The denial is strong here and they dig the hole deeper each time.
Apparently firsthand accounts to not count when it discredits ones story()
The denial is strong here and they dig the hole deeper each time.
Apparently firsthand accounts to not count when it discredits ones story()
Crap, I did not realize he had abandoned a guard post in a combat zone. That is freakin' HUGE. Why the fuck would his maximum penalty be only five years?
At least from the NBC story which is specific about the charges, Bergdahl is not being charged with desertion from a guard post nor desertion with intent to never return nor defection to the enemy, but merely being AWOL. This may be the result of pressure from Obama who of course wants this to go away quietly, but it may also be recognition of the five years he spent as the Taliban's guest. Personally I don't know I'd drop the more serious charges nor take into account his time as a prisoner since there's a good chance he sought them out, especially if I'm trying to pressure him into accepting mast to avoid the publicity of a trial, but since that's a matter where reasonable people can certainly disagree I'm certainly not going to quibble with the decisions of those responsible. It's worth considering the point of view of the servicemen though. If you allow people to walk off guard duty in a war zone, seriously endangering the whole camp, without significant punishment then you may have a serious morale problem.
That's a good point.
Nobody here has said he was on patrol, dude, they said he was on guard duty. Probably stems from his gear being left in a guard tower. If he was relieved and then fled, that explains why he's not being charged with the more serious levels of desertion. Deserting from a guard post is incredibly serious; deserting from an unmanned guard tower while off duty is much less so. For that matter, I would not want to be one of the guards on duty who didn't notice a guy sneaking out either.
Seems to me he almost certainly had mental issues. That does not necessarily indemnify him though.
Thanks, buddy. I had guessed that being presented with a charge sheet did not automatically mean he would be charged, but didn't actually know. Sad about the old man. I have a buddy who just never went back from leave, decided he couldn't handle being in the Army (peace time) any more. He got a hearing (without even being brought back to participate) and an administrative discharge. Of course, this case is a lot more serious than that, especially if people really died looking for him or as a result of his actions. Can't say I've followed this case that closely, but it doesn't seem to me that the case for that is that airtight.You rang?
The military charging process begins with preferral of charges. This is the formal preparation of a charge sheet and its signature by a military member with knowledge of the facts behind the charge (normally the accused's immediate commander). The accused is then served with a copy of the charge sheet by his commander. In the case of a general court-martial (a felony-level crime, which this would be), there is then what's called an Article 32 hearing, which is essentially a preliminary hearing, overseen by an experienced JAG, who reviews the legal sufficiency of the charges and makes recommendations on which if any charges should be pursued to trial (this process is frequently, but not always, waived by the accused). The Article 32 officer's recommendations are not binding - just advisory. The case is then presented to the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (normally the first general/admiral in the accused's chain of command, though in some instances a Colonel can be a GCMCA). The GCMCA formally decides what charges are referred for trial.
In terms of publicity, the military is kind of its own creature since it is in effect a relatively small court (in terms of caseload) that has worldwide jurisdiction. Relatively few military cases attract media attention. I actually sent someone to prison for life as a JAG for child molestation, but few people even on our base knew about it. Technically the existence of a court-martial is a matter of public record once charges are referred, but as a practical matter the military trial courts don't have a docket that is searchable by the public and so information about pending cases is only public if a reporter elects to file a FOIA request.
The Bergdahl case reminds me of one I handled when I was a military defense attorney, and it's a weird one. I had an old man come into my office who had deserted during the Korean War (not from the Korean theater - he had just walked away from his Army base after being sexually assaulted by his NCOIC). He had spent the next 50 years working off the grid, constantly afraid he would be arrested. He had never been married or had a job that didn't pay cash. I helped him turn himself in and the prosecutor let him off with an administrative discharge rather than prosecuting him. Very very odd.
Facebook
Twitter