United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Bowe Bergdahl, once missing U.S. soldier, charged with desertion
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ ... harged-with-desertion/?hpid=z1
Published: Mar 25, 2015
Author: Dan Lamothe
Post Date: 2015-03-25 14:36:55 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 11840
Comments: 86
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, according to his lawyer. Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday. Army officials announced they will provide an update in his case at 3:30 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., but declined to discuss new developments ahead of the news conference.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 78.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Is this the guy whose parents appeared with the president for some sort of announcement months ago? OH No!
I was going to post a photo of the Bergdahl parents with Obummer and found this nice one from BareNakedIslam.com. I wonder if the Bergdahl parents will stay in hiding or come charging out on a media offensive. This is a blow to Obama on that foolish trade of Bergdahl for the 5 Taliban leaders, who are almost off detention in Qatar and ready to go home to shoot at Americans again. No way this White House didn't try to stop this courtmartial. BNI has some other playful pix.
But not the blow to his ego that Bibi hit him with. In this case The Imam in Chief was fully prepared to take the hit for facilitating this obvious treason. There was NO way of stopping this CM from going down. Besides, it was a GREAT trade for his "side" after all. FIVE terr'ists for one traitor?? We all know Bergdahl will merely be pardoned in 2016, most likely after having served a few months -- if that.
I see as most likely that Bergdahl will plea bargain, plead guilty to one count of something, and accept a Bad Conduct Discharge with forfeiture of pay and allowances, including the pay for his time in captivity. A legal point of contention may be whether he intended to remain away permanently, or was he taking a dump or communing with Gaia when captured, said capture preventing his return from an unauthorized absence.
We shall see. The investigating officer with legal counsel drummed up the article 99. Tells me the government is not leaning towards a plea bargain. Soldiers died looking for this crap bag. His unit from reports are unanimous in saying he fled. He left his unit without authorization and left his weapon behind. He didn't want to be found. If he did he would have taken a piece of equipment where he could be found. Assets were taken off combat operations to look for him endangering more soldiers. I think article 99 is there in the charge sheet for a reason.
I'm sure it is, but I think it is to ensure that Bergdahl will plead guilty as part of a deal to get rid of that charge. I do not think this case will face a trial. It took quite a while for the White House and the military to come up with this charge sheet.
I think the Pentagon controls this and the WH is helpless. If the WH had any real power to change the outcome, there would be no charges at all. As for a pardon, don't you have to have a conviction prior to a presidential or gubernatorial pardon? You can't have preemptive pardons issued prior to a lawful finding of guilt. Too much temptation for crooked pols to just pardon all their henchmen in advance. I think the Bergdahl courtmartial will drag on well through mid-2016. I think it will be fodder for criticism of Obama and especially Hitlery. By summer of 2016, it won't matter as much because then a convicted Bergdahl is still damaging and a pardoned Bergdahl hurts Obola and Hitlery even worse.
What was Nixon convicted of when Ford pardoned him?
Pardoning him was the same as convicting him in the court of public opinion. Having praised Bergdahl for his service, Obama pardoning him prior to a court martial would politicize the whole process. And Bergdahl would be assumed guilty as charged (or worse) and Obama would literally be eating his own words after treating Bergdahl as a war hero for his spectacular desertion and consorting with the enemy. Even the libmedia won't cover up for a Bergdahl pardon. I think it would be a sort of breaking point for them.
But they could cover for a commutation of sentence after a plea agreement. His time in captivity could be used to justify commuting his prison sentence with the rest of the sentence left standing. That could even be done in January 2017.
I think the biggest objections are to the idea of paying him $350K and getting an honorable discharge when he is probably responsible for causing the deaths of 4-6 soldiers dispatched to find him. There is still the open question of whether he directly collaborated with his captors and revealed sensitive info about convoy operations and security that helped the Taliban make their attacks on American troops more deadly. I've read many times accusations from soldiers that he served with that the effectiveness of these attacks increased sharply shortly after his capture. They think he collaborated actively. But your proposed plea deal would satisfy enough people that it might be workable. And Obama is about as likely to pardon him as to promote him to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. IOW, no way.
For clarity, please note that the deal would be unlikely to satisfy me, but I am assessing what I am observing. It would make a lot of military people unhappy. I assess it as a plea deal in motion.
With who?
Those from 17 to 117 who have served in uniform.
Those from 17 to 117 who have served in uniform. Not an answer to my question. You answered who will be angry not with whom they will be angry. So I ask again, with whom will they be angry?
[SOSO #66] With who? [nc #68] Those from 17 to 117 who have served in uniform. [SOSO #70] Not an answer to my question. You answered who will be angry not with whom they will be angry. So I ask again, with whom will they be angry? Sorry, I misapprehended the question. For clarification, I said they would be unhappy, rather than angry. They are already dissatisfied with the interminable unexplained delay. They are unhappy that Bergdahl was given a hero's welcome when it was perfectly obvious that he had quit his unit (he left where he was supposed to be). Those who served will be unhappy with the decision if Bergdahl does not get either a BCD or DD, loss of all pay and benefits, and some period of confinement. For those who feel anger, deserved or undeserved, that would likely be directed at Bergdahl, the Obama administration, and the political military PTB who aided and abetted the administration. Also the military legal system in general, and more specifically the Convening Authority by whose authority the preferred charges were framed and approved.
In other words the military command structure. I wonder how this would play forward?
[SOSO] In other words the military command structure. The bulk of anger will be aimed Obama and his administration. The ones really pulling the strings on this are in the administration. The high level military command generals are political appointees. I am curious to see the actual charge sheet and read the narrative specifications where they say Sgt. Bergdahl did such and such at a specified location, on a specified date, etc. I don't see the misbehavior before the enemy case standing unless it involves some alleged act after captivity. I don't know what act of Bergdahl forms the basis for the charge. The desertion case could have been undermined by the return to duty, promotion and good conduct awards (constructive condonation), leaving unauthorized absence. If found to be constructive condonation, the evidence for desertion does not matter. If Bergdahl walks with an Honorable or General discharge, full benefits, back pay, and no time, and the legal reason is constructive condonation, lots of folks will be very unhappy. He returned to duty at a high level HQ. This could be a case of a frustrated prosecution unable to make certain charges because the case has been undermined. We may never know. I still expect to see a plea agreement make all this go away. Both sides want to be over, done, and just go away.
Yeah, f*ck justice.
We have courts of law, not courts of justice. I believe Bergdahl committed a crime, should do the time, but if taken to trial, he possibly may walk. That would be the correct outcome in court if that is what the law indicates based on the facts. The desertion charge could fall to "constructive condonation". The misbehavior before the enemy charge could fall by failing to show Bergdahl was "before the enemy" as that term is defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial. If the charge is not based on some alleged in-captivity misconduct, I do not see how it meets the definition. Thus far, I have only heard of conjecture about in-captivity misconduct. The short absence from going walkabout to being captured would remain, but that is a relatively minor charge. Bergdahl could well opt for a bench trial rather than a jury trial, especially if the defense is based on legal technicalities. If a judge finds constructive condonation, he would be doing his duty properly in dismissing the desertion charge. It would not be the justice system that screwed up, it would be some general or one of his officers with delegated authority. A question would be whether the screwup was accidental or on purpose. There are technical questions about whether the responsible officer had convening authority and whether he/she acted with knowledge of the desertion when returning Bergdahl to duty or promoting him. If the technicalities can be shown, the charge should not have been brought, it should be thrown out at the Article 32 hearing, or result in acquittal at trial. If a judge finds any element of misbehavior before the enemy not proven, he would be doing his duty properly in dismissing the misbehavior before the enemy charge. It wouldn't be justice, but that is not the court's job. The court, and the judge, would probably take undeserved blame. It would be injustice according to law, caused accidentally or on purpose by command, possibly assisted by some military lawyer advising on just how to screw it all up while maintaining plausible deniability.
Dance as you may with "technicalities" the purpose of laws and courts in a civil society is to seek the truth and administer justice. If justice cannot be served then there is something radically wrong with our laws. Now I am well aware that in just about every civil society ever what may be legal may not be moral and what may be moral may not be legal. This is because human societies are less than perfect. IMO what Bergdahl did was certainly immoral and almost certainly illegal. Clearly what Obama did in getting him back was both. So I say again, you just seem to be peachy keen with f*cking justice over in adherence to the loop holes in the law but I am not.
Would you have a judge ignore the law and issue a ruling contrary to law? Why have laws or bitch about the judges if someone else screws the pooch? I'm sure Bergdahl broke the law when he quit his post. If someone committed acts that effected constructive condonation, don't blame the court, and don't blame me. Blame whoever did it. Which laws do you think courts should ignore? As for seeking truth and administering justice, it is expressly not the purpose of military justice system which exists to maintain good order and discipline with the armed forces. These Article I courts are part of the Executive Branch, not part of the Judicial Branch. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/350/11/case.html United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 17-18 (1955) Opinion of the Court, Black J. We find nothing in the history or constitutional treatment of military tribunals which entitles them to rank along with Article III courts as adjudicators of the guilt or innocence of people charged with offenses for which they can be deprived of their life, liberty or property. Unlike courts, it is the primary business of armies and navies to fight or be ready to fight wars should the occasion arise. But trial of soldiers to maintain discipline is merely incidental to an army’s primary fighting function. To the extent that those responsible for performance of this primary function are diverted from it by the necessity of trying cases, the basic fighting purpose of armies is not served. And conceding to military personnel that high degree of honesty and sense of justice which nearly all of them undoubtedly have, it still remains true that military tribunals have not been and probably never can be constituted in such way that they can have the same kind of qualifications that the Constitution has deemed essential to fair trials of civilians in federal courts. For instance, the Constitution does not provide life tenure for those performing judicial functions in military trials. They are appointed by military commanders, and may be removed at will. Nor does the Constitution protect their salaries, as it does judicial salaries. Strides have been made toward making courts-martial less subject to the will of the executive department which appoints, supervises and ultimately controls them. But, from the very nature of things, courts have more independence in passing on the life and liberty of people than do military tribunals. Moreover, there is a great difference between trial by jury and trial by selected members of the military forces. 350 U. S. 18 It is true that military personnel, because of their training and experience, may be especially competent to try soldiers for infractions of military rules. Such training is no doubt particularly important where an offense charged against a soldier is purely military, such as disobedience of an order, leaving post etc. But whether right or wrong, the premise underlying the constitutional method for determining guilt or innocence in federal courts is that laymen are better than specialists to perform this task. This idea is inherent in the institution of trial by jury.
Juries do that all the time.
#80. To: SOSO (#78)
Judges on the bench are not juries in deliberations.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: Fred Mertz, redleghunter (#1)
Is this the guy whose parents appeared with the president for some sort of announcement months ago?
#12. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#3)
This is a blow to 0buma on that foolish trade of Bergdahl for the 5 Taliban leaders, who are almost off detention in Qatar and ready to go home to shoot at Americans again. No way this White House didn't try to stop this courtmartial.
#20. To: Liberator, TooConservative, redleghunter (#12)
We all know Bergdahl will merely be pardoned in 2016, most likely after having served a few months -- if that.
#27. To: nolu chan, Liberator, TooConservative, CZ82 (#20)
A legal point of contention may be whether he intended to remain away permanently, or was he taking a dump or communing with Gaia when captured, said capture preventing his return from an unauthorized absence.
#33. To: redleghunter, Liberator, TooConservative, CZ82 (#27)
I think article 99 is there in the charge sheet for a reason.
#34. To: nolu chan, redleghunter (#33)
#46. To: TooConservative, nolu chan, redleghunter (#34)
As for a pardon, don't you have to have a conviction prior to a presidential or gubernatorial pardon?
#55. To: SOSO (#46)
What was Nixon convicted of when Ford pardoned him?
#60. To: TooConservative, SOSO (#55)
Even the libmedia won't cover up for a Bergdahl pardon. I think it would be a sort of breaking point for them.
#62. To: nolu chan (#60)
But they could cover for a commutation of sentence after a plea agreement. His time in captivity could be used to justify commuting his prison sentence with the rest of the sentence left standing.
#65. To: TooConservative (#62)
But your proposed plea deal would satisfy enough people that it might be workable.
#66. To: nolu chan, TooConservative (#65)
It would make a lot of military people unhappy.
#68. To: SOSO (#66)
With who?
#70. To: nolu chan (#68)
With who?
#71. To: SOSO (#70)
[nc #65] It would make a lot of military people unhappy.
#72. To: nolu chan (#71)
For those who feel anger, deserved or undeserved, that would likely be directed at Bergdahl, the Obama administration, and the political military PTB who aided and abetted the administration. Also the military legal system in general, and more specifically the Convening Authority by whose authority the preferred charges were framed and approved.
#73. To: SOSO (#72)
[nc] For those who feel anger, deserved or undeserved, that would likely be directed at Bergdahl, the Obama administration, and the political military PTB who aided and abetted the administration. Also the military legal system in general, and more specifically the Convening Authority by whose authority the preferred charges were framed and approved.
[SOSO] I wonder how this would play forward?
#74. To: nolu chan (#73)
I still expect to see a plea agreement make all this go away. Both sides want to be over, done, and just go away.
#75. To: SOSO (#74)
Yeah, f*ck justice.
#76. To: nolu chan (#75)
We have courts of law, not courts of justice.
#77. To: SOSO (#76)
Dance as you may with "technicalities" the purpose of laws and courts in a civil society is to seek the truth and administer justice.
350 U. S. 17
#78. To: nolu chan (#77)
Would you have a judge ignore the law and issue a ruling contrary to law?
Replies to Comment # 78. Juries do that all the time.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 78.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]