The execution of Private Berghdahl?

[Admiral Blue]

Originally Posted by LATB

Isn't he the deserter that Obama traded for 5 terrorists?

Yes, but why are you being so mean? Don't call them terrorists. We do not want to hurt anyone's feelings.

[wwomanC6]

Originally Posted by DAB

i've been banished!!!

No Doug, I just moved this thread. Very Hot Button Issue.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by wwomanC6

No Doug, I just moved this thread. Very Hot Button Issue.

The thing is, it really wouldn't fall under controversy if everyone feels the same way about what happened, and I can't see how anyone would not be furious about what happened. Even JoeCoool wouldn't have defended this.

[StaticCling]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Even JoeCoool wouldn't have defended this.

Really? I wouldn't bet my paycheck on it.

Some of those other choads at the other place (PR&C), like RimJob, DaveNone and SJDICK(head) I wouldn't be surprised...

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Slovik deserted because he was scared, and was made an example to discourage other desertions...He was guilty of being a coward.

Bergdahl deserted and joined the enemy. IMO, much more serious, but we are too weeniefied to do the right thing.

Remember, Fort Hood was 'Workplace Violence'

And let's not forget the many Brothers in arms who died trying to rescue this piece of crap.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by Craig

I'd just like a reporter to ask Obama, on camera, "what dip-shit did you fire over this particular debacle?" "If no one, why not?" I'd like to see him squirm over some of the dumb ass shit he's pulled.

He's still looking for an ass to kick....besides his own.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by VITE1

And let's not forget the many Brothers in arms who died trying to rescue this piece of crap.

6 IIRC.

[GentleBen]

Obama administration official defends Bergdahl trade despite charges | Fox News

The liberal left's inability to admit that Obama's actions were wrong is brought out by the Administration's newest voice. In case anyone has forgotten, Jen Psaki was the Department of State spokesperson stating that Hillary (Obama the Second) did nothing wrong in running the State Department from her personal e-mail server in upstate New York.

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by GentleBen

Obama administration official defends Bergdahl trade despite charges | Fox News

The liberal left's inability to admit that Obama's actions were wrong is brought out by the Administration's newest voice. In case anyone has forgotten, Jen Psaki was the Department of State spokesperson stating that Hillary (Obama the Second) did nothing wrong in running the State Department from her personal e-mail server in upstate New York.

Anything to "try" to make the Obidiot look good....

[StaticCling]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Anything to "try" to make the Obidiot look good....

And the media continues to hone this guys bone. It's a ****ing disgrace.

[GentleBen]

What will be interesting to see is the charge or charges that come out of the Article 32 investigation.

An additional question that has to be answered and would be answered by the wording of the Charge Sheet is whether or not Bergdahl's desertion was in "time of war". Below is the actual wording of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice:

Art. 85. Desertion

(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.

If the charge sheet lists "committed in time of war" then he won't hang but will spend a very long time at Ft Leavenworth. . . and not for the Army Command and General Staff College course.

Now as to specification 1 in that Sgt Bergdahl left with "intent to remain away therefrom permanently" he told his platoon members that he was leaving and shipped his personal items home so I think that this specification should be easy for a Trial Counsel (Prosecutor to the non-military) to prove.

Specification 2 requires that Sgt Bergdahl did so with "intent to avoid hazardous service should" also be easy for the Trial Counsel to prove based upon statements he made to his platoon members and the fact that he left his weapon and other gear when he walked away from his unit.

I don't think anyone could prove specification 3 showing that he willingly joined the enemy.

However, if he is found guilty in time of war his sentence could conceivably be the death penalty. If found guilty in peacetime the typical sentence would be five years of confinement. . . which could conceivably be the five years he allegedly spent with the Taliban.

[LATB]

The incompetence of the Obama administration. The outright corruption of the media. And the ignorance of those who support it.

Should give any clear thinking person pause in the least. And worry in spades.

[RedLS1GTO]

Originally Posted by LATB

The incompetence of the Obama administration.

It isn't incompetence. Not at all.

This administration has accomplished everything it had hoped to accomplish and more.

[GentleBen]

Sgt Bergdahl will not be placed into pre-trial confinement while assigned to Ft Sam Houston awaiting his Article 32 hearing and presumptive Court-Martial.

I wonder what the Administration and the Army would say if he was to take a short car ride (145 miles or less than 2.5 hours) on I-35 and find himself in Nuevo Laredo on the southern side of the border with no intention of returning?

[DJ_Critterus]

Originally Posted by GentleBen

What will be interesting to see is the charge or charges that come out of the Article 32 investigation.

An additional question that has to be answered and would be answered by the wording of the Charge Sheet is whether or not Bergdahl's desertion was in "time of war". Below is the actual wording of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice:

Art. 85. Desertion

(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.

If the charge sheet lists "committed in time of war" then he won't hang but will spend a very long time at Ft Leavenworth. . . and not for the Army Command and General Staff College course.

Now as to specification 1 in that Sgt Bergdahl left with "intent to remain away therefrom permanently" he told his platoon members that he was leaving and shipped his personal items home so I think that this specification should be easy for a Trial Counsel (Prosecutor to the non-military) to prove.

Specification 2 requires that Sgt Bergdahl did so with "intent to avoid hazardous service should" also be easy for the Trial Counsel to prove based upon statements he made to his platoon members and the fact that he left his weapon and other gear when he walked away from his unit.

I don't think anyone could prove specification 3 showing that he willingly joined the enemy.

However, if he is found guilty in time of war his sentence could conceivably be the death penalty. If found guilty in peacetime the typical sentence would be five years of confinement. . . which could conceivably be the five years he allegedly spent with the Taliban.

Here's the thing, after reading multiple sources, he can get a max of 5 years for desertion at this point. He can get up to life in the pokey for misbehavior before the enemy.

[GentleBen]

Originally Posted by DJ_Critterus

Here's the thing, after reading multiple sources, he can get a max of 5 years for desertion at this point. He can get up to life in the pokey for misbehavior before the enemy.

Bergdahl Faces Little-Known, Rarely Used Misbehavior Charge
Stars and Stripes | Apr 03, 2015 | by Nancy Montgomery

If Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl were convicted of "misbehavior before the enemy" two centuries ago, he might also have been subject to a humiliating send-off. His sword might be broken or his insignia ripped from his uniform in front of his unit.

Along with desertion, Bergdahl was accused last month of violating the little-understood Article 99 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice -- misbehavior before the enemy -- for abandoning his post in Afghanistan in 2009 and thereby endangering his unit.

Although desertion cases are not uncommon, few military lawyers have ever prosecuted, or defended, a misbehavior before the enemy charge.

In a 19th-century treatise, Col. William Winthrop, one of the most important influences in the formation of U.S. military law, wrote that officers convicted of misbehavior before the enemy were "paraded in front of the command bearing a placard inscribed with the word 'coward,' " and then "drummed out of the service."

"These are charges from the 18th century," said Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl's defense lawyer. "It struck me as piling on."

The last time Article 99 was raised in such a high-profile case was in the wake of the 1968 seizure of the spy ship USS Pueblo by the North Korean navy. The skipper, Cmdr. Lloyd Bucher, surrendered the Pueblo without firing a shot, becoming the first American officer to give up his ship since the War of 1812.

After the crew was released, a Board of Inquiry composed of five admirals recommended that Bucher be court-martialed under Article 99 for surrendering the ship, which was armed with only two .50 caliber machine guns. But public opinion supported Bucher, and Navy Secretary John Chafee overruled the admirals, declaring that the skipper and his crew had suffered enough after having been beaten and nearly starved during nearly a year in captivity.

"It's one of those battlefield charges that got carried over from the Articles of War," said Victor Hansen, a retired Army lawyer and a professor at the New England School of Law in Boston. The Articles of War were regulations drawn up to govern the conduct of the land and naval forces. They were supplanted in 1951 by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

"It's kind of been in there kicking around. It's rarely charged," Hansen said of the misbehavior charge. "It's got all these very old notions -- shame, cowardice, running away. I'm assuming the prosecutors as well as the defense attorneys are scratching their heads."

According to his charge sheet, Bergdahl misbehaved in front of the enemy by leaving his observation post in Paktika province on June 30, 2009. His absence endangered his fellow soldiers and those who were ordered to search for him in hostile territory, according to the charges.

Conviction under Article 99 can result in even more severe punishment than the desertion charge Bergdahl faces. The maximum punishment for misbehavior before the enemy is life imprisonment, compared with up to five years in prison, a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank to E-1 and loss of pay and allowances for desertion.

Sentences imposed in some previous misbehavior cases have been much shorter than life.

In one case, two soldiers guarding a tank farm in Vietnam were convicted and sentenced to five years' hard labor, after being found guilty of misbehavior because they supposedly played dead during a North Vietnamese attack, thus endangering the tank farm.

An appellate court, however, ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that their actions constituted any misconduct, let alone misbehavior in front of the enemy: the guard shack was indefensible, the soldiers' weapons either jammed or were incapable of rapid fire and both had been wounded by a grenade.

"Playing dead' is not much different from 'taking cover;' neither is misconduct, per se," the court said.

Another Vietnam soldier received 18 months in jail and a dishonorable discharge for violation of Article 99 after he refused to move out with his unit on a combat mission.

"The accused refused, stating that he was afraid and was tired of being shot at, that his family would rather he be secure than dead, and that he would rather go to jail than face the enemy," according to the appellate court decision that upheld the conviction.

During the Korean War, an Army private -- an ammunition bearer -- was convicted of misbehavior after he ran away from the frontline. He was sentenced to 40 years in prison but his punishment was cut by half on appeal.

The only servicemember accused of desertion in the Iraq War was never charged with misbehavior, even though he walked away from his post near Fallujah in June 2004. Marine Cpl. Wassef Hassoun was sentenced to two years in prison and a dishonorable discharge in February after pleading guilty to leaving his post in Fallujah and then deserting his unit again at Camp Lejeune, N.C., in January 2005. In both instances, Hassoun fled to his native Lebanon.

The Army has not explained why the convening authority, U.S. Forces Command's Gen. Mark Milley, chose to add the misbehavior charge against Bergdahl.

Legal experts speculated that the charge under Article 99 could be a hedge in case the prosecution cannot prove the desertion charge, which requires proving that Bergdahl intended to leave his unit permanently. The additional charge could also reflect the danger that soldiers faced while searching for Bergdahl, who was captured by the Haqqani group and exchanged last May for five Taliban commanders held at Guantanamo Bay.

Hansen, the Boston legal professor, said that an Article 99 charge carries a special meaning.

"It is a bit personal," Hansen said. "I think there's an effort to make a statement."

The case now goes to an Article 32 hearing set for July 8 at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston in Texas to examine the evidence against Bergdahl. Afterward, the investigative officer will recommend to Milley whether the case should proceed to court-martial.

[VITE1]

Try him, convict him, execute him.

[GentleBen]

From the O'Reilly Factor last night:

A 2009 NCIS investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s activities while in Afghanistan reveal that there is clear evidence Bergdahl was “going over to the other side with a deliberate plan,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night.

Shaffer, a former military intelligence officer and Fox News contributor, said two senior sources told him that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation included a forensic review of his computer, which show Bergdahl’s apparent intent to travel to Uzbekistan.

“He was going to go off to Uzbekistan,” Shaffer told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “He had made contact with local Afghans and wanted to be moved to Uzbekistan and then made contact with the Russians because he wanted to talk to Russian organized crime ...

“Clearly he was not all there relating to what he was doing,” Shaffer told O'Reilly. “I think we’re going to see more and more, as this report is made public that there were a number of disconcerting things within Bergdahl.”

According to the sources, data collection at the time indicated Bergdahl made contact with an Afghan in an effort to lay the groundwork for his departure.

“He had Afghan contacts and he was actually trying to offer himself up with the Taliban. Both are very severe,” Shaffer added.

Shaffer said that the NCIS investigation, which included interviews with squad mates as well as Afghans working outside the wire, reportedly resulted in Bergdahl being charged with misbehavior toward the enemy.

Officials say Bergdahl, who was charged with desertion in March, walked away from his post in Afghanistan and was captured by the Taliban. He was then released from Taliban control in a prisoner exchange last May for five Taliban commanders.

Fox News reached out to Bergdahl’s lawyer Eugene Fidell but he declined to comment.

[73sbVert]

Originally Posted by wwomanC6

My vote is for the firing squad!

This, and make it public. And if a couple of the rounds had been dipped in pig blood first, well so be it.

[VITE1]

Originally Posted by GentleBen

From the O'Reilly Factor last night:

A 2009 NCIS investigation into Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s activities while in Afghanistan reveal that there is clear evidence Bergdahl was “going over to the other side with a deliberate plan,” Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer said on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night.

Shaffer, a former military intelligence officer and Fox News contributor, said two senior sources told him that the Naval Criminal Investigative Service investigation included a forensic review of his computer, which show Bergdahl’s apparent intent to travel to Uzbekistan.

“He was going to go off to Uzbekistan,” Shaffer told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “He had made contact with local Afghans and wanted to be moved to Uzbekistan and then made contact with the Russians because he wanted to talk to Russian organized crime ...

“Clearly he was not all there relating to what he was doing,” Shaffer told O'Reilly. “I think we’re going to see more and more, as this report is made public that there were a number of disconcerting things within Bergdahl.”

According to the sources, data collection at the time indicated Bergdahl made contact with an Afghan in an effort to lay the groundwork for his departure.

“He had Afghan contacts and he was actually trying to offer himself up with the Taliban. Both are very severe,” Shaffer added.

Shaffer said that the NCIS investigation, which included interviews with squad mates as well as Afghans working outside the wire, reportedly resulted in Bergdahl being charged with misbehavior toward the enemy.

Officials say Bergdahl, who was charged with desertion in March, walked away from his post in Afghanistan and was captured by the Taliban. He was then released from Taliban control in a prisoner exchange last May for five Taliban commanders.

Fox News reached out to Bergdahl’s lawyer Eugene Fidell but he declined to comment.

We've heard this before. Obama wanted an excuse to get 5 terrorists out of GITMO and moved ahead, illegally, on his own.