Results 1 to 18 of 18
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By Pablo
  • 2 Post By billpay
  • 1 Post By Pablo

Thread: Bowe Bergdahl - charged with desertion?

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    930

    Bowe Bergdahl - charged with desertion?

    US Sgt Bowe Bergdahl was the guy who was traded by the White House for 5 Taleban leaders.

    The only report I found quotes Fox News.

    Is it true?
    Has he been charged with desertion?

  2. #2
    Senior Member Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,274
    Report: Bergdahl to be charged with desertion

    The word is that he "will be charged".

    The investigation has been concluded now for some time. But, of course the White House has been stalling the release of this, since it doesn't fit their previous narrative!

    What a masterful stroke by our "genius in chief", to "trade" 5 major (top) taliban commanders...for the release of a deserter. And then, of course, obama yucking it up with the deserters parents in the White House rose garden!

    What a jackass!
    Last edited by Pablo; 27th January 2015 at 16:59.
    Robaht likes this.

  3. #3
    Senior Member sundancekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,142
    As far as I know, don’t think he’s actually been charged yet. And certainly not convicted...

    Regardless, whatever happened to “leave no one behind”, or due process for that matter? Surely, both Bergdahl and the Gitmo detainees should have the right to habeas corpus as protected by the U.S. Constitution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
    The investigation has been concluded now for some time. But, of course the White House has been stalling the release of this, since it doesn't fit their previous narrative!
    Yes, the Army investigation finished last year. But of course, Obama could not somehow choose to “release” that, as it would most definitely be un-constitutional to intervene like that. And should we not wait for a potential trial first as desertion during wartime can carry the death penalty? Or should we just stone him to death already?

  4. #4
    Senior Member Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,274
    Quote Originally Posted by sundancekid View Post
    Obama could not somehow choose to “release” that, as it would most definitely be un-constitutional to intervene like that. And should we not wait for a potential trial first as desertion during wartime can carry the death penalty? Or should we just stone him to death already?
    You obviously haven't been paying attention, as this potus has repeatedly taken actions that are unconstitutional!


    Bergdahl to be charged with desertion, ex-military intel officer says


    Published January 27, 2015FoxNews.com



    The Army has decided to charge Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners, with desertion, according to a former military intelligence officer.
    Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who now works at the London Center for Policy Research, told Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night that he's learned of the military's decision from two sources.


    "The Army has come to its conclusion, and Bowe Bergdahl ... will be charged with desertion," he said.
    He said Bergdahl's attorney has been given a "charge sheet" outlining the section of the military justice code Bergdahl allegedly violated.

    "As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation," Shaffer said.
    Asked for comment on the claim, Army spokesman Paul Boyce told Fox News on Tuesday that there is "no change" and that it is an "ongoing review at this time."
    But Shaffer said there's a "huge battle" going on inside the Obama administration by some to "suppress" this development.

    "This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes," he said.
    Shaffer said the Army "wants to do the right thing" but the White House "wants this to go away."
    He said: "The White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because of he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban ... The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out."

    Bergdahl was held for five years before his release was secured in 2014.

    But while the president joined with Bergdahl's parents in the Rose Garden at the time in celebrating his return home, the prisoner swap swiftly became a matter of severe controversy. Fellow soldiers accused Bergdahl of deserting his post on a base in Afghanistan in 2009. And the trade itself, of his freedom for five Guantanamo prisoners, drew criticism in Congress from lawmakers who said it sent a troubling signal.

    On Monday, former diplomat Richard Grenell claimed the administration has "sent the message" that the U.S. will negotiate on such matters. He cited an alleged offer, made around the same time as Bergdahl's release, by the Qatari government to trade two Americans held in Qatar for an Al Qaeda agent held in a U.S. federal prison. The Obama administration denies there was any deal. Those prisoners were ultimately released over the past two months.
    Last edited by Pablo; 27th January 2015 at 22:14.

  5. #5
    Senior Member sundancekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,142
    Ok, let me try to make it simpler:

    1) No official charge has been made against Bergdahl. I’ve see those exact quotes as well and they’re all from an ex-intelligence officer. So no official charges yet, right?

    2) Has Obama been proven to have taken actions that are unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Nope.

    3) You claim Bergdahl is a “deserter”, yet he has never even been charged, and much less convicted of that allegation. It may just turn out that way, even though I personally doubt that will be the outcome.

    Again, should not these people you accuse have their way in court before being convicted? I thought that was the American way of “due process”. Like... innocent until proven guilty?

    And finally 4) You understand that Obama could not have released the conclusions of the Army investigation, right? That would have been unconstitutional. So you accuse him of being unconstitutional when he has not, but then accuse him of not being unconstitutional in the Bergdahl case. Makes perfect sense...
    Last edited by sundancekid; 27th January 2015 at 22:46.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,274
    Quote Originally Posted by sundancekid View Post
    Ok, let me try to make it simpler:
    "Up your's" with your condescending opener!

    Quote Originally Posted by sundancekid View Post
    1) No official charge has been made against Bergdahl. I’ve see those exact quotes as well and they’re all from an ex-intelligence officer. So no official charges yet, right?

    2) Has Obama been proven to have taken actions that are unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Nope.

    3) You claim Bergdahl is a “deserter”, yet he has never even been charged, and much less convicted of that allegation. It may just turn out that way, even though I personally doubt that will be the outcome.

    Again, should not these people you accuse have their way in court before being convicted? I thought that was the American way of “due process”. Like... innocent until proven guilty?

    And finally 4) You understand that Obama could not have released the conclusions of the Army investigation, right? That would have been unconstitutional. So you accuse him of being unconstitutional when he has not, but then accuse him of not being unconstitutional in the Bergdahl case. Makes perfect sense...
    Item 2)...YES, at least once...stay tuned! The Supreme Court ruled that obama violated the constitution when he tried to sneak in his NLRB nominees a couple of years ago...claiming that they were "recess appointments".

    Item 1-3) I think he is a deserter (at the very least), based upon interviews I've seen with his army mates. Unanimously, the close members of his military unit have testified that he deserted. He even packed his goods to be sent home.

    (Some of his taliban buddies have even reported that he had "turned" and assisted them in some various ways)
    Make of that, whatever you want.

    I also think that he has been "charged", as reported by Lt. Colonel Shaffer saying that Bergdahl's attorney had been given a "charge sheet". Although the top brass seem to be dragging their feet, in making official an announcement.

    I'm pretty sure that no one has "convicted" this jerk yet. He will, in my opinion, be facing a court martial in the coming months. And the same evidence will be presented and the soldiers from his unit will testify.

    Item 4) The White House does not normally release investigatory results of the military. However, the military works under the "command" of this buffoon, and is no doubt feeling a lot of pressure from the POTUS & staff, to keep this information subdued.

    Don't you think that if the conclusions had been totally different, and obama was going to issue a medal to the traitor, that they would be clamouring for a release of information and press coverage by now? The investigation was concluded over three months ago!

    Just another instance of this lying P.O.S. trying to cover his ass.
    Last edited by Pablo; 28th January 2015 at 00:41. Reason: sp

  7. #7
    Senior Member sundancekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,142
    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
    "Up your's" with your condescending opener!
    555. Sorry about that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Pablo View Post
    Item 2)...YES! The Supreme Court ruled that obama violated the constitution when he tried to sneak in his NLRB nominees a couple of years ago...claiming that they were "recess appointments".
    Ok, I thought we were discussing cases of more relevance to the topic at hand. Surely you’re familiar with Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)?

    On June 12, 2008, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority, holding that the prisoners [at Guantanamo Bay detention camp] had a right to the habeas corpus under the United States Constitution and that the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.
    You keep referring to him as a “traitor” though. Again, is that really within the best practices of US law? Neither you nor members of his unit are the ones that should ultimately judge him in court, right?
    Last edited by sundancekid; 28th January 2015 at 00:33.

  8. #8
    Senior Member billpay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    2,044
    I second the condescending, sanctimonious attitude of SDK's opening....he can't resist trying to show us all how fkn intelligent he thinks he is.

    Secondly, nearly EVERY soldier he served with said he is a deserter and quite possibly a traitor. That's proof enough for me. Has not been verified but there were soldiers that were killed looking for his traitorous ass.
    He deserves to spend the rest of his life at Leavenworth..... Just my humble opinion.
    Dkdude and tnlawyer like this.
    The sooner you fall behind, the more time you'll have to catch up.

  9. #9
    Senior Member sundancekid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    6,142
    I said I was sorry 555. But come on, aren’t you guys getting just a bit too riled up about these things? And no, I don’t believe I’m smarter than any you guys. As a matter of fact, in reality SDK is my evil schizo twin. He has issues…

    Seriously though, I absolutely understand your position on Bergdahl. On the other hand, he does deserve his day in court IMO. And I believe he will be discharged rather than facing jail time, as very few has actually been convicted of desertion --- and much less treason --- in the past decades. Guess we’ll have to wait and see...

  10. #10
    Senior Member Lightemup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    154
    Army: Reports of decision to charge Bergdahl with desertion 'patently false' - Stripes


    Army: Reports of decision to charge Bergdahl with desertion 'patently false'


    The Army on Tuesday pushed back against reports that a decision had been made to prosecute Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for desertion.

    Retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, who now works at the London Center for Policy Research, told Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor” on Monday that he learned of the military’s decision from two sources.

    “The Army has come to its conclusion, and Bowe Bergdahl ... will be charged with desertion,” he said.

    NBC News followed that Tuesday with a report that senior defense officials said Bergdahl would be charged with desertion, and that charges could be referred within a week.

    The charges, NBC reported, will not allege that Bergdahl left his base with the intent never to return.

    While a court-martial could lead to prison time, NBC News reported defense and military officials as saying it is likely Bergdahl would be given consideration for the five years he spent in captivity and be permitted to leave the Army with a “less than honorable” discharge.

    “The reporting from Fox News and NBC on Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is patently false,” the Army said in a statement emailed late Tuesday. “To be clear there have been no actions or decisions on the Sgt. Bergdahl investigation.”

    The only American prisoner of war from the 13-year fight in Afghanistan was released from Taliban captivity in May, but the celebration was short-lived.

    Some of Bergdahl’s former colleagues claimed that he deserted and that soldiers were killed or injured trying to find him.

    In exchange for Bergdahl, the White House traded five high-level Taliban detainees at the U.S. prison in Guantanamo, who were to be held under loose house arrest in Qatar. President Barack Obama didn’t tell Congress in advance, which the Government Accountability Office would later say violated the law.

    Army Gen. Mark Milley, the command authority in the Bergdahl case, has not publicly released his findings, NBC reported.

    “The investigation is still with [Milley],” the Army statement continued, “who will determine appropriate action — which ranges from no further action to convening a court-martial. We understand the public interest in this case and once a decision has been made, the Army will be open and transparent in this matter.”

    At a Tuesday afternoon briefing with reporters, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, emphasized the point: “Let me just put a fork in this right now … No decision has been made with respect to the case of Sgt. Bergdahl. None. And there is no time line to make that decision. And Gen. Milley is not being put under any pressure to make a decision, either way.”

    news@stripes.com

  11. #11
    Senior Member Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,274
    At a Tuesday afternoon briefing with reporters, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, Rear Adm. John Kirby, emphasized the point: “Let me just put a fork in this right now … No decision has been made with respect to the case of Sgt. Bergdahl. None. And there is no time line to make that decision. And Gen. Milley is not being put under any pressure to make a decision, either way.”
    My guess is that it will be stonewalled or simply put away.

    obama has already sacked most of the "stand up" high level military leaders.

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    930
    "We understand the public interest in this case and once a decision has been made, the Army will be open and transparent in this matter.

    Oops! That says it all doesn't it?

    The Army general admitting the Army is not being "
    open and transparent in this matter"
    and this is acceptable to Sundancekid?

  13. #13
    Senior Member marc26's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Vancouver BC
    Posts
    10,630
    Quote Originally Posted by TLandHim View Post
    "We understand the public interest in this case and once a decision has been made, the Army will be open and transparent in this matter.”

    Oops! That says it all doesn't it?

    The Army general admitting the Army is not being "
    open and transparent in this matter"
    and this is acceptable to Sundancekid?
    Huh?

    "the Army will be open and transparent in this matter.”

  14. #14
    Senior Member PadMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    747
    Fair play to Obama. He's getting US troops out of the quagmire that was Afghanistan. Whatever about this guys particular case, I admire the American attitude of leave no one on the battlefield.

    They US Navy used to send whole squadrons and partial battle groups of ships back to pick up downed pilots, submariners during WW2.

  15. #15
    Senior Member PadMC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    747

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    781
    Looks like desertion.
    The odds however seem to be in his favor.

    ...Deserters since 2006 - 20,000
    ...Prosecutions for desertion since 2001 - 1,900
    ...Of these, half pleaded guilty and 78 were tried and convicted.

    ...formal charges could mean Bergdahl would not receive roughly $300,000 in back pay he is currently owed


    Read more: Bowe Bergdahl's comrade says he MUST be court-martialed for desertion | Daily Mail Online
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  17. #17
    Senior Member tnlawyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,651

  18. #18
    Senior Member Pablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    4,274
    Prisoners swapped for accused deserter Bergdahl have tried to rejoin terror networks | New York Post

    Not only did the obama team break a long standing rule by negotiating hostage release with terrorists...he gave them back five of their top commanders, for a fcuking deserter!

    Stand by now for a nuclear armed iran!
    tnlawyer likes this.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •