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
Maybe a talk show.....The Missdventures of Tranny and Coward....Two former Army losers.
(2)
(1)
LCDR (Join to see)
Your "tranny" comment is unnecessary and prejudicial. There are transgendered people serving honorably in the military right now, and they don't deserve the disrespect.
(0)
(0)
Some dick will ghost write a book and make this idiot the champion of the left and a huge check. HE BELONGS IN JAIL
(1)
(0)
Understand that he spent time in captivity and they were brutal conditions. He experienced this because he CHOSE to leave his post. He should have spent some more time as a guest of the government. I get it that he gets a dishonorable discharge but, too lenient in my view. In WW 2, he could have been shot.
(1)
(0)
The President is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. His public comments amounted to command influence of the legal process and he had no place in even suggesting a sentence and he should have let justice take it's course. The judge did not abdicate his duties, he knew that the President's comments had a negative effect on the sentencing and had he sentenced the Sgt. to life in prison, it probably would have been overturned. We'd like to scream "liberal" till our heads fall off, but in the end, the blame falls squarely on President Trump for his attempting to undermine the military justice process, and the judge , as well as the unbiased public understood this.
(1)
(0)
SSgt John Carter
I'm referring to the comment President Trump made after the guilty plea which stated Bergdahl should be shit for treason. Please, go away with that mess, you Trump zombies refuse to acknowledge anything he does or says and blame everything on Hillary or Obama. WHEN he's impeached you'll call it an Obama conspiracy
You people are mentally ill and dangerous to yourselves and the nation. Conversation closed.
You people are mentally ill and dangerous to yourselves and the nation. Conversation closed.
(0)
(0)
SPC Christopher Perrien
Mr Trump has always been inclined to bombastic statements. did not order it or project influence on any of the adjacency., though bad form. did he get shot? Hardly . Can't shoot for desertion if no war anyway.
Not as bad as "If I had a son " against a civilian in a murder trial by a president with a supposed degree in constitutional law.
Both instances would be ground for appeal, however in Bergdahl's case it would not have altered any appeal in the case IMO, just drug it out more for nothing.
Not as bad as "If I had a son " against a civilian in a murder trial by a president with a supposed degree in constitutional law.
Both instances would be ground for appeal, however in Bergdahl's case it would not have altered any appeal in the case IMO, just drug it out more for nothing.
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
President Trump, as President, only ever said everyone knows what he said as a candidate. Big difference. Obama claimed Bergdahl had served "honorably," knowing full well Bergdahl had NOT served honorably, but had deserted his unit in time of war. Obama traded five taliban LEADERS for a private in the United States Army - unprecedented and unheard of. Obama paraded Bergdahl's father and mother before the nation in the Rose Garden of the White House, allowed the father to praise Allah in Arabic on national TV, and treated the mother as if she were his girlfriend. Undue influence? Which way, and why?
(0)
(0)
The precedent set was the commander in chief opening his big mouth about Bergdahl. I have read the judge took those into account too so perhaps he ruled the way he did to avoid an appeal later on.
Also there are five people on death row in Leavenworth...the military hasn't executed anyone since 1961 I believe is what I read. So even if he got death he would have just sat there until he died of old age.
Also there are five people on death row in Leavenworth...the military hasn't executed anyone since 1961 I believe is what I read. So even if he got death he would have just sat there until he died of old age.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
If you’re referring to President Trump, what exactly did he say as President that amounted to undue influence? I do know that President Obama’s creates significant undue influence when he traded five Taliban leaders for Bergdahl’s, praised his service as honorable, and showcased his Arabic-speaking father and pawed his mother in the Rose Garden of the White House! Bergdahl admitted to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. Obama’s lied. Undue influence? All in Bergdahl’s favor.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - I was responding to people talking about the death penalty and pointing out that the military doesn't put people to death often. If he had been facing it and gotten that punishment he'd just spend years on death row with the others.
(1)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
MAJ Montgomery Granger - When he reiterated his comments from the campaign trail that he felt Bergdahl is a traitor. That was undue command influence and I have read the judge took those comments into account.
No Pres Obama didn't create undue command influence when they traded those five for him. How is that undue influence?
Odd here's the statement Obama made when Bergdahl was coming home and not once is the word hero found in that statement: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/31/statement-president-release-sergeant-bowe-bergdahl
That's because he didn't say it. His national security advisor Susan Rice is the one that said Bergdhal served with "honor and distinction." A statement that the WH press secretary declined to endorse after she said it.
So please show me again the undue command influence when all Obama did was bring a servicemember home. That's all he said he did is that we don't leave anyone behind. He didn't call him a hero. He didn't praise anyone. Read the statement. And what do you mean "pawed" his mother? Where did Obama lie about Bergdahl?
Trump needs to keep his mouth shut and not tweet everything or say what's on his mind immediately. That's a fact. Even ardent Trump supporters admit that.
No Pres Obama didn't create undue command influence when they traded those five for him. How is that undue influence?
Odd here's the statement Obama made when Bergdahl was coming home and not once is the word hero found in that statement: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/31/statement-president-release-sergeant-bowe-bergdahl
That's because he didn't say it. His national security advisor Susan Rice is the one that said Bergdhal served with "honor and distinction." A statement that the WH press secretary declined to endorse after she said it.
So please show me again the undue command influence when all Obama did was bring a servicemember home. That's all he said he did is that we don't leave anyone behind. He didn't call him a hero. He didn't praise anyone. Read the statement. And what do you mean "pawed" his mother? Where did Obama lie about Bergdahl?
Trump needs to keep his mouth shut and not tweet everything or say what's on his mind immediately. That's a fact. Even ardent Trump supporters admit that.
Statement by the President on the Release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl
Rose Garden 6:16 P.M. EDT
(0)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
SFC (Join to see) - You are wrong. And I never said Obama called Bergdahl a "hero." I said he was referred to has having served "honorably" by the Obama Administration, which was a lie, and you know it. Everyone knew it at the time. President Trump did not reiterate his comments from the campaign, he referred to them but did not repeat them. Trading five Taliban LEADERS is absolutely undue influence. Along with the false statement about Bergdahl's "honorable" service, exchanges between countries for prisoners are almost always equal trades. Showing that Bergdahl was as valuable or important as five Taliban leaders was falsely assimilating Bergdahl's value with enemy leaders.
(1)
(0)
I can understand the anger surrounding this, but I hold a different perspective. Had he got locked up, we would have to pay for his clothing, housing, education, security, and health care for the entire time he was in prison. At least this way, in 10 months, we don't have to pay for him anymore. This guy is a nobody and really not worth the cost of keeping him in jail. What he did was wrong. No question. But how much money are we willing to dump into him? For every dollar spent to keep him in jail is a dollar not being spent on weapons, ammo, food, and so on. Every cent we spend on him is a BB status on a requisition or a deadlined piece of equipment. I would much rather this outcome and spend the money on good troops who don't walk off.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Thank you for your comment, SGT. I respectfully feel that values and ethics are more important in this case. We have a warrior code, Army Values, UCMJ, SOP, rules, regulations, guidelines and FM's. If we ignore them or make up our own there are consequences. I believe the best way to save money on this would be the death penalty. I know that sounds harsh, but I believe that is the punishment that fits the crime, especially considering the consequences suffered by innocent personnel because of Bergdahl's actions. Again, thank you for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know how you feel about it.
(0)
(0)
COL Steph Browne
MAJ Granger, I respect that you feel strongly on this issue. You should, however, deal with the situation as it actually existed, not as you might have wished it to be. The death penalty was never an option for the charges brought. COL Nance was required by the UCMJ to sentence the accused only for the crimes of which he was adjudged guilty and based only upon evidence admitted in court. He did that. End of story.
(0)
(0)
Definitely was shocked in the decision, and wondering now what is the purpose of the UCMJ if we’re not going to follow through with the justice that is deserved in this matter “ Death seems fair for him”
(1)
(0)
I agree with you 100% MAJ Montgomery Granger,
I also feel that Col. Jeffery Nance didn't do his job to the best of his ability. He didn't follow the laws and rules of the UCMJ. There is a lot missing with this case and it is because of politics and save face with the higher ups involved. I feel that the judge has signed Burgdahl's death warrant with his sentencing.
I also feel that Col. Jeffery Nance didn't do his job to the best of his ability. He didn't follow the laws and rules of the UCMJ. There is a lot missing with this case and it is because of politics and save face with the higher ups involved. I feel that the judge has signed Burgdahl's death warrant with his sentencing.
(1)
(0)
COL Steph Browne
SGT Lester, you are off base. COL Nance did do his job and he did it well. He followed the UCMJ as he is tasked to do. That you disagree with the outcome does not mean the MJ failed to carry out his duties. COL Nance faced a difficult task in fashioning an appropriate sentence. No matter what he decided, he faced blowback from those who hold strong opinions but do not know the UCMJ nor the difficulty inherent in fashioning a sentence. A little “walk a mile in his shoes”might be appropriate before throwing brick bats.
(0)
(0)
I thought the convening authority had to a prove the sentence? The judge is not the convening authority.
(1)
(0)
PO3 John Jeter
The guilty plea before a judge only (vs a panel) establishes guilt and allows the judge to assess the punishment. I believe the convening authority has a review obligation, but I'm not a lawyer.
(0)
(0)
COL Steph Browne
It is the accused’d decision whether to be sentenced by the MJ alone or by a panel after a guilty plea. Here, the accused picked sentencing by the MJ. The Convening authority must approve the adjudged sentence but he/she may not increase the adjudged sentence.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next