Bergdahl chooses to have trial heard by judge and not jury

[DonViejo]

Source: Associated Press




By JONATHAN DREW
34 minutes ago

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl has decided be to tried by a judge — not a military jury — on charges that he endangered comrades by walking off his post in Afghanistan.

Bergdahl’s lawyers told the court in a brief filing last week that their client chose trial by judge alone, rather than a panel of officers. He faces charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy at his trial scheduled for late October at Fort Bragg. The latter carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Defense attorneys declined to comment on the decision. But they previously questioned whether Bergdahl could get a fair trial by jury because of negative comments President Donald Trump made on the campaign trail.

Earlier this year the judge, Army Col. Jeffery R. Nance rejected a defense request to dismiss the case over Trump’s criticism of Bergdahl.

Read more: https://www.apnews.com/1a6eef1f6f8e4dd08e1c073e03deb372?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Politics

[yallerdawg]

1. If I was in the military serving under hostile conditions...

risking my life as a volunteer - I'd be paying close attention to how my government has my back - especially after leaving me for 5 years in captivity by a hostile enemy force known for its immoral behavior.

I'd be watching this very closely.

[FLPanhandle]

2. He has no case regardless of who is judging him or who is currently president

No way the military to going to set a precedent for desertion.

He will be made an example of and rightly so.

[FairWinds]

3. Trump has prejudiced this case beyond all recognition . .

http://www.salon.com/2017/02/13/bergdahl-hearing-expected-to-focus-on-criticism-from-trump/

while the torturers, and those who lied us into illegal war, walk free

And sorry FlPAN, but you are very ill-informed. First, it is not clear that Bergdhal deserted.

Second, he is only one of THOUSANDS of soldiers who walk away every year, very few of whom
are prosecuted for that "crime." Whether you admit it or not, you are arguing for a highly
selective prosecution.

Veterans For Peace

[metalbot]

4. I absolutely favor selective prosecution for desertion

There's a vast difference between someone who wanders out of Ft Benning and decides he isn't coming back and someone who wanders out from a firebase in Afghanistan. We handle the first one by filing a missing person report, then kicking the person out of the military. We handle the second one by launching a multi-million dollar search effort and risking the lives of hundreds if not thousands of soldiers trying to find the missing person.

We absolutely should treat those two cases differently.

As you point out it isn't completely clear that Bergdhal deserted, but that's rather the point of the trial.

[FairWinds]

5. And apparently the torturers walking among us . .

are no problem for you . .

And this is a right wing fairy tale. There is no evidence that any troops died in the search for Bergdahl

You wrote . . "We handle the second one by launching a multi-million dollar search effort and risking the lives of hundreds if not thousands of soldiers trying to find the missing person.

See Stars & Stripes . . https://www.stripes.com/news/command-sergeant-major-no-troops-died-searching-for-bergdahl-1.402016#.WZshtiiGOM8

For you, it's all about making an example of some poor grunt.

[metalbot]

7. I'm confused

You quote me, and then attribute something completely different to me.

I'm not asserting that troops died in the search for Bergdhal. I very explicitly chose words that do not mean that, nor do they imply that people died. I don't see how you read that into what I write.

Facts:

1. Bergdahl went missing in a combat zone.
2. As a result of Bergdhal going missing, US commanders used aviation and ground forces in an attempt to find Bergdhal
3. Those search efforts cost in the millions of dollars
4. Conducting search operations in combat zones is an INHERENTLY RISKY ENDEAVOR.

I don't think that even you are disputing any of those 4 items.

If Bergdhal's desertion caused that to happen, then he should 100% be prosecuted for that. That isn't "making an example" of him, because there are no desertions that are comparable to his since the Vietnam war.

[FairWinds]

8. This statement is totally false . .

"there are no desertions that are comparable to his since the Vietnam war."

First, it's unclear that he deserted.

Second, you seem to be just fine with the torturers going free.

It is not at all uncommon for troops to desert in the field.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/army-deserters-rarely-face-prosecution/

Since both Iraq and Afghanistan are unwinnable, bad missions and illegal
troops have every right to walk away - and are defended by Vets For Peace
when they do so.

You seem to lack any real understanding of war and what it does to people . .

And I think you should volunteer, go over there, and show us all how to do it right.

I am a Vietnam vet and member of Veterans For Peace

[Marengo]

9. Were you in-country? Did you desert or wander off?

[FairWinds]

11. No I did not, but I should have . .

the brave ones were refusniks.

I stopped feeling any sense of loyalty to the torture state long ago.

Why do you support it? The bennies?

Remember, as I main man Sam Cleamons said, "Patriotism is the
last refuge of a scoundrel."

And what is it with your Bowie obsession? Hasn't that poor bastard
suffered enough? (Rhetorical question - answer is "yes&quot

[Marengo]

16. You have a peculiar interpretation of the word "obsession" How many posts have I authored...

On the subject of Bergdahl? I seem to recall another some time ago, but apparently you know better. How about some link to all those posts which indicate "obsession". Oh, and whole your at it, how about links or cites to my expressing support for the "torture state". What is the "torture state" anyway!

[FairWinds]

17. you are ducking and dodging the issue . .

[Marengo]

18. Please provide proof of my "obsession" with this subject, and please provide proof of my support...

For the "torture state". You made these statements, now back them up.

[metalbot]

20. Let's take this apart piece by piece

1. Your assertion that it isn't clear he deserted

This seems strange, because you keep arguing in this post, and in many others, that army deserters rarely face prosecution. It's even in the URL you just posted. So if you're arguing that "army deserters rarely face prosecution", it seems that you are accepting that there is some reasonable change that he deserted.

2. You assert that it isn't uncommon for troops to desert in the field

Yet in the link that YOU use to support YOUR argument, the article states that:

"Soldiers who avoid deployment or leave posts in combat zones are more serious cases, particularly if the deserter is responsible for standing guard or protecting others in dangerous places." That essentially torpedos your argument that Bergdhal's desertion is just like the many thousands of others. There are not thousands of others who have deserted in a post-Vietnam combat zone. There aren't even dozens. There are soldiers who deserted so that they wouldn't have to go back, but let's not pretend that this isn't the same.

If there are lots of other comparable desertions in the field, then surely you should be able to come up with at least one example?

3. You assert that I'm ok with torturers going free

You've made this statement twice, and I don't quite understand it. That seems to be the equivalent to me saying "You seem to think that child molesters shouldn't be punished". I don't actually believe that you think this, and nothing in your posts makes me think that you would believe this. Somehow though, you have interpreted from my two posts that if (A) I believe that Bergdhal should be given a trial and (B) if he is found guilty he should be punished severely that (C) torturers should go free. Explain to me how (C) follows from any post I've ever made on DU.

4. Because Afghanistan are unwinnable bad missions and illegal, troops have every right to walk away

Sure. They have every right to walk away and face the consequences of walking away. If you choose to walk away in the US, you'll likely get a general discharge. If you choose to walk away in a combat zone in Afghanistan, you will likely get a prison term.

[Baconator]

12. Nice "What about-ism"

Even if someone grants that no one died as a result of his departure (difficult to say due to second and third order effects) then it's lucky that they didn't but so what?

If I drive home blind drunk but somehow make it through without killing someone should I not be punished?

I don't think you have a full understanding of what happens when we lose someone over there. Everything stops. Fucking everything ...

All manpower and resources are dumped into this... and the enemy knows it

That means that other missions weren't happening.

An ALP checkpoint gets overrun because that MP platoon was retasked.

VBIED that would have been seen by ISR? Missed because they are scanning routes between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

There's no defense short of a total and complete mental break.

[Baconator]

10. Most don't walk away into Taliban hands...

Where do you think the ambiguity is as to whether or not he wandered off (not under duress)?

[The Wizard]

6. There could be many different causes for a lapse in

judgement. Wandering around in an asymmetrical combat zone will usually get you killed. Why would anyone in their right mind stray from the protection of being with their unit? For people to pass judgement without the facts is prejudicial.

[FairWinds]

13. Boy, the DU Reich sure comes out of the woodwork . .

when the Bergdahl subject comes up.

They think it's just fine that the Drumph tried him out on the campaign
trail, and found him guilty of being a "traitor." All we need now is a sentence.

Y'all must be big Trump fans . .

[Baconator]

14. What a load...

There are at least 3 fallacies in that one little post...

[FairWinds]

15. But of course you cannot identify any . .

let me try to make it really, really simple for you . .

Trump's comments about Bergdahl make it impossible for the latter
to receive a fair trial - that is a basic principle of the rule of law.

"During 512 days of campaigning for president, Trump referred to Bergdahl 65 times
and called him a traitor at least 45 times. Trump called Bergdahl a “horrible, terrible,
dirty rotten traitor,” a “whack job,” a “bum” and a “very bad person,” among other insults."

And of course the Drumph himself ducked out of serving - I'll take Bowie covering
my back any day over the orange one.