Claim that Bergdahl has been charged with desertion...

The people on the ground tell a complete different story than the brass.

Several interviews exist that it is stated that the first reports to commanders at the time included a note he left behind and then the first or second day a witness was found that stated he askd him for directions to the enemy headquarters or something along those lines. However as noted by others none of this is official and may never be because it shows something none of the top wants reveled. That just like the decision to be in the country in the first place someone was interested in death and war more than truth.

I wouldn't Hoax this yet. For one thing, just because an un-named source reported this does not make it untrue.

Here is CNN's latest take.

Several military sources tell CNN that as of Tuesday morning, Milley who is reviewing the case has not signed or forwarded a charge sheet. Milley has a full range of legal options he could decide upon ranging from no action, to charging Bergdhal with an offense such as desertion that could lead to a courts martial military officials say.

Among the higher ranking officials, there is a good deal of discussion that Bergdahl could be facing a charge of desertion.

So it seems the prevailing attitude is that Bergdahl is likely facing a desertion charge. This is what it most probably picked up from the source, and it may be Milley's inclination as a high ranking official. Now this leak and wide reporting before the outcome could change his mind or open him to political pressure which is bad as it would taint the process.

Perhaps they are just judging the reactions before they decide to do the correct thing or not?

Right is right and wrong is wrong

a reply to: FlyersFan

I thought the punishment for the crime of being a traitor was a bullet to the head and a cardboard coffin in some unmarked grave? But then again, it might be wishful thinking on my part.

a reply to: searching411

Depends on the country, and specifically, in the USA, it also depends on the state in which they are charged. A big complication is that the US definition of treason against the state, is laid out in the constitution, and is very restrictive. Cases you might consider treason, often aren't by the definitions laid out in the constitution.

The federal penalty upon conviction is death. The method of execution, again depends on the state. It is NOT a bullet to the brain and a cardboard box. In the past, hanging was commonly used. Modern cases are executed by lethal injection or toxic gas, the same as any other executions.

Source: Wikipedia article on treason.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

Charged with desertion?? What a crock!!!

A deserter is someone who drops their weapon and leaves the battle.

A DEFECTOR is a deserter who seeks out the enemy during a war.

Bergdahl is a DEFECTOR.

a reply to: JacKatMtn

It's perceivable that it wasn't just "the taliban 5 ."

GAO also said Defense violated another law by using funds to carry out the transfer when there was no money appropriated for that purpose.

www.theblaze.com...

It always comes down to the money with them, always, which makes the terms of Sgt. Bergdahl’s release so curious.

www.theblaze.com...

He said that when the administration claimed they paid no ransom, paying a ransom could very well violate the sanctions we make our allies sign on to, and could be a violation of US law. If it was a life insurance company funneling money to a terrorist organization to meet a ransom demand, they would have been committing a felony by violating US domestic anti-terrorism finance laws.

And before you trash Brad Thor, the quote above with the statement and argument made by the novelist in June 2014, Read the Washington Times on Novevember 19 2014:

The Pentagon is under fire for making a ransom payment to an Afghan earlier this year as part of a failed bid to win the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, according to U.S. officials.

Sgt. Bergdahl was released in May after nearly five years in captivity as part of a controversial exchange for five terrorists held at the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ransom payment was first disclosed by Rep. Duncan Hunter in a Nov. 5 letter to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Mr. Hunter stated in the letter that Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the payment covertly as part of a release deal. But the money was stolen by the Afghan intermediary claiming to represent the Haqqani terrorist network.

www.washingtontimes.com...

So not only did we set 5 guys loose to go kill more non-deserters, we put a price tag, a dollar amount, on every American soldier or civilian.

Now to me and you, that reality might not mean much. But I know many military friends and family members that are disgruntled over the whole affair. To them, and this is their perception right or wrong, we could have done something in Benghazi, but we did nothing for those people and then lied about it. But a deserter, we're willing to put a price on American life and treat it as a purchasable commodity. To them, it is a great disgrace and frankly they should be upset. Obama plays checkers and the world around him is a chess board; compete and total armature of the first order.

a reply to: searching411

The death penalty can be applied to desertion in time of war.
But it doesn't have to be.

originally posted by: FlyersFan
a reply to: searching411

The death penalty can be applied to desertion in time of war.
But it doesn't have to be.

It's either the death penalty of life in prison for desertion "during war".

But this is all a fallacy anyways, Bowe Bergdahl wasn't a "deserter". A deserter is someone who leaves the battlefield. Bowe is a "DEFECTOR". A defector is a deserter who instead of leaving the battlefield purposely seeks out the enemy force.

a reply to: ketsuko

Well it is clearly still speculation at this point, but the problem is that the media is reporting it like it has already been decided. This is a clear case of putting the cart before the horse, and what if the army doesn't go through with the desertion charge? Now the media has hyped up all the public who are now expecting the desertion charge. You don't think that would go badly? This is a sorry excuse for media reporting and I'm calling it now, will make everything worse if he isn't charged.

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
A guest on the OReilly factor, Lt Col Shaffer seems pretty confident with his sources that Bergdahl, who was traded for 5 Gitmo detainees, has been charged with desertion..

Here's the clip of the claim from this evening:

I have been checking but so far, nothing to back up the claims yet on a news search..

 

Ralph Peters is now claiming the White House is pressuring the Army to give Berdahl the promotion, let him go with full benefits, and sweep this quietly under the rug. I'm not familiar with the site, so I don't know how true it is, but truthfully, nothing would surprise me at this point.

Be nice to the poor fella, he's had it rough! [sarc]

originally posted by: JacKatMtn
a reply to: PorteurDeMort

Like kj posted earlier, I am not sure on what my reaction should or will be once we know for sure that this claim is deemed correct.

Of course Fox News is as reliable as reliable a source as a belligerent drunk at the bar. Hell, it's only been a week since France threatened to sue them and the UK mocked them for the false story about No-Go Islamic extremist zones in Europe.

That said...No man left behind...Not, no man we THINK should be saved or not saved...No man left behind.

If we afford for physical injury making those we send to go fight our wars unable to fight...then we should afford for mental vulnerability and the psychological wounds combat leaves on those vulnerable to it.

We sort out court-marshal, mental state, condition and circumstances AFTER we bring them home, but we sent him...we bring him home....The no man left behind promise should and does trump the rest for our soldiers IMO.

As far as prisoner trades...Yes one US soldier is worth more than a few half-ass Taliban...these weren't AQ Terrorists...Hell the Col. that captured the worst of the lot that was traded had this to say..

But Col. Mitchell downplayed the likely impact of Fazl and the other Taliban leaders returning to Afghanistan, noting that they “have been off the battlefield for 12 years. In that time, Afghanistan has changed, the Taliban has changed and other leaders have risen through the ranks while he’s been enjoying a comfortable, if highly structured, life at Guantanamo Bay.

“So, it won’t be as simple as simply walking back through the door and picking up where he left off,” the colonel said. “There’s lots of Afghans, probably even a few Talibs, that have no desire to see him back in Afghanistan, much less in any kind of position of authority.”

www.washingtontimes.com...

I think the cost per year/per prisoner at Guantanamo is now 2 Million? So we just saved 10 Million per annum and these guys are not threats IMO...nor in the opinion of the US Military who originally nabbed them.

No man left behind...presumed innocent until proven guilty...

I honestly don't get the "leave him there" crowd. It seems pointedly un-American to me.

originally posted by: Anyafaj


Ralph Peters is now claiming the White House is pressuring the Army to give Berdahl the promotion, let him go with full benefits, and sweep this quietly under the rug.

Critical thinking?

So I read something like this and wonder ...who is Ralph Peters? Why should he be an authority?

Google him up to find he retired from the military 15 years ago? And makes his living as a guest commentator on Fox News...

OK...what qualifies him to know what he claims? Because as best I can tell he gets paid to back Fox News themes?

a reply to: Indigo5

OK...what qualifies him to know what he claims? Because as best I can tell he gets paid to back Fox News themes?

Col. Peters still has sources inside the Pentagon who are personal friends. Much like a beat reporter for an NFL team who has inside sources withing the organization.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Indigo5

OK...what qualifies him to know what he claims? Because as best I can tell he gets paid to back Fox News themes?

Col. Peters still has sources inside the Pentagon who are personal friends. Much like a beat reporter for an NFL team who has inside sources withing the organization.

BS...He is 15 years since retiring and being on the inside and makes his living backing up Fox BS...

VS. Active Military Generals who put their ass on the line with their word and unambiguous clarity..

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."

www.foxnews.com...

a reply to: Indigo5

BS...He is 15 years since retiring and being on the inside and makes his living backing up Fox BS...

How is that "B.S."?? I left the military in 1999 and I still have numerous friends from my time in service still on active duty to this day.

Just came across the feed that he WILL be charged will desertion.

CNN

Now, of course they are talking about levels of desertion. I served 20 years. I have had numerous Article 15 proceedings against me and sat in I don't know how many against others. I have never heard of different levels of desertion until now.

It's like they tried to say he wasn't a deserter. When they were unable to make that fly, they are trying to change it to "he's not that much of a deserter".

CYA taken to a new level.

He deserted. To the enemy. During a time of armed conflict.

He was traded by the administration for five top level enemy leaders.

They need to own up to the mistake and give him his day in court. Let him explain what he did.

Then line up the firing squad and carry out the punishment.

originally posted by: 200Plus
Just came across the feed that he WILL be charged will desertion.

CNN

Now, of course they are talking about levels of desertion. I served 20 years. I have had numerous Article 15 proceedings against me and sat in I don't know how many against others. I have never heard of different levels of desertion until now.

It's like they tried to say he wasn't a deserter. When they were unable to make that fly, they are trying to change it to "he's not that much of a deserter".

CYA taken to a new level.

He deserted. To the enemy. During a time of armed conflict.

He was traded by the administration for five top level enemy leaders.

They need to own up to the mistake and give him his day in court. Let him explain what he did.

Then line up the firing squad and carry out the punishment.

And Obama needs to be charged for failing in his duties to notify Congress of the release of 5 top terrorists. Obama put more innocent lives at risk (releasing 5 hard core terrorists) in an attempt to win a PR victory (see?! We released a POW! Vote Democrat next election!)