Soldier freed from Taliban after 5 year captivity

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.

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Just curious for your camouflage types. If Bergdahl was a deserter, lets hypothetical suppose - the President could not pardon or commute him, correct? Undue command influence?

Erm...

I would still think he could Pardon him.

The military is under federal jurisdiction and the only prohibition on pardons is if the President was convicted during his tenure, he/she couldn't pardon him/herself.

EDIT: you can, the process however is different vs a non-military request.

**Jihadin**

He has to go through the motions first. Though if the POTUS absolves him of all responsibility then its Undue Command Influence. POTUS then would set back the attempt by congress to remove that portion from UCMJ. For more clarity, the Sexual assault charges against a fellow Field Grade Officer being dropped by a General Officer.

**CptJake**

You can't pardon or commute until after a trial, so as long as he didn't state intent to do so prior to a trial (or otherwise influence a trial) he could do what he wanted.

**Jihadin**

What Jake said

**Ouze**

Thanks, just curious.I know that after Vietnam, deserters were blanket pardoned (though obviously not as close to the conflict).

Automatically Appended Next Post:
edit: and even then, deserters were not eligible so.... disregard.

**Ahtman**

His former roommate and ballet teacher thinks he may be misunderstood.

**Jihadin**

Negative Ouze. That blanket pardon is not in effect. My wife had an expat American who deserted from the military and went to Canada and came back with that document. Was a no go. Her office had to inform the US Army he was contain in Seattle awaiting pick up by them so a team from Lewis came and got him. He used that document in USCIS for another reason to have something done. That of which I cannot tell you.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
His former roommate and ballet teacher thinks he may be misunderstood.

From the article;
"Horton said Bergdahl didn't talk about Afghanistan much, and they more or less lost touch after he was deployed, but said he wanted to go."
With all due respect to the former teacher I'd put more faith in those who served with him as their testimony is more relevant to his deeds and possible mindset at the time.

**Jihadin**

Having a room mate and living in the barracks with fellow soldiers are two different animals

**Dreadclaw69**

Jihadin wrote:
Having a room mate and living in the barracks with fellow soldiers are two different animals

That's what I'm thinking

**Ahtman**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
Having a room mate and living in the barracks with fellow soldiers are two different animals

That's what I'm thinking

I know, but how often do you get to say 'former roommate and ballet teacher'? I couldn't pass it up.

**Jihadin**

I need more coffee....I just got that...

**Dreadclaw69**

Ahtman wrote:
I know, but how often do you get to say 'former roommate and ballet teacher'? I couldn't pass it up.

You gotta run with these things while you can

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
I need more coffee....I just got that...

Have one for me too, I had coffee about an hour ago and it did nothing

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
Just curious for your camouflage types. If Bergdahl was a deserter, lets hypothetical suppose - the President could not pardon or commute him, correct? Undue command influence?

Honestly dont know... But if that "anonymous" person at the WH is correct, nothing will be done, and he'll get away scot free because "he's suffered enough"

**Ouze**

I'm just speaking in generalities since I don't yet know enough about this guy, but in general: I think "he's suffered enough" is sometimes a valid sentence in the pursuit of satisfying justice, if not in pursuit of satisfying the law. I've never been an advocate of dura lex sed lex .

**Ensis Ferrae**

Ouze wrote:
I'm just speaking in generalities since I don't yet know enough about this guy, but in general: I think "he's suffered enough" is sometimes a valid sentence in the pursuit of satisfying justice, if not in pursuit of satisfying the law.

I mean, I don't really think that Mr. President can come down and say, "go easy on him, see if there's a way to get him out cleanly" as yeah, I think your earlier statement of "undue command influence" would come into play; Just the same as if Mr. President said, "get every ounce of the UCMJ out of that punk, make him bleed". Which is why, often times the President doesn't make comments publicly about these things other than "we've brought this guy home"

And I'm sure I don't have to repeat myself on my stance of whether "he's suffered enough"

**Jihadin**

Hey I'm glad he is alive and going home to his families. His actions though cause some families to receive folded flags instead their love ones.

**Ouze**

Well, we have to wait and see what the investigation reveals. Just because someone was unsympathetic to our war rationale doesn't mean he didn't just get snatched while taking a dump; although Occam's razor kinda frowns on that.

**Ensis Ferrae**

Jihadin wrote:
Hey I'm glad he is alive and going home to his families. His actions though cause some families to receive folded flags instead their love ones.

Which is why, IMO they should investigate for desertion and proceed to court martial if/when evidence is found

**Jihadin**

You do not leave your gear and weapon while on mount to go take a "dump"

**Ensis Ferrae**

Not as such, no... and I pulled plenty of guard mount

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
His actions though cause some families to receive folded flags instead their love ones.

this is a pretty murky claim.

Jihadin wrote:
You do not leave your gear and weapon while on mount to go take a "dump"

That would make him incompetent and negligent, not a traitor.

Just being devil's advocate. It's too earlier to make the proclamations that have been made about him, I think.

**Jihadin**

I posted another similar article on that about the reorientation of unit missions on here. So combat patrols turn into a search patrols. Everyone was getting hit during that time period. With search patrol the unit has to go into areas that has more exposure to actions looking for him.

Edit

I kind of figure you were about the UCMJ and pardon bit on playing Devil Advocate. Just take into account his action is touchy with a lot of us because he put soldiers in danger and some were killed over it.

**Relapse**

The more I hear about this guy the more pissed I get. We lost good men for him?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3605067568001/former-team-leader-bergdahl-tried-to-seek-out-taliban/#sp=show-clips

**Breotan**

The President's authority to issue pardons for Federal offenses is absolute. Pardons can be issued before conviction or after. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before any charged could be brought to a court.

The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense."

Even if there were a conflict of interest, the President is under no requirement to recuse himself of his authority to pardon. Congress doesn't even have oversight authority regarding Presidential pardons.

Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."

And back to the topic...

Relapse wrote:
The more I hear about this guy the more pissed I get. We lost good men for him?

Yep. And I'm afraid this tool will be let off light as some sort of publicity stunt as the election draws near. It'll certainly drive Republican voter turnout, though.

**44Ronin**

Americans just need someone to blame.

Fox "News" lol

**Ensis Ferrae**

Breotan wrote:
The President's authority to issue pardons for Federal offenses is absolute. Pardons can be issued before conviction or after. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before any charged could be brought to a court.

A Presidential pardon is different than using "command influence" on a case.... So basically, in this instance, he would have to give the order for a pardon, or essentially make no comment about a trial or investigation until after a conviction. Because if he makes a comment such as "I hope he gets the book thrown at him" a good military trial defense attorney is going to use that against the prosecution as undue command influence, which will significantly harm the prosecution.

**Ouze**

Breotan wrote:
The President's authority to issue pardons for Federal offenses is absolute. Pardons can be issued before conviction or after. President Ford pardoned President Nixon before any charged could be brought to a court.

The scope of the pardon power remains quite broad, almost plenary. As Justice Stephen Field wrote in Ex parte Garland (1867), "If granted before conviction, it prevents any of the penalties and disabilities consequent upon conviction from attaching [thereto]; if granted after conviction, it removes the penalties and disabilities, and restores him to all his civil rights; it makes him, as it were, a new man, and gives him a new credit and capacity....A pardon reaches both the punishment prescribed for the offence and the guilt of the offender....so that in the eye of the law the offender is as innocent as if he had never committed the offense."
Even if there were a conflict of interest, the President is under no requirement to recuse himself of his authority to pardon. Congress doesn't even have oversight authority regarding Presidential pardons.
Though pardons have been litigated, the Court has consistently refused to limit the President's discretion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, however, in Schick v. Reed (1974), seemed to limit the Court's restraint to pardons under "conditions which do not in themselves offend the Constitution."

Thanks, good stuff.

So, McCrystal wrote a piece I think Djones will agree with.

McChrystal on Bergdahl: ‘We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal’

Retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal on Wednesday urged Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s critics not to “judge” him until all the facts are in and sharply defended the extensive and risky search efforts that claimed the lives of some of his fellow soldiers.
“We did a huge number of operations to try to stop the Taliban from being able to move him across the border into Pakistan,” McChrystal told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview. “And we made a great effort and put a lot of people at risk in doing that, but that’s what you should do. That’s what soldiers do for each other.”

Bergdahl’s release as part of a prisoner swap involving five Taliban commanders has drawn angry scrutiny in Congress. It has also prompted some of his former comrades in arms to paint him as a deserter unworthy of the frantic search efforts on his behalf.

McChrystal, who commanded the war effort in Afghanistan at the time of Bergdahl’s June 2009 vanishing, declined to shed any more light on the circumstances of his disappearance.

“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”

Asked whether he would have made the same prisoner swap, McChrystal replied: “We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal.”

“There will be a lot of discussion on whether the mechanism for getting Sgt. Bergdahl back was right — and I’ll leave it to people to argue that,” he added.

McChrystal spoke to Yahoo News on the battlefield of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, where he was due to headline a summit on national service. He has called for an ambitious public-private partnership to get Americans age 18-28 to do one year of service.

The Summit at Gettysburg: Our Unfinished Work is being hosted by the Aspen Institute’s Franklin Project, together with the National Conference on Citizenship, ServiceNation and Voices for National Service.

McChrystal was forced to resign after a 2010 Rolling Stone article featured him and his aides criticizing civilian leaders, including Vice President Joe Biden.

**Relapse**

44Ronin wrote:
Americans just need someone to blame.

Fox "News" lol

So says the "interviewer".

I love what this Chief U.N. weapon inspector says about mint press "news":

"The MPN report had been "widely circulated" and cited among others by Military.com, the Voice of Russia, Press TV, Spanish newspaper ABC, ConsortiumNews.com and InfoWars. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting initially characterized the article as "honest about the limits of its knowledge", but after Gavlak's comments dissociating herself from the story wrote that "with the allegations of unprofessional behavior on the part of Mint Press News, there's little reason to take the Mint Press story seriously." Asked about the Mint Press News story Åke Sellström, Chief UN weapons inspector in Syria remarked ; "They are famous for 1001 Arabian Nights Stories."

**Jihadin**

“We’re going to have to wait and talk to Sgt. Bergdahl now and get his side of the story,” he said. “One of the great things about America is we should not judge until we know the facts. And after we know the facts, then we should make a mature judgment on how we should handle it.”

Nice comment by him. Cannot in anyway possible say McChrystal influence any possible UCMJ action

“We don’t leave Americans behind. That’s unequivocal.”

Very true. What I am worried though of the possible can of worms this action might be opening. If an American hostage is taken and the US Government plays the "We do not deal with terrorist" card then we have problems. People will forget the Taliban was the existing government before they protected OBL and forced an eviction.

Current perception on most Americans now that "Insurgents" now cover Taliban, AQ, and other groups of fighters

Thanks for sharing Ouze