Posted on Oct 13, 2015
Is there anyone who thinks that Bergdahl did not walk away from his post?
4.71K
34
34
3
3
0
Posted in these groups: 
Bergdahl
Bergdahl
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 14
8
8
0
He left his weapon and his battle buddies and walked away. A lot of effort went into looking for him. He deserves the harshest punishment available.
(8)
(0)
3
3
0
That's not what is being tried.
You have the act, and you have the "scope of the act."
Think of it like a spectrum. There is no doubt he committed AWOL/UA. That's not up for debate. That's been admitted to. That has statutory penalties.
Beyond that is Desertion. That requires the "intent not to return." That's debatable, as we have Gen. Dahl saying he was trying to make his way to the next camp over (20~ miles) to report issues in his own camp. That can potentially take Desertion off the table.
Then we have Misbehavior before the Enemy. This is the tricky argument from the prosecutions' side, as it can be said it's just a pumped up Desertion charge, which means they are trying to charge him twice for the same crime. It would be like charging him for AWOL and Desertion. It's "one or the other" is the Defense's stance. There's more to the charge than that, but there's layers, and this is a "major" layer.
You have the act, and you have the "scope of the act."
Think of it like a spectrum. There is no doubt he committed AWOL/UA. That's not up for debate. That's been admitted to. That has statutory penalties.
Beyond that is Desertion. That requires the "intent not to return." That's debatable, as we have Gen. Dahl saying he was trying to make his way to the next camp over (20~ miles) to report issues in his own camp. That can potentially take Desertion off the table.
Then we have Misbehavior before the Enemy. This is the tricky argument from the prosecutions' side, as it can be said it's just a pumped up Desertion charge, which means they are trying to charge him twice for the same crime. It would be like charging him for AWOL and Desertion. It's "one or the other" is the Defense's stance. There's more to the charge than that, but there's layers, and this is a "major" layer.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CMSgt James Nolan This goes back to your comment "it needs to be looked at from "the reasonable person" standpoint, which surely a Military Hearing will do." which then dovestails into "he's nuts," part.
I hate to say it so bluntly but crazy people don't do reasonable things, which makes it so hard to make a legal assessment of this. "if" he was nuts when all this went down, how do we treat him. It's not that he wasn't responsible, but now you have "sick" instead of bad-judgement, or ill-intent. Can-o-worms.
I hate to say it so bluntly but crazy people don't do reasonable things, which makes it so hard to make a legal assessment of this. "if" he was nuts when all this went down, how do we treat him. It's not that he wasn't responsible, but now you have "sick" instead of bad-judgement, or ill-intent. Can-o-worms.
(0)
(0)
CMSgt James Nolan
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS Yep, however, the great thing is that I am pretty sure the General is not a shrink, and while we might all agree that the actions were "crazy", that does not translate to a clinical diagnosis. We see people do crazy crap every day, but that does not make them "crazy", just nuts LOL.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
CMSgt James Nolan The General used terms like "overly idealistic of his capabilities." I (Aaron), used the term, "nuts," which is far from clinical and not intended to be. Merely used to expand the discussion.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Not at all he did it, everyone knows it, and the evidence is there to prove it in court . He is just lucky that the current "command climate" is in his favor. If this happened 20 years ago he would already be serving a life sentence at Ft Leavenworth and everyone know that as well.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google