Taliban Prisoner Swap Frees U.S. Soldier Held Nearly 5 Years

[Ryan Ruck]

Right now this is just "sources" so we'll see...

Report: Bergdahl to Be Charged with Desertion

January 26, 2015

On Monday’s broadcast of “The O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel, retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer of the London Center for Policy Research revealed to host Bill O’Reilly that sources tell him U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will face charges for desertion.

Bergdahl was held captive by the Taliban-aligned Haqqani network in Afghanistan from June 2009 until his release in May 2014, which was part of a prisoner exchange for five Taliban members who were being held at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay.

“Bill, the Army has come to its conclusion and Bowe Bergdahl,” Shaffer said, “Sgt. Bergdahl will be charged with desertion. I have been told and confirmed by two other sources that his attorney was given what we call a charge sheet. A charge sheet is results of the investigation listing out the articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice that have been violated. The key violation is desertion. And this is has been done. The decision has been made. Let me be very clear. As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation.”

[American Patriot]

1) Charge Sheet
2) UCMJ quoted

Desertion is Article 85 of the UCMJ and states:

(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 on 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;

is guilty of desertion.


(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.




The Text: This is the exact text of the article, as Congress approved it in the UCMJ.


Elements: These are the specifics of the offense. In order to support a finding of "guilty," the government must prove each and every element of the offense, beyond a reasonable doubt.


Explanation: The explanation defines terms, and clarifies the elements, based on previous court decisions.


Lesser Included Offense: These are lesser offenses that a military court may still find an accused guilty of, even if the court finds the accused not guilty of the originally charged offense. For example, "Manslaughter," under Article 119 is a lesser included offense of "Murder," under Article 118. If a military court finds the accused not guilty of the crime of Murder, the court can still find the accused guilty of Manslaughter, without the government having to amend the charges.


Maximum Permissible Punishments: These are the *maximum* punishments that a general court martial can award toward a particular offense. While not specifically stated, a general court martial can also reduce a person's grade. Most general court martials reduce the convicted person's grade to the lowest enlisted rank (E-1) when punishment includes time in prison and/or a punitive discharge.


Basically, he could serve some jail time.
Could have money taken from him.
Could be demoted to E1.
Could be punitively discharged.
Could/will receive a General or Dishonorable discharge.

Could have ALL of the above applied to him.

[MinutemanCO]

So he was worth every penny of those 4 terrorists? Oh wait, maybe he should be shot.

But wait, shouldn't they take their investigation a bit further? Didn't he desert in order to join up with the enemy? Makes sense that they take this into account.

[American Patriot]

Yeah, see desertion is one thing.

UCMJ - Article 106a. Espionage.... not gonna post it all here:

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/...mcm/bl106a.htm

But, penalty is execution.

[MinutemanCO]

(c) A sentence of death may be adjudged by a court-martial for an offense under this section (article) only if the members unanimously find, beyond a reasonable doubt, one or more of the following aggravating factors:

(1) The accused has been convicted of another offense involving espionage or treason for which either a sentence of death or imprisonment for life was authorized by statute.

(2) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of substantial damage to the national security.
(3) In the commission of the offense, the accused knowingly created a grave risk of death to another person.
(4) Any other factor that may be prescribed by the President by regulations under section 836 of this title (Article 36).”

When Bergdahl deserted, weren't there fatalities in his own platoon when they searched for him?

[Ryan Ruck]

Off the top of my head, I don't know that the fatalities were in his platoon but there are indeed 4 deaths attributed to the search effort for him.

[American Patriot]

Ah... then murder, conspiracy to commit murder, espionage, desertion, AWOL.... they can throw the book at him.

[MinutemanCO]

And Obama's release back into the world of five known terrorists. They will most certainly kill again, if they haven't already. Shouldn't this alone be a reason to bring Obama and his minions down permanently?

[Ryan Ruck]

Finally!

Bowe Bergdahl, Once Missing U.S. Soldier, Charged With Desertion

March 25, 2015

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the U.S. soldier who was recovered in Afghanistan last spring after five years in captivity, is being charged with desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, his lawyer said Wednesday.

Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, told The Washington Post that his client was handed a charge sheet on Tuesday. Army officials announced they will provide an update in his case at 3:30 p.m. at Fort Bragg, N.C., but declined to discuss new developments ahead of the news conference.

Bergdahl, 28, went missing from his base in Paktika province on June 30, 2009, and is believed to have grown disillusioned with the U.S. military’s mission in Afghanistan. He was held captive in Pakistan by the Haqqani network, an insurgent group allied with the Taliban, until the White House swapped him for five Taliban officials in a deal brokered through the government of Qatar.

The charges come after a lengthy investigation launched last June after his recovery and a review by Gen. Mark A. Milley, the commanding general of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg. Bergdahl has faced a slew of accusations from his fellow soldiers that he abandoned them on the battlefield and triggered a manhunt that diverted resources from the war effort and put lives in danger.

Article 85, desertion, applies to a service member who “quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service.” The maximum sentence for those convicted is death, although no soldier has faced that punishment since 1944, when Pvt. Eddie Slovik was executed by a firing squad after running away from combat duty in France.

Article 99, misbehavior before the enemy, applies to a service member who has run away in the face of the enemy, abandoned his unit, cast aside his weapon or ammunition or willfully failed “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.”

Thousands of U.S. service members are believed to have deserted their units during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Bergdahl’s case is uncommon because he allegedly did so while on the battlefield. Most have escaped while in the United States, escaping prosecution in Canada, parts of Europe or other relatively friendly locations.

Bergdahl’s case has been controversial, with questions over whether the Obama administration handled the prisoner swap legally. Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security, also provoked criticism when she said after Bergdahl’s recovery that he had served “with honor and distinction.” She later acknowledged the remark was controversial, and said she was referring to the soldier’s decision to enlist in the first place.

“That, in and of itself, is a very honorable thing,” she said.

[Malsua]

How many died looking for this guy? 4?

If convicted of desertion, he should face charges for that as well. Possibly 4th degree murder(felony murder by an accomplice) or perhaps depraved indifferent murder which is usually 2nd degree.

[American Patriot]

He wouldn't be charged with something like that.

UCMJ Article 118.

He wouldn't be tried under civilian rules and laws, only military.

[American Patriot]

Actually....

here's a list. Some others in the bottom could apply, and further deepen his "shit".




Article 118—Murder

“Any person subject to this chapter who, without justification or excuse, unlawfully kills a human being, when he—”

(1) has a premeditated design to kill;

(2) intends to kill or inflict great bodily harm;

(3) is engaged in an act that is inherently dangerous to another and evinces a wanton disregard of human life; or

(4) is engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson; is guilty of murder, and shall suffer such punishment as a court-martial may direct, except that if found guilty under clause (1) or (4), he shall suffer death or imprisonment for life as a court-martial may direct.

Elements.

(1) Premeditated murder.

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had a premeditated design to kill.

(2) Intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused had the intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm upon a person.

(3) Act inherently dangerous to another.

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the intentional act of the accused;

(c) That this act was inherently dangerous to another and showed a wanton disregard for human life;

(d) That the accused knew that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the act; and

(e) That the killing was unlawful.

(4) During certain offenses.

(a) That a certain named or described person is dead;

(b) That the death resulted from the act or omission of the accused;

(c) That the killing was unlawful; and

(d) That, at the time of the killing, the accused was engaged in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson.

Explanation.

(1) In general. Killing a human being is unlawful when done without justification or excuse. See R.C.M. 916. Whether an unlawful killing constitutes murder or a lesser offense depends upon the circumstances. The offense is committed at the place of the act or omission although the victim may have died elsewhere. Whether death occurs at the time of the accused’s act or omission, or at some time thereafter, it must have followed from an injury received by the victim which resulted from the act or omission.

(2) Premeditated murder.

(a) Premeditation. A murder is not premeditated unless the thought of taking life was consciously conceived and the act or omission by which it was taken was intended. Premeditated murder is murder committed after the formation of a specific intent to kill someone and consideration of the act intended. It is not necessary that the intention to kill have been entertained for any particular or consider-able length of time. When a fixed purpose to kill has been deliberately formed, it is immaterial how soon afterwards it is put into execution. The existence of premeditation may be inferred from the circumstances.

(b) Transferred premeditation. When an accused with a premeditated design attempted to unlawfully kill a certain person, but, by mistake or inadvertence, killed another person, the accused is still criminally responsible for a premeditated murder, because the premeditated design to kill is transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim.

(c) Intoxication. Voluntary intoxication (see R.C.M. 916(1)(2)) not amounting to legal insanity may reduce premeditated murder (Article 118(1)) to unpremeditated murder (Article 118(2) or (3)) but it does not reduce either premeditated murder or unpremeditated murder to manslaughter (Article 119) or any other lesser offense.

(3) Intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm.

(a) Intent. An unlawful killing without premeditation is also murder when the accused had either an intent to kill or inflict great bodily harm. It may be inferred that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of an act purposely done. Hence, if a person does an intentional act likely to result in death or great bodily injury, it may be inferred that death or great bodily injury was in-tended. The intent need not be directed toward the person killed, or exist for any particular time before commission of the act, or have previously existed at all. It is sufficient that it existed at the time of the act or omission (except if death is inflicted in the heat of a sudden passion caused by adequate provocation— see paragraph 44). For example, a person committing housebreaking who strikes and kills the householder attempting to prevent flight can be guilty of murder even if the householder was not seen until the moment before striking the fatal blow.

(b) Great bodily harm. “Great bodily harm” means serious injury; it does not include minor injuries such as a black eye or a bloody nose, but it does include fractured or dislocated bones, deep cuts, torn members of the body, serious damage to internal organs, and other serious bodily injuries. It is synonymous with the term “grievous bodily harm.”

(c) Intoxication. Voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity does not reduce un-premeditated murder to manslaughter (Article 119) or any other lesser offense.

(4) Act inherently dangerous to others.

(a) Wanton disregard of human life. Intentionally engaging in an act inherently dangerous to another—although without an intent to cause the death of or great bodily harm to any particular person, or even with a wish that death will not be caused—may also constitute murder if the act shows wanton disregard of human life. Such disregard is characterized by heedlessness of the probable consequences of the act or omission, or indifference to the likelihood of death or great bodily harm. Examples include throwing a live grenade toward another in jest or flying an aircraft very low over one or more persons to cause alarm.

(b) Knowledge. The accused must know that death or great bodily harm was a probable consequence of the inherently dangerous act. Such knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(5) During certain offenses.

(a) In general. The commission or attempted commission of any of the offenses listed in Article 118(4) is likely to result in homicide, and when an unlawful killing occurs as a consequence of the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of these offenses, the killing is murder. Under these circumstances it is not a defense that the killing was unintended or accidental.

(b) Separate offenses. The perpetration or attempted perpetration of the burglary, sodomy, rape, robbery, or aggravated arson may be charged separately from the homicide.

Lesser included offenses.

(1) Premeditated murder and murder during certain offenses. Article 118(2) and (3)—murder

(2) All murders under Article 118.

(a) Article 119—involuntary manslaughter

(b) Article 128—assault; assault consummated by a battery; aggravated assault

(c) Article 134—negligent homicide

(3) Murder as defined in Article 118(1), (2), and (4).

(a) Article 80—attempts

(b) Article 119—voluntary manslaughter

(c) Article 134—assault with intent to commit murder

(d) Article 134—assault with intent to commit voluntary manslaughter

Maximum punishment.

(1) Article 118(1) or (4) -- death. Mandatory minimum -- imprisonment for life with eligibility for parole.

(2) Article 118(2) or (3)—such punishment other than death as a court-martial may direct.

[vector7]

BREAKING: Obama Trying to STOP the US Army From Prosecuting Bergdahl [DETAILS]

Mar 28, 2015



Conservative Tribune: President Barack Obama has certainly staked a lot on the fate of likely deserter Bowe Bergdahl. He sacrificed the lives of several of our men in uniform in a vain attempt to rescue him, then traded five Taliban terrorists from Guantanamo Bay for his release.

Now, it appears the president is even willing to obstruct justice for Bergdahl. Recent reports indicate that senior Department of Defense officials are doing their best to poison the well for those prosecuting Bergdahl.

During the week, two DOD sources spoke to CNN to confirm that Bergdahl had left his post to “report what he believed to be problems with ‘order and discipline’ in his unit.”

While the way this was reported indicated that they were speaking on background about DOD investigations to CNN, it turns out that they were just repeating what Bergdahl had told authorities.

“This was a kid who had leadership concerns on his mind,” CNN reported that one of the officials said. “He wasn’t fed up; he wasn’t planning to desert.”

Again, both of these “sources” are merely repeating what Bergdahl told Army authorities. And the Army doesn’t believe his story, no matter what story the DOD wants to plant in the media (H/T Right Wing News).

Of course, this being CNN — once upon a time colloquially referred to as the “Clinton News Network” — the reporters didn’t ask any follow-up questions.
For instance, if Bergdahl only had leadership concerns on his mind when he left his post, why did he ship all of his earthly belongings home beforehand?

If he was only concerned with leadership and “order and discipline,” why did Bergdahl write his parents a final letter before disappearing that said, among other things, “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 …I am sorry for everything. The horror that is america is disgusting?”

If he wasn’t cooperating with the Taliban, why did attacks on U.S. forces increase several fold right after his disappearance?
And if the Department of Defense is convinced Bergdahl wasn’t a deserter, why did a series of Pentagon reports conclude as early as 2010 that he had walked away from his unit of his own free will?

None of CNN’s sources could properly answer these questions, nor could the president. Yet, this administration and its surrogates continue to obstruct justice for their own advantage.

It’s time that the American people demand the truth about the Bergdahl affair and the prisoner swap that was made to free him — not just from the president, but from the mainstream media as well.

http://woundedamericanwarrior.com/br...ahl-details-2/