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.

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.

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 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.

Is it possible to be speaking both as a member of the military, as well as a Republican?

 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.

So all the people who complained about undue command influence with Obama and none about Trump are doing that because?

 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.

 redleger wrote:

 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:

 redleger wrote:

 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.

The military can do whatever they want.

The questions is about what is command influence, and so far it boils down to “I disagree with POTUS”.

 d-usa wrote:
The military can do whatever they want.

The questions is about what is command influence, and so far it boils down to “I disagree with POTUS”.

I think its less that than more they already thought that before POTUS said it so could it actually be influence?

 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.

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.

 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.

 jhe90 wrote:


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.

Dakkadakka.com is not your personal erotica site.

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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!

 Easy E wrote:

 jhe90 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 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!

http://ncojournal.dodlive.mil/2013/09/03/1821/

well if you compare atticles like that to other US jails. well it sounds like they doing something right.

They did let their emotions get the best of them with Manning, that’s the main reason she’s out early.

I thought Manning's real crime was embarrassing the military? Or am I getting confused with another whistleblower?

 d-usa wrote:
They did let their emotions get the best of them with Manning, that’s the main reason she’s out early.

It was pressure too. She bacame too much of a problem to want to keep locked up.

All the media, all the related pressure from wiki leaks related areas and such. Political issues.

Was not worth the sheer fuss. Cutting losses on that one was best they could do. It was going to drag on for years.

 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.

I think Wikileaks are heroes again now that they dumped all those DNC emails.