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.

You're captured by the enemy; they send men in to get you and one dies; you are rescued but now charged with his death; trade one prison for another. What a great system. Well thought out.

It's actually perfectly logical, Ahtman. Think of it this way... if you start a forest fire and then hide in a cave in the woods so you don't burn to death and later two firemen die trying to rescue you, then you can be charged in their death as well. The fact that you were trapped does not exonerate you from the death of those who were trying to rescue from a situation you created.

See how that works? As for trading one prison for another, I can only remind you that he could have avoided that first "prison" altogether if he had so chosen. This isn't a case of "blaming the victim" either. Bergdahl made deliberate choices that landed him where he is now.

Uniform Code of Military Justice. Wins every time

One minute late to formation then I can get someone for 14 days restriction and 14 days extra duty
Means your duty hours are 0600 to midnight for 14 days straight just for missing 60 seconds

 Breotan wrote:
It's actually perfectly logical, Ahtman. Think of it this way... if you start a forest fire and then hide in a cave in the woods so you don't burn to death and later two firemen die trying to rescue you, then you can be charged in their death as well.

Except it isn't someone starting a fire, but someone in the forest during the fire that seeks shelter in a cave and is then charged for the deaths of the firemen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Bergdahl made deliberate choices that landed him where he is now.

Unless you are omnipotent we don't know that yet. We are getting ahead of ourselves based on anecdotal evidence.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
It's actually perfectly logical, Ahtman. Think of it this way... if you start a forest fire and then hide in a cave in the woods so you don't burn to death and later two firemen die trying to rescue you, then you can be charged in their death as well.

Except it isn't someone starting a fire, but someone in the forest during the fire that seeks shelter in a cave and is then charged for the deaths of the firemen.

The guy deserted. He left camp, and became MIA.

ANY missing soldier creates the response that happened. ANY. We all know this. When a soldier goes MIA, everything stops and all available assets go to getting him back.

He did start the fire.

Well

Everyone knows one does not leave the FoB
So his first lawful order he broke was leaving the FoB
In the process of breaking that "order" he left his weapon "unattended" thereby breaking the order of always "maintaining positive control of your weapon"
In the process of breaking the "Do not leave the FoB" (In case some want to cut hairs here. Do not leave the FoB unless mission) he left his guard mount thereby breaking General Orders Number 1 and 2. To clarify:

1st General Order
"I will guard everything within the limits of my post and quit my post only when properly relieved."

2nd General Order
"I will obey my special orders and perform all of my duties in a military manner."

Could not break General Order Number 3 of

3rd General Order
"I will report violations of my special orders, emergencies, and anything not covered in my instructions, to the commander of the relief."

Being he willfully broke General Order Number 1 and 2.

It is known he left the FoB of his own free will

I hadn't realize he had already been tried and all the information made public.

UCMJ says hello

What do you not understand about the Orders he broke? Orders that been establish well before we went to war? Orders that were establish literally day one of military combat operations?

All basic trainees learn their General Orders literally day one of basic training.
All basic trainees learn never to leave their weapons unattended.
All basic trainee learn to stay in their designated area.

He does not need a trial for those he broke. He can decide Non Judicial punishment or trial by Court Martial if his Chain of Command press it.

 Jihadin wrote:
UCMJ says hello

UCMJ also still has a procedure, and requires evidence. I don't think even the UCMJ lets you just acuse a man of murder and throw him in prison without some oversight.

 Jihadin wrote:
What do you not understand about the Orders he broke?

That you are going by anecdotal evidence that he broke them. I'm not saying he did or didn't, but that it will be up to people not you or I to analyze and determine based on an investigation, not stories passed along to the press.

He broke Standing Orders within five seconds of leaving his guard post. He then broke another Order by leaving the FoB of his own free will. He does not need a trial unless he request Trial by Court Martial.

If the current Chain of Command so wish to prosecute him under UCMJ

The violations of Articles

Article 80 "Attempts"
(a) An act, done with specific intent to commit an offense under this chapter, amounting to more than mere preparation and tending, even though failing, to effect its commission, is an attempt to commit that offense.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who attempts to commit any offense punishable by this chapter shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, unless otherwise specifically prescribed.

(c) Any person subject to this chapter may be convicted of an attempt to commit an offense although it appears on the trial that the offense was consummated.

Article 85 Desertion
(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 on 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.

Article 86 Absence Without Leave
Any member of the armed forces who, without authority–

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 87 Missing Movement
Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Article 92 Failure to Obey Order and/or Regulations
ny person subject to this chapter who–

(1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;

(2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by any member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or

(3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;

shall be punished as a court-martial may dire


Article 99 Misbehavior before the Enemy
Any person subject to this chapter 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 punishment as a court- martial may direct.

Article 105 Misconduct as a Prisoner
Any person subject to this chapter who, while in the hands of the enemy in time of war–

(1) for the purpose of securing favorable treatment by his captors acts without proper authority in a manner contrary to law, custom, or regulation, to the detriment of others of whatever nationality held by the enemy as civilian or military prisoners; or

(2) while in a position of authority over such persons maltreat them without justifiable cause;

shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Article 113 Misbehavior of a Sentinel or Look Out
Any sentinel or look-out who is found drunk or sleeping upon his post, or leaves it before he is regularly relieved, shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, by if the offense is committed at any other time, by such punishment other than death as court-martial may direct.

Article 118 Murder
Any person subject to this chapter whom without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he- -

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act which is inherently dangerous to others and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson;

is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

Article 119 Manslaughter
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who, with an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being in the heat of sudden passion caused by adequate provocation is guilty of voluntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court- martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, without an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm, unlawfully kills a human being–

(1) by culpable negligence; or

(2) while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate an offense, other than those named in clause (4) of section 918 of this title (article 118), directly affecting the person;

is guilty of involuntary manslaughter and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


Quite a bit of Court Martial offense already.

http://www.ucmj.us/

For those who bring up his ETS date or that his Enlistment was over a long time ago and he is a civilian now

Article 2 Persons Subject to this Chapter

So at this point he is still innocent unless he accepts the charge or is found guilty by court martial.

He is also, at this point, 100% innocent since not a single charge has even been brought forward.

You list a laundry list of stuff he could be found guilty off down the line, but today he is not charged with anything nor guilty of anything.

 d-usa wrote:
So at this point he is still innocent unless he accepts the charge or is found guilty by court martial.

He is also, at this point, 100% innocent since not a single charge has even been brought forward.

You list a laundry list of stuff he could be found guilty off down the line, but today he is not charged with anything nor guilty of anything.

Don't worry Jihadin, I've got this.

"But UCMJ"

 d-usa wrote:
So at this point he is still innocent unless he accepts the charge or is found guilty by court martial.

He is also, at this point, 100% innocent since not a single charge has even been brought forward.

You list a laundry list of stuff he could be found guilty off down the line, but today he is not charged with anything nor guilty of anything.

I'm pretty sure he has admitted he left his COP. Calling him guilty of breaking the rules for doing so shouldn't offend anyone's sense of right. The motive and reasons he left may be used as mitigating factors when deciding what actual charges to bring (or whether to skip charges and just separate him administratively with or without an Article 15 which is administrative and not judicial itself). Honestly, to think otherwise is silly at this point. Again,he admits he left the COP.

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So at this point he is still innocent unless he accepts the charge or is found guilty by court martial.

He is also, at this point, 100% innocent since not a single charge has even been brought forward.

You list a laundry list of stuff he could be found guilty off down the line, but today he is not charged with anything nor guilty of anything.

Don't worry Jihadin, I've got this.

"But UCMJ"

If the current Chain of Command so wish to prosecute him under UCMJ

As I mention before if they were to press. <--(Bold part for you Motty )

 CptJake wrote:
I'm pretty sure he has admitted he left his COP.

I'm sure you can link to a source where he says that then, as I've only seen other people make the claim. Again, I've never claimed he didn't, just that at this point we don't have definitive information, and the more politicized this becomes the more difficult it is to believe anything absolute that is being argued. I'd rather wait for the official investigation to make a determination before condemning him and making absolute statements about what did or didn't happen.

 Ahtman wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm pretty sure he has admitted he left his COP.

I'm sure you can link to a source where he says that then, as I've only seen other people make the claim. Again, I've never claimed he didn't, just that at this point we don't have definitive information, and the more politicized this becomes the more difficult it is to believe anything absolute that is being argued. I'd rather wait for the official investigation to make a determination before condemning him and making absolute statements about what did or didn't happen.

NYT reporting:

WASHINGTON — Sometime after midnight on June 30, 2009, Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl left behind a note in his tent saying he had become disillusioned with the Army, did not support the American mission in Afghanistan and was leaving to start a new life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html

The Washington Post story ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/bergdahls-writings-reveal-a-fragile-young-man/2014/06/11/fb9349fe-f165-11e3-bf76-447a5df6411f_story.html ) goes through some of his journal entries and actions prior to leaving, which though not a 'I did it' sure as heck scream intent.

Then we have his words from letters sent via the IRC as reported (and the PDF is in the article) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/06/12/exclusive-bergdahl-explains-in-prison-letters-why-he-vanished.html :

He starts on a social note, saying he missed Thanksgiving and wished good hunting to his family and friends. Then he sets about explaining why he left his base, in poorly spelled block print.

“The cercomstance from the begaining of my time in Afghanistan from immedet top to bottom (spelling typed as per the letter), where bad for troopers espeshly in my PLT. (Platoon.) Orders showed a high disconcer for safty of troopers in the field, and lacking clear minded, logical and commonsense thinking and understanding from the topsides,” he writes.

“The cercomstance showed signs of going from bad into a nightmare for the men in the field. Unexeptable conditions for the men working and risking life every moment outside the wire,” Bergdahl adds.

“There are some risks that are forced to be taken, however it was made clear more than once that clear minded understanding from leadership was lacking, if not non-existent. The conditions were bad and looked to be getting worse for the men that where actuly the ones risking thier lives from attack as well as Afghan ellements.”

Honestly, I can'y fathom how anyone could make the argument he did not walk away from his COP. What is your alternative theory? A couple Talibs snuck in and kidnapped him from the COP?

Two things from the article(s) you posted.

Writing from a Taliban “prison,”

So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby declined to comment on the Bergdahl correspondence on why he left his base. He said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has “already made clear that the Army is going to review the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and captivity,” adding that “we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete.”

Silly DoD investigating the incident, don't they know we already have decided what happened?

 Ahtman wrote:
Two things from the article(s) you posted.

Writing from a Taliban “prison,”

So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby declined to comment on the Bergdahl correspondence on why he left his base. He said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has “already made clear that the Army is going to review the circumstances surrounding his disappearance and captivity,” adding that “we need to reserve judgment until that process is complete.”

Silly DoD investigating the incident, don't they know we already have decided what happened?

Weren't a bunch of journalists forced to convert to Islam by gunpoint? Seems about as applicable as a letter written in Taliban captivity.

 Ahtman wrote:
So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?

Nah. It was written in his tent. Before he walked off the base.

Seriously, it's in the first line of the NYT article. I'm not sure how it could be more accessible.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?

Nah. It was written in his tent. Before he walked off the base.

Seriously, it's in the first line of the NYT article. I'm not sure how it could be more accessible.

I believe Ahtman was referring to the last letter, in the daily beast article.

 -Shrike- wrote:
I believe Ahtman was referring to the last letter, in the daily beast article.

If we're talking about the smoking gun that he deserted, then it probably has to be the letter saying, "Later guys, I'm deserting."

Seaward wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I believe Ahtman was referring to the last letter, in the daily beast article.

If we're talking about the smoking gun that he deserted, then it probably has to be the letter saying, "Later guys, I'm deserting."

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but:

Ahtman wrote:Two things from the article(s) you posted.

Writing from a Taliban “prison,”

So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?

... that's the first line of the daily beast article.

 -Shrike- wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 -Shrike- wrote:
I believe Ahtman was referring to the last letter, in the daily beast article.

If we're talking about the smoking gun that he deserted, then it probably has to be the letter saying, "Later guys, I'm deserting."

I'm not trying to start an argument here, but:

Ahtman wrote:Two things from the article(s) you posted.

Writing from a Taliban “prison,”

So the so called smoking gun was written while imprisoned by the enemy?

... that's the first line of the daily beast article.

And attacking that while trying desperately to ignore the note he left before walking off the base is just weird. Ahtman asked for evidence that Bergdahl walked off. He got it. He then chose to go after the "weakest" link by pretending it wasn't one of many and that the others didn't exist.

I get that you guys are invested in the narrative that Bergdahl didn't desert. I just don't get why.

To be fair, for 'desertion' you need the element of intent, which is why the original 15-6 was not closed (allegedly says he willingly left the COP but without being able to interview him could not label it as desertion).

Of course, since that report is not open source right now, and they've appointed a 2 star to reopen the investigation, we'll see.

But again, there seems to be zero credible dispute he willingly left the COP.

And again, I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.

I'm not cold hearted, unmerciless bastard of an NCO. Bergdahl is mentally F'ed up from the floor up. I'm not advocating slamming him with UCMJ now after being released by the Insurgents. Though after Mental Health gives the okay then yes. I would, IMHO, have some sort of UCMJ action happen.

Same as Manning. It matter not why one does it. Its what one does in the process that breaks/violate UCMJ Articles.

 CptJake wrote:
To be fair, for 'desertion' you need the element of intent, which is why the original 15-6 was not closed (allegedly says he willingly left the COP but without being able to interview him could not label it as desertion).

Of course, since that report is not open source right now, and they've appointed a 2 star to reopen the investigation, we'll see.

But again, there seems to be zero credible dispute he willingly left the COP.

And again, I would love Ahtman and Co'Tor Shas to go into their alternate theories of how he managed to be off the COP when the Talibs grabbed him.

Haven't there been confirmed reports that he has walked off and "deserted" twice before, but always came back?

So there would be really no evidence that this desertion was really a desertion .

But seriously, if you walk off twice how the hell do you not get kicked out?

 d-usa wrote:


But seriously, if you walk off twice how the hell do you not get kicked out?

Between my wife and me, we had 5 company commands, and she has had a BN command and takes a brigade next month. I can tell you from experience that it can be amazingly hard to do the right thing and kick a troop out or even hammer them with an article 15 or refer them for UCMJ. Hell, you can even be questioned by 'higher' for obeying the regs and correctly reporting DEROG info to CCF. Often there are two issues with come into play. The "we're short handed" issue (which is often accompanied by a belief in junior leaders they can 'fix the trooper') and the "we've already had too many incidents and it will make us look bad" issue which tends to be accompanied by higher leaders unwilling to back lower level leaders. Many folks can only take being beaten up so many times for doing what is right before you either get gun shy or leave active duty in frustration.

Often certain 'crimes' cannot be dealt with below the O6 or even higher level (which has pissed me off more than once) and a result of this risk aversion means that things which should have been addressed early and at a low level are instead allowed to fester until they can no longer be ignored by the O6 or higher level.

Now, I have no proof any of what I just typed has any bearing on this specific case, but have seen indicators which make it easy to believe similar issues did come into play.

I also have some very personal experience with how similar discipline matters were handled by this unit in Alaska before their deployment which color my beliefs.

Unit there for a one year rotation in Afghanistan. If a Court Martial convenes to "kick him out". Bergdahl will be held at a facility in Kuwait and flown back and forth to Afghanistan during the process of Court Martialing him. Unit will wait till it gets back to the US and start the process of (most time I have seen) a "Less then Honorable", "Dishonorable", or "Discharge for the Good of the Service"

Though I'm wondering why he could not make it at all in the Coast Guard and yet makes the Army.

Well, this may have just screwed my vacation plans...

Thanks Obama...

It doesn't really matter if he deserted or not. We don't try and retrieve American servicemen based upon how good they are, and leave them to rot if they were poor or unfit. This really is super simple stuff, not a tough concept.

If he deserted, then he should be tried accordingly, although given the specific situation with this case, it might be that charges would serve the law, and not justice. But we'll see when the investigation is complete.