Bowe Bergdahl to Be Charged With Desertion, Officials Say

[bonnie]

Bowe Bergdahl to Be Charged With Desertion, Officials Say

 

 

 

WASHINGTON - A U.S. official says the Army sergeant who abandoned his post in Afghanistan and was held by the Taliban for five years will be court martialed on charges of desertion and avoiding military service.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will also be charged with misbehavior before the enemy, said the official, who was not authorized to discuss the announcement publicly on the record and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The U.S. military plans an announcement at Fort Bragg in North Carolina Wednesday afternoon.

Bergdahl walked away from his post in Afghanistan and was captured, then released from Taliban capture in a prisoner exchange.

Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, has been reviewing the massive case files and had a broad range of legal options, including various degrees of desertion charges.

A major consideration was whether military officials would be able to prove that Bergdahl had no intention of returning to his unit - a key element in the more serious desertion charges.

The Idaho native was freed by the Taliban May 31 in a deal struck by the Obama administration in which five senior Taliban officials were released from detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. 

Bergdahl had disappeared from his post in Paktika province in eastern Afghanistan on June 30, 2009. Some ex-members of Bergdahl's former unit had labeled him a deserter, asserting that he chose to walk away and saying some were wounded or killed looking for him.

Bergdahl has been given an Army desk job since his release by the Taliban.

 

 

 

[joeb]

Bergdahl is also charged with aiding the enemy and endangering his fellow soldiers.  That's the most serious charge against him. 

 

It's ironic isn't it that both Barack Obama and Susan Rice called him honorable, and said he served with "distinction".  Really?  A deserter and someone who endangers his own comrades is honorable and that is serving with "distinction"?  How is it that the President of United States and one of his top cabinet members sees a deserter that way?  Does that tell you anything about them?  It should.   To me only two reasons for exist for this sorry state of affairs.  1.  They are so anti US that they want to encourage desertion and undermine the morale of armed forces of the United States.  2.  They are so dishonest that outright lying the way they did for a supposed political advantage during an election creates no sense of shame in them at all.

 

How about the fact that Obama bypassed Congress to exchange what has been described as "the general staff" of the Taliban for a deserter?  Do you really think he had the best interests of this country at heart when he did that?  I can't see how.  He had 3 other options for getting Bergdahl back at the time and those options were being actively pursued, yet he chose to put our enemies back into the field of combat.  Why?

[Gregory Matthews]

It's ironic isn't it that both Barack Obama and Susan Rice called him honorable, and said he served with "distinction". 

 

His service was honorable until proven otherwise and until proven otherwise, he was not a deserter.

 

For the President to have said anything else could have caused him to go free without any trial.  I am very serious on this point.

 

It is called Command Influence.  The President is the Commander in Chief.   For him to make any such statement would be said to influence the people who would decide the case.  If they are going to try him, they will have to go by the book.

 

The next step will probably be an Article 32 hearing.  I have not heard that they have had one.  They will have to have such in order to bring him to trial. But, I am a  little confused on this and maybe he has already had one.

 

Here is the deal, Bergdahl has been charged with crimes under the UCMJ.  But, that is not a decision to bring him to trail.  The Article 32 hearing, which has not been held, will determine whether or not he goes to trial.  One news source says that the Article 32 hearing will be on April 22.

[CoAspen]

 

How is it that the President of United States and one of his top cabinet members sees a deserter that way?  Does that tell you anything about them?  It should.   To me only two reasons for exist for this sorry state of affairs.  1.  They are so anti US that they want to encourage desertion and undermine the morale of armed forces of the United States.  2.  They are so dishonest that outright lying the way they did for a supposed political advantage during an election creates no sense of shame in them at all.

 

You should come in off the ledge of hatred.....a very precarious place to be...

 

It would seem for those who disagree with others their only choice of words is 'anti christian' or 'anti American'......

[Gregory Matthews]

From post # 2:

 

 

 

. . . yet he chose to put our enemies back into the field of combat.

 

False.  They were released from detention.  Our intelligence services do not appear to believe that they have returned to the field of combat.  Their actions are monitored by a friendly government and they are not allowed to travel outside of that country.

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Note:

This is an example of a topic getting destroyed by turning it into a political poo flinging contest. Not a political topic. Derailed into political cesspool because someone is unable to contain their toxic views.

It really is a serious social handicap to only process everything through a single ideological filter.

[Gregory Matthews]

Some people seemingly do not understand our legal system.  They seem to believe that people should be convicted of a crime without a trial.  They do not understand that every person is entitled, under the law, to their day in court.

 

Bergdahal is only charged with criminal activity, under the UCMJ.  He has not yet gone to trial and the decision has not been made to  bring him to trial.  Yes, I believe that the Article 32 hearing will determine that he should go to trial.  But, at the time he goes to trial, if he does, he will be un-convicted of any crime.  The prosecution will present their evidence as to why he should be convicted, and of what crime.  His defense will have the opportunity to rebut the prosecution.  A panel of sergeants (if that is what he wants) will decide whether or not he is convicted of a crime, if so what crime and a decision will be made to  what punishment will be recommended.  Then higher levels will either accept the recommendation or mitigate it to a lower penalty. 

 

Folks, There is a long process ahead of Bergdahal.  It is not over yet and at this point in time he is un-convicted of any crime.

 

NOTE:  The process that I have described is the process that will be followed by the governing provisions of the UCMJ, which differ in some details from the typical civilian process.

 

UCMJ = Uniform Code of Military Justice

[Aliensanctuary]

The president as Commander-In-Chief, if so inclined, may choose to bypass military justice, pardon Mr. Bergdahl, and grant him an honorable discharge as a favor for providing an excuse to release the 5 Taliban men.

[Gregory Matthews]

You are correct that the President my pardon Bergdahl.  I remind you that under case law, for Bergdahl to accept the pardon (he can refuse), he admits guilt.   If the President pardons him that does not automatically grant him an honorable discharge.

 

I could be wrong, but I do not believe that the President has the power to change a discharge to an honorable one.  So, on that point, I believe that you are wrong.

 

Under the law, the power to change the type of a discharge rests with the Army Discharge Review Board and/or the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records. Personally I see it as unlikely that it would do such.

 

For more on this see:

 

http://arba.army.pentagon.mil/adrb-overview.cfm

 

http://arba.army.pentagon.mil/abcmr-overview.cfm

 

http://arba.army.pentagon.mil/contact.cfm

 

From the above URL:

 

 

 

There is no automatic upgrade of a discharge after 6 months or any other time period. Changes or upgrades to discharges are only made if there is a proven error, injustice, or inequity in your discharge. You must provide with your application evidence and supporting documents to show that there is an error, injustice, or inequity in your discharge.

You may complete an online application for discharge review on this website - or - you may print a blank DD Form 293 discharge review application on the Army Discharge Review Board application procedures page on this website and mail it to the address shown on the reverse of the form.

Please provide copies of all relevant military records in your possession and any evidence you have to support your request.

However, if you were discharged more than 15 years ago or discharged by a court-martial, you must apply to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). You may complete an online application for discharge review on this website - or - you may print a blank DD Form 149, application for correction of military records, on the Correction of Military Records application procedure page on this website and mail it to the address shown on the reverse of the form.

[joeb]

Oh, brother.  You guys are so liberal you can't see the truth.  Obama released these guys to where?  To Yemen.  What's going on there?  Obama says it's a prime example of how his foreign policy works.  

 

The Taliban 5 were to be under house arrest for how long?  1 year.  What restrictions were put on them after the year is done?  None.  Nada.  Zip.  Zero.  So what happens after the year?  They are free to go right back to the Taliban and take up where they left off.  Three of them have already made contact with the Taliban.  And that's what we know of.  That's what we have been able to intercept.  However, terrorists already know that all electronic communications are no longer to be trusted.  They've gone back to person-to-person communications, sending letters, notes, etc... by trusted courier.   So, how much of what they have communicated with the Taliban do we really know about?  There could be all kinds of communication and we wouldn't know anything about it.  However, that's immaterial to the fact that in a few weeks they will be free to go anywhere and do anything they want. 

 

They are hardened terrorists.  What do you think they are going to do?  Go on vacation or go back to what they live for?  Killing Jews and Westerners. 

 

And you knotheads call me illogical and a hater?  I say you guys are incapable of thought.  Your liberal ideology so blinds you that you cannot see the truths that are right out in front of you.

[CoAspen]

 

And you knotheads call me illogical and a hater?  I say you guys are incapable of thought.  Your liberal ideology so blinds you that you cannot see the truths that are right out in front of you.

 

 

.....teetering...teetering.....watch out, the fall is further than you think........

[Gregory Matthews]

Joeb, in post # 10 said:

 

 

 

Oh, brother.  You guys are so liberal you can't see the truth.  Obama released these guys to where?  To Yemen. 

 

First of all, let us get our facts correct.  They were not released to Yemen.  They were released to Qatar.  There are major differences between the two countries.  If you cannot get this basic fact correct, why should anything else that you have posted on this subject be taken seriously? 

[Tom Wetmore]

Administrative Note:
 
For what should be obvious reasons, this topic has been temporarily locked. moved to the political forum.

 

To have partisan political comments derail a topic really is disappointing and unfair to those who wish to discuss topics without political nonsense interfering with rational  discourse.  

 

Have at it...