Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

Correct, it depends on the jurisdiction.

Wikipedia, for what it’s worth:

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.

 d-usa wrote:
I think he only plead to avoid a jury and to put his fate in the hands of a judge rather than an angry mob.

He could have skipped the panel and had a trial by judge, so no, that is not why he pled guilty.

Yeah, I noticed he had that option when I pulled the article.

Interesting documentary, worth watching to the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d9cdp

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.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

Most experts thing BergDahl get 10 to 15 years after mental illness and self inflicted suffering for the past 5 years are taken into consideration.

Only a jury can give the death penalty anyway, so it’s off the table.

 Big H wrote:
Interesting documentary, worth watching to the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d9cdp

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.

 Pacific wrote:

 Big H wrote:
Interesting documentary, worth watching to the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d9cdp

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.

No jail time.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/358631-judge-rules-no-jail-time-for-bergdahl

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.

I did not see that coming.

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).

Surprised me, I'll admit.

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.

Something about being a POW: no one ever intended to have it happen and many of POWs did something really stupid to get there.

Never thought he deserved jail time after what he went through. The fact he brought it on himself doesn't change anything.

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.

No, it’s military vs civilians.

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?

 redleger wrote:

 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.

Sorry he couldn't get that gang rape you were hoping for.