see as far as interaction between recruits and DS's. Although there is still some difficutly the problem comes from BCT Brigade commanders will not accept anything over a very small percentage of failures. That results in writing in fake scores in physical fitness test paperwork. I have spoken to DS's about this and although they hate it, it comes from the top. It's unspoken and if they got caught they would get in trouble, but not doing so, and therefore allowing that percentage to be be broken also means trouble. Its a no win situation when a recruit does not put for the effort. Even the Army has fallen into the trap of not laying blame on the actual person responsible, its always the DSs fault.
3 Advanced Individual Training-This is the last step in the process and is also the last place to catch personnel who are not capable. It is usually less physical and more mental. However it is easy within the first week when they take the Physical Fitness Test to see if the DS fudged the paperwork or not. And so they get stuck in AIT for months. Every week they take a PFT and if they pass we send them on, if not its another step closer to kicking them out. But you see its not a fast process. The money spent to get a civilian that far into the process is not easily dismissed or wasted, so we keep trying to train them and motivate them. During a meeting just this last week the AIT Brigade commander asked the school chief how he could make the course more intellectually rigorous. He said he could not and would not unless the BDE commander was willing to accept a higher failure rate. The end result, zero change to rigor.
The Bottom Line Up Front is his deficiency from the CG could have been waivered. His fragility could have been identified in BCT. His stupidity could have been noticed in AIT. None of that would have been a reason at the top to remove him because of numbers and percentages. The ultimate in welfare IMO was given out by the US Army because of waivers between 2008-2015
I once had a Soldier in my AIT class. He failed all tests academically, but passed all physical tests. He was so ignorant that he required constantly someone standing over his shoulder telling him what to do. Never ascertained if it was an act or real, but as hard as I rode him, I am sure it was real.
I went across the tracks to talk to his DS. Apparently some training room person lost his chapter packet, he shouldn't have made it out of BCT but it happened.
He graduated AIT because I was forced to work with him every night until 2100 (9pm), get up, meet him at 0500 (5am) make sure he was up, room clean, etc. I was not allowed to grade his last two tests which is why he finally passed. He was a rock. He could have gotten a job as a paperweight but his drool would ruin the papers. He went on to be someones problem in the 101, despite my best efforts to create a packet to get him removed. He literally broke every barracks policy and pass policy over his 7 weeks and still couldn't get him chaptered.
The reason for this story is anyone trying to blame a recruiter would also then have to blame his DS, his AIT instructor, and the commands that set the policies preventing really bad people from making it through. There is a tiered system and policies negate the ability to stop people on a whim. My old CSM called it a meat market. Do not mentor, do not make friends, just train them and get them out and sent to the line.
So the argument of trying to shift blame away from Berghdal and put it on a recruiter is intellectually dishonest. Its a logical fallacy and they had nothing to do with his decision.
You literally wrote an entire post pointing out in great detail how the system allows incompetent people to make it through because they need bodies (up to and including basically fraud), and then settled at the end of your post on blaming solely the person who made it through and basically hand-waving away all the systemic failures you painstakingly noted because, I guess, it disagreed with your desired conclusion. This is one of the more remarkable posts I've read here in a while, to be frank.
There just seems to be a basic inability to consider that there may be other factors that had an influence, while still keeping the actual person 100% responsible.
The Taliban are 100% responsible for the injuries they caused to people looking for Bergdahl, and even people who argue that it’s his fault they were looking for him are going to absolve the Taliban of their responsibility there.
Bergdahl is 100% responsible for running away, even if he ended up on that post due to a fethed up system.
Church guy is 100% responsible for killing people, even if a tool makes it easier to kill people and makes it easier to take him out as well.
Nobody is looking at these factors to excuse Bergdahl, they are looking at hose factors to prevent another Bergdahl. Because for all this talk about personal responsibility in this thread. The military doesn’t seem to be eager to take the responsibility there.
d-usa wrote: The military is probably the one area of government most likely to withstand political posturing, and I would expect Mattis to slap down any attempt by Trump to do so.
Perhaps, but correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think berghdal is exactly popular in most military circles. I wouldn't expect much support for him from that direction.
Hell, I don't pretend to understand the nuances of exactly how much power and influence the president can wield, and maybe I've seen too much house of cards. But I'm going to be really, REALLY surprised if bergdahl gets off with a minimum sentence.
This honestly looks like a case of a man who snapped and went mad, mad enough to go walking in hostile territory. And instead of getting the help he needs, he was discharged and wiped clean of being the military's problem.
I fully expect him to turn up dead at some point. Hopefully without taking anyone else with him.
This honestly looks like a case of a man who snapped and went mad, mad enough to go walking in hostile territory. And instead of getting the help he needs, he was discharged and wiped clean of being the military's problem.
I fully expect him to turn up dead at some point. Hopefully without taking anyone else with him.
Help. Well he kinda burned his VA support, Dishonrable discharge. No VA rights. No benefits. No pension etc.
He also not sure if he fully discharged yet?
Fined 1000 dollers a month salary for 10 months?
If he being paid, even if he discharged is he still enlisted or not? May even not quite wiped clean yet?
UK mental health provisions are hardly to be proud of though.
Hardlt a role model.
Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?
Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?
When you are being tortured and help prisoner, are you able to run away freely and avoid people?
Our Code of Conduct does require us to make every effort possible to escape. There is the question of, how much did he try? I don't really know the answer to that.
I was really hoping someone would bring up the C. O. C., and also the Army Values, both of which Patty Hearst there disregarded when he skipped post. Not to mention the fact that he was also an NCO, so we can throw the Creed of the Non-Commissioned Officer as another list of values/tenets that this guy pissed all over.
For those not following along, the Code of Conduct dictates our behavior in combat, and if captured. You know that cool thing you see in the movies where the POW gives their name, rank, and serial/service number? That's actually a thing.
d-usa wrote:As far as the soldiers that got hurt and their families go, I think that being able to stand in front of Bergdahl to tell him and show him the price they had to pay (and will continue to pay) because of his actions will probably do more for them than any punishment inflicted to him by us or the enemy.
You assume that Patty Hearst gives any sort of gak about what misery he caused anyone. EVERY behavior he exhibited with this shows self-centered attitude, possibly even narcissism.
Dreadwinter wrote: The second part, I read what you posted wrong. Half asleep and just waking up and all that. Regardless, he wasn't going to just quit. He has a track record of going awol, which I posted. So you can still spell it out but here is the deal, it was never going to happen. The mans flight instinct is far FAR stronger than his fight instinct.
Cheers, buddy. My main point is still that the whole progression of events is weird and could have been handled with far less trouble for everyone.
For some reason the parenthesis is not part of the link, at least for me, so you have to put it in manually if you are going to follow it. Still not what happened here though.
The whole progression of events could have been avoided if the recruiters had taken in to account his past history. Fool me once and all that. Honestly, the man was unfit for duty. Instead of trying to throw the book at a guy who seems to have some serious issues. Maybe the recruiters need to be looked at. Are they doing their due diligence when recruiting people? Taking everything in to account when they sign people up?
Having seen fist hand the life recruiters have to live, the stress they go through, the destruction it does to their families, I'm going to advise leaving that alone.
I am going to politely decline that advisement. Sure, it would be a hard job. But when you make a mistake, you have to hold the people who made it accountable for it. If d-usa, who has a very stressful job as a nurse, gives the wrong medication and it seriously injures or kills a person, we do not let him go on by saying "Man, he has a tough job, these things happen." No, that is unacceptable. You made a mistake, if you cannot handle the job, you need a new one.
That job destroyed my family, and literally nearly killed my father. The stressors they have on their lives already do not need to be compounded by trying to lay the blame of people like Bergdahl at their feet.
Sorry to hear about that. It would be a tough gig. I am not saying your father is responsible. But somebody is and it appears the recruiters missed a big red flag here. Why was he let in? Who okayed that? Why did they think he would be a good fit, despite his past history?
That nurse analogy is a pretty bad comparison. Try this one instead: you sell someone a car, they get drunk and plaster into a crowd of people, killing several and wounding more. Are you to blame for the death toll? It is FAR time the left lean away from blaming the instrument and start blaming the person BEHIND the instrument. Even if that instrument is something like the recruiting corps.
redleger wrote:There are lessons to be learned as far as who we let in, the standards we should care about and how we created that wall only the truly qualified can overcome. Problem is when you make it too tough to get in people start claiming serving is a right, which it is not. So there are so many things to be solved before that.
So who to blame. 100% Bowe Berghdal. That's it. Its that simple.
Not only that, but this guy made it to Sergeant. How did he hit THAT MANY quality gates and not get flagged? I don't normally swing for conspiracy theories, but I think the guy's intent was to side with the enemy, and the smartest thing the Army did with all of this was make sure this guy never went near ANYTHING of strategic value to the enemy ever again.
As far as the rage felt by the servicemembers: I think it's more rage at the precedent being set. Between this toolbag and Manning, you have two massive slaps on the wrist for a plethora of violations of regulations, AND pretty much the evisceration of every code/tenet we strive for. What motivation is there going to be for people to follow orders now, when all they have to do is get press to guarantee them leniency? In their mind at least, we'll have to see the practical applications to see how it plays out. But I wouldn't be surprised if there winds up a larger disciplie issue because of this.
Who is Party Hearst? Why are you referring to me as that? Why did you miss the entire point of what I was saying?
I was comparing stressful jobs. Why is a car crash a valid comparison here? Did you read/understand what I said or did you see it and start foaming at the mouth while screaming "libtard" in to the void?
I am sorry for asking how we can avoid future issues like this. I guess finding problems and fixing them is not really top priority for you. It could save a lot of soldiers though, which is what I am interested in.
Dreadwinter wrote: Who is Party Hearst? Why are you referring to me as that? Why did you miss the entire point of what I was saying?
I was comparing stressful jobs. Why is a car crash a valid comparison here? Did you read/understand what I said or did you see it and start foaming at the mouth while screaming "libtard" in to the void?
I am sorry for asking how we can avoid future issues like this. I guess finding problems and fixing them is not really top priority for you. It could save a lot of soldiers though, which is what I am interested in.
I don't think he was referring to you as Patty Hearst. Patty Heart is a rather famous heiress who was kidnapped by a group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. After some time as a captive, she then robbed a bank with them. It's still unclear whether or not she did so willingly, or had Stockholm Syndrome (in which case still not really willingly), or if she actually bought into their cause. She claimed to have been brainwashed IIRC.
The analogy here is that Berhdahl is Patty Hearst, I imagine, because the cool thing du jour is to come up with snappy little nicknames as a form of branding - "crooked", "pocahontas", etc - in circles that frankly are not worth debating with.
I think he was implying that in some way Bergdahl "flipped" and joined the terrorists as opposed to being caught by them and tortured? I dunno. It's a dumb nickname and an even worse analogy.
d-usa wrote:For someone so in the know, Tony managed to get just about everything wrong and missed the actual point of every argument.
... every argument? I don't think so.
d-usa wrote:He didn’t know why he was a Sergant, and makes multiple arguments that this behavior should have been caught during his promotions (that didn’t actually happen the way he thinks they happened) and that not catching this during those promotions should be followed up on. So he seems to make the argument that people promoting him might be to blame, while also arguing that it’s wrong to blame anybody else but him. So he doesn’t know why he was promoted, and he’s inconsistent in his own argument.
This one I definitely got wrong, solely because there is SUPPOSED to be a process to becoming an NCO. However...
[quot=CptJakee]He was promoted to SGT due to time in service while he was a guest of the Talibs. He did not progress in the ranks and go through the promotion boards the way his peers did. He was given the rank because 'he probably would have made it' in the five years he was a captive.
Notice the part here about his peers. Bergdahl was given a participation promotion, instead of a merit based promotion. I did not know that because quite frankly I don't care enough about the man to research his entire career. I know what is typical in the Army as far as progression in rank, and that there ARE outliers. My fault in here was the assumption that he was SGT before he bailed. And sure, two seconds using google could have saved me some embarrassment, but when you're talking about a fairly uncommon outlier, it's understandable to operate on assumption.
So one thing I got wrong, but solely because of extenuating circumstances.
d-usa wrote:His counter argument to how testifying made the injured and their families feel is about how it didn’t make Bergdahl feel anything, which completely misses the point. It doesn’t matter one bit how it made Bergdahl feel or if it had any effect on him of any kind. It makes about how it made the people testifying feel.
The point I responded to was essentially that somehow seeing the family members of fallen soldiers who died as a direct or semi-direct result of his actions would cause some sort of emotional distress to him, and that would be punishment enough. My argument was that someone who casts off oaths with SERIOUS weight behind them, as well as hefty punishments, wouldn't have that sort of ethical or moral compass that would result in him feeling anything for anyone else involved. This cat was acting solely for his own benefit, it simply blew up in his face.
So yeah, didn't get THAT one wrong.
d-usa wrote:Comparing stressful job analogies to drunk driving is just stupid and misses the point of the argument completely as well.
No, the original point was to lay blame on the Recruiter for putting through a recruit who was apparently OBVIOUSLY a liability (In hindsight, definitely. At the time? Who knows what shows up in the initial screening.) was culpable for Bergdahl's actions in some way. Someone tried to mitigate that by bringing up the stress of the job, and the nursing thing was thrown in. A better argument would have been, I guess, to say that whomever gave that nurse their nursing degree, or the registrar who let that person attend that college, should have been held culpable. Regardless, two degrees of separating isn't a precedent in any way, shape or form. It isn't from a legal standpoint, and isn't from a moral standpoint.
So yeah, didn't get THAT one wrong, either.
d-usa wrote:He might have made a point or two, but he didn’t actually address any of the actual arguments that are being made and he got more things wrong than right.
So three arguments I DID get right (Including the "blame the tool" argument which redleger already pointed out) versus one that I got wrong solely because an outlier policy practice. I'd say you got YOUR argument wrong.
Also, part and parcel with my viewpoint is the fact that I've lived these tenets for over 20 years. Every soldier I've ever served with has at least TRIED to live those tenets. Do some fail? Of course, but the number I've seen fail at them as catastrophically as Bergdahl, or on PURPOSE, like Bergdahl, I could list on one hand. That is why I, and several other soldiers, think so lowly of the man. That is also why we don't think that his sentencing was all that just, despite his captivity. And it isn't about "who punishes him", it's about the precedent set, and how the infractions were punished prior. And definitely how it will affect punishments for those infractions in others in the years to come.
Ouze wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote: Who is Party Hearst? Why are you referring to me as that? Why did you miss the entire point of what I was saying?
I was comparing stressful jobs. Why is a car crash a valid comparison here? Did you read/understand what I said or did you see it and start foaming at the mouth while screaming "libtard" in to the void?
I am sorry for asking how we can avoid future issues like this. I guess finding problems and fixing them is not really top priority for you. It could save a lot of soldiers though, which is what I am interested in.
I don't think he was referring to you as Patty Hearst. Patty Heart is a rather famous heiress who was kidnapped by a group called the Symbionese Liberation Army. After some time as a captive, she then robbed a bank with them. It's still unclear whether or not she did so willingly, or had Stockholm Syndrome (in which case still not really willingly), or if she actually bought into their cause. She claimed to have been brainwashed IIRC.
The analogy here is that Berhdahl is Patty Hearst, I imagine, because the cool thing du jour is to come up with snappy little nicknames as a form of branding - "crooked", "pocahontas", etc - in circles that frankly are not worth debating with.
I prefer Liawatha myself, but that's beside the point.
It's definitely correct that comments like that happen in those "circles", and stuff like Drumph and even more colorful comments don't come from your camp.
Dreadwinter wrote:I guess I am still a little confused. How is she similar to Bowe Bergdhal in any way? Did he start robbing banks with them or something?
Looking back at what I've responded to so far, I should bring up that I am not the only person who doesn't google stuff apparently.
Okay, so you saw the comment on who Patty Hearst was. The correlation here (Besides me not wanting to misspell Bergdahl, and having EXTREMELY finite time to respond on break at work) comes from one of the theories about his disappearance, one that I think makes the most sense. The theory is that his dissatisfaction with his military service was coupled with a bit of sympathy for the enemy, so he bailed on his post to be with them. It's assumed that he thought his welcome would have been more... friendly from the other side. I don't feel like researching it, but I'm curious what kind of FOB he was on, as the perimeters on MOST of the FOBS are crossable at Entry Control Points, and with his ease of getting off post solo without being seen seems fairly difficult at the least. It's possible, but it'd take a LOT of effort. I'm also curious where his Battle Buddy was during this. Wait, sorry: Warrior Companion.
So you still don’t understand that letting them testify had nothing to do with how it affected Bergdahl, and still argue a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the actual argument that was made.
And you are very emotional and passionate about this guy, but not enough to actually research actual facts, none of which prevents you from posting your passionate opinions.
I guess we will continue to have a merit-based discussion over here, and you can have a participation discussion over there since you don’t have the time to actually contribute anything of value with your job keeping your away and your admitted lack of desire to actually look anything up.
He also got years of solitary confinement in a cave with physical and psychological torture. It’s not like he spend that time sitting in a beach drowning in women impresses by his war stories.
But maybe that doesn’t count, because we weren’t the ones doing that to him.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.
Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)
From what I understand, no you won't receive any VA benefits and yes it shows up on a background check.
Gordon Shumway wrote: Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.
Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.
Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)
From what I understand, no you won't receive any VA benefits and yes it shows up on a background check.
He also got years of solitary confinement in a cave with physical and psychological torture. It’s not like he spend that time sitting in a beach drowning in women impresses by his war stories.
But maybe that doesn’t count, because we weren’t the ones doing that to him.
that's not justice, that's just gakky luck.
This sums up the divide in a nutshell. Some people think things that happened only count unless we make them happen, otherwise they don't count and may as well not have happened.
edit: fix quote derp
edit 2: This is not intended to come across as rude or sarcastic; it is how I perceive the point of view behind that statement. Everyone is entitled to feel that Bergdahl was not properly punished for desertion and cowardice.
d-usa wrote: So you still don’t understand that letting them testify had nothing to do with how it affected Bergdahl, and still argue a completely different issue that has nothing to do with the actual argument that was made.
And you are very emotional and passionate about this guy, but not enough to actually research actual facts, none of which prevents you from posting your passionate opinions.
I guess we will continue to have a merit-based discussion over here, and you can have a participation discussion over there since you don’t have the time to actually contribute anything of value with your job keeping your away and your admitted lack of desire to actually look anything up.
Congratulation, you Bergdahl’d yourself.
Trump voter right there for you. Non apopgtic and a bit conspiracy minded. No need to engage with it. Shut down sequence... in five.. four..oh hell, everyone can see it for what it is. Don't be rude to other users, rule 1 Disengage.
