Posted on Jun 1, 2014
How does everyone feel about PFC Bergdahl? How does one get meritoriously promoted for being a deserter?
13.6K
438
221
5
5
0
Bergdahl
POW/MIA
Desertion
Responses: 68
2
2
0
I know that he was held for almost five years by the Taliban in Afghanistan, but from my understanding he left his unit without permission. According to the UCMJ, that is considered AWOL and he should be court martialed for that offense. What about the Soldiers that gave their lives looking for him? Where is the justice for them?
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Let's get real - what we think we know may well be fact. But it may not. Of all the things we should not do is to make a pre-determination of whether someone is valueable enough for us to do our utmost to recover when missing. PERIOD
We may be correct in our righteousness - but even the guilty deserve a fair and unbiased trial.
We may be correct in our righteousness - but even the guilty deserve a fair and unbiased trial.
(2)
(0)
CPO (Join to see)
The U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists, now the door has been opened for anyone who wants something from us to kidnap an American.
(1)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Chief Ambrose -
Please don't take this personally - but anyone who believes that there are no negotiations when dealing with terrorists is naive. Whether we do it via some backdoor arrangement or another country represents the U.S. it's done, and has been done for as long as I can remember - at least 50 years.
Please don't take this personally - but anyone who believes that there are no negotiations when dealing with terrorists is naive. Whether we do it via some backdoor arrangement or another country represents the U.S. it's done, and has been done for as long as I can remember - at least 50 years.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
To be fair, SGT, he didn't get promoted FOR being a deserter. AFAIK, he still isn't technically officially listed as a deserter by the Army, so withholding promotion on suspicion alone would be wrong (pending an official court martial finding).
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Reserving opinion until I know more from uninflamed sources.
POW promotions based upon TIS/TIG (I believe) are traditional.
Regardless, I'm very much against (sickened actually) the circumstances surrounding his release.
POW promotions based upon TIS/TIG (I believe) are traditional.
Regardless, I'm very much against (sickened actually) the circumstances surrounding his release.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Anyone remember Robert Garwood (Vietnam)? As his status was known to be a deserter, he was never promoted. I hope he is still in Leavenworth but I'm not wasting my time and energy to find out.
There were rumored to be several other G.I.'s that went to the other side (Salt & Pepper in 1st CTZ). I think some were taken out by US Forces and were never seen again. Others died. I think this case will eventually be resolved but I'm just not sure how far they (Obama Administration) will take it and if they have the moral courage to do what is right.
There were rumored to be several other G.I.'s that went to the other side (Salt & Pepper in 1st CTZ). I think some were taken out by US Forces and were never seen again. Others died. I think this case will eventually be resolved but I'm just not sure how far they (Obama Administration) will take it and if they have the moral courage to do what is right.
(2)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
Major Woods
Based on my memory alone - Private Garwood was never incarcerated. He was found guilty of assualt on a P.O.W. and communicating with the enemy (if memory serves), was demoted and given a dishornorable discharge - which effectively prevented payment of his backpay and any chance at any benefits. His appeal was denied.
Based on my memory alone - Private Garwood was never incarcerated. He was found guilty of assualt on a P.O.W. and communicating with the enemy (if memory serves), was demoted and given a dishornorable discharge - which effectively prevented payment of his backpay and any chance at any benefits. His appeal was denied.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Jim Woods
PO1 Medley,
You are correct.
Over a period of 11 months, Garwood faced a general court-martial at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He was found not guilty of desertion, solicitation of U.S. troops in the field to refuse to fight and to defect, and of maltreatment. Private First Class Garwood was convicted on February 5, 1981 of communicating with the enemy and assault of an American prisoner of war interred in a POW camp, in violation of Articles 104 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court-martial sentenced Garwood to reduction to private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. He was not sentenced to confinement. His conviction was upheld on appeal. United States v. Robert R. Garwood, 16 M.J. 863 (N.C.M.R. 1983), aff'd, 20 M.J. 148 (C.M.A. 1985). His record of trial covered 16 volumes and 3,833 pages of trial record. As a result, Garwood forfeited all back pay and veteran's benefits.
You are correct.
Over a period of 11 months, Garwood faced a general court-martial at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. He was found not guilty of desertion, solicitation of U.S. troops in the field to refuse to fight and to defect, and of maltreatment. Private First Class Garwood was convicted on February 5, 1981 of communicating with the enemy and assault of an American prisoner of war interred in a POW camp, in violation of Articles 104 and 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The court-martial sentenced Garwood to reduction to private, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. He was not sentenced to confinement. His conviction was upheld on appeal. United States v. Robert R. Garwood, 16 M.J. 863 (N.C.M.R. 1983), aff'd, 20 M.J. 148 (C.M.A. 1985). His record of trial covered 16 volumes and 3,833 pages of trial record. As a result, Garwood forfeited all back pay and veteran's benefits.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Something I've been thinking about on the topic of this prisoner swap - many pesticides and insecticides aren't actually designed to kill immediately upon initial exposure. The point is to have the organism return to the nest carrying deadly particulates. By releasing these guys, it seems a perfect opportunity to monitor them and let them lead us to the nest. Everyone these guys talk to either in person or via phone, everyone they meet with, everyone they email - everything will be 100% monitored.
(2)
(0)
Suspended Profile
MAJ Dews,
While I appreciate the sentiment, it would appear that this kind of biological / chemical kill is forbidden by quite a number of treaties.
Among other difficulties, suppose his colleagues arrange a tour of schools to meet with children and speak about his experiences.
I would be concerned the biological / chemical mechanism you describe could kill rather too many completely innocent people.
Now, perhaps some incapacitating agent, with an antidote that would be made available only to individuals cleared by us ???
Warmest Regards, Sandy
While I appreciate the sentiment, it would appear that this kind of biological / chemical kill is forbidden by quite a number of treaties.
Among other difficulties, suppose his colleagues arrange a tour of schools to meet with children and speak about his experiences.
I would be concerned the biological / chemical mechanism you describe could kill rather too many completely innocent people.
Now, perhaps some incapacitating agent, with an antidote that would be made available only to individuals cleared by us ???
Warmest Regards, Sandy
Suspended Profile
MAJ Dews,
OK . . . if you say so . . . then again the idea came out of Fort Detrick ;)
Warmest Regards, Sandy
OK . . . if you say so . . . then again the idea came out of Fort Detrick ;)
Warmest Regards, Sandy
2
2
0
It is nice to learn that one of our soldiers is worth, at least, five of their most hardened combatants? If the PFC/SSG is worth five, how many are you worth?
(2)
(0)
Sgt Randy Hill
I have trouble with the negotiation aspects of this. I feel this is like a baseball Gm trading Ruth, Williams, and Reggie Jackson for a bat boy. I am happy he is home but what does this tell Americans around the world? Watch out you could be used as a bargaining chip because we are teaching the enemy that we can be a bit of pushover.
(0)
(0)
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
MSG Brand I agree that any of our Soldiers is worth a t least 5 or more, probably a battalion, of their best terrorists. However, I would not trade a full regiment of our troops for even one of their worst people; I would be dealing with terrorists. Our country has always had a strict policy of NOT dealing with any terrorists for any reason, a policy the present office holder of the President does not seem to understand.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I think everyone should take a step back and let the offial investigation take it's course. It's all a he and she said at this time, just like in the Pat Tillman case the truth will be revealed. Everyone else should focus on the take away out off this situation and it's knowing your Soldiers and recogniseing possible weakness and signs of something not being right. The little info we do have on this guy shows something was definitely not right with him. As far as the promotion and entitlements everyone is innocent until proven guilty so he recived what any other POW would had and if he is ever is found guilty of whatever charge they bring all will be recoup. Stop speculating and let the facts come out to the light if anything we should petition for the Marine that is detained in Mexico right now if we can exchange terrorist we can definitely bring back one guy from Tijuana.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
My question is why was the Constitution now followed?
Article II Section 2 - (2nd Paragraph) He (The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
It is my understanding that President Obama consulted with members of Congress but it did not go to a vote on the Senate floor. Am I off in right field with this question?
Article II Section 2 - (2nd Paragraph) He (The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..."
It is my understanding that President Obama consulted with members of Congress but it did not go to a vote on the Senate floor. Am I off in right field with this question?
(2)
(0)
SSG Daniel Deiler
I also think it is ironic that both Shinseki and the WH press secretary both resigned in the midst of the VA scandal and now this? I see a smoke screen.
(1)
(0)
MSG Martin C.
It's hard to understand this administration however a few months ago the president himself said it. He don't care to wait for the due proses he will simply utilize he's executive power to get what he wants. So basically he knows best he represents all of us.... The last was a sarcastic comment.
(1)
(0)
CMDCM Gene Treants
No matter the long term consequences, this President intends to do whatever he wants and then tell the Nation he did it for our benefit because we are not capable of making decisions through our representatives. Actually both the Senate and Congress have shown that they are so partisan and divided that they really are incapable of doing anything, but that does not relieve him of his responsibilities under the Constitution or give him Special powers.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I sometimes believe that these decisions are made just to annoy and anger people in the service:
To that end: WHEN I GO TO THE VA, Veterans are helpful to each other and honor each other in spite of this kind of nonsense. I am so happy to see the real world which many administration people do not.
Our families struggle when the Active Member rotates out on deployments, TDYs and short tours. All the garbage is something we have accepted and moved on, but really enough enough.
To that end: WHEN I GO TO THE VA, Veterans are helpful to each other and honor each other in spite of this kind of nonsense. I am so happy to see the real world which many administration people do not.
Our families struggle when the Active Member rotates out on deployments, TDYs and short tours. All the garbage is something we have accepted and moved on, but really enough enough.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google