Bowe Bergdahl charged with desertion

[Cow Poke]

The"evidence to the contrary" is yet to be tested by the court.

Give it your best shot, Tazz. Please list the "evidence to the contrary".

[Juvenal]

Give it your best shot, Tazz. Please list the "evidence to the contrary".

Tazz is arguing this shouldn't be tried in the press, and so you're asking him to show us evidence he picked up from the press? Now I'd say that's a slam dunk argument you're having problems with reading comprehension, but feel free to show us "evidence to the contrary."

[myth]

I'm not so sure that presuming him innocent means that we had to try so hard to get him back. I can even see the argument for searching for him (though I'm not completely sold, after all - loyal soldiers lost their lives so we could recover a deserter). But trading that many terrorists for him? Not worth it, especially when it they could be pretty sure he was a deserter. Its really just common sense. Why trade 5 people that want to destroy our country for one person who doesn't give a crap about it, and who we may have to pay to have imprisoned for the rest of his life? They should have done more investigation into the details of his disappearance beforehand. If they did more (than I think they did) then the administration's decision is even more problematic.

I'm fairly sure they knew what they were getting into, anyways. Otherwise Obama would not have flouted the law and failed to inform Congress like he was supposed to. It's obvious Obama didn't want time for Congress to learn the details and stir up enough political hoopla to prevent the swap. It's amazing to me that we have a President and Attorney General who are so willing to flagrantly violate the law.

[Juvenal]

Before folks get too far ahead of this story — again — it should be emphasized that we're still not sure if he's going to court. At this stage, Bergdahl's at the civilian equivalent of having been arrested. The charges of desertion do support the previous rumors he was going to be charged with desertion, however.

Bowe Bergdahl Charged With Desertion and Misbehavior Before the Enemy

The case will now go to Fort Sam Houston, Tex., for a hearing that is similar to a grand jury in a civilian court. After that, a military tribunal will determine whether Sergeant Bergdahl should be court-martialed.

Sergeant Bergdahl’s lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, said Wednesday that the sergeant’s legal team had not decided how it would proceed, including whether it would try to negotiate a discharge for Sergeant Bergdahl in lieu of trial by court-martial. In a March 2 letter to Gen. Mark A. Milley, the commanding general of United States Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, Mr. Fidell wrote that an impartial court-martial would be impossible to form because of the political tension over Sergeant Bergdahl’s captivity and release.

That latter point is due, of course, to the screaming hordes of fringe news consumers who've been actively engaged in trying Bergdahl in the press. Ironically, these are the same screaming hordes who pride themselves on supporting our troops.

In the five years he was held captive by the Haqqani insurgent network, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl recalls that he tried to escape 12 times. The first time was just a few hours after he was captured in Afghanistan in 2009.

He was quickly recaptured and beaten. But another attempt, a year later, lasted close to nine days.

“Without food and only putrid water to drink, my body failed on top of a short mountain close to evening,” Sergeant Bergdahl wrote in a page-and-a-half, single-spaced narrative provided by his lawyer to The New York Times, the first public description of the sergeant’s captivity in his own words.

“Some moments after I came to in the dying gray light of the evening, I was found by a large Taliban searching group,” he wrote. They hit him, tried to tear out his beard and hair, and returned him to his captors.

The folks currently screaming for this guy's blood are no better than his Taliban captors, in my humble opinion.

[Cow Poke]

The folks currently screaming for this guy's blood are no better than his Taliban captors, in my humble opinion.

Calm yourself, Commie - nobody is screaming for his blood.

ETA: - I should have said nobody HERE is screaming for his blood.

I'll walk even THAT back and say I am certainly not screaming for his blood. I believe he's a deserter, based on information we have so far, and I think he should go through the system just like any other member of the military member who is brought up on charges.

MEANWHILE, it would be interesting to hear any evidence that he is NOT a deserter. There's certainly interest out there in clearing him.

[myth]

Before folks get too far ahead of this story — again — it should be emphasized that we're still not sure if he's going to court. At this stage, Bergdahl's at the civilian equivalent of having been arrested. The charges of desertion do support the previous rumors he was going to be charged with desertion, however.

Bowe Bergdahl Charged With Desertion and Misbehavior Before the Enemy

The case will now go to Fort Sam Houston, Tex., for a hearing that is similar to a grand jury in a civilian court. After that, a military tribunal will determine whether Sergeant Bergdahl should be court-martialed.

Sergeant Bergdahl’s lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, said Wednesday that the sergeant’s legal team had not decided how it would proceed, including whether it would try to negotiate a discharge for Sergeant Bergdahl in lieu of trial by court-martial. In a March 2 letter to Gen. Mark A. Milley, the commanding general of United States Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, Mr. Fidell wrote that an impartial court-martial would be impossible to form because of the political tension over Sergeant Bergdahl’s captivity and release.

That latter point is due, of course, to the screaming hordes of fringe news consumers who've been actively engaged in trying Bergdahl in the press. Ironically, these are the same screaming hordes who pride themselves on supporting our troops.

In the five years he was held captive by the Haqqani insurgent network, Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl recalls that he tried to escape 12 times. The first time was just a few hours after he was captured in Afghanistan in 2009.

He was quickly recaptured and beaten. But another attempt, a year later, lasted close to nine days.

“Without food and only putrid water to drink, my body failed on top of a short mountain close to evening,” Sergeant Bergdahl wrote in a page-and-a-half, single-spaced narrative provided by his lawyer to The New York Times, the first public description of the sergeant’s captivity in his own words.

“Some moments after I came to in the dying gray light of the evening, I was found by a large Taliban searching group,” he wrote. They hit him, tried to tear out his beard and hair, and returned him to his captors.

The folks currently screaming for this guy's blood are no better than his Taliban captors, in my humble opinion.

So you support desertion while in an active war zone?

My military friends and co-workers all have pretty harsh things to say about what they wish would happen to him (usually entailing his untimely and painful demise). They DID serve with distinction. And from their comments, I gather they consider him to be a traitor for abandoning his brothers-in-arms while at war. He turned his back on his country, his fellow soldiers, and he abandoned his oath.

And, honestly, do you really think he would have been arrested in this political climate if the evidence isn't pretty darn good? After all, this is a huge embarrassment to the administration. I think the military officials conducting the investigation took so long because they knew if the evidence wasn't rock-solid, they'd be putting their careers on the line for moving forward with prosecution despite the administration's wishes.

[Juvenal]

Calm yourself, Commie - nobody is screaming for his blood.

Cause they're too cowardly to do it themselves, preferring to leave it outsourced to his Taliban captors. But whether they saw his head off themselves, or just cheer it on TV, they're just as morally culpable.

Make no mistake that leaving him captive to the Taliban would have resulted in exactly that.

So you support desertion while in an active war zone?

Is there some part of "tried in the press" you need spelled out more deliberately?

How about this: Don't try him in the press, and yeah, that means you, too!

The invidious assumption that I'd support desertion can only mean you've declared him guilty of desertion, and expect I'm going to accept that verdict ... based entirely on trial by news reader. Perhaps you've missed my previous postings on equivalent issues ... Ferguson newsleaks, for instance?

My military friends and co-workers all have pretty harsh things to say about what they wish would happen to him (usually entailing his untimely and painful demise). They DID serve with distinction. And from their comments, I gather they consider him to be a traitor for abandoning his brothers-in-arms while at war. He turned his back on his country, his fellow soldiers, and he abandoned his oath.

And, honestly, do you really think he would have been arrested in this political climate if the evidence isn't pretty darn good? After all, this is a huge embarrassment to the administration. I think the military officials conducting the investigation took so long because they knew if the evidence wasn't rock-solid, they'd be putting their careers on the line for moving forward with prosecution despite the administration's wishes.

I don't know why he was charged. It could well be because they think they could win that case. But it's not probative. Initial charges are often reduced before trial, and only offered as leverage in negotiation. I do know saying the choice to prosecute him would be "putting their careers on the line" is partisan hyperventilation.

You don't buy that yourself, so don't try selling it to me.

Or do, I could use a good laugh.

[Cow Poke]

And, honestly, do you really think he would have been arrested in this political climate if the evidence isn't pretty darn good?

"Charged", technically. But, yes, this isn't just "send it to the grand jury and see if they think there is cause for action".

In military terms, it HAS been sent to the grand jury, and having carefully weighed the evidence, they recommend further action - whatever that may be. The charges are quite serious, and particularly in this political atmosphere, would not have been made lightly.

Those who are waving the "woah, don't move too fast" flag ---- how bout just stating what you think are the evidences that the two stated charges are wrong.

Otherwise, that's just drama.

[Cow Poke]

Cause they're too cowardly to do it themselves, preferring to leave it outsourced to his Taliban captors.

Wow. I really wouldn't have expected you to say anything dumb like that. Who is "they", Jesse?

But whether they saw his head off themselves, or just cheer it on TV, they're just as morally culpable.

Again, who is "they"?

Make no mistake that leaving him captive to the Taliban would have resulted in exactly that.

Some day, I'd like to borrow your crystal ball to buy a lottery ticket.

You're screaming, Jesse, and you don't even know it.

[Juvenal]

Wow. I really wouldn't have expected you to say anything dumb like that. Who is "they", Jesse? Again, who is "they"? Some day, I'd like to borrow your crystal ball to buy a lottery ticket.

You're screaming, Jesse, and you don't even know it.

Don't mistake poking fun at frothing fringers for screaming, Poke. And don't be so full of yourself you think you can stand in judgment on what is or isn't dumb. Or do, mut. mut. what I said to myth.

The folks who object to Bergdahl's rescue really have divorced themselves from the likely consequences, though, and you're very much among them, which is why I can't take your critiques seriously. There's no need for a crystal ball when we've got video evidence of their predilection for manual decapitation.

You want I should link a few, or are you willing to take my word for it, this time?

[myth]

Cause they're too cowardly to do it themselves, preferring to leave it outsourced to his Taliban captors. But whether they saw his head off themselves, or just cheer it on TV, they're just as morally culpable.

Make no mistake that leaving him captive to the Taliban would have resulted in exactly that.



Is there some part of "tried in the press" you need spelled out more deliberately?

How about this: Don't try him in the press, and yeah, that means you, too!

The invidious assumption that I'd support desertion can only mean you've declared him guilty of desertion, and expect I'm going to accept that verdict ... based entirely on trial by news reader. Perhaps you've missed my previous postings on equivalent issues ... Ferguson newsleaks, for instance?



I don't know why he was charged. It could well be because they think they could win that case. But it's not probative. Initial charges are often reduced before trial, and only offered as leverage in negotiation. I do know saying the choice to prosecute him would be "putting their careers on the line" is partisan hyperventilation.

You don't buy that yourself, so don't try selling it to me.

Or do, I could use a good laugh.

I'm suggesting that the calculus of a complicated decision can be done using the facts at hand (whether or not its gone to trial already). Facts are facts. If the facts are presented at trial, great. If they're not, good for the defendant. I'm not advocating that people should be convicted by the press (if you'd seen my postings on issues like Ferguson, or Trayvon Martin, you'd have noticed similar statements me). What I am saying is that officials need not put their head in the sand and pretend facts don't exist simply because it hasn't reached trial yet.

And if you don't think that pissing off the administration (which usually entails going against the will of your superior officers) would be a death knell for an otherwise promising career, then I don't know that we need to speak any further on this issue, since you clearly live on a different planet than I do.

[Cow Poke]

Don't mistake poking fun at frothing fringers for screaming, Poke.

So, you're not "screaming" but "they" are.

And don't be so full of yourself you think you can stand in judgment on what is or isn't dumb. Or do, mut. mut. what I said to myth.

Yes, only YOU can determine that.

The folks who object to Bergdahl's rescue

It wasn't the RESCUE, it was the idiotic "prisoner exchange".

really have divorced themselves from the likely consequences, though, and you're very much among them,

Yeah, whatever you say.

which is why I can't take your critiques seriously.

I have never lost a minute of sleep worrying about what you think of my "critiques", Jesse. So don't be so full of yourself you think you can stand in judgment on what I say.

There's no need for a crystal ball when we've got video evidence of their predilection for manual decapitation.

You want I should link a few, or are you willing to take my word for it, this time?

So, because you're sure they were going to behead him, the great "prisoner exchange" - the way it was done - was the only option. I think you're drinking too much of that hair-grow.

[Cow Poke]

The folks who object to Bergdahl's rescue really have divorced themselves from the likely consequences, though, and you're very much among them

I think, if you were here, I'd have to slap you on your rapidly balding head with a rotting fish.

[Sparko]

What ever happened to "not negotiating with terrorists?"

[Juvenal]

I'm suggesting that the calculus of a complicated decision can be done using the facts at hand (whether or not its gone to trial already). Facts are facts. If the facts are presented at trial, great. If they're not, good for the defendant. I'm not advocating that people should be convicted by the press (if you'd seen my postings on issues like Ferguson, or Trayvon Martin, you'd have noticed similar statements me). What I am saying is that officials need not put their head in the sand and pretend facts don't exist simply because it hasn't reached trial yet.

You're a LEO. That's a fact. Previously, you've made statements against trying police officers in the press. Absent the above, it wouldn't be hard to argue you were merely standing on principle.

The above suggests the need for a different calculus.

And if you don't think that pissing off the administration (which usually entails going against the will of your superior officers) would be a death knell for an otherwise promising career, then I don't know that we need to speak any further on this issue, since you clearly live on a different planet than I do.

You're claiming, at the same time, mind you, that ...

My military friends and co-workers all have pretty harsh things to say about what they wish would happen to him (usually entailing his untimely and painful demise).

And that that ...

entails going against the will of your superior officers

If you need more rope, please don't hesitate to ask.

I am totally loving this.