America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 years ago by twink. 21 replies replies.
Bowe Bergdahl to face desertion charges according to NBC.
gryphonms Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
I thought this should have happened sooner, I am satisfied that it will happen if NBC is correct. I am still shocked that we negotiated with terrorists.
HockeyDad Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,134
gryphonms wrote:
I thought this should have happened sooner, I am satisfied that it will happen if NBC is correct. I am still shocked that we negotiated with terrorists.



Did we trade some terrorists for him or something?
jetblasted Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 08-30-2004
Posts: 42,595
From the Christian Science Monitor . . .

The news comes as an embarrassment to the White House, which as Hot Air reported, "cough[ed] up five big fish for one deserter."

The White House, which arranged for the prisoner swap in May, was criticized at the time for "negotiating with terrorists." Some Republican lawmakers, as well as others in Bergdahl's unit, objected to the trade on the grounds that Bergdahl had deserted.

The Governement Accounting Office also issued a report last August which concluded that the administration did in fact violate the law when it failed to notify Congress about the impending prisoner swap as required by law.

“The Department of Defense violated section 8111 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014 when it transferred five individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the nation of Qatar without providing at least 30-days notice to certain congressional committees,” the Government Accountability Office said in response to a letter from Republican lawmakers, including Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader, and Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby.

"We saw an opportunity,” Obama explained on June 3. “We were concerned about Sgt. Bergdahl’s health. We had the cooperation of the Qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity.”

Ret. Army Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer, who spoke with Fox New's Bill O'Reilly Monday, says that the White House doesn’t want Bergdahl prosecuted, and was trying to delay release of the news.

“This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes,” Shaffer, a long-time critic of US policies in Afghanistan, told Fox News. He also said that two separate military sources have told him that Bergdahl’s attorney has been given a “charge sheet,” listing out the articles of the uniform military code that have been violated.
Burner02 Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Foxnews.com - Pentagon denies decision made to charge Bergdahl with desertion

Pentagon and Army officials on Tuesday strongly denied claims that the U.S. military has decided to file desertion charges against Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, who was released by Taliban-aligned militants last year in exchange for five Guantanamo prisoners.

The claim was first made by retired Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a former military intelligence officer who now works at the London Center for Policy Research. He told Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night that he's learned of the military's decision from two sources.

"The Army has come to its conclusion, and Bowe Bergdahl ... will be charged with desertion," he said.

But Maj. Gen. Ronald F. Lewis, the Army's chief of public affairs, put out a statement Tuesday afternoon calling the reports, including a similar one by NBC News, "patently false."

"To be clear there have been no actions or decisions on the Sgt. Bergdahl investigation," he said. "The investigation is still with the Commanding General of U.S. Army Forces Command who will determine appropriate action -- which ranges from no further action to convening a court martial."

Pentagon spokesman Rear Adm. John Kirby also said Bergdahl "has not been charged," and no charges have been referred.

"No decision has been made with respect to the case of Sgt. Bergdahl, none," he said. "And there is no timeline to make that decision." He said he would not "speculate" about what might happen in the future.

Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl's lawyer, did not comment when reached by Fox News.

But Shaffer said Bergdahl's attorney has in fact been given a "charge sheet" outlining the section of the military justice code Bergdahl allegedly violated.

"As a corporate entity, the Army has decided that they want to pursue Bergdahl for this violation," Shaffer said.

Shaffer said there's a "huge battle" going on inside the Obama administration, as some try to "suppress" this development. "This is shaping up to be a titanic struggle behind the scenes," he said.

Shaffer said the Army "wants to do the right thing," but the White House "wants this to go away."

He said: "The White House, because of the political narrative, President Obama cozying up to the parents and because of he, President Obama, releasing the five Taliban ... The narrative is what the White House does not want to have come out."

Bergdahl was held for five years before his release was secured in 2014.

But while the president joined with Bergdahl's parents in the Rose Garden at the time in celebrating his return home, the prisoner swap swiftly became a matter of severe controversy. Fellow soldiers accused Bergdahl of deserting his post on a base in Afghanistan in 2009. And the trade itself, of his freedom for five Guantanamo prisoners, drew criticism in Congress from lawmakers who said it sent a troubling signal.

On Monday, former diplomat Richard Grenell claimed the administration has "sent the message" that the U.S. will negotiate on such matters. He cited an alleged offer, made around the same time as Bergdahl's release, by the Qatari government to trade two Americans held in Qatar for an Al Qaeda agent held in a U.S. federal prison. The Obama administration denies there was any deal. Those prisoners were ultimately released over the past two months.
rfenst Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,330
Give him due process and nail him if he is guilty.
solly Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2014
Posts: 81
The man was obviously ill equipped to be a soldier. Not all people are. The U.S. Army took him anyway. They did that immediately after he was invited to leave the Coast Guard. He apparently showed several instances of instability both before and after he was deployed. I say let the man be. He has probably suffered enough. It is not his fault that our government has a contradictory policy about dealing with terrorists/our enemies.

I have known 3 young people personally in the last 15 or so years who I would not trust with a tape measure...let alone a rifle, who have enlisted...bonuses and all. All 3 had felony convictions but that was overlooked in each case.

Not slamming our guys at all...just saying standards were lowered for a long time.

He should not have ever been there....Let the man alone.
gryphonms Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
^ Sorry, BS, if he deserted then do the time. Though I do have a bigger issue that we negotiated with terrorists.
Krazeehorse Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,958
I thought the admiral on Fox this morning was twitching like Jay Carney.
Buckwheat Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
Burner02 wrote:
Foxnews.com - Pentagon denies decision made to charge Bergdahl with desertion[/h]


+1 http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/01/27/bergdahl-army-update-false-reports/22396367/

Abrignac Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
solly wrote:
The man was obviously ill equipped to be a soldier. Not all people are. The U.S. Army took him anyway. They did that immediately after he was invited to leave the Coast Guard. He apparently showed several instances of instability both before and after he was deployed. I say let the man be. He has probably suffered enough. It is not his fault that our government has a contradictory policy about dealing with terrorists/our enemies.

I have known 3 young people personally in the last 15 or so years who I would not trust with a tape measure...let alone a rifle, who have enlisted...bonuses and all. All 3 had felony convictions but that was overlooked in each case.

Not slamming our guys at all...just saying standards were lowered for a long time.

He should not have ever been there....Let the man alone.



Sorry, wrong answer.

Whether he was ill equipped to be a soldier or not is irrelevant. Whether he "slipped through the crack" or not is irrelevant. He volunteered twice to serve his nation. The fact that he was allowed into the military is a totally separate issue.

To allow this to go unchecked creates a precedent that it is OK to desert. Left unchecked, it will be used as an example in every desertion case to come.
Abrignac Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,278
Somebody leaked the story. I doubt it was made up. For what reason? That's the $1B question.
Burner02 Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
Abrignac wrote:
Sorry, wrong answer.

Whether he was ill equipped to be a soldier or not is irrelevant. Whether he "slipped through the crack" or not is irrelevant. He volunteered twice to serve his nation. The fact that he was allowed into the military is a totally separate issue.

To allow this to go unchecked creates a precedent that it is OK to desert. Left unchecked, it will be used as an example in every desertion case to come.





+1
gryphonms Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
+2
TMCTLT Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
+3
propeller Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2014
Posts: 173
gryphonms wrote:
^ Sorry, BS, if he deserted then do the time. Though I do have a bigger issue that we negotiated with terrorists.


Am I the only person that thinks The POS POTUS should face Treason charges?
gryphonms Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 04-14-2013
Posts: 1,983
I think he should be held accountable since he did an end run around congress.
Bitter Klinger Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 03-23-2013
Posts: 877
propeller wrote:
[/h]

Am I the only person that thinks The POS POTUS should face Treason charges?



No, you're not.

teedubbya Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
lol

there is also a large group that thinks he should be deported. i bet many of the same people are in both groups.
twink Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 02-03-2015
Posts: 350
I never liked to pass judgement on a fellow soldier. I just accepted what they could or couldnt do...
Bitter Klinger Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 03-23-2013
Posts: 877
twink wrote:
I never liked to pass judgement on a fellow soldier. I just accepted what they could or couldnt do...


Men died looking for that POS, who turned his back on his fellow soldiers. Asking them to accept what he couldn't do seems unreasonable to say the least.
twink Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 02-03-2015
Posts: 350
didnt say anything like that, just said I never liked to pass judgement on a fellow soldier..filled out the papers and let the officers decide.
Users browsing this topic
Guest