Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

[Gregory Matthews]

The following website contains information related to events that took place today"

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/army-sgt-bergdahl-pleading-guilty-to-desertion-misbehavior/ar-AAtzz3C?OCID=ansmsnnews11

Earlier today, U. S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl pled guilty to the dual charges of Desertion and Misbehavior Before the Enemy.  I am providing the following information for people who may not be familiar with the military justice system.

In the United States, military people are subject to a justice system that is unique to the military.  It is commonly referenced as the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).  Persons station overseas, but not in a time of war, are also subject to a system known as SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement).  So, military people may be subject to both systems.

Sgt. Bergdahl was stationed in Afghanistan in 2009, when he left his assigned camp and went into a near-by village.  On that occasion, he was captured by a group related to the Taliban and held prisoner until released on May 31, 2014 in a prisoner exchange.    During that time, he was tortured and held in a small cage.  He attempted twice to escape and each time he was captured again.

Following his return, under the provisions of Article 31 of the UCMJ the circumstances of his capture were investigated and he was formally charged with Desertion and Misbehavior Before the Enemy.  The charge of desertion can carry the death sentence.  But, for reasons that I do not fully understand, the death penalty could not be given in his case, or so I have been told.  The 2nd charge could carry a penalty of life in prison, which in his case would have been a military prison, probably in KS.

To be convicted of desertion, it must be proved that there was an intent to remain absent from the military forever.  As a matter of fact, an absence of 50 years is NOT ipso facto proof of an intent to remain absent forever.  Absent this proof, the charge of desertion  is reduced to AWOL.  Notwithstanding this, the military considers it fairly easy to convict of desertion.

It should be noted that Ernie Slovic is the only person to be both convicted of desertion and then sentenced to death, with that sentence actually being carried out.  This was during WWII in 1945.

However, from a relative standpoint, few soldiers are charged with and convicted of desertion.  In the past 13 years some 10,000 soldiers have pled guilty to desertion and some 78 have pled not-guilty, gone to trial and been convicted.  From the relative standpoint this is a small number.

NOTE:  If you search the records, you will find different numbers due to the fact that there are differing limits to the search.

Under the UCMJ, there are two (3) types of trial courts.  These are: 

*  Summary Court Martial

* Special Court Martial

*  General Court Martial.

Bergdahl was up for trail under the provisions of a General Court Martial.

In civilian life a person is often allowed to take a plea that   in essence says:  I do not admit my guilt.  However, I believe that if I went to trial I would be convicted.  Therefore I wish to skip the determination of my guilt and I wish to proceed directly to the determination of my sentence.

It does not appear that Sgt. Bergdahl is making that kind of a plea.  Rather, it seems that he is directly admitting his guilt.  Perhaps, and I do not know, he is not allowed to make such a plea as I have mentioned.

NOTE:   I will say more about this case in the next post.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I believe that the interests of justice are not being served by allowing Sgt. Bergdahl to pled guilty.

He states that his plea is that of guilty due to the fact that he does not believe that he can obtain a fair trial due to the fact that the Commander in Chief has publicly stated that he should be executed as a traitor.

Yes, I am aware that there is a ruling that that this is not sufficient to cause the charges to be dismissed and the case can go to trial.

But, personally, I believe that due to what the President (Commander in Chief) said, in the interests of justice the case should go to trial.

In general practice, a defendant is not allowed to pled guilty unless they actually admit to being  guilty.  In view of the fact that Sgt. Bergdahl has stated his reason for a guilty plea is that he does not  believe he can get a fair trial, I believe that his plea of guilt does not  satisfy the requirement to actually admit guilt and I believe his guilty plea should be rejected.

Further, I believe that there are issues that can only be resolved by a legal determination that the American public has a right to have those issues determined and made public.

Under the set of circumstances that currently exist, I believe that Bergdahl can both go to trial and have his civil rights protected.  IOW, I believe that a trial could be constructed in a manner that protects his civil rights.

 

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

while I have no sympathy whatsoever for Bergdahl, I think Trump should let those who are entrusted with dealing with Bergdahl do their work without interference, including the verbal fall-out from hot air bombs.

[Gregory Matthews]

For the latest on this see:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bowe-bergdahl-case-air-sentencing-resumes-n814301

The bottom line is that President Trump may have jeopardized the case to the extent that it can not go to trial.

 

[phkrause]

He can't keep his mouth shut!! Anyway I believe there's a proverb, but I can't recall it at the moment!! That fits him to a tee!!!!! When I recall it I will post it!

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bergdahl-defense-nears-end-of-its-sentencing-arguments/ar-AAuiSUR?ocid=spartandhp

Amber Dach, who spent 16 years in military intelligence, was the primary analyst assigned to Bergdahl's case for the five years after he disappeared. She described how eager he was to help intelligence officials at a hospital in Germany days after he was returned to U.S. authorities.

"He was very motivated to just download all of the details that he recalled," she testified. "It was a gold mine. It really reshaped the way we did intel collection in the area."

An official from the military agency that helps reintegrate former captives and develops survival training for service members testified that information Bergdahl provided him was invaluable.

Terrence Russell developed a 1,200-page transcript from debriefing Bergdahl that was turned into a database. The information produced reports on tactics used by insurgents and hostage-takers in the region that are still used by the military.

Russell said he'd like to learn even more from Bergdahl but the soldier's legal case has impeded that.

"Can you give him to me tomorrow? I need him. I need him now," he said to a defense attorney. "The fact that I can't get that information is wrong. I need that."

He said he'd like to add Bergdahl to a roster of about 30 service members taken captive in recent conflicts dating to the Gulf War who can provide videos or lectures for military survival training.

He also reaffirmed his previous statements that Bergdahl's captivity was worse than any American prisoner of war has experienced since the Vietnam era.

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Here is another article what presents information worthy to consider on Bowe Bergdhl:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/11/01/army-sgt-bowe-bergdahl-has-ptsd-and-needs-treatment-expert-testifies-hearing/821547001/

NOTE:  I am not arguing a position as to what should be done with him as I have not totally made up my mind.  Rather, in my posts here I am pointing out that the actual issues may be more complex than has been presented previously by the media

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Bergdhl has stated that he pled guilty due to the fact that he did not believe that he would get a fair trial.

In my mind, that is not an admission of guilt.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.  Now that we have established that the judge should not accept a plea of guilty from a person who believes he/she is not guilty, let us take a look at the exceptions.    The law is complex and there are exceptions to just about everything. 

Those exceptions in the U.S. generally involve what we call an Alford Plea and a plea of nolo contendere.

It should be noted that such pleas may send people to prison.  But, there may be some advantages to making       them.

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alford_plea

https://koehlerlaw.net/2017/03/you-cant-plead-guilty-without-admitting-guilt/

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2012/10/how-does-guilty-differ-from-no-contest.html

https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/criminal/criminal-law-basics/is-an-alford-plea-the-same-as-a-guilty-plea.html

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-pleading-guilty-contest.html

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-the-different-kinds-plea-bargains.html

 

 

[phkrause]

16 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  I am not arguing a position as to what should be done with him as I have not totally made up my mind.  Rather, in my posts here I am pointing out that the actual issues may be more complex than has been presented previously by the media

I can agree with that! Personally, if I was a juror, at this point from all the info I've read, heard, etc., I would not find him guilty!! Of course the things we read are always spun according to the writer, from what they've heard, and also its second hand when you're not in the courtroom and being able to hear first hand as to what is being said, etc.!!

[Gregory Matthews]

There are two issues, as I see it:

1)  What, if anything is he guilty of?

2)  If guilty of something, what should be his punishment?

My current thinking:

*  As to # 1:  I do not believe that I would find him guilty of the serious charges.  Those have not been proven to me. I might be willing to find him guilty of a lessor included offence.

*  As to # 2:  In view of the conditions of his captivity, I would be willing for him NOT to serve any prison time.  There is little doubt that the Army will discharge him.  So, the question now is:  What should be the conditions under which he should be discharged and what should be his access to certain veteran benefits. 

It is alleged that he suffers from PTSD.  I believe that the government has some responsibility for providing such treatment.  The potential is there to provide him with a discharge that would allow him to receive health care benefits for his PTSD from the Department of Veterans' Affairs.  My current thinking is that I would want such to be provided.

IOW,  I would want him to have a discharge that provided him with VA benefits.  Such could be done.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

There are five (5) types of discharge from the U.S.; Military.  They are:

NOTE:  I have included one type of separation in this listing and separations are not discharges:

*  Entry Level Separation:  If you aren't suited for the military, you may receive an entry-level separation. This means that you don't belong in the military, but your service isn't considered good or bad. An entry-level separation can only be given within your first 180 days. No benefits are earned with this discharge, since benefits generally require serving longer than 180 days, unless you were injured or incurred an illness as a result of service.

*  Honorable:  The best type of discharge you can receive is an honorable discharge. This means that you met or exceeded the conduct and performance standards of the military. You're eligible for all veteran (and military) benefits if you receive this discharge. Some benefits actually require an honorable discharge, including Post 9/11 GI Bill and the Montgomery GI Bill education benefits.

*  General Under Honorable Conditions:  The second best type of discharge you can receive is a general discharge under honorable conditions. This means that your performance was considered satisfactory. Just like an honorable discharge, you're eligible for most veteran (and military benefits) if you receive a general discharge, including disability compensation, education assistance (except for GI bills), survivor pensions, VA health care, and TRICARE's Continued Health Care Benefit Program (military health insurance). However, certain specific benefits, such as GI Bill education benefits, are only reserved for service members who receive an honorable discharge.

*  Other than Honorable:  

An OTH discharge means that you had some serious departures from the conduct and performance expected of a service member. * * *  * * * You are not likely to be eligible to receive any veteran benefits if you receive an OTH discharge, but the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will examine the circumstances of your OTH discharge to determine whether you're eligible or not.

*  Bad Conduct:  A bad conduct discharge is a punitive discharge that's imposed by court-martial. A court-martial is a criminal trial that's conducted by the military. If you receive a bad conduct discharge from a special court-martial, the VA will determine whether you're eligible for benefits. You're not entitled to any veteran or military benefits if you receive a bad conduct discharge from a general court-martial.

* Dishonorable: The worst discharge you can receive is a dishonorable discharge. This usually means that you committed a very serious offense. Examples include desertion, rape, or murder. You will receive a dishonorable discharge only if you're convicted at a general court-martial that calls for a dishonorable discharge as part of the sentence. All veteran and military benefits are lost with this discharge. 

You can read about these at:

https://military-law.lawyers.com/veterans-benefits/discharges-and-their-effect-on-veteran-benefits.html

http://vabenefitblog.com/types-of-military-discharge/

NOTE:  There are several types of separations from military service.  Such are not discharges.  As an example, I was once discharged from military service.  At a later time, I again entered military service and at the present, I am separated but not discharged and I have been so separated for more than 14 years.

 

 

[phkrause]

I, at this point, see no problem with the first 2.  And wouldn't have a problem with him being discharged with the first one!!

[Phkrause, I almost never inject a comment into a post that someone has made.  However, the current order of types is not the order that I origonaly placed them.   As I am not certain what existed when you placed this comment, please review the current order to see if you need to revise your statement--GM.]

Yes I see that, so I would than change it to 2 and 3!

[Gregory Matthews]

Well, the trial has ended for the day and will resume tomorrow.  The judge is considering the sentence.

The prosecution has requested a 14 year prison sentence, with a reduction in rank and a punitive discharge.

The defense has presented testimony that Bergdahl has a Schizotypal Personality Disorder.

In my opinion, that diagnosis is not sufficient to discharge him from total responsibility for his actions  But, I would say that it could be a mitigating factor.   Therefore, my thinking as to what should be done to him remains the same as I previously stated.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

9 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It is alleged that he suffers from PTSD.

and that began, when?  Is he in any way responsible for putting himself in the situation that initiated that condition?

Quote

He said he'd like to add Bergdahl to a roster of about 30 service members taken captive in recent conflicts dating to the Gulf War who can provide videos or lectures for military survival training

  Lectures on how to be an idiot and put oneself and others at risk?  

[LifeHiscost]

13 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

and that began, when?  Is he in any way responsible for putting himself in the situation that initiated that condition?

  Lectures on how to be an idiot and put oneself and others at risk?  

37Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.”… Luke 6

God is Love!~Jesus Saves! 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Life:  The Bible in Romans tells us to acknowledge the role of civil government.   Civil government has a God-given right to make certain judgments.  Pam was simply in line with Biblical teachings in the questions that she asked.

Pam:  Bowe was and is a member of the U.S. Army.   As such, at this moment in time, he is entitled to all the treatment that he might need for his alleged PTSD and at this moment in time, his entitlement to such treatment extends into the future to a time when he might be discharged.  This entitlement would be due to him if he  indeed does have PTSD, that is all that is required.  As to whether or not his PTSD is due to any action of his, that is NOT a factor in determining his entitlement.  It never has been for anyone else.

Example:  As a military chaplain, I got a young soldier an Army discharge with a 70% rating  (75% is the highest he could have received) for a traumatic brain injury.  Following his discharge the VA awarded him a 100% rating.    At no time was it ever considered whether the soldier had any responsibility for his brain injury.  The only point of consideration was:  Did he at this time have a disabling injury that prevented him from continuing to serve in the Army and would likely be a problem to any future employment?  The answer was a clear Yes.

That soldier has put in 8 1/2 years in serving his country.  While in the Army the TBI had occurred.  He was now so disabled that he could not be employed.  Under the law, he was entitled to what he was awarded.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

It just sounds weird to me that someone who intentionally deserted (and what a stupid thing to do in that particular area of the world), and then got himself captured, would be due all rights and privileges that honorable veterans should get, but don't.  Some have to fight for years to get what this dude thinks he should get ASAP,  but those other vets are denied help...

What makes Bergdahl so special?

(And just to be clear, I don't think he should die for what he did.  But I also don't think he should be rewarded.)

[LifeHiscost]

In the world's view, at least it seems a large portion of the world, Bergdahl is guilty as sin. I don't believe so. When I served in the Marine Corps, stupidly not pleading as a conscientious objector, I entered the service at the time the Korean War was winding down. I only volunteered because they were the only branch of service that allowed 3 years instead of 4, 2 years in the army if one waited for the draft which they then chose when. I was discharged when the Vietnam war was winding up. I wouldn't have been able to live with myself if I knew I was directly responsible for the death of one human being. I never saw frontline duty. Such was the quandary of a young Christian who believed in the sanctity of life and following Biblical commands according to the Word.

I've never ceased to thank God for delivering me from a mess I got myself into when I was too young  to recognize, very few in the world cared if I lived or died.

4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more....John 8

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam, it is far from a "slam-dunk" that he deserted.  I have strong reservations as to whether or not he could be convicted of such.  As a matter of fact, it is not easy to prove such a crime.  Yes, there are lessor included offences that he could likely be convicted of.  I Do not deny that.

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

so the judge has ruled...  Bergdahl is getting a dishonorable discharge, with no jail time..  

I think that's fair and just.

[Gregory Matthews]

(?) Well, the decision is in.  Bergdhal will:

*  Not go to prison.

*  Be discharged with a Dishonorable Discharge.

*  Not receive his promotion to, E-6.

*  Be reduced in rank to that of a Private, E-1.

*  Forfit some $1,000 per month for ten (1) months.  This may (?)  be due to a law that now requires him to pay the government back for transporting him back to the United States?

*  Lose all VA benefits.

*  Lose several hundred thousand dollars in back pay that the Army has not paid him.  [Those estimates generally come in at the $300,000 to $350,000 dollar range.]

 

[phkrause]

Ya I heard that listening to NPR earlier this morning. Well I guess he deserved that? Some would say more and some would say less. The problem that I see, is he should've went with a trial, maybe things that he "supposedly said happened when he walked off" came out???? I find that a lot of questions are being left unanswered!! My opinion!!

[phkrause]

Here's an interesting statement from Newsmax.com:

Breaking News from Newsmax.com

 

Tweets by President Donald Trump could prove troublesome for prosecutors in a trial of the man charged with killing eight people and injuring others in a New York City terror attack, The New York Times reports. "SHOULD GET DEATH PENALTY!" Trump tweeted Wednesday of the suspect, Sayfullo Saipov, repeating the call on Thursday. According to the Times, presidents are routinely urged not to publicly comment on pending criminal cases. If they do, their comments can be used by defense attorneys to claim their clients did not get a fair trial — particularly when a president calls for a sentence before any evidence is presented, the newspaper added. This week, Army Judge Col. Jeffery Nance said he would consider similar comments by Trump as evidence in favor of a lighter sentence for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who pleaded guilty to desertion and endangering troops by leaving his post in Afghanistan. During the presidential campaign, Trump had called Bergdahl a "dirty rotten traitor" who should be executed, the Times noted.