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.

It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

 CptJake wrote:
It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

If people from this forum get their way, they'll be discharging him from a cannon!

Not criticising you, CptJake, but there seems to be a whiff of the kangaroo court on this forum.

Look, I'm just saying there's still a place for a noose in this world. I'm not saying Bergdahl should be collocated with that place briefly. That's for a court to decide.

 Breotan wrote:
The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

I very seriously doubt he gets 5 years. I would be surprised at 2.

We'll see though.

 CptJake wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

I very seriously doubt he gets 5 years. I would be surprised at 2.

We'll see though.

I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

If people from this forum get their way, they'll be discharging him from a cannon!

Not criticising you, CptJake, but there seems to be a whiff of the kangaroo court on this forum.

Well, unlike a lot of cases we do know certain facts going in.

He left his post, in a combat zone. That is not at question. What we don't know for sure is his intent (one of the elements in a desertion charge), though there have been some indicators published which are pretty damning. Best case for him is no one can prove intent to desert, but then you are still left with AWOL (instead of desertion) with the special circumstances of going AWOL in a combat zone (which is going to nail shut the 'with intent to avoid hazardous duty' portion.

If stating these things comes across as 'kangaroo court' I'm sorry. I know a bit about how the system works and is supposed to work and I'm pretty darned confident I'm accurate here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

There is little to NO chance of that happening. In fact, the political pressure has been the exact opposite, to avoid an article 32 hearing and a court martial. Remember, the administration hailed his service as honorable and with distinction while knowing there was a darned good chance it was not.

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
It isn't like anyone, even a doctor examining him, can make any reasonable determination of his mental condition on a specific day a few years ago anyway.

I bet he pleas out and avoids a court martial (assuming the Article 32 suggests one). A panel of senior NCOs and officers are not gonna be too sympathetic to a guy who enlists as an 11B while we are at war and then abandons his post in a combat zone to link up with the guys they have been fighting the last decade or so.

I'm just curious as to what type of discharge they end up giving him.

If people from this forum get their way, they'll be discharging him from a cannon!

Not criticising you, CptJake, but there seems to be a whiff of the kangaroo court on this forum.

Well, unlike a lot of cases we do know certain facts going in.

He left his post, in a combat zone. That is not at question. What we don't know for sure is his intent (one of the elements in a desertion charge), though there have been some indicators published which are pretty damning. Best case for him is no one can prove intent to desert, but then you are still left with AWOL (instead of desertion) with the special circumstances of going AWOL in a combat zone (which is going to nail shut the 'with intent to avoid hazardous duty' portion.

If stating these things comes across as 'kangaroo court' I'm sorry. I know a bit about how the system works and is supposed to work and I'm pretty darned confident I'm accurate here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

There is little to NO chance of that happening. In fact, the political pressure has been the exact opposite, to avoid an article 32 hearing and a court martial. Remember, the administration hailed his service as honorable and with distinction while knowing there was a darned good chance it was not.

I think we're re-treading old ground here, but he could plead mental health issues for the reason why he walked. Hard to prove one way or another.

As for the political point, he made the White House look like idiots - they may want some payback.

Stating he left, but because he had mental health issues is nothing but admitting to guilt, and hoping the mental issue mitigates during sentencing. This isn't something 'I didn't mean to, I was crazy' can be used to get a not guilty verdict. The ONLY factor in desertion or AWOL is intent to be gone for good, or intent to return. That is all the judge or panel is going to care about when figuring out guilt/innocence on that charge.

As for the political part, you are very much misreading the administration if you think they would now pressure the DoD to have a harsh sentence. That isn't going to happen.

This guy will not go before a civilian court, so pleading "mental health issues" is not going to see him walk free. That's not how the UCMJ or a Court Martial works.

The only thing the "not guilty because I was insane" defense attempts to do is prove that you did not know that what you were doing was wrong, that your mental state was so off-center that you did not know the difference between right and wrong, and so murder, cannibalism, whatever was, to your warped view of reality, a perfectly optional, viable course of action. It is a very, very, very difficult defense to mount, because there's a lot of crazy people in the world who still know that doing this or that is wrong.

Him being stressed, afraid, suffering from PTSD, etc. is not actually a mitigating factor in this case, because none of these aspects indicate that he did not know desertion was wrong. That's just not how the system works.

Yes, this guy will need to stand trial. Leaving him behind "because he deserted and feth that guy anyway" is a terrible precedent to set because, as others have mentioned, such actions have a far higher chance of blowing up in our collective faces than they do as being some kind of farcical "karmic justice".

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Breotan wrote:
The only thing he'll get in a plea deal is a reduced sentence. He'll lose his rank and entitlements, do a nickle in Leavenworth, and walk out with a dishonorable discharge.

I very seriously doubt he gets 5 years. I would be surprised at 2.

We'll see though.

I worry about politics getting involved with the justice process. Not saying it's going to happen, but as an example, there's a possibility that Obama may pressure the military to make an example of him just to appease Republican pressure.

CptJake has it right. After the Rose Garden and the illegal way his release was obtained in the first place, the last thing Obama wants is to have the man get busted for desertion. I won't be surprised to see his unit get dragged through the mud in a defense effort to get him off.

That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

The only people in this thread who I've seen suggest that Obama would press for a tough sentence are not Americans.

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

No there is not a 'winning strategy' for the President, nor should there be. He should (and very likely will at this point) stay the feth out of it. It should not be a political issue at this point (though that will be a factor in if the Army accepts/offers a plea deal and what the conditions of that deal are). If it does get to a panel they are going to look at the facts of the case and I doubt politics will play at all at that point.

An unrelated story shows how unfortunately, politics and political correctness can enter the DoD justice system.

http://www.militarytimes.com/longform/military/2015/03/04/task-force-violent-the-unforgiven/23940295/

Poor fethers got hung out to dry, and even though they were eventually exonerated they suffered for it big time.

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

That's what I am hoping that he will do. Otherwise, as Commander In Chief, there is the risk of command influence.

Spetulhu wrote:
That's what is always so funny with politics... If Bergdahl is cleared of charges Obama helped him, if he's sentenced Obama pressed for that? Is there no clear winning strategy in this for the President of the United States of America?

Oh, maybe he could just keep his mouth shut and let the military court work?

If he gets convicted, it will be in spite of Obama's string pulling to get him exonerated. I do like your suggestion for him, though.

The President is the CinC of the US Armed Forces, he is part and parcel of the process, whether he wants to be or not.

 Psienesis wrote:
The President is the CinC of the US Armed Forces, he is part and parcel of the process, whether he wants to be or not.

No one is disputing that. What I, and I'm sure others as well, would like to see is the Court Martial not be burdened by any statement made by the POTUS which may undermine its ability to act impartiality.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
The President is the CinC of the US Armed Forces, he is part and parcel of the process, whether he wants to be or not.

No one is disputing that. What I, and I'm sure others as well, would like to see is the Court Martial not be burdened by any statement made by the POTUS which may undermine its ability to act impartiality.

I'll dispute it, and I'll be correct too.

POTUS is the Commander in Chief. However, he plays ZERO role in any UCMJ proceeding. Any role he tried to insert himself into would be undue command influence. He is never a convening authority for a court martial nor can he initiate an article 32 hearing. He can not pass out non-judicial punishment under Article 15.

So no, he is not 'part and parcel of the process' in any way, unless you want to consider his pardoning ability, and it is not tied to his role as Commander in Chief.

His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

Now, re-reading my post above I was wrong on a point. POTUS can be a convening authority, but it is rare and would generally take place when a high ranking GO really screwed the pooch. He is NOT the convening authority for this case.

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically, could Obama intervene with an executive order (not saying he will), or is that 100% illegal for the president?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically, could Obama intervene with an executive order (not saying he will), or is that 100% illegal for the president?

I do not think so. I mean, what order could he issue? An order to contravene the Title 10 laws governing the UCMJ for this particular case? I guess in theory it could happen, but Executive Orders are tied to statutory authority of the Pres, and in this case he does not have it. Even though POTUS is the CinC, it is the Congress that has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ", and that includes the power/authority to create/update the UCMJ. In theory, an Executive Order written to change how the UCMJ was to be carried out, especially in a particular case, could be challenged.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but can the president pardon him? And if he can do you think he will?

 CptJake wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:
His executive authority over the DoD, which is part of his role as CinC, most certainly plays a role in this. Now, whether he chooses to exercise that power, or has exercised it previously in his administration, or will instead rely on the actions and directives of previous Presidents, is entirely up to him.

Go ahead and define his role then, and show me where I was wrong.

Make sure you understand who the convening authority for this case is.

Make sure you read article 37.



I think you will find everything I said is accurate. He has no role in this case.

I agree with most of what you've said, but technically, could Obama intervene with an executive order (not saying he will), or is that 100% illegal for the president?

I do not think so. I mean, what order could he issue? An order to contravene the Title 10 laws governing the UCMJ for this particular case? I guess in theory it could happen, but Executive Orders are tied to statutory authority of the Pres, and in this case he does not have it. Even though POTUS is the CinC, it is the Congress that has the power "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces ", and that includes the power/authority to create/update the UCMJ. In theory, an Executive Order written to change how the UCMJ was to be carried out, especially in a particular case, could be challenged.

That's real freaking dicey. Obama not going to (hope not) tell the US Army to not go through UCMJ process on Bergdahl. That would totally unhinge UCMJ in the Armed Services. The only thing Obama can more likely do is pardon him (Bergdahl) at the end of his term. If everyone worried about Bergdahl care after his ETS (if he doesn't do jail time) would depend on the Veterans Affair. If he does do jail time then he would continue to see medical care.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not sure if this has been discussed, but can the president pardon him? And if he can do you think he will?

Yes, POTUS can pardon him.

No, I don't think he will, for a couple of reasons.

1. I don't think he is going to be convicted, I still think he pleas out and avoids the court martial. No conviction = nothing to pardon.

2. Even if it goes to a court martial and he is convicted, I suspect he won't get much time, and I think once convicted the story dies and there is no motivation to bring it back up, which a pardon would do.

I guess if convicted, Pres Obama could include Bergdahl in the group of pardons most presidents sign right before they leave office, but I don't see it happening.

Now, assuming I'm wrong on the plea, and on a light sentence if convicted, there could be an appeal. If there is, this could drag out longer than Pres Obama has left in office, so again, it would lessen likelihood of a pardon.

Thinking a couple years jail time, Less than Honorable Discharge coded in a way to make VA decision to care for him easier, Disability pay, and Reduction in Rank

I do not think he will receive that 300K plus PoW pay being he, of his own accord, searched out Taliban (Haqquni)

I suspect the promotion goes away too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Article laying out probable defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/bowe-bergdahl-defense-disputed-by-platoon/index.html

 CptJake wrote:
I suspect the promotion goes away too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Article laying out probable defense:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/29/politics/bowe-bergdahl-defense-disputed-by-platoon/index.html

So the defense is, he was going to report his concerns about his platoon. And the best way that he had decided to do this was not to wait until the next day when their rotation would have returned them to the FOB. Instead he was going to walk along a route known for IEDs, without permission or informing his superiors, and he was doing so without his rifle and gear. Seems legit.....

 CptJake wrote:
Now, re-reading my post above I was wrong on a point. POTUS can be a convening authority, but it is rare and would generally take place when a high ranking GO really screwed the pooch.

Has that ever happened, to your knowledge? I've never heard of that but I don't know very much about military law.