Bergdahl pleads guilty

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.

**redleger**

Ouze wrote:
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.

Me too goat, me too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
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?

I think you misunderstand my point. There is civilian equivalent of actions that can cause unintended harm. One example is a building inspector who takes bribes to overlook flaws. Now that building collapses and hurts some people. No one dies, by sheer luck, but a few are now paraplegics, one is a vegetable, etc. What would the possible minimum sentence of that be? Is it a different charge for each person hurt in this way? If you compare it to something like that, which we know would result in jail time if it could be proven, makes what he got seem a bit lax.

**d-usa**

He didn’t “just” get a DD.

He also got years of solitary confinement in a cave with physical and psychological torture. It’s not like he spend that time sitting in a beach drowning in women impresses by his war stories.

But maybe that doesn’t count, because we weren’t the ones doing that to him.

**Gordon Shumway**

Not up on my law, but Is it possible to appeal a ruling and get a worse penalty as a result? Just trying to see if he has a downside of appealing the verdict. Is the appeal like a reset of the verdict or a bank the results and roll again for better?

**Ouze**

An appeal isn't a reset of the verdict, but an attempt to invalidate a verdict based upon some error introduced at trial. So no, you can't get a worse result, appeals are pretty narrowly driven upon whatever errors you are claiming occurred.

**Tannhauser42**

redleger wrote:

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.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your question, but are you asking what would be the civilian equivalent of causing severe, lasting trauma to a lot of people and then being branded a pariah for the rest of your life once it's been revealed?
We currently have a thread on that very subject.

Probably the absolute best Bergdahl can hope for is a book deal, a few speaking engagement fees, and then living off the kindness of others for the rest of his life. This is a brand that will never go away.

**BobtheInquisitor**

The civilian in question would have to be treated for affluenza. They may have to stop partying so publicly.

**Gordon Shumway**

Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.

**Tannhauser42**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.

Certainly, he could change his name, which will help him out on various low-level jobs like the ones you mentioned. But anything that requires even the most cursory of background checks? It'll likely come out, and that's where my "kindness of others" comment earlier will come into play. He'll be absolutely dependent on employers who are willing to give him a chance.

**Dreadwinter**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.

Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.

Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)

**Gordon Shumway**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.

Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.

Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)

Really? Employers ask about that? I guess I have had it easy my whole life, where the employer is asking me to help them out. Then I got into acedemia, and my life, other than what I have published and researched and taught, was a complete non issue. I'm just going to bow out now, as I think I am completely unequipped to discuss this intelligently. But I will still read what others want to contribute.

**djones520**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Dreadwinter wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.

Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.

Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)

Really? Employers ask about that? I guess I have had it easy my whole life, where the employer is asking me to help them out. Then I got into acedemia, and my life, other than what I have published and researched and taught, was a complete non issue. I'm just going to bow out now, as I think I am completely unequipped to discuss this intelligently. But I will still read what others want to contribute.

If you're required to disclose that you are a felon, he'll have to disclose the DD.

**Gordon Shumway**

A DD rap is a criminal offense? Huh. I knew a criminal act might lead to one, but I didn't know it was considered one iteself. Evidently it is a lot harder to get than I had perceived. See, I wonder if I am the weird one that doesn't know that and would hire without a second thought, or if most people really get the stigma that it brands a person with?

**djones520**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
A DD rap is a criminal offense? Huh. I knew a criminal act might lead to one, but I didn't know it was considered one iteself. Evidently it is a lot harder to get than I had perceived. See, I wonder if I am the weird one that doesn't know that and would hire without a second thought, or if most people really get the stigma that it brands a person with?

No, a DD is part of the punishment of a criminal offense.

Bergdahl is a convicted felon, for breaking Federal Law.

**Gordon Shumway**

And just so I'm not clueless when talking to people about it, the law he broke was that he ran away? And that was what "you know who" said should be punisishable by death? That seems rather silly and a but of overkill.

**djones520**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
And just so I'm not clueless when talking to people about it, the law he broke was that he ran away? And that was what "you know who" said should be punisishable by death? That seems rather silly and a but of overkill.

Desertion, and Misbehavior Before the Enemy, both criminal offenses in the military justice system. Both carry a maximum penalty of death.

10 U.S. Code § 885 - Art. 85. Desertion
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
(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 one 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.

10 U.S. Code § 899 - Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy
US Code
Notes
Authorities (CFR)
prev | next
Any member of the armed forces 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 other punishment as a court-martial may direct.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 69.)

**Gordon Shumway**

Yeah, so he ran away. thanks.

**jhe90**

Dreadwinter wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Couldn't he legally change his name? Yeah, he will have the DD stigma, but really, if a person really needs a pizza delivery guy, or teller, or whatever, he isn't going to look that closely at the application. When I was a sprout, I had some bosses, I'm pretty sure didn't even look at the application. He won't get the best of jobs, maybe, but he will get hired, and he can live and maybe make back some sort of life in his kids, if he wants to.

Most employers still ask about your military history and that is not something you can lie about in most cases.

Couple questions about a DD. Does it show up on a background check? Are you still able to get the VA benefits? (I think I read once that you still got the VA benefits, but that may be case by case)

Answers good Dakkaite

. Dishonorable
A dishonorable discharge (DD), like a BCD, is a punitive discharge rather than an
administrative discharge. It can only be handed down to an enlisted member by a general
court-martial. Dishonorable discharges are handed down for what the military considers
the most reprehensible conduct. This type of discharge may be rendered only by
conviction at a general court-martial for serious offenses (e.g., desertion, sexual assault,
murder, etc.) that call for dishonorable discharge as part of the sentence.
With this characterization of service, all veterans' benefits are lost, regardless of any past
honorable service. This type of discharge is universally regarded as shameful, and the
social stigma attached to it makes it very difficult to obtain gainful post-service
employment. Additionally, US federal law prohibits ownership of firearms by those who
have been dishonorably discharged.[2] In most cases, a person who receives a
dishonorable discharge loses the right to vote and the right to receive governmental
assistance of any kind. They cannot obtain a bank loan and they are unable to find work at
the state or government level. Finding gainful civilian employment is also an arduous
task for someone with a DD as most states now require employers to conduct background
checks and the results of military records and discharges are often disclosed. Going to
college is another pitfall because government loans and grants are unavailable for anyone
with a DD. This is a permanent record that will follow the individual for the duration of
their lives anywhere in the world. In some US states, the United Kingdom and other
countries this

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vetverify.org/javax.faces.resource/images/VOSB-Military-Discharge-Overview.pdf.xhtml%3Fln%3Ddefault%26v%3D1_0&ved=0ahUKEwjsy6WxxKTXAhXFuhoKHdG0DW8QFgijATAV&usg=AOvVaw3XCdKM0jr884q7cKsoyMH0

**Howard A Treesong**

Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yeah, so he ran away. thanks.

Not sure if you’re playing down the seriousness of that action. He wasn’t running away from a fight in the street, he deserted his post in a war zone and soldiers were injured and killed as a result of looking for him. A DD is the minimum he could expect for this behaviour, he knew that when joining he military.

**Steelmage99**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Gordon Shumway wrote:
Yeah, so he ran away. thanks.

Not sure if you’re playing down the seriousness of that action. He wasn’t running away from a fight in the street, he deserted his post in a war zone and soldiers were injured and killed as a result of looking for him. A DD is the minimum he could expect for this behaviour, he knew that when joining he military.

Haven't we been over this;

To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:

"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."

**CptJake**

jhe90 wrote:
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.

He'll wait a couple years and get the BCD changed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for 'seriousness of the action' and 'past precedence', I have a family member who went AWOL a couple of weeks before a deployment and turned themselves in about 5 months later.

He got 10 months in a disciplinary barracks and a BCD. I personally thought that was a light sentence.

Deserting in an active combat theater/misconduct in the face of the enemy or whatever the charge Bergdahl pled guilty to SHOULD get you more of a sentence than a stateside AWOL...

**Howard A Treesong**

Steelmage99 wrote:

Haven't we been over this;

To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:

"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."

Probably because it’s a very difficult thing to pin down that searching for him “directly” led to deaths and injuries because of how complex situations are and what decisions are made. Undoubtedly people undertook actions putting themselves at risk that they wouldn’t have done without him deserting. Soldiers in his battalion say that injuries resulted from such operations, and while some would pin every tenuous injury upon Bergdahl’s capture, I wouldn’t readily dismiss all of them.

**djones520**

CptJake wrote:
jhe90 wrote:
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.

He'll wait a couple years and get the BCD changed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for 'seriousness of the action' and 'past precedence', I have a family member who went AWOL a couple of weeks before a deployment and turned themselves in about 5 months later.

He got 10 months in a disciplinary barracks and a BCD. I personally thought that was a light sentence.

Deserting in an active combat theater/misconduct in the face of the enemy or whatever the charge Bergdahl pled guilty to SHOULD get you more of a sentence than a stateside AWOL...

He did get more then that. His actions directly resulted in him spending 5 years in captivity, as a Prisoner of War.

I don't know why people keep acting like that doesn't mean anything.

**sirlynchmob**

and the verdict is in:

"A military judge spared Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from prison for walking off his post in Afghanistan in 2009, sentencing him on Friday to a dishonorable discharge and a reduction in rank but no time behind bars. "

Which of course is because trump is an idiot:
"On the other hand, President Trump's unprincipled effort to stoke a lynch-mob atmosphere while seeking our nation's highest office has cast a dark cloud over the case," he continued, referring to criticism Trump made about Bergdahl in the past. "

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/bowe-bergdahl-gets-dishonorable-discharge-no-jail-time-after-abandoning-n817016

**d-usa**

For most of us it wasn’t “should he be punished” but “was he already punished enough”.

Edit: I think for the other side it’s less about him getting punished, and more about wanting to be the one doing the punishing. Which can probably devolve into a “justice vs revenge” argument.

**Relapse**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Steelmage99 wrote:

Haven't we been over this;

To quote the Secretary of Defense before Congress:

"I have personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, in all of our reports. I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl. And I have asked the question. We have all asked the question. I have seen no evidence, no facts presented to me when I asked that question."

Probably because it’s a very difficult thing to pin down that searching for him “directly” led to deaths and injuries because of how complex situations are and what decisions are made. Undoubtedly people undertook actions putting themselves at risk that they wouldn’t have done without him deserting. Soldiers in his battalion say that injuries resulted from such operations, and while some would pin every tenuous injury upon Bergdahl’s capture, I wouldn’t readily dismiss all of them.

There is a Stars and Stripes link in this thread that says while no soldiers deaths may be linked to searches for Bergdahl, there were soldiers permanently seriously crippled in missions to search for him.

**d-usa**

Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:

- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:

- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.

Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?

**d-usa**

Sorry, fixed it.

- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?
- Repeat in a couple days.

**Dreadwinter**

Relapse wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Which is the usual circular argument in this thread:

- People died.
- No they didn’t.
- Well, they got hurt.
- Repeat in a couple days.

Are you trying to discount the fact that the military said people were permanently injured looking for him?

What did you read there that made you take that ridiculous leap?

Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

**Bromsy**

Dreadwinter wrote:

Honestly, he deserved to be punished for desertion. However, he was not actively avoiding the military and causing injury by slipping away. He really needed help over there. The man was captured and tortured by the enemy. Why are we downplaying the fact that he was being tortured by the enemy?

Could you go more in depth on what you meant in the bolded part?