• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Bowe Bergdahl: Missing in AFG 2009, Released 2014, Tried 2015

tomahawk6 said:
Bergdahl is going to have a hard time convincing the jury that he didnt give aid and comfort to the enemy.He has to be the only American POW that wasnt killed by the Taliban.He is either very lucky or he made himself too valuable.

Not how criminal justice works; if he is in fact charged with that offense, the onus is on the proseuction to show that he did. Same protection you or I would get if we were charged with a crime. What can actually be proven is pretty much always a key consideration when they're deciding what charges to lay or to stick with.
 
tomahawk6 said:
Bergdahl is going to have a hard time convincing the jury that he didnt give aid and comfort to the enemy.He has to be the only American POW that wasnt killed by the Taliban.He is either very lucky or he made himself too valuable.

In a just world there would be a brick wall, a Gauloises and a blindfold waiting for him...
 
Interesting story ....
The Army general who led the investigation into the disappearance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from his post in Afghanistan in 2009 said a prison sentence would be "inappropriate."

Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl testified Friday Bergdahl was "unrealistically idealistic" when he left his remote outpost some six years ago, hoping to draw attention to what he considered poor leadership of his unit. Bergdahl believed leaving his observation post and walking about 14 miles to a nearby American base would give him the attention he needed to speak with high-ranking officers to complain, Dahl said at an Army Article 32 hearing to determine if Bergdahl will face a court martial. He believed the "problems were so severe that his platoon was in danger," Dahl said. If court-martialed, Bergdahl faces life in prison.

"I do not believe there is a jail sentence at the end of this procedure," Dahl said. "I think it would be inappropriate."

Bergdahl, now 29, was a private when he vanished June 30, 2009 and was captured by the Taliban and held for nearly five years. Last year, President Barack Obama approved exchanging Bergdahl for five Taliban prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Dahl said there has been a lot of misinformation circulating since Bergdahl disappeared, including claims that up to a half-dozen soldiers died while searching for him and he intended to walk to China or India. Neither claim is true, Dahl said. Dahl also said Bergdahl never intended to desert and join the Taliban, adding Bergdahl mailed his computer home not because he intended to permanently flee but he wanted his personal items safe, knowing he would likely be imprisoned once he left his post ....

Edited to add:  As for next steps:
Bowe Bergdahl's lead attorney says there is enough evidence to show that the Army sergeant's case should be treated as a one-day stint of being away without leave, not a more serious violation.

Eugene Fidell's remarks came Friday toward the end of a hearing to help determine if Bergdahl should face a court-martial for walking away from his post in Afghanistan in 2009.

Military prosecutor Margaret Kurz says that the Idaho native should face a court-martial because she says his decision led to a lengthy search that put other soldiers in danger.

The presiding officer will forward his recommendations to the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command, who will decide whether it should be referred to a court-martial or be resolved in another manner.
 
All well and good but for me the real question is why Bergdahl wasnt killed by the Taliban ? A British soldier was caught away from his post and was killed by the Taliban.They just arent known for keeping prisoners.
 
tomahawk6 said:
All well and good but for me the real question is why Bergdahl wasnt killed by the Taliban ? A British soldier was caught away from his post and was killed by the Taliban.They just arent known for keeping prisoners.

'Smart' bad guys keep them for trading...
 
This via the Washington Post:
Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face general court-martial in connection with his 2009 disappearance from his base in Afghanistan, the service announced Monday, raising the possibility that the soldier could face life in prison after being held captive for five years.

Bergdahl, 29, is charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. He has been a political lightning rod since he was exchanged in May 2014 in a prisoner swap approved by the White House in which five Taliban officials were released from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and kept under supervised watch in Qatar.

The decision was made by Gen. Robert Abrams, the four-star commander of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, N.C. It came after Bergdahl broke his silence last week by participating in the popular podcast “Serial.” The weekly podcast obtained 25 hours of recorded conversations between Bergdahl and film producer Mark Boal with Bergdahl’s approval.

The decision is more severe than what was recommended by an Army officer, Lt. Col. Mark Visger, who oversaw a two-day hearing for Bergdahl’s case in September, according to Bergdahl’s lawyer. Visger recommended that Bergdahl face a lower form of judicial proceeding known as a special court-martial, which would have come with a maximum penalty of 12 months of confinement ...
And, a few days ago, this (108 page PDF) from the Republican-majority U.S. House Armed Services Committee ...
... FINDING I:  The transfer of the Taliban Five violated several laws, including the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014.  The constitutional arguments offered to justify the Department of Defense’s failure to provide the legally-required notification to the Committee 30 days in advance are incomplete and unconvincing.  The violation of law also threatens constitutional separation of powers.

FINDING II:  The Committee was misled about the extent and scope of efforts to arrange the Taliban Five transfer before it took place.  The Department of Defense’s failure to communicate complete and accurate information severely harmed its relationship with the Committee, and threatens to upend a longstanding history and tradition of cooperation and comity.

FINDING III:  Senior officials within the Department of Defense best equipped to assess national security risks associated with the detainee transfer were largely excluded from the Taliban Five efforts.  This greatly increased the chance that the transfer would have dangerous consequences.

FINDING IV:  The Department of Defense has failed to take sufficient recautions to ensure the ongoing national security risks posed by the Taliban 5 are mitigated, consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding with Qatar ...
 
This case is the subject of the new Serial season, if anyone listens to podcasts.
 
I have not listened to the episode, someone at work who did told me that he wanted to cause a stir with effing off like that.  I hope that he gets to ponder his martyrdom in Leavenworth once his trial is over.
 
I dont care how Bergdahl spins it he deserted his unit in the face of the enemy.I dont think that he will be incarcerated IF convicted,rather I expect that he will get a dishorable discharge.
 
tomahawk6 said:
I dont care how Bergdahl spins it he deserted his unit in the face of the enemy.I dont think that he will be incarcerated IF convicted,rather I expect that he will get a dishorable discharge.

I listened to episode one of his story on Serial.  I don't buy what he's selling fully, I hope they come after him with the full application of the weight of the state against him.  My boss wasn't going to condemn him yet.

The narrator stated that this idiot needs to have a security team watching his back whenever he leaves the post.  I said to the boss, "no doubt, I am sure someone out there has a lime pit with his name on it".  While I don't condone that sort of thinking, if convicted I think he should be incarcerated for a substantial period of time.
 
jollyjacktar said:
I listened to episode one of his story on Serial.  I don't buy what he's selling fully, I hope they come after him with the full application of the weight of the state against him.  My boss wasn't going to condemn him yet.

The narrator stated that this idiot needs to have a security team watching his back whenever he leaves the post.  I said to the boss, "no doubt, I am sure someone out there has a lime pit with his name on it".  While I don't condone that sort of thinking, if convicted I think he should be incarcerated for a substantial period of time.

It all depends on the result of the investigation.Did he give aid to the Taliban ? How did he stay alive for 5 years ? What made him valuable where other prisoners were killed ?
I think the civilian leadership wants this case disposed of quickly with as little fanfare as possible.
 
The Taliban who had him are the next episode.  Airs Thursday night.
 
He said that he left his unit because of leadership issues.He did so while he was on guard duty if my memory is correct.By doing so he endangered everyone at his COP.If he had a legitimate issue he could have contacted the Inspector General and if there was validity to his claims corrective action would have followed.I just dont buy the story.
 
jollyjacktar said:
I listened to episode one of his story on Serial.  I don't buy what he's selling fully ...
I listened to the first episode, too, and he sounded like he was making things up as he went along - not during the interviews, but during his run.  I look forward to seeing how many angles of this Serial is able to share.
tomahawk6 said:
He said that he left his unit because of leadership issues.He did so while he was on guard duty if my memory is correct.
He apparently didn't make it to guard duty - the guy he was supposed to relieve found him missing. 

Smart guy, wanting to draw the bosses' eyes to him - they're suuuuuuuuuuuure watching and listening now, ain't they?  :facepalm:
 
Bumped with the latest:  could be next year before the trial begins ...
The start of the trial of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who faces desertion and misbehavior charges for abandoning his post in Afghanistan, has been postponed until next year to give his defense team time to sift though thousands of pages of secret documents.

The new date, Feb. 6, which may still change as a result of scheduling conflicts, was set at a brief hearing Tuesday at Fort Bragg in North Carolina, the Army said in a statement. The initial trial date had been set for Aug. 8.

The case has grown more complex as prosecutors and defense attorneys have grappled with the compilation of 1.5 million pages of documents in connection with the investigation into the capture and detention of Bergdahl.

At the hearing, defense attorneys and prosecutors met with the judge, Col. Jeffery Nance, to discuss potential trial dates and legal motions under consideration. The hearing lasted 35 minutes.

The next scheduled motions hearing for the case will be July 7-8, the Army said ...
 
Bergdahl's defense team seeks to have the CG FORCES Command removed from his case.Fat chance.He would be smart to ask for a deal while Obama is still in office.If this drags out into next year and we see a President Trump,Bergdahl will be convicted and face a stiff sentence.He deserted and gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/prosecutors-fight-back-against-bid-to-remove-four-star-from-bergdahl-case

In an ongoing back and forth, prosecutors in the case against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl roundly rejected a defense petition to have Gen. Robert Abrams removed from the case, calling the request “not supported by the facts” and having “little to no legal authority.”

Abrams, in an affidavit included with the prosecution’s response, also rejected the defense’s claims, writing “all decisions made by me as commander [of Forces Command] and the general court-martial convening authority were within my sole discretion, based on the material submitted to me. My decisions were not impacted by any outside influence and are mine alone.”

Bergdahl’s lawyers on Aug. 12 filed a motion calling for Abrams, the commanding general of Forces Command, to be disqualified as the general court-martial convening authority because of his “substantial prior involvement” in the case.

The motion also states Abrams referred charges against Bergdahl “without considering defense objections to and comments on the report of the preliminary hearing officer,” and burned letters of support he received that would have been “evidence favorable to the defense.”

In addition to disqualifying Abrams as the convening authority, the motion also asks that the charges against Bergdahl be dropped. And if any charges are “re-referred” against Bergdahl, he should not face any punishment if he’s found guilty, according to the motion.

In their response, filed Friday, prosecutors said the defense claim that Abrams, who served as the senior military assistant to then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, had “substantial prior involvement” in the case is “baseless.”

“The defense argument is essentially an attempt to conflate knowledge with involvement,” prosecutors wrote in their response to the defense. “First-hand knowledge is a legal term of art with a particular meaning, and receiving information on a subject from third parties is quite literally the exact opposite. If the defense’s position were correct, anyone who ever read a news article or viewed a TV report about Sgt. Bergdahl would become a ‘fact witness.’”

The defense lawyers, in their motion, said Abrams “provided daily updates to the secretary, prepared and advised him regarding military matters, and attended most of his meetings.”

After Bergdahl was freed, Abrams was “in charge of receiving all updates regarding his health status and the reintegration process and updating Secretary Hagel on those matters,” according to the defense’s motion.

While he did serve in those key jobs, Abrams wrote in his affidavit that he was not present when Hagel was briefed on the Army’s extensive AR 15-6 investigation into the Bergdahl case.

“I did not participate in any way in this matter prior to taking command of FORSCOM,” Abrams wrote, adding that he reviewed the entire investigation after taking command.

Bergdahl’s lawyers also said Abrams did not consider their “timely objections to and other comments” on the report from Bergdahl’s Article 32 hearing.

In his affidavit, Abrams said he read the objections “several times and consulted with my Staff Judge Advocate to gain a better understanding of the defense concerns.”

The Article 32 took place Sept. 17-18 at Fort Sam Houston and was conducted by Lt. Col. Mark Visger.

Visger recommended the case be referred to “a special court-martial not authorized to adjudge a punitive discharge and that Sgt. Bergdahl not receive any jail time,” according to the motion.

The defense submitted four pages of objections and comments on Visger’s report, according to the motion.

In addition to reviewing the defense’s objections, Abrams also reviewed a memo from the preliminary hearing officer that included additional defense objections, prosecutors wrote.

“The defense’s position on this issue is internally inconsistent,” the prosecutors wrote. “They claim that Gen. Abrams did not review their submission, but simultaneously claim that he was critical of the ‘style of prose’ as not being ‘plain speak.’ The fact that Gen. Abrams was able to comment on the manner in which the document was written makes it clear that he did, in fact, review it.”

The government also rejected the claim that Abrams destroyed any evidence in the case, as the letters he received about the case do not qualify as evidence.

The motion from the defense had said Abrams received “over 100 letters” about the Bergdahl case; the letters were later burned.

None of the letters he received were from “anyone in the chain of command, Department of Defense, or the United States government,” Abrams wrote in his affidavit. “I did not consider the letters in making any decisions regarding this case.”

Abrams added that after “conducting a quick scan” of the letters as they came in, he “placed them in a burn bag. My staff regularly disposes of the contents of the bag each week.”

“Gen. Abrams was under no obligation to keep, consider, or turn over unsolicited letters from strangers expressing their opinions on the disposition of the case,” the prosecutors wrote.

In a second defense filing, also on Friday, Bergdahl’s lawyers rebutted the prosecution’s arguments, calling Abrams’ affidavit “self-serving” and “inconsistent in material respects with what he stated when interviewed last week in the presence of three defense attorneys and a defense paralegal.”

The defense again called for Abrams to testify and characterized the burning of the letters as “prejudicial” and in violation of applicable law.

Bergdahl disappeared from Combat Outpost Mest-Lalak in Paktika province, Afghanistan, on June 30, 2009. He has been accused of leaving his patrol base alone and intentionally before he was captured by Taliban insurgents.

He spent five years as a captive under the Taliban before he was freed in a May 31, 2014, prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

He is now assigned to a desk job at U.S. Army North at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston, Texas.

His court-martial is scheduled to begin Feb. 6 at Fort Bragg.

Bergdahl is charged with one count of desertion with intent to shirk important or hazardous duty, and one count of misbehavior before the enemy by endangering the safety of a command, unit or place.

The charges initially were referred against Bergdahl by Gen. Mark Milley, who was the convening authority and FORSCOM commander until he became the Army chief of staff last fall. Abrams inherited the case when he succeeded Milley at FORSCOM.

This is the second time Bergdahl’s legal team has petitioned to have a convening authority removed from the case. His lawyers called for Milley to be removed after he was nominated to lead the Army.
 
The latest ...
U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the former prisoner of war who's accused of endangering comrades by walking off his post in Afghanistan, is asking President Barack Obama to pardon him before leaving office.

White House and Justice Department officials said Saturday that Bergdahl had submitted copies of the clemency request seeking leniency. If granted by Obama, it would allow Bergdahl to avert a military trial scheduled for April where he faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. The misbehavior charge carries a maximum penalty of life in prison.

If the pardon isn't granted, Bergdahl's defense team said it will expand its legal strategy to the new administration by filing a motion arguing President-elect Donald Trump violated his due process rights with scathing public comments about the case ...
 
Back
Top