Posted on Nov 3, 2017
The Bergdahl Sentencing and the Precedent it Sets
102K
1.63K
529
318
318
0
The US Army Values are Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity and Personal Courage.
Former Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl apparently forgot these when, on June 30, 2009, he deserted his unit in Afghanistan, where he wanted to, in his words, “make the world a better place.” Former SGT Bergdahl also forgot that he was wearing the uniform of the United States Army, and that armies fight wars. He signed up. No one forced him into service, and no one forced him to continue service if at any point he decided he had had enough.
In the Army there are legitimate avenues of redress of grievances, and now more than ever before. Your chain of command, the Chaplain, a JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer, or even the highest commander above where you think your problem lies. SGT Bergdahl had whipped himself into an almost psychotic state of isolation, from his unit, from his battle-buddies and even from himself. In the end, the enemy seemed more desirable than the mess he had made in his foxhole.
The sentencing of SGT (now PV-1) Bergdahl is now complete. Instead of a 14 year sentence, sought by the prosecution, a sentence of time served, a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge will have to do.
Although Bergdahl had plead guilty to desertion and misconduct before the enemy, the circumstances under which SGT Bergdahl was released, the trade of five Taliban leaders notwithstanding, has its own implications of treason. Some have said that Bergdahl has suffered enough, including his defense team. Some say he is not fit to live, let alone wear the uniform. Several witnesses have testified about their war injuries and losses they claim happened because of Bergdahl’s desertion. There were rumors but no evidence that SGT Bergdahl had given the enemy critical information about the unit, its operations and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). This would allow the enemy to anticipate the unit’s movements and tendencies, potentially deadly information. Some say, while searching for SGT Bergdahl, they were hit and men died. One man, a former Navy SEAL, claimed tearfully that his service dog was killed on one such mission, and others suffered crippling and career ending injuries. All of this was supposedly taken into consideration before the sentence was handed down by the military judge, Col. Jeffery Nance.
In my opinion, all this testimony is over-engineering. It’s all good, but shouldn’t be necessary to complete the project. Bergdahl deserted in a time of war. How do you maintain good order and discipline if you allow folks to just walk away? There is no claim of insanity. There is no plea bargain. There is no excuse. The punishment for desertion can be death.The reason for this goes back to the beginning of human conflict. If you run in the face of the enemy, you have abdicated your responsibility as a member of the group to help keep the group safe.
In our own Revolutionary War and subsequent conflicts, such as the Civil War, it wasn’t so much power and punch that won the day as it was which side would run first. Name a war or conflict, and what wins the day more times than not is the will to win or survive. Fight or flight. This is why the American Army is so effective; we are trained that in war the mission comes first. We are trained to never leave a soldier behind. We are trained to be good teammates. We are trained to care for each other, help each other and protect each other. And in the foxhole, when the bullets are flying, it’s about you and your battle-buddy, fighting for your lives.The bigger picture is that you are defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, part of the oath of enlistment that Bergdahl breached. But if you allow soldiers to run and then suffer inadequate consequences, what are you telling everyone else who swore that same oath? What then does it mean? In our politically correct, social media, “If it feels good, do it” society, oaths and promises seem blasé and passé. In fact, they are our lifeblood. If we let one instance of obvious and blatant desertion slip through the cracks, what then do we do with the next one, or the next? Kneeling for the national anthem and the absence of even one American flag on the opening night of a national political convention are not simply warning signs, they are signs of the apocalypse that feed the idea that Bergdahl did nothing wrong. That he is innocent of desertion because he was oppressed and that somehow his actions were free speech. It’s not about any of that. It’s about loyalty. The number one most important Army value, and value in life. The acronym constructed out of the Army Values is LDRSHIP (Leadership). The Army aspires to train every soldier to be a leader. In the American Army, even E-Private Zero, Snuffy Smith is expected to carry out the mission if all the leaders above him are incapacitated, in the spirit of Audie Murphy. Murphy, the highly decorated farm boy turned hero from WWII who was battlefield promoted from sergeant to second lieutenant and saved many lives with his heroism, over, and over again, all at 5’4” and 112 pounds, carried on with the mission, time and again. We owe it to the memory of all those who gave their lives in defense of this great nation. We owe it to those who were injured and may have died while searching for Bowe Bergdahl, and we owe it to the future of this nation that Bowe Bergdahl’s punishment fit the crime. But the punishment in this case has not fit the crime in any way, shape or form. The echo from this proceeding will carry far and wide, that the perceived suffering of one man, a deserter, held more weight than the entire history of the military of the greatest nation on earth.
Former Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl apparently forgot these when, on June 30, 2009, he deserted his unit in Afghanistan, where he wanted to, in his words, “make the world a better place.” Former SGT Bergdahl also forgot that he was wearing the uniform of the United States Army, and that armies fight wars. He signed up. No one forced him into service, and no one forced him to continue service if at any point he decided he had had enough.
In the Army there are legitimate avenues of redress of grievances, and now more than ever before. Your chain of command, the Chaplain, a JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer, or even the highest commander above where you think your problem lies. SGT Bergdahl had whipped himself into an almost psychotic state of isolation, from his unit, from his battle-buddies and even from himself. In the end, the enemy seemed more desirable than the mess he had made in his foxhole.
The sentencing of SGT (now PV-1) Bergdahl is now complete. Instead of a 14 year sentence, sought by the prosecution, a sentence of time served, a reduction in rank, forfeiture of pay and a dishonorable discharge will have to do.
Although Bergdahl had plead guilty to desertion and misconduct before the enemy, the circumstances under which SGT Bergdahl was released, the trade of five Taliban leaders notwithstanding, has its own implications of treason. Some have said that Bergdahl has suffered enough, including his defense team. Some say he is not fit to live, let alone wear the uniform. Several witnesses have testified about their war injuries and losses they claim happened because of Bergdahl’s desertion. There were rumors but no evidence that SGT Bergdahl had given the enemy critical information about the unit, its operations and Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). This would allow the enemy to anticipate the unit’s movements and tendencies, potentially deadly information. Some say, while searching for SGT Bergdahl, they were hit and men died. One man, a former Navy SEAL, claimed tearfully that his service dog was killed on one such mission, and others suffered crippling and career ending injuries. All of this was supposedly taken into consideration before the sentence was handed down by the military judge, Col. Jeffery Nance.
In my opinion, all this testimony is over-engineering. It’s all good, but shouldn’t be necessary to complete the project. Bergdahl deserted in a time of war. How do you maintain good order and discipline if you allow folks to just walk away? There is no claim of insanity. There is no plea bargain. There is no excuse. The punishment for desertion can be death.The reason for this goes back to the beginning of human conflict. If you run in the face of the enemy, you have abdicated your responsibility as a member of the group to help keep the group safe.
In our own Revolutionary War and subsequent conflicts, such as the Civil War, it wasn’t so much power and punch that won the day as it was which side would run first. Name a war or conflict, and what wins the day more times than not is the will to win or survive. Fight or flight. This is why the American Army is so effective; we are trained that in war the mission comes first. We are trained to never leave a soldier behind. We are trained to be good teammates. We are trained to care for each other, help each other and protect each other. And in the foxhole, when the bullets are flying, it’s about you and your battle-buddy, fighting for your lives.The bigger picture is that you are defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, part of the oath of enlistment that Bergdahl breached. But if you allow soldiers to run and then suffer inadequate consequences, what are you telling everyone else who swore that same oath? What then does it mean? In our politically correct, social media, “If it feels good, do it” society, oaths and promises seem blasé and passé. In fact, they are our lifeblood. If we let one instance of obvious and blatant desertion slip through the cracks, what then do we do with the next one, or the next? Kneeling for the national anthem and the absence of even one American flag on the opening night of a national political convention are not simply warning signs, they are signs of the apocalypse that feed the idea that Bergdahl did nothing wrong. That he is innocent of desertion because he was oppressed and that somehow his actions were free speech. It’s not about any of that. It’s about loyalty. The number one most important Army value, and value in life. The acronym constructed out of the Army Values is LDRSHIP (Leadership). The Army aspires to train every soldier to be a leader. In the American Army, even E-Private Zero, Snuffy Smith is expected to carry out the mission if all the leaders above him are incapacitated, in the spirit of Audie Murphy. Murphy, the highly decorated farm boy turned hero from WWII who was battlefield promoted from sergeant to second lieutenant and saved many lives with his heroism, over, and over again, all at 5’4” and 112 pounds, carried on with the mission, time and again. We owe it to the memory of all those who gave their lives in defense of this great nation. We owe it to those who were injured and may have died while searching for Bowe Bergdahl, and we owe it to the future of this nation that Bowe Bergdahl’s punishment fit the crime. But the punishment in this case has not fit the crime in any way, shape or form. The echo from this proceeding will carry far and wide, that the perceived suffering of one man, a deserter, held more weight than the entire history of the military of the greatest nation on earth.
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 239
Army to determine if Bergdahl is owed back pay for his time in captivity
When Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl came home in 2014, he was potentially entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay that accumulated over five years while he was in Taliban captivity in Afghanistan.
(2)
(0)
SGT Randall Smith
I don't even know how he was made a Sgt. I knew men in the Army for 3 years that were still PFC or Spec 4's. Just staying in did not make you promotable.
(0)
(0)
Maybe Bergdahl and Chelsea Manning can join forces and create a comedy team....Tranny and Coward Comedy Hour.
(2)
(0)
This is wrong on every front. He is a deserter who collaborated with the enemy. He left his post and the result was men being killed and permanently disabled looking for him. Finally our TRAITOR President trades some of the worst international criminals and murders for this jerk. The Judge should be ashamed and everyone higher than him should give him a unfit report. He should NEVER be a Military Judge in any case again.
(2)
(0)
Take him back to Afgan and let him remain there. He deserted to be with them, let him return
(2)
(0)
Here's some interesting background info from 2016 about what the 15-6 investigation found, and some quotes from various people on both sides. It won't change anyone's minds, I'm sure, but can shed some light on why this was a more complex decision about sentencing than many think it was.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/05/serial-bowe-bergdahl-mystery-pow-419962.html
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/05/serial-bowe-bergdahl-mystery-pow-419962.html
Bowe Bergdahl: What the army doesn't want you to know
We already know what America’s most notorious POW did and why. The only mystery is why the Army doesn't like it.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Thank you for sharing this, Sir. It is important information, and I had read this before. It has a seriously pro-Bergdahl slant, however. The manipulation by the writer is obvious, especially at the end, mentioning Christian forgiveness and doing the best one can in captivity. Christian forgiveness does not exist without repentance. In other words, for Bergdahl to receive forgiveness he must first acknowledge that what he did was wrong, apologize for it, and then promise never to do it again. I don't know if he did that or not. As for doing the best one can in captivity, there have been some famous POW's who don't want us to know the context of what their best was. Sen. John McCain is a famous example who has had his military records sealed regarding his behavior while in captivity, and there is a reason for that. How many Taliban were interviewed for this article? How many of the purported "facts" while Bergdahl was a captive have been corroborated by neutral witnesses, or even any witnesses? I have heard he was a heroin addict looking for a fix. No smoking gun there, either, but are there just as many witnesses who confirm his side of the story? I believe there are three sides to every story, yours, mine and the truth. We may never know the truth about the Bergdahl case, but one thing is true, his punishment did not fit the crime.
(2)
(0)
Capt Tom Brown
It was interesting to read the other side of the story, even two years after it appeared in Newsweek. Judging from what lengths the Army & US gvt went to cover up the Tillman affair, one shouldn't be to surprised at reading this. The campaign of command influence, misinformation and slanted and untrue information against Berghdal helped to convict him in the court of public opinion and I was ready to join in the lynch mob. From this article alone it appears that Berghdal got his opportunity to fight the Taliban-types while a POW, more so than he ever did as a frontline soldier. He seemed to endure treatment every bit as inhumane and brutal as did those held POW by the NVA in Viet Nam. He even came back with intel and a clear account of what happened.
(0)
(0)
COL Jon Lopey
Michael: Thank you for posting the information. It is helpful but it still does not answer all of the questions concerning his case. Having served during the Viet Nam Era, Haiti, Bosnia, OEF, and OIF, I am not convinced that his conduct was commendable in any way. He may have changed his mind after his capture and figured out he really screwed-up trying to trust the Taliban, but bottom line to me, based on my experience and the evidence, Berghahl deserted his fellow Airborne troopers in wartime. He left a firebase without his weapon and jeopardized the lives of those sent to rescue him - There is evidence his actions contributed to deaths and grievous wounds perpetrated against our warriors in uniform. He disparaged his commanders and leadership and used that as an excuse. To me, there was no excuse for leaving his post - He had numerous avenues to travel to accomplish his goals if what he wanted to do was right an alleged wrong. Many of the claims cannot be substantiated. I personally think it is unlikely he would have survived had he not cooperated with his captors at least to some degree. I agree there could be some psychological issues and possible character flaws in this man but what he did was inexcusable. I hope he finds some type of truth and solace in his life, despite what he did. I can forgive him but I will never condone his actions as reasonable under the current circumstances. Thanks again for the post. Jon
(0)
(0)
Best check for a "Son of Sam" clause in that verdict. If not, raise hell. No idea if North Carolina law includes one or how NC views dishonorable discharges(are they a felony there). , or how that interacts with military verdicts.
(2)
(0)
COL Steph Browne
I do not believe thereis a Son of Sam provision in the UCMJ, state law does not apply, thus it is not something can be part of a court martial,sentence. Whether the charge is a felony depends on the authorized maximum sentence not the nature of any adjudged discharge.
(1)
(0)
SPC Christopher Perrien
TY Col, my mind is slightly oftrack because of pain but I will say this.
If "Son of Sam " doess not apply , Bergdal has won the lottery, becuase he will sell the movie and bok rights to his "story" for many millions and may make royaties off of any use of the same. Sad day, when some criminal(is this a deserter/traitor) is now set for life . Sad :(
For those who don't know "Son of Sam " clause , is a law that forbids people like serial killers from selling their life story or benefiting from their crimes. Many states hold that if you had a felony from a crime you cannot benefit from your crime(that is what is know as a Son of Sam clause". so it is of import if Carolina has one , if the trial puts jurisdiction in to that state or if their is something in the actual sentencing. Does not appear to be so Bergdal can benefit from his "crime"
If "Son of Sam " doess not apply , Bergdal has won the lottery, becuase he will sell the movie and bok rights to his "story" for many millions and may make royaties off of any use of the same. Sad day, when some criminal(is this a deserter/traitor) is now set for life . Sad :(
For those who don't know "Son of Sam " clause , is a law that forbids people like serial killers from selling their life story or benefiting from their crimes. Many states hold that if you had a felony from a crime you cannot benefit from your crime(that is what is know as a Son of Sam clause". so it is of import if Carolina has one , if the trial puts jurisdiction in to that state or if their is something in the actual sentencing. Does not appear to be so Bergdal can benefit from his "crime"
(0)
(0)
Colonel Nance saw 14 years and thought "Yeah, the same thing as a guy who pisses hot a few times sounds about fair enough and even with 14 years."
(2)
(0)
Didn’t he desert his unit as a Private? Giving him the rank of a NCO is “time in grade”? Being a NCO is an achievement based on a record of service and proficiency……just sayin’……..
(1)
(0)
I agree and know that. It would hav been a hard sell publically to get a different result. Though the view of the public should not be the main concern it seems that since Vietnam that public opinion is given greater emphasis. It seems telling that there was greater uproar formaking the point that he had suffered then acknowledgement of the date of true POWS state. In my opinion it is hard for me to reconcile the two. More should be done to at the very least keep others from engaging in the same actions. Keep the faith. We are better than this and the actions of a majority of soldiers,airman,marines, and seaman are a testiment to that fact.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Right, so I like that you are holistic in your thinking, that one thing affects another. But at what point do you protect the integrity of the unit about that of the individual, especially when the individual puts the unit at risk through disloyal behavior. Among the Army values, Loyalty is at the top of the list. Without it, we are a mediocre force with questionable effectiveness as a fighting unit. The psychological health and well being of the UNIT is just as important as it's technical skill and ability, for without effective moral and confidence, even the best soldiers can be beaten. We have individual standards of behavior in order to protect unit cohesiveness. We teach this through punishment of the whole for the actions of the one in Basic Training. However, at about Phase III of Basic Training, we start to transition to individual punishment. The lesson is that in battle, there will be times that when ONE person fails, the unit fails, e.g. guard duty. If the guard falls asleep, allowing the enemy to infiltrate and then kill members of the unit, ONE person's failure causes the demise of the unit. Conversely, if your battle buddy messes up by exposing himself unnecessarily during battle and then gets his head blown off, that hurts, but it doesn't necessarily seal the fate of the whole unit or mission. What Bergdahl did was an individual mistake until he was captured. At that point, he became an enemy asset. Unfound, he could be assumed dead, but there was a unit responsibility to attempt to find him, which caused unnecessary risk to unit members who wouldn't necessarily be taking those risks had Bergdahl stayed with the unit. That additional or unnecessary exposure to the enemy in the search for Bergdahl cased unnecessary deaths and injuries. Also, an assumption could be made that Bergdahl was aiding the enemy with information about unit names, sizes, strengths, capabilities, locations, tendencies, ets., all things that could get people killed. What is the VALUE of that behavior, negative value? Is the threat to the unit more or less important than the threat to one deserter? We must value the safety of the unit above the individual. Accomplishing the mission is the objective and has priority, but the SURVIVAL of the unit in order to accomplish the mission (security) is MOST important. Commanders must consider security above all else or they are INEFFECTIVE and might as well be dead. Logically, then the Army has a survival obligation to PREVENT desertion. One way to prevent it is deterrence. Harsh penalties are one way to deter the behavior. But if the behavior is not chronic, normal or usual, the punishment should fit the crime. Damage assessment should be done, and the offender punished based upon the bad things that happened due to the desertion. Soldier killed searching for him? Then manslaughter charges. Equipment and assets lost in the search? Then fines and jail time assessed. Is discharge enough or appropriate? Perhaps, perhaps not. Remember, the punishment should fit the crime. Punishment should equal damage. Each case judged on its own merit. Due process afforded. UCMJ applied. Should capital punishment be considered? Yes, if the damage or trends indicate it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next