Missing/Captured: Bowe Bergdahl

Nope, I don't think he gets a book or movie deal. At least not a mainstream one. We may have a lot of flaws as a country, but even among the liberal left they still give lip service to patriotism.

I see Harvey Weinstien and his ilk all over this, making a sympathetic character out of Bergdahl. I shit you not I see the script already, focusing on how his parents brainwashed him while growing up, and how his platoon bullied him throughout his time in the Army, to the point where he feared for his life and had to make a choice, be murdered by one of his own, or take his chances hiking through Afghanistan, trying to connect with a friendly unit. They will show the 'torture' he endured while a prisoner, (in both Afghanistan and then of the US. Govt) and how hatred of the current administration pressured the Army into prosecuting him. This pic will be nominated for, and likely win an Academy Award. Quite honestly I would be rather shocked if this does not happen.
 
Last edited:
ARTICLE 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
  • (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.”
ELEMENTS
(1) Desertion with intent to remain away permanently.
  • (a) That the accused absented himself or herself from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty;
  • (b) That such absence was without authority;

    (c) That the accused, at the time the absence began or at some time during the absence, intended to remain away from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty permanently; and

    (d) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged. Note: If the absence was terminated by apprehension, add the following element

    (e) That the accused’s absence was terminated by apprehension.
(2) Desertion with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.
  • (a) That the accused quit his or her unit, organization, or other place of duty;
  • (b) That the accused did so with the intent to avoid a certain duty or shirk a certain service;

    (c) That the duty to be performed was hazardous or the service important;

    (d) That the accused knew that he or she would be required for such duty or service; and

    (e) That the accused remained absent until the date alleged.
The article 85 charges seems pretty cut and dry. The WaPo article said that the Army plans to charge him under the second clause, "Intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service." Bergdahl's actions prior to deployment, subsequent writings, and comments to other soldiers paint a pretty clear picture: He planned to leave and never come back. That's just my barracks lawyer opinion. The article 99 charge might be a little more difficult to prove.

ARTICLE 99 - MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY
Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—

(1) runs away;

(2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

ELEMENTS
(1) Running away.

(a) That the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy;

(b) That the accused misbehaved by running away; and

(c) That the accused intended to avoid actual or impending combat with the enemy by running away.


(2) Shamefully abandoning, surrendering, or delivering up command.

(a) That the accused was charged by orders or circumstances with the duty to defend a certain command, unit, place, ship, or military property;

(b) That, without justification, the accused shamefully abandoned, surrendered, or delivered up that command, unit, place, ship, or military property; and

(c) That this act occurred while the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy.

(3) Endangering safety of a command, unit, place, ship, or military property.

(a) That it was the duty of the accused to de-fend a certain command, unit, place, ship, or certain military property;

(b) That the accused committed certain disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct;

(c) That the accused thereby endangered the safety of the command, unit, place, ship, or military property; and

(d) That this act occurred while the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy.


(4) Casting away arms or ammunition.

(a) That the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy; and

(b) That the accused cast away certain arms or ammunition.

(5) Cowardly conduct.

(a) That the accused committed an act of cowardice;

(b) That this conduct occurred while the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy; and

(c) That this conduct was the result of fear.

(6) Quitting place of duty to plunder or pillage.

(a) That the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy;

(b) That the accused quit the accused’s place of duty; and

(c) That the accused’s intention in quitting was to plunder or pillage public or private property.

(7) Causing false alarms.

(a) That an alarm was caused in a certain command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces of the United States;

(b) That the accused caused the alarm;

(c) That the alarm was caused without any reasonable or sufficient justification or excuse; and

(d) That this act occurred while the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy.

(8) Willfully failing to do utmost to encounter enemy.

(a) That the accused was serving before or in the presence of the enemy;

(b) That the accused had a duty to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy certain enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or a certain other thing; and

(c) That the accused willfully failed to do the utmost to perform that duty.

(9) Failing to afford relief and assistance.

(a) That certain troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or an ally of the United States were engaged in battle and required relief and assistance;

(b) That the accused was in a position and able to render relief and assistance to these troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft, without jeopardy to the accused’s mission;

(c) That the accused failed to afford all practicable relief and assistance; and

(d) That, at the time, the accused was before or in the presence of the enemy.

Did Bergdahl run away in order to avoid combat with the enemy? By common definition he absolutely did. However, looking over the explanation of the "before or in the presence of the enemy" leads me to believe that it may be tougher than that. From: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl99.htm
Explanation.

(1) Running away.

(a) Running away. “Running away” means an unauthorized departure to avoid actual or impending combat. It need not, however, be the result of fear, and there is no requirement that the accused literally run.

(b) Enemy. “Enemy” includes organized forces of the enemy in time of war, any hostile body that our forces may be opposing, such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades, and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations. “Enemy” is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other.

(c) Before the enemy. Whether a person is “before the enemy” is a question of tactical relation, not distance. For example, a member of an antiaircraft gun crew charged with opposing anticipated attack from the air, or a member of a unit about to move into combat may be before the enemy although miles from the enemy lines. On the other hand, an organization some distance from the front or immediate area of combat which is not a part of a tactical operation then going on or in immediate prospect is not “before or in the presence of the enemy” within the meaning of this article.
You could argue that due to the location of Bergdahl's PB, he was always "before the enemy", but it's not 100% clear. Lawyers can do magical things with words, after all. I think that he will probably be found guilty desertion at the very least, and stands a good chance of a "guilty" verdict on the article 99 charge as well. As for sentencing.....no idea.

I doubt that the administration will pardon him. He's going to be found guilty and the administration will catch a ton of heat for that. A pardon anywhere down the road would amount to tacit agreement with Bergdahl's principles, which is another headache that the administration doesn't want. Will they try to influence the court proceedings? It's possible: Obama caught heat for it two years ago for comments he made about pending sexual assault cases. Those cases still have not been settled. Additionally, he spoke out before the trial of Bradley Manning and got burned for it.
 
I still stand behind http://www.shadowspear.com/vb/threads/missing-captured-bowe-bergdahl.20046/page-12#post-350039
Plea to AWOL, time served, take the BCD and no back pay or e-3 back pay. No benefits, do not pass go, do not collect $200

He had to have a trial, but there's no way the administration allows him to face death or life in prison after trading the 5 for him.

(Personally, I'd fill a firing squad with the members of units that had casualties looking for him and let them do their thing)

Trading 5 to punish a deserter sends a message, he is still ours, and we deal with our own.
 
The article 85 charges seems pretty cut and dry. The WaPo article said that the Army plans to charge him under the second clause, "Intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service." Bergdahl's actions prior to deployment, subsequent writings, and comments to other soldiers paint a pretty clear picture: He planned to leave and never come back. That's just my barracks lawyer opinion. The article 99 charge might be a little more difficult to prove.





Did Bergdahl run away in order to avoid combat with the enemy? By common definition he absolutely did. However, looking over the explanation of the "before or in the presence of the enemy" leads me to believe that it may be tougher than that. From: http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl99.htm

You could argue that due to the location of Bergdahl's PB, he was always "before the enemy", but it's not 100% clear. Lawyers can do magical things with words, after all. I think that he will probably be found guilty desertion at the very least, and stands a good chance of a "guilty" verdict on the article 99 charge as well. As for sentencing.....no idea.

I doubt that the administration will pardon him. He's going to be found guilty and the administration will catch a ton of heat for that. A pardon anywhere down the road would amount to tacit agreement with Bergdahl's principles, which is another headache that the administration doesn't want. Will they try to influence the court proceedings? It's possible: Obama caught heat for it two years ago for comments he made about pending sexual assault cases. Those cases still have not been settled. Additionally, he spoke out before the trial of Bradley Manning and got burned for it.
Disagree (with you) on the Art 99 Charge.

(3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

(4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

(5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

(6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

(7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

(8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

(9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle; shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

People in the AO can testify what adverse impacts his actions caused.
 
Bob Levinson would have been a better trade and probably more politically advantageous.

What? Those are two very seperate issues. One is an American soldier whether he deserted or not, being held by our enemy. The other is possibly a CIa agent held by another country for (supposedly)criminal actions. Who would we have traded for Levinson, not the guys we have in Gitmo.
 
We'll let him die in that hole while we help Iran build its nuclear arsenal.

We are now helping Iran build nuclear weapons? Wow I didn't know that there was such a dramatic shift in our foreign policy since Mar 5th:
President Obama (Mar. 5): "We do not want to see a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. We do not want the possibility of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. And we do not want a regime that has been a state sponsor of terrorism being able to feel that it can act even more aggressively or with impunity as a consequence of its nuclear power.

That's why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever with respect to Iran. We do believe that there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue, but ultimately the Iranians' regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far.
 
We are now helping Iran build nuclear weapons? Wow I didn't know that there was such a dramatic shift in our foreign policy since Mar 5th:
President Obama (Mar. 5): "We do not want to see a nuclear arms race in one of the most volatile regions in the world. We do not want the possibility of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of terrorists. And we do not want a regime that has been a state sponsor of terrorism being able to feel that it can act even more aggressively or with impunity as a consequence of its nuclear power.

That's why we have worked so diligently to set up the most crippling sanctions ever with respect to Iran. We do believe that there is still a window that allows for a diplomatic resolution to this issue, but ultimately the Iranians' regime has to make a decision to move in that direction, a decision that they have not made thus far.

I'm sure you know I'm being sarcastic. But in truth I don't have much faith in the negotiation process or the Iranians. I think they'll use it to their advantage and continue to try to develop weaponized nukes in secret. Hopefully I'm wrong.
 
I'm sure you know I'm being sarcastic. But in truth I don't have much faith in the negotiation process or the Iranians. I think they'll use it to their advantage and continue to try to develop weaponized nukes in secret. Hopefully I'm wrong.

I don't know you are being sarcastic. With the amount of stuff you say that you do take seriously and a profound lack of smileys make me think you are serious.
 
New details from the report: http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/bergdahl-intended-to-walk-to-nearest-base/index.html

Army report: Bergdahl intended to walk to nearest base
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl told the military he left his unit in eastern Afghanistan in July 2009 intending to walk to the nearest U.S. military outpost to report wrongdoing, believing he could not trust his own commanders to deal with his concerns, according to sources familiar with the Army investigation. It is the clearest indication yet of the motive behind his decision to leave his post.

Bergdahl was planning to report what he believed to be problems with "order and discipline" in his unit, a senior Defense official tells CNN. A second official says Bergdahl had "concerns about leadership issues at his base."

This information is part of the report presented to General Mark Milley who this week decided to charge Bergdahl with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. This information outlines what could be a key part of Bergdahl's defense, which the army is already aware of.

Both officials declined to be identified because of the legal proceedings against Berghahl, but both have direct knowledge of the information outlined in the report. "This was a kid who had leadership concerns on his mind," the second official said. "He wasn't fed up, he wasn't planning to desert."

What Bergdahl's concerns were, and whether they are relevant to the case of desertion the Army is trying to make will be a matter for military authorities to decide. "I can't tell you if his concerns were valid, but in his mind they were," the official said.

Both officials said Bergdahl believed he could make it to the next base by relying on wilderness skills he learned growing up in rural Idaho, even though the area was full of insurgents. It was not immediately clear how far the nearest base was during that timeframe in July 2009.

The first hint of what Bergdahl says his intent was came Wednesday in a 13-page letter to the Army from his civilian attorney Eugene Fidell. In that letter Fidell said that a still publicly unreleased initial Army investigation report "while hedging its bets.....basically concludes that Sgt. Bergdahl did not intend to remain away from the Army permanently."


My eyes are rolling so hard that they're threatening to fall out :rolleyes:

I think that anyone interested in this case should really read the statement by Bergdahl's defense team. It lays out a lot of the facts and problems with this case, both with public perception and military administration. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/03/26/bergdahl-03252015-press-statement.pdf Included is a two page letter from Bergdahl detailing parts of his time in captivity. The letter starts on page 16. It does not address his motivations (the defense statement does that) but sheds some light on his actions during captivity.

I don't buy the notion that he wanted to walk to the nearest base to be a whistleblower. I can buy the defense's statement that he is naiive, but an act like that (along with leaving your weapon and body armor) would also require someone phenomenally stupid. I do find it interesting to see how the facts of this case have been evolving over the years. It's really been difficult to make heads or tails of the issue at any one point in time.

Honestly....a book about this story would probably be very appropriate, considering the facts. I don't want him to see a dime of it; the fact that Americans died trying to get him and the sacrifices that the government had to make means that he shouldn't profit off of it. But a story about the very real consequences of unfettered idealism during wartime would be very powerful. There are so many directions that you could take a story like that. It would be a fascinating read. But it would also be morally repugnant if Bargdahl were allowed to profit off of it. Perhaps if the government could somehow force the publisher to donate Bergdahl's fees to charity.
 
From my post at the top of this page, I predicted this story a couple of days ago, and you are already seeing conversation around how he was tortured while in captivity. I'm telling you, by the time the Hollywood spin machine is done, this fucker is going to be a hero.

See also, Wag the Dog.

<snip> and how his platoon bullied him throughout his time in the Army, to the point where he feared for his life and had to make a choice, be murdered by one of his own, or take his chances hiking through Afghanistan, trying to connect with a friendly unit. <snip>
 
Voice Intercept stuff has been yacked about on the interwebs for a long time, the "American who wants to join the Taliban" statements put a kink into the "I'll just walk to the nearest firebase" (after sending all my personal stuff home) theory.
 
The last e-mail he sent to his parents. He hated America, he hated the Army, he wanted to unass the whole fucking show. This is a guy who got a psych discharge from the Coasties 26 days into boot camp. :rolleyes: Read this and tell me he wanted to go anywhere near another US base.

mom, dad,

The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong. I have seen their ideas and I am ashamed to even be american. The horror of the self-righteous arrogance that they thrive in. It is all revolting. [...] [Three good sergeants had been forced to move to another company] [...] and one of the biggest shit bags is being put in charge of the team. [...] [My battalion commander was] a conceited old fool. [...] In the US army you are cut down for being honest... but if you are a conceited brown nosing shit bag you will be allowed to do what ever you want, and you will be handed your higher rank... The system is wrong. I am ashamed to be an american. And the title of US soldier is just the lie of fools. ... The US army is the biggest joke the world has to laugh at. It is the army of liars, backstabbers, fools, and bullies. The few good SGTs are getting out as soon as they can, [...] I am sorry for everything here. These people need help, yet what they get is the most conceited country in the world telling them that they are nothing and that they are stupid, that they have no idea how to live... We don't even care when we hear each other talk about running their children down in the dirt streets with our armored trucks... We make fun of them in front of their faces, and laugh at them for not understanding we are insulting them [...] I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting.


This dude is fucking whacked and his shit is right out of Apocalypse Now.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top