If your Anti Bergdhal return, your also anti-innocent until proven guilty in court of law.

a reply to: Xeven

Hey I'm all for a military courts martial, but that's not why we released 5 dangerous terrorist leaders now, is it?

Saying that "if you're against his return means you believe someone is guilty until proven innocent" is incorrect.

Many here are against the METHOD in which he was returned, what was given up for his return, and the legality of this administrations actions.

Right now the official statement from the White House is that they were shown a video that showed this person has looking very unhealthy and so they had to act fast.

By that logic, every single veteran here at home that is not getting the care they should have the White House "acting fast" to help them.

Bergdhal being guilty or innocent will most likely be determined in a court martial (not a civilian court) as he is still military and not a civilian. He can at the minimum be charged with violating articles 85 and 86 of the UCMJ (Desertion and Unauthorized Absence), both of which carry very stiff penalties if violated while in a combat zone.

It is very easy to get charged with violating article 86 while in the military, and I personally saw it many times. Simply not be where you are suppose to be when you are suppose to be there (IE over sleep and not show up on time for muster, your watch, etc).

There are other articles for being a "traitor" or helping known enemy forces. Whether or not he is also charge with those will be up to his command or higher up the chain of command, and then yes, it will be up to the court martial to provide the burden of proof for those charges.

However, violation of article 85 (desertion) is actually very easy to prove here, and can carry the ultimate sentence (Death) due to it being violated while in a combat zone.

If during a court martial it can be show he was not in the right frame of mind when he left, and was then held against his will and/or FORCED into helping known enemy forces, can have an impact on whether or not he is found guilty, and even if found guilty, what sentence he will face.

So tell me (anyone): why did the White House bend over backwards to get this man released? To the point of giving up 5 important prisoners, and doing so in what amounts to an illegal way (no 30 day notification of congress).....

But at the same time are allowing Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi to sit and rot in a Mexican jail?

One deserted his post, willfully, and may have actually worked with known enemy forces, endangering his fellow solders willfully.

While the other mistakenly crossed the US/Mexican border while on authorized leave (liberty) and was arrested (held against his will) on gun charges by Mexican authorities......who, by several accounts, has been beaten, tortured, and not doing too well in jail there.

Do you not see the double standard of the White House here?

I tend to think people are using this Berghdahl thing as yet another outlet for their political frustrations. It's too bad for him and his family. Until there is some sort of formal military inquiry, it's all just conjecture and rumor.

I think it's possible he had mental issues (which tend to present at the age he walked off), the Army knew it and kept him deployed anyway. It would explain a lot.

But...only a hearing or an investigation will suss ir all out.

originally posted by: Xeven

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Soldiers are under UCMJ NOT the Constitution.

Yes and guilt and punishment is still determined in a trial.

Actually if they issue shoot to kill orders they are already to be have found guilty according to the UCMJ. A trial in abstentia is allowwed under that if i remember correctly.

Instead Bergdahl gets promoted:

Bergdahl was a private when he deserted his platoon.
Breitbart reported:


Although he was a private when he was first captured by the Taliban, Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was promoted twice in captivity and is scheduled for another promotion to staff sergeant.

CNN’s Barbara Starr reports that a defense official confirmed that Bergdahl is scheduled for a promotion to the rank of staff sergeant later in June of this year (2014).

I thought I read somewhere that Bergdahl was already investigated by the CIA? and found guilty of desertion but I can't find it now. I'll keep searching.

originally posted by: AnIntellectualRedneck
a reply to: Xeven



I care less about whether he walked off his post or not. That is not for me to decide, but a military tribunal.

No, that's for a military court-martial to decide, not a tribunal.

The other parts of your comment are right on...I don't think most people are anti-return, they're anti-dealing-with-terrorists-and-releaseing-five-high-valued-Taliban-combatants in order to get Bergdahl back--who may or may not be a deserter. And all without following the law that the sitting president signed stating he must notify Congress within 30 days of the transfer. The BS excuse concerning Bergdahl's health is just another way he justifies not even following his own laws.

a reply to: eriktheawful

I keep asking the same question...and even worse to point out is that one seems sympathetic to the Taliban and one like guns. Which one is still sitting in jail?

Strictly speaking for myself - I am not AGAINST his return. I simply disagree with the manner in which his return was secured and I question the decision making involved. Once home I'd like to see him tried just like anyone else since it is already done.

I reckon many members feel the same way.


It's not that we 'rescued' him and our bringing him back home. It's that we illegally traded 5 terrorists to do so after already having substantial evidence of a crime committed and after 6 servicemen died in previous rescue attempts.

Now if the administration told the people that this rescue WAS IN ORDER to bring him back here and try him and find out what happened; so the families of the other slain servicemen could know and such, then we would all feel a lot better.

I just think it is disingenuous the way the Admin acted as if we all should just be praising this "hero's rescue" like nothing else is wrong with the picture....

Combat area is NOT the same as a courtroom. Soldiers operate on a different standard---they are not merely people standing on the corner. waiting for a bus. If you leave without your weapons, that pretty much says it all.

The world of legalese makes a big deal about intent, what was in someone's mind. The military is dependent upon soldiers following through with their actions.

Words like honor and integrity mean something in that world.

And you don't need a courtroom full of evidence to be sure that a soldier deserted. Its why courts martial have different rules.

originally posted by: Xeven
If your Anti Berghdal return your also anti-innocent until proven guilty in court of law. Americans are innocent until proven guilty. He did not act as an enemy combatant so your left with him being an innocent. You have to attempt to return your innocent Soldiers. Now that he is back he needs to be held accountable for his actions in court and spend time in jail or hung if warranted. We must return our troops though.



Look it seems like he is a traitor but we need to put him on trial. Until then he is innocent and should be treated as such. If he is guilty of being a traitor you can add me to the firing squad.



Would you rather the President have the power to decide which soldiers are worth rescuing in the world? Your answer might be yes if you think each future President will always agree with your viewpoints.

The whole premise here is false because he is under the ucmj and does ot have the same rights as you or i.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
Soldiers are under UCMJ NOT the Constitution.

This.

(winner-winner, chicken dinner!)

Wait, everyone, please wait.

Everyone please understand this:

When you join the US military, you are NOT giving up your constitutional rights. You are still a US citizen and are still afforded those rights.

However, when you swear in on active duty (enlisted or officer) you are agreeing to conforming to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to abide by it, and to accept judgement rendered from it if you violate it.

You sign a legal and binding contract when you enter the US military, in which you agree to this.

It does NOT take away your constitutional rights however.

Used to have to give training on this while I was in the Navy.

a reply to: eriktheawful
If you get arrested for something while you are on leave, you can be punished for the same offense when you return to base. This does not conform with the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

If your Anti Bergdhal return, your also anti-innocent until proven guilty in court of law

OH .. and Bergdhal wasn't "rescued". In order to be rescued he'd have to have been held against his will. The dude walked off his post and went looking for English speaking Taliban. He did that right after having told people he was renouncing his US citizenship.

The story I heard was that he did leave voluntarily but that his plan was to renounce his citizenship and then make his way to India to start a new life.. I heard nothing about him actively seeking the Taliban..

I also read where the Taliban said they had captured him after he left base and got drunk..

I can't see why any american, especially an american soldier would seek out the taliban because it's inevitable that you're going to be used as a hostage ..

At any rate... I do think he should be tried and that he's innocent until proven guilty, but I also agree with most that the president violated the law and that handing over 5 top ranking taliban for one american soldier is just unacceptable ..

a reply to: miniatus
The story is being carried by the MSM that Bergdahl did seek out Taliban fighters after he left his unit.

Sgt Bergdahl’s former unit leader said that when Taliban attacks on their base became more accurate and frequent following his disappearance, troops feared that the missing soldier was supplying information to the enemy, either under duress or voluntarily. Evan Buetow also said his team picked up radio intercepts in which Afghans in a nearby village were talking about an American soldier seeking an English-speaker so that he could communicate with the Taliban. “I heard it straight from the interpreter’s lips as he heard it over the radio,” he told CNN. “There’s a lot more to this story than a soldier walking away.

The Telegraph

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: eriktheawful
If you get arrested for something while you are on leave, you can be punished for the same offense when you return to base. This does not conform with the Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

Can be. But are not always. Depends on the situation, the commanding officer (if it's going to be NJ punishment) or a court martial decision.

In many cases the military will agree to allow a military member to serve their sentence for the crime they committed out in town. Then once returned to the base, the member will face charges not relating to the original civilian charges.
Or the military will promise the civilian government to turn the individual over to them, after they have been punished for charges brought up violating the UCMJ.

I saw many a sailor, sent to the brig to serve time for violating the UCMJ (Unauthorized absence, desertion, conduct unbecoming, etc), and then kicked out on a dishonor discharge, only to be escorted from the brig, to the county or city jail to face their civilian charges in a civilian court.

The same thing is done in the civilian world: person is arrested for committing a crime in a county and state. While awaiting trial, it's found that he or she is also wanted in another state for another crime. Many times that person is found guilty, does time in that county and state, and upon their release, they have LEO waiting for them to transport them to the other state and county to face those charges.

When you sign on that dotted line, and raise your right hand and swear into the US military, you are agreeing to be held accountable to the UCMJ, but you still have your constitutional rights.

Don't want to be punished by the military and the civilian courts? That's easy:

1) Don't sign up for the military.

2) Don't break any laws.

3) Do not violate any articles of the UCMJ.

It's that simple.

a reply to: eriktheawful Of coarse there is a loop in the system but when you enlist you absolutely have the same rights as you did before. I totally get that it can be explained that you do but you can not exercise those rights in most cases without facing punishment. So if you follow the rules then you are submitting to not having those rights.

a reply to: Xeven

You have not clue obviously of how this deserter soldier will be processed.

He will never see a civilian court.

Learn the facts.

Well my bad, I see that you did research on the subject.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: eriktheawful Of coarse there is a loop in the system but when you enlist you absolutely have the same rights as you did before. I totally get that it can be explained that you do but you can not exercise those rights in most cases without facing punishment. So if you follow the rules then you are submitting to not having those rights.

Okay, I do this just like I did when I was teaching this in classes back in the Navy:

Please name one constitutional right that you no longer have, or will be punished for by exercising it?

You still get to vote.
You still have freedom of speech and expression (you really do. You can attend all the political rallys you want, and even speak at them. You just can not wear your uniform while doing so. But you most certainly can speak your mind.)
You can still exercise your 2nd amendment right to have arms. But you must follow all local and federal laws regarding them. Yes, the military has certain rules about having personal firearms on a base or on a ship, for very good reasons.
If you are arrested and charged with a crime, you still have the right to due process, a speedy trial and legal help. The military will even help you obtain that legal help. Yes, you could face charges under the UCMJ (such as being UA while arrested or in jail), however, depending on what happens with your civilian charges, you may only get a slap on the wrist, or not even that if it turns out you were not guilty of any wrong doing.

I could go on, but still: exactly what constitutional rights are you giving up?