Bergdahl faces charge rarely used in military

[jakefromstatefarm]

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/09/07/military-selects-rarely-used-charge-for-bowe-bergdahl-case/71837020/

RALEIGH, N.C. — Military prosecutors have reached into a section of military law seldom used since World War II in the politically fraught case against Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the soldier held prisoner for years by the Taliban after leaving his post in Afghanistan.

Observers wondered for months if Bergdahl would be charged with desertion after the deal brokered by the U.S. to bring him home. He was — but he was also charged with misbehavior before the enemy, a much rarer offense that carries a stiffer potential penalty in this case.

"I've never seen it charged," Walter Huffman, a retired major general who served as the Army's top lawyer, said of the misbehavior charge. "It's not something you find in common everyday practice in the military."

Bergdahl could face a life sentence if convicted of the charge, which accuses him of endangering fellow soldiers when he "left without authority; and wrongfully caused search and recovery operations."

[SunsetBengal]

Hmm, I guess hangings out of the question?

[*bfine32*]

(09-07-2015, 08:13 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Hmm, I guess hangings out of the question?

Nope he still faces desertion charges.

[*bfine32*]

Well it appears desertion gets you no jail time nowadays:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bowe-bergdahl-could-learn-sentence-soon-friday-064415009.html

Quote:FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) — A military judge ruled Friday that Bowe Bergdahl should serve no prison time for endangering his comrades by walking off his Afghanistan post.

The sentence caps a politically divisive episode that centered on one soldier's decision that affected many other lives. President Barack Obama was criticized for trading Taliban prisoners to bring him back. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump had called for Bergdahl to face stiff punishment.
The judge also gave Bergdahl a dishonorable discharge, reduced his rank to private and said he must forfeit pay equal to $1,000 per month for 10 months. The judge made no other comments.

I wonder if they will now give back MSG Mark Allen the use of his, arms. legs, and full brain function.  

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(11-03-2017, 02:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well it appears desertion gets you no jail time nowadays:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/bowe-bergdahl-could-learn-sentence-soon-friday-064415009.html



I wonder if they will now give back MSG Mark Allen the use of his, arms. legs, and full brain function.  

F'ing disgusting. This whole thing pissed me off from start to finish. From soldiers being hurt searching for a deserter, to trading 5 Taliban prisoners to get that deserter back (so much for not negotiating with terrorists), to now the guy pleading guilty and getting zero jail time.

I do wonder how long he'll survive as a high profile deserter with Taliban sympathies who got soldiers hurt.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2017, 02:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: F'ing disgusting. This whole thing pissed me off from start to finish. From soldiers being hurt searching for a deserter, to trading 5 Taliban prisoners to get that deserter back (so much for not negotiating with terrorists), to now the guy pleading guilty and getting zero jail time.

I do wonder how long he'll survive as a high profile deserter with Taliban sympathies who got soldiers hurt.

Of course we negotiate with terrorists. Ever heard of the Iran Contra Scandal? Reagan sold all those weapons to Iran for hostages.

[Belsnickel]

I wan't one paying a ton of attention to this, it just wasn't something that I had a lot of focus on and I didn't have a strong "throw the book at him" feeling. With all that said, even I am wondering what the hell is up with that sentence.

[*bfine32*]

(11-03-2017, 02:16 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: F'ing disgusting. This whole thing pissed me off from start to finish. From soldiers being hurt searching for a deserter, to trading 5 Taliban prisoners to get that deserter back (so much for not negotiating with terrorists), to now the guy pleading guilty and getting zero jail time.

I do wonder how long he'll survive as a high profile deserter with Taliban sympathies who got soldiers hurt.

I didn't have as much of a problem with the exchange as some; given, I did not know the crimes committed by them. WTS, I hate the message that he has suffered enough while in the hands of the Taliban. Since when do we let the Taliban administer our justice.

[CKwi88]

Surprising sentence. I figured he'd get at least some time.

That said, the guy has lost nearly a decade of his life to this, now has the millstone of a dishonorable discharge and knowing that he has caused irreparable harm to soldiers and their families.

Prison time would have probably been more vindictive than anything. Hopefully he uses the rest of his life to atone for some of his wrongs.

[Goalpost]

I'm hearing he might receive back pay, as much as a quarter of a million dollars, so that 10 grand of forfeited pay is peanuts.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-03-2017, 05:20 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Surprising sentence. I figured he'd get at least some time.

That said, the guy has lost nearly a decade of his life to this, now has the millstone of a dishonorable discharge and knowing that he has caused irreparable harm to soldiers and their families.

Prison time would have probably been more vindictive than anything. Hopefully he uses the rest of his life to atone for some of his wrongs.

Don't really disagree with any of that.

But, if I read and understand correctly, I don't approve of him collecting backpay and $1000 a month in pension.  Although, given the verdict, not sure how you'd deny him that.

[Benton]

(11-03-2017, 07:51 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I'm hearing he might receive back pay, as much as a quarter of a million dollars, so that 10 grand of forfeited pay is peanuts.

Eh? What soldier makes $250,000 for a few years service? That's (roughly) 9 years of service as a sergeant. I don't think he was in that long, let alone a sergeant the whole time. This was back in 09, I think.

[JustWinBaby]

(11-03-2017, 09:51 PM)Benton Wrote: Eh? What soldier makes $250,000 for a few years service? That's (roughly) 9 years of service as a sergeant. I don't think he was in that long, let alone a sergeant the whole time. This was back in 09, I think.

Roughly $150k in back pay for something like 10 years (including time as a captive), and another $150k special compensation for being a POW.

[Dill]

(11-03-2017, 03:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I didn't have as much of a problem with the exchange as some; given, I did not know the crimes committed by them. WTS, I hate the message that he has suffered enough while in the hands of the Taliban. Since when do we let the Taliban administer our justice.

(11-03-2017, 05:20 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Surprising sentence. I figured he'd get at least some time.

That said, the guy has lost nearly a decade of his life to this, now has the millstone of a dishonorable discharge and knowing that he has caused irreparable harm to soldiers and their families.

Prison time would have probably been more vindictive than anything. Hopefully he uses the rest of his life to atone for some of his wrongs.

(11-03-2017, 02:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wan't one paying a ton of attention to this, it just wasn't something that I had a lot of focus on and I didn't have a strong "throw the book at him" feeling. With all that said, even I am wondering what the hell is up with that sentence.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/453055/donald-trump-bergdahl-comments-soldier-pass
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-legal-interference-20171103-story.html

Sgt. Bergdahl’s Sentence May Be Lighter Because of Trump’s Comments

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/us/bowe-bergdahl-search-attack.html

FORT BRAGG, N.C. — President Trump’s harsh criticism of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who walked off his Army post in Afghanistan in 2009 and was captured by the Taliban, will weigh in favor of a lighter sentence for the sergeant, a military judge said on Monday.

“I will consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence as I arrive at an appropriate sentence,” the judge, Col. Jeffery R. Nance of the Army, said during a hearing at Fort Bragg. The judge is expected to sentence Sergeant Bergdahl in the next few weeks.

The judge rejected a request that he dismiss the case or cap the length of the sentence on the grounds that the president’s comments had precluded a fair hearing. The judge said he had not been influenced by the remarks and that the public’s confidence in the military justice system had not been undermined.

[*michaelsean*]

Why would Trumps comments lead to a lighter sentence? That makes zero sense.

[Dill]

(11-03-2017, 11:20 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Why would Trumps comments lead to a lighter sentence?  That makes zero sense.

Two points on that:

1. Shepherd vs Maxwell in 1966, a murder conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court because of probing, unbalanced pre-trial publicity, including a judge grilling the accused on public TV without his lawyer.  Since then courts have recognized that media coverage may compromise the possibility of a fair trial. That is why trials are sometimes moved to different venues, or jurors brought in from "outside."

2. The case is much more serious when the head of the executive branch and commander in chief mouths off, as Trump has done again and again. Not only does that create pre-trial presumptions of guilt, but also the Commander in Chief is someone in a position to influence actual legal proceedings.  

All Trump has to do is shut up but he won't.  He has also now prejudiced the case against the Saipov for the 8 people killed in NYC. 

Trump's recent outbursts have something in common with the fact that he may have/did incriminate himself when he fired Comey and then told the press it was because he did not shut down the Russia investigation. He does not understand legal boundaries/responsibilities, especially as these pertain to the Chief Exec.  All the checks and balances and legal protections in our system--which distinguish our system from that of 3rd world dictatorships--just appear as senseless impediments to him, judging by his comments on it. When you "know" who is guilty you punish them as harshly as the law will allow.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(11-03-2017, 09:56 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Roughly $150k in back pay for something like 10 years (including time as a captive), and another $150k special compensation for being a POW.

Which can all be forfeited since he plead guilty to desertion and is receiving a dishonorable discharge.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2017, 03:22 PM)Dill Wrote: Two points on that:

1. Shepherd vs Maxwell in 1966, a murder conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court because of probing, unbalanced pre-trial publicity, including a judge grilling the accused on public TV without his lawyer.  Since then courts have recognized that media coverage may compromise the possibility of a fair trial. That is why trials are sometimes moved to different venues, or jurors brought in from "outside."

2. The case is much more serious when the head of the executive branch and commander in chief mouths off, as Trump has done again and again. Not only does that create pre-trial presumptions of guilt, but also the Commander in Chief is someone in a position to influence actual legal proceedings.  

All Trump has to do is shut up but he won't.  He has also now prejudiced the case against the Saipov for the 8 people killed in NYC. 

Trump's recent outbursts have something in common with the fact that he may have/did incriminate himself when he fired Comey and then told the press it was because he did not shut down the Russia investigation. He does not understand legal boundaries/responsibilities, especially as these pertain to the Chief Exec.  All the checks and balances and legal protections in our system--which distinguish our system from that of 3rd world dictatorships--just appear as senseless impediments to him, judging by his comments on it.  When you "know" who is guilty you punish them as harshly as the law will allow.

He plead guilty.  There is no question of fairness.    So why would his sentencing be mitigated by something Trump says?  

[Dill]

(11-06-2017, 05:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: He plead guilty.  There is no question of fairness.    So why would his sentencing be mitigated by something Trump says?  

Sentencing is where the rubber meets the road. If the judge appears influenced by the chief exec's comments to the effect Bergdahl should be executed and the like, then the fairness of the sentence--and the trial itself--comes into question.

Something like this happened back in '72 when Nixon made public comments to the effect everyone knew Charles Manson was guilty of killing 8 people, directly or indirectly.  But as a lawyer, he recognized the misstep and quickly took his comments back in another public statement. 

The problem is intensified within military organization, where influence from higher up in the chain of command is both a big problem and a big no no.  Trump does not understand how his statements ripple down that chain.

[*michaelsean*]

(11-06-2017, 06:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Sentencing is where the rubber meets the road. If the judge appears influenced by the chief exec's comments to the effect Bergdahl should be executed and the like, then the fairness of the sentence--and the trial itself--comes into question.

Something like this happened back in '72 when Nixon made public comments to the effect everyone knew Charles Manson was guilty of killing 8 people, directly or indirectly.  But as a lawyer, he recognized the misstep and quickly took his comments back in another public statement. 

The problem is intensified within military organization, where influence from higher up in the chain of command is both a big problem and a big no no.  Trump does not understand how his statements ripple down that chain.

Well obviously the judge was influenced by the chief exec's comments.  It's no better to be influenced the other way.  

Nixon's comments were pre-trial.  That's possibly influencing potential jurors.  This is a judge, and he allowed himself to be influenced.