One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Remember deserter Bergdahl?
Jan 9, 2015 09:05:02   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options

By Andrew Tilghman

The Army’s decision to forward the investigation of former prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged misconduct for possible court-martial means the soldier who was released from Taliban captivity in May most likely will remain on active duty — and in legal limbo — for months to come.

The service announced Dec. 22 that it had completed the investigation and forwarded the results to a convening authority, Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The Army has not determined yet whether Bergdahl, who spent five years in captivity in Afghanistan, is eligible for the lump-sum back pay traditionally provided to prisoners of war who return home. In Bergdahl’s case, he could be eligible for about $200,000, and potentially far more if the Army decides all POW benefits apply to him.

But he is not a typical POW. Then-Spc. Bergdahl was accused of intentionally wandering away from his patrol base alone before he was captured by Taliban insurgents in 2009. Legal experts say the allegations suggest charges of desertion could apply.

The Army’s options are narrowed by an obscure personnel regulation: Because the former POW’s term of enlistment expired during his five years in captivity, the Army now must grant him an honorable discharge or launch a court-martial.

“We’re in an all-or-nothing situation,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, a former judge advocate who served as a legal adviser to Army Special Forces and now teaches law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in Texas.

For now, Bergdahl, 28, remains assigned to a desk job at an Army headquarters unit in San Antonio. The Army declined to release details of the six-month investigation into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance in Afghanistan.

If the Army exercises its legal option to officially refer the case to court-martial, that would open the door for Bergdahl, if he chooses, to request an other-than-honorable discharge in lieu of the court-martial. Bergdahl and the Army general overseeing the case would have to agree to that arrangement.

That would allow the Army to strip Bergdahl of some of his veteran’s benefits and impose some further administrative sanctions, such as loss of pay and reduction in rank.

Without a court-martial, the Army may have to give Bergdahl the large chunk of back pay he’s technically due because he remained on active duty during his five years in captivity.

“I don’t think the Army can have it both ways. Either he was a deserter and he deserves to be courtmartialed, or he wasn’t and he is entitled to the back pay,” said Greg Rinckey, a former Army JAG who is a military law attorney in New York.

For now, Bergdahl’s back pay is frozen in a bank account controlled by the Army and the matter will likely remain unresolved until Bergdahl is discharged.

Rinckey believes the Army ultimately will opt against seeking a court-martial. Questions about Bergdahl’s state of mind at the time of his capture would make the charges hard to prove, and Bergdahl’s five years in captivity would weigh in the Army’s decision, Rinckey said.

After five years in captivity, Bergdahl’s Taliban captors released him May 31 in a prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He returned to good health after a short stay at military hospitals in Germany and San Antonio.

A prior investigation of Bergdahl’s disappearance — conducted in 2009 long before his return — found that some members of his unit believed Bergdahl left his patrol base alone at night at least once before and returned safely.

Bergdahl was interviewed as part of the more recent investigation since his return, but Army officials have not released any details of that investigation.

Yet details of the case have been widely reported in the media, in particular the criticisms from other soldiers in his unit who believe Bergdahl intentionally left his base and as a result put the lives of many soldiers at risk.

Some soldiers believe the aggressive manhunt Army commanders in Afghanistan ordered after Bergdahl’s disappearance directly resulted in several casualties.

That controversy is likely a part of the Army leadership’s considerations.

“You’ve got almost every single member of the platoon that says ‘Yeah, he put down his weapon and left his patrol base. He voluntarily vacated himself from his place of duty.’ Addicott said.

It’s possible Bergdahl could be charged with the lesser offense of Absent Without Leave, or AWOL. But Addicott believes the facts suggest a more severe charge. “To me, it’s desertion. He left in time of war. And I think the facts are clear.”

Reply
Jan 9, 2015 09:18:47   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
hprinze wrote:
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options

By Andrew Tilghman

The Army’s decision to forward the investigation of former prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged misconduct for possible court-martial means the soldier who was released from Taliban captivity in May most likely will remain on active duty — and in legal limbo — for months to come.

The service announced Dec. 22 that it had completed the investigation and forwarded the results to a convening authority, Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The Army has not determined yet whether Bergdahl, who spent five years in captivity in Afghanistan, is eligible for the lump-sum back pay traditionally provided to prisoners of war who return home. In Bergdahl’s case, he could be eligible for about $200,000, and potentially far more if the Army decides all POW benefits apply to him.

But he is not a typical POW. Then-Spc. Bergdahl was accused of intentionally wandering away from his patrol base alone before he was captured by Taliban insurgents in 2009. Legal experts say the allegations suggest charges of desertion could apply.

The Army’s options are narrowed by an obscure personnel regulation: Because the former POW’s term of enlistment expired during his five years in captivity, the Army now must grant him an honorable discharge or launch a court-martial.

“We’re in an all-or-nothing situation,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, a former judge advocate who served as a legal adviser to Army Special Forces and now teaches law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in Texas.

For now, Bergdahl, 28, remains assigned to a desk job at an Army headquarters unit in San Antonio. The Army declined to release details of the six-month investigation into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance in Afghanistan.

If the Army exercises its legal option to officially refer the case to court-martial, that would open the door for Bergdahl, if he chooses, to request an other-than-honorable discharge in lieu of the court-martial. Bergdahl and the Army general overseeing the case would have to agree to that arrangement.

That would allow the Army to strip Bergdahl of some of his veteran’s benefits and impose some further administrative sanctions, such as loss of pay and reduction in rank.

Without a court-martial, the Army may have to give Bergdahl the large chunk of back pay he’s technically due because he remained on active duty during his five years in captivity.

“I don’t think the Army can have it both ways. Either he was a deserter and he deserves to be courtmartialed, or he wasn’t and he is entitled to the back pay,” said Greg Rinckey, a former Army JAG who is a military law attorney in New York.

For now, Bergdahl’s back pay is frozen in a bank account controlled by the Army and the matter will likely remain unresolved until Bergdahl is discharged.

Rinckey believes the Army ultimately will opt against seeking a court-martial. Questions about Bergdahl’s state of mind at the time of his capture would make the charges hard to prove, and Bergdahl’s five years in captivity would weigh in the Army’s decision, Rinckey said.

After five years in captivity, Bergdahl’s Taliban captors released him May 31 in a prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He returned to good health after a short stay at military hospitals in Germany and San Antonio.

A prior investigation of Bergdahl’s disappearance — conducted in 2009 long before his return — found that some members of his unit believed Bergdahl left his patrol base alone at night at least once before and returned safely.

Bergdahl was interviewed as part of the more recent investigation since his return, but Army officials have not released any details of that investigation.

Yet details of the case have been widely reported in the media, in particular the criticisms from other soldiers in his unit who believe Bergdahl intentionally left his base and as a result put the lives of many soldiers at risk.

Some soldiers believe the aggressive manhunt Army commanders in Afghanistan ordered after Bergdahl’s disappearance directly resulted in several casualties.

That controversy is likely a part of the Army leadership’s considerations.

“You’ve got almost every single member of the platoon that says ‘Yeah, he put down his weapon and left his patrol base. He voluntarily vacated himself from his place of duty.’ Addicott said.

It’s possible Bergdahl could be charged with the lesser offense of Absent Without Leave, or AWOL. But Addicott believes the facts suggest a more severe charge. “To me, it’s desertion. He left in time of war. And I think the facts are clear.”
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options br br B... (show quote)


========================================
This is more a pistscript than a re[ly/


They cater to deserter Bergdahl, promote him retroactively, give him credit AND PAY for five years active duty while deserted, and give him a desk job.

Quite a contrast with the treatment of patriot Mike New who was figuratively hanged for refusing to wear the UN insugnia on his U.S. ARMY UNIFORM.

To add salt to the wound, it is against regs to wear any foreign insignia oin a U.S. military uniform.

Reply
Jan 9, 2015 09:56:05   #
shipfitter Loc: Wisconsin, for now
 
hprinze wrote:
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options

By Andrew Tilghman

The Army’s decision to forward the investigation of former prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged misconduct for possible court-martial means the soldier who was released from Taliban captivity in May most likely will remain on active duty — and in legal limbo — for months to come.

The service announced Dec. 22 that it had completed the investigation and forwarded the results to a convening authority, Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The Army has not determined yet whether Bergdahl, who spent five years in captivity in Afghanistan, is eligible for the lump-sum back pay traditionally provided to prisoners of war who return home. In Bergdahl’s case, he could be eligible for about $200,000, and potentially far more if the Army decides all POW benefits apply to him.

But he is not a typical POW. Then-Spc. Bergdahl was accused of intentionally wandering away from his patrol base alone before he was captured by Taliban insurgents in 2009. Legal experts say the allegations suggest charges of desertion could apply.

The Army’s options are narrowed by an obscure personnel regulation: Because the former POW’s term of enlistment expired during his five years in captivity, the Army now must grant him an honorable discharge or launch a court-martial.

“We’re in an all-or-nothing situation,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, a former judge advocate who served as a legal adviser to Army Special Forces and now teaches law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in Texas.

For now, Bergdahl, 28, remains assigned to a desk job at an Army headquarters unit in San Antonio. The Army declined to release details of the six-month investigation into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance in Afghanistan.

If the Army exercises its legal option to officially refer the case to court-martial, that would open the door for Bergdahl, if he chooses, to request an other-than-honorable discharge in lieu of the court-martial. Bergdahl and the Army general overseeing the case would have to agree to that arrangement.

That would allow the Army to strip Bergdahl of some of his veteran’s benefits and impose some further administrative sanctions, such as loss of pay and reduction in rank.

Without a court-martial, the Army may have to give Bergdahl the large chunk of back pay he’s technically due because he remained on active duty during his five years in captivity.

“I don’t think the Army can have it both ways. Either he was a deserter and he deserves to be courtmartialed, or he wasn’t and he is entitled to the back pay,” said Greg Rinckey, a former Army JAG who is a military law attorney in New York.

For now, Bergdahl’s back pay is frozen in a bank account controlled by the Army and the matter will likely remain unresolved until Bergdahl is discharged.

Rinckey believes the Army ultimately will opt against seeking a court-martial. Questions about Bergdahl’s state of mind at the time of his capture would make the charges hard to prove, and Bergdahl’s five years in captivity would weigh in the Army’s decision, Rinckey said.

After five years in captivity, Bergdahl’s Taliban captors released him May 31 in a prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He returned to good health after a short stay at military hospitals in Germany and San Antonio.

A prior investigation of Bergdahl’s disappearance — conducted in 2009 long before his return — found that some members of his unit believed Bergdahl left his patrol base alone at night at least once before and returned safely.

Bergdahl was interviewed as part of the more recent investigation since his return, but Army officials have not released any details of that investigation.

Yet details of the case have been widely reported in the media, in particular the criticisms from other soldiers in his unit who believe Bergdahl intentionally left his base and as a result put the lives of many soldiers at risk.

Some soldiers believe the aggressive manhunt Army commanders in Afghanistan ordered after Bergdahl’s disappearance directly resulted in several casualties.

That controversy is likely a part of the Army leadership’s considerations.

“You’ve got almost every single member of the platoon that says ‘Yeah, he put down his weapon and left his patrol base. He voluntarily vacated himself from his place of duty.’ Addicott said.

It’s possible Bergdahl could be charged with the lesser offense of Absent Without Leave, or AWOL. But Addicott believes the facts suggest a more severe charge. “To me, it’s desertion. He left in time of war. And I think the facts are clear.”
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options br br B... (show quote)


MY two options are . HANG'IM or SHOOT'IM

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2015 11:54:56   #
PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.
 
shipfitter wrote:
MY two options are . HANG'IM or SHOOT'IM


Yeah, and quit feeding them during the interim.

Reply
Jan 9, 2015 12:23:02   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
The delays are at the behest of the white house. Wait a few years and all the dirty deeds will come to light. The least t***sparent president of all times has hidden a great deal but it can't and won't last for ever. Bergdhal's a deserter. Plain, simple.

hprinze wrote:
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options

By Andrew Tilghman

The Army’s decision to forward the investigation of former prisoner of war Bowe Bergdahl’s alleged misconduct for possible court-martial means the soldier who was released from Taliban captivity in May most likely will remain on active duty — and in legal limbo — for months to come.

The service announced Dec. 22 that it had completed the investigation and forwarded the results to a convening authority, Gen. Mark Milley, head of U.S. Army Forces Command at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The Army has not determined yet whether Bergdahl, who spent five years in captivity in Afghanistan, is eligible for the lump-sum back pay traditionally provided to prisoners of war who return home. In Bergdahl’s case, he could be eligible for about $200,000, and potentially far more if the Army decides all POW benefits apply to him.

But he is not a typical POW. Then-Spc. Bergdahl was accused of intentionally wandering away from his patrol base alone before he was captured by Taliban insurgents in 2009. Legal experts say the allegations suggest charges of desertion could apply.

The Army’s options are narrowed by an obscure personnel regulation: Because the former POW’s term of enlistment expired during his five years in captivity, the Army now must grant him an honorable discharge or launch a court-martial.

“We’re in an all-or-nothing situation,” said retired Army Lt. Col. Jeffrey Addicott, a former judge advocate who served as a legal adviser to Army Special Forces and now teaches law at St. Mary’s University School of Law in Texas.

For now, Bergdahl, 28, remains assigned to a desk job at an Army headquarters unit in San Antonio. The Army declined to release details of the six-month investigation into the circumstances surrounding his disappearance in Afghanistan.

If the Army exercises its legal option to officially refer the case to court-martial, that would open the door for Bergdahl, if he chooses, to request an other-than-honorable discharge in lieu of the court-martial. Bergdahl and the Army general overseeing the case would have to agree to that arrangement.

That would allow the Army to strip Bergdahl of some of his veteran’s benefits and impose some further administrative sanctions, such as loss of pay and reduction in rank.

Without a court-martial, the Army may have to give Bergdahl the large chunk of back pay he’s technically due because he remained on active duty during his five years in captivity.

“I don’t think the Army can have it both ways. Either he was a deserter and he deserves to be courtmartialed, or he wasn’t and he is entitled to the back pay,” said Greg Rinckey, a former Army JAG who is a military law attorney in New York.

For now, Bergdahl’s back pay is frozen in a bank account controlled by the Army and the matter will likely remain unresolved until Bergdahl is discharged.

Rinckey believes the Army ultimately will opt against seeking a court-martial. Questions about Bergdahl’s state of mind at the time of his capture would make the charges hard to prove, and Bergdahl’s five years in captivity would weigh in the Army’s decision, Rinckey said.

After five years in captivity, Bergdahl’s Taliban captors released him May 31 in a prisoner swap that also freed five Taliban leaders from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He returned to good health after a short stay at military hospitals in Germany and San Antonio.

A prior investigation of Bergdahl’s disappearance — conducted in 2009 long before his return — found that some members of his unit believed Bergdahl left his patrol base alone at night at least once before and returned safely.

Bergdahl was interviewed as part of the more recent investigation since his return, but Army officials have not released any details of that investigation.

Yet details of the case have been widely reported in the media, in particular the criticisms from other soldiers in his unit who believe Bergdahl intentionally left his base and as a result put the lives of many soldiers at risk.

Some soldiers believe the aggressive manhunt Army commanders in Afghanistan ordered after Bergdahl’s disappearance directly resulted in several casualties.

That controversy is likely a part of the Army leadership’s considerations.

“You’ve got almost every single member of the platoon that says ‘Yeah, he put down his weapon and left his patrol base. He voluntarily vacated himself from his place of duty.’ Addicott said.

It’s possible Bergdahl could be charged with the lesser offense of Absent Without Leave, or AWOL. But Addicott believes the facts suggest a more severe charge. “To me, it’s desertion. He left in time of war. And I think the facts are clear.”
In Bergdahl’s case, Army has few options br br B... (show quote)

Reply
Jan 9, 2015 12:34:45   #
hprinze Loc: Central Florida
 
missinglink wrote:
The delays are at the behest of the white house. Wait a few years and all the dirty deeds will come to light. The least t***sparent president of all times has hidden a great deal but it can't and won't last for ever. Bergdhal's a deserter. Plain, simple.


===============================

I doubt the full t***h will ever come out. The "histotians", news media, government schools. and politicuans are liars and they have and will continue ro brainwash the public.

Reply
Jan 9, 2015 12:35:29   #
Ricko Loc: Florida
 
missinglink wrote:
The delays are at the behest of the white house. Wait a few years and all the dirty deeds will come to light. The least t***sparent president of all times has hidden a great deal but it can't and won't last for ever. Bergdhal's a deserter. Plain, simple.


missinglink-the reason for the White House asking for a delay is obvious. Wait until late 2016 and Bergdahl can be granted a pardon ,and hundreds of thousands in back pay, by his admirer just before he leaves office. Good Luck America !!!

Reply
 
 
Jan 9, 2015 17:00:48   #
missinglink Loc: Tralfamadore
 
I fear you are correct. Our national political disease, the far left, is supported by one of the worlds worst politically motivated mass medias. As long we the people allow them to do the follow up subversion work started by our educational system employees there will be no stopping the slide into progressive hell. Our Liar & Chief is more than on board with that program and will support both those entities with every ounce of other peoples blood sweat and tears. Anyone with a speck of brain power witnessed the work done by their concerted effort of shutting down the free speech and right of assembly of the Tea Party. A Blatant rights infringement on a large swath of our citizens. This s**t has to stop. I hope the new congress with shove those 300 bills road blocked by Obama and Reid right up their asses. For storage until they are out of office if nothing else. I'd rather the government come to a dead stop then pay the extortion those two crooks have been orchestrating. Oops sorry. Didn't mean to rant.


quote=hprinze]===============================

I doubt the full t***h will ever come out. The "histotians", news media, government schools. and politicuans are liars and they have and will continue ro brainwash the public.[/quote]

Reply
Jan 10, 2015 09:18:52   #
Ronald Hatt Loc: Lansing, Mich
 
shipfitter wrote:
MY two options are . HANG'IM or SHOOT'IM


Waterboard him "first"!.....{ and "any" liberal scum, that opposes it! }

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.