Posted on 09/17/2015 1:57:36 PM PDT by jazusamo
I read somewhere that it was he who wanted nothing to do with them but don’t really know, it seemed to me all of them were strange.
Well said.
Active Duty ping.
BOR just had the segment with former Sgt. Matt Vierkant who was in the same platoon as Bergdahl.
He said what the other members of the platoon have said; he was strange, walked away and deserves punishment.
Thanks .. I actually did get to see that segment. Great invention that mute button.
LOL
As I understand it, the desertion charge alone will get him only about 5 years. The ‘misbehavior in the face of the enemy’ can go up to life IF they can prove a direct connection to an injury or death caused by his actions. It will be lesser if they prove extreme danger to his fellow soldiers caused by his actions. I don’t know how much lesser, but it sounds like the testimony yesterday was directed toward the danger charge rather than direct evidence of death or injury. I’m guessing they want to go beyond the 5 years, so any argument at sentencing that he served 5 in captivity will be blunted.
Just my take on it.
If we go back to the media splash last year, there were plenty saying that his actions caused a death or injury, but apparently there is something in their cases that doesn’t make it provable that it was ‘directly’ connected to Bergdahl’s actions. I imagine the prosecutors have a required definition of ‘direct’ that they are using.
I agree. My feeling on a sentence will be reduction in grade, forfeiture of pay and allowances, a BCD, no confinement, or a token confinement period.
That’s my understanding of it also.
The thread I posted several days ago about the Navy SEAL that lost a leg on a rescue mission looking for Bergdahl must have some kind of problem connecting the mission to Bergdahl.
It seemed clear to me that would be a serious enough injury to justify a harsher sentence for a conviction on ‘misbehavior in the face of the enemy.’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3336098/posts
My understanding is that the command had reason to believe Bergdahl was already in captivity, so any mission that wasn’t specifically directed toward those captors was no longer “directly in rescue of Bergdahl”. It would be argued by his lawyer as indirectly related. Fox is reporting today that some in the higher command even thought he was in Pakistan, so any mission not directed there would be viewed as a fishing expedition and not ‘directly’ caused.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09/17/new-twist-in-bergdahl-case/
That’s how I understand it anyway.
Thanks for that, I hadn’t seen it.
I see where a defense attorney would jump on that and may succeed but it seems thin to me, I don’t know much about the legalities of the UCMJ though.
Our leaders were sending out patrols on missions looking for him so someone in the chain of command thought there was a chance of finding him.
Eddie Slovik, 1944
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.