Bo Bergdahl

[SDBoiler1]

I wondered what ever became of this guy and his story. Looks like the Army wants to courtmartial him but Obama doesn't want this to come out? What say the board?

P.S. Lefties - Please don't comment about the source. I've seen no other coverage of this story in the Main Stream Media or liberal internet sites.

This post was edited on 1/27 9:10 AM by SDBoiler1

Desertion Cover Up?

 

[qazplm]

if he had been charged

it would be in the news. The PAO would release a statement. There's a process, a public Article 32 hearing. It might be closed for secret parts, but the existence of the hearing would not be.

There would likely if not guaranteed to be a civilian defense counsel on the case, who would immediately turn to the media.

So no, the President has no control over whether it "comes out" that Bergdahl is charged.

And, while it's possible he was charged without my knowledge, given my job, I'd know pretty early on if charges were preferred.

And the link included shows another "expert" says he has heard he won't be charged.

I have no idea if he will or won't. These folks likely don't either. The process is kept fairly tight until the decision has been made.

This post was edited on 1/27 9:37 AM by qazplm

one Fox "expert" disagrees with another

 

[qazplm]

I will say

that now I'm hearing as well that it's going to happen.

But the question of the OP was about "Obama wanting it hidden" and that remains ridiculous.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: I will say

I don't think there's any question that Obama would prefer he not be charged or want it hidden if he was, but it's not realistic that it would be possible to keep it hidden, nor would I expect the President to put out some sort of gag order on it. He would rather Bergdahl be an upstanding soldier who did his duty right in line with the Army's expectations who he swooped in and saved from the clutches of the evil terrorists. That narrative sounds a lot better than, "we exchanged five Taliban terrorists for one Army deserter."

 

[Noodle]

But that begs the question...


why did the administration make the swap? Do we even know if Bergdahl wanted to be "rescued"? Something has never smelled right about this whole story, as it seemed pretty clear at the time the exchange was made that Bergdahl was indeed a deserter. I still think there is a lot more to this than anyone of us know.

 

[qazplm]

Re: But that begs the question...

I'm pretty sure he wanted to be rescued. There is no evidence he left for any reason other than the other times he went on a "walkabout" prior to this and then returned. It's why if he's charged with desertion, it's likely not going to be "with intent to remain away permanently" but instead simply "to shirk hazardous or important service" aka AWOL-Plus.

There is more than one type of deserter, and there is nothing to suggest that he "left to join the Taliban" based on history of leaving bases in the past, and the Taliban usually fetes those people. Look at this guy, he gets it. He left to come join us. That ain't what happened.

He did something really stupid, like he'd done before, only this time, got caught. It's really pretty simple I think, and I would be very surprised if it's anything more than that.

As for why make the swap? Because they likely knew that there was no evidence he joined the Taliban. They knew about his history, and they knew it was likely he just did something stupid, got caught, and then paid a wholly disproportional price for it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: But that begs the question...

Originally posted by qazplm:

He did something really stupid, like he'd done before, only this time, got caught. It's really pretty simple I think, and I would be very surprised if it's anything more than that.

As for why make the swap? Because they likely knew that there was no evidence he joined the Taliban. They knew about his history, and they knew it was likely he just did something stupid, got caught, and then paid a wholly disproportional price for it.

Pretty much this. The swap was made because even if he's a deserter or AWOL-plus, he's still a human life. I'd expect most Democrats would be more willing to make an exchange like this than a Republican or John McCain, for example. I disagreed with making the swap, but not because of the circumstances of Bergdahl's capture specifically. I disagreed with it because it's a really, really bad precedent to set/reinforce.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Re: But that begs the question...


What gets me about this whole story is that 6 other soldiers died looking for this POS while he was out "trying to find himself". Certainly, this part of the story had to be weighed in his courtmartial, right? I think you're right that this seems to be AWOL-Plus. He should spend many years behind bars due to his callous disregard for his fellow soldiers.

Bergdahl the Deserter

 

[qazplm]

not sure there's a real precedent here

this isn't the first time we've exchanged a prisoner for someone held by a similar organization, although it may be the first one involving a Soldier.

I also don't think not exchanging for him would have had much of an effect on future situations where we are actively fighting orgs like the Taliban as far as one of our Soldiers getting captured.

At the end of the day, I do agree that it was pretty much as simple as we want him back, and this is what we are willing to pay for him.

 

[qazplm]

there's a bit of controversy

tied to whether those folks actually did die "while" actively searching for Bergdahl.

Regardless, I don't think Bergdahl intended or thought that folks would come looking for him, or that anyone would die.

He spent a long time in conditions much, much worse than he would face in prison. I don't think he should spend "many years" behind bars, and legally, I don't think the panel will be allowed to consider the "6 soldiers who died" both because of causal link issues, and because I don't think the evidence will be rock solid that they were actively searching for him when they died.

I would be more surprised if he got any confinement at all, than if he got none, and extra surprised if he got "many years."

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: not sure there's a real precedent here

Originally posted by qazplm:

... although it may be the first one involving a Soldier.

This is what I was getting at. We made a deal with an NGO to get back a Soldier. Now, we can discuss to death why we would play by Geneva Convention rules when clearly the Taliban do not/would not, so maybe that factors in. That said, we all know the potential price when we sign up.

If I were in his shoes, I would want a deal made on my behalf, but I'd feel better if the SEALs came in and rescued me...

 

[qazplm]

well they tried that IIRC

and unfortunately it didn't work.

I also think there was some thought that he might die in captivity, and I think that changes the calculus somewhat.

At the end of the day, the military had/has free reign, without interference from the WH, to proceed as they see fit.
Yet some folks still can't abide that somehow, someway this can't be used as "Obama bad."

 

[Purdue97]

A few things

"Certainly, this part of the story had to be weighed in his courtmartial, right?"

Not sure if this was a typo or not, but this implies he already had a court martial. Unless I have just been completely out of the loop on this he did not have his court martial yet, and whether or not he is charged will determine if he has one.

Soldiers from his platoon and company and AO are adamant that(1-9)-

1) Patrols and operations did take place where the operation allegedly was to find him
2) On these patrols they ran into villagers and herders(non Taliban) that said an American had been in the area, unarmed, looking for the Taliban
3) Soldiers died on these patrols/operations
4) Anecdotally, ambushes of convoys and IEDs increased and were much more accurate in their fire
5) Special operations personnel and other assets were relocated to operate where intel thought he was
7) FOB Keating was delayed in its closing to find him and another 6-10 people from that base died in that time period during a major attack on the base
8) Bergdahl did desert his post
9) He talked of walking to Pakistan and/or India and wrote some pretty damning emails in concern to CoC, and in favor of Taliban.
10) he says he tried to escape which helps his case immensely

Really only 8 and 9 are known to be true and could stand at a court martial. That is why he is guilty. 10 if true helps him out a lot in terms of a lesser sentence.

I personally think 1-7 are true to a certain extent as well. The issue is that they all occurred during prime fighting season in Afghanistan and like were going to happen anyway. In other words, I think 1-7 did happen, but patrols, ambushes, fighting, and increased IEDs are a foregone conclusion during late spring to fall there. Closure of forward operating bases being delayed, special operations assets being reallocated, happen all the time. Was it due specifically to Bergdahl? Maybe, maybe not-almost impossible to prove.

For him to be held accountable for a death of one of those soldiers on patrol or for the battle at Base Keating (sp) there would have to be some detailed testimony or emails stating that the reason for this specific patrol or the reason the base is not closing is due to looking for Bergdahl. I would think a paper trail for this would be unlikely as the CoC knew he deserted and if it was known special missions, additional missions, and delaying of a base being closed to support those missions would have caused a serious morale issue/uproar. That is just my 2 cents.

Also, would ad that I think the COC is at fault here. People knew the soldier was disillusioned about taliban/Afghanistan and had walked off base before. No way would a soldier like this stay in my unit.




This post was edited on 1/27 11:43 PM by Purdue97

 

[Purdue97]

I disagree with that last part

Hey he is an American, we want him back. I get it.

As far as this making Obama look bad, that is easy enough to do. In no way should bergdahl's parents been at the White House, especially after they had kind words for Afghnis/Taliban. Bergdahl deserted for God sake.

Also, the Gitmo Five, reportedly have already had visits in Qatar from Afghani Taliban.

This does not look good for Obama. Sorry.

 

[qazplm]

so

somehow:

having parents at the WH
and the Gitmo folks having visits

equals Obama looks bad.

Got it.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: so

"30 inches of snow?! Thanks Obama!"

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: well they tried that IIRC

Originally posted by qazplm:
and unfortunately it didn't work.

You're thinking of the two ISIS captives who were executed. We never went after Bergdahl.

 

[Purdue97]

My points on this

-I understand getting Bergdahl back, I really do.

-That said, under these circumstances(desertion), in no way shape or form would I have been having a public announcement at the White House, with his parents. Especially after his dad let his beliefs be known. I mena that makes no sense. Lets honor a deserter.

-In addition to that, the Gitmo Five is a a pretty powerful group of people that is already meeting with other Afghani/Taliban/Al Qaeda leaders in Qatar. I am guessing these guys are not sitting together singing Let There Be Peace on Earth. This after claims by media that they were low level and not well connected, out of the loop people.

So, sure, I can understand how this is a black mark on the administration. I can fully understand how you and Gr8 do not. For me, I would just want to move past this as quickly as possible if I were Obama and the military.



This post was edited on 1/27 10:38 PM by Purdue97

 

[Purdue97]

Re: I will say

Oh trust me, the gag order went around. Widely known that troops in his unit were told to shut up about it. Period.

Now who originated that order who really knows?

Unfortunately for the Admin and Army, they talked.

This post was edited on 1/28 1:52 AM by Purdue97

 

[Purdue97]

Re: But that begs the question...

I think your post is why this needs to go to court martial to actually find out all of what you talk about.

There are a lot of guys in his platoon, along with emails to family, that really indicate he was looking to find members of the Taliban, and wanted to head out towards western Pakistan. That was more than a dumb walkabout by himself decision.

I was not directly part of RC-E it at the time, although I was in RCE territory quite a bit anyway, and unofficial word was all units in RCE were looking for Bergdahl. If this is true and there is hard evidence of it-do you think he could be charged as some sort of accomplice in the deaths of the soldiers that were killed looking for him? Just looking for JAG thoughts. I really do not know if that is even possible? As I posted below that would be hard to prove a death happened solely on his desertion.

At this point, I am for charging him as a deserter, let him out with an "other than honorable discharge"-make sure he has VA medical benefits, give him his GI Bill, and call it a day. Why? I read the Coast Guard discharged him and it was not specific but psyche reasons were involved. Make sure he is getting care and evaluated. With his GI Bill he can get a good education/skill set and support himself.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: My points on this

I didn't say it wasn't a black mark. I was opposed to it when they did it, and opposed to it now, glad the kid is alive, but hope he is charged if he deserves it. Obama doesn't want that, I am certain,

 

[Purdue97]

Re: My points on this

Fair enough. I was not sure how to interpret your comment below about blaming Obama for the snow as it related to this.

 

[qazplm]

actually

I was thinking of the fact that the SF found Bergdahl.

I thought they tried to save him but missed him, but they actually decided not to risk it.

link

 

[qazplm]

"widely known"

so they were ordered not to talk about it, but did anyways, openly?

I don't think so.

 

[qazplm]

not remotely

1. I've seen no evidence that he was "looking for the Taliban."
2. I have seen evidence that he had a history of leaving the wire or bases without authority and then coming back. IIRC, he did it at least twice before.
3. Saying, while you are out patrolling and doing missions keep an eye out for Bergdahl is not the same thing as "this is a mission to go look for Bergdahl." Thus, I see no link between the folks who were unfortunately killed, and Bergdahl's decision to leave.
4. Accomplice? No. There is zero evidence that he in any way even knew about the people killed, that he helped them die, or even evidence that the folks who did the killing even knew Bergdahl existed.
5. His mental health issues combined with his punishment are powerful extenuation and mitigation evidence. He's going to be tried I believe at Fort Sam Houston, a place where the court-martial panel will be filled with healthcare workers (doctors, nurses, etc)...it certainly won't have many combat arms folks. I would be surprised if that leads to them not fully considering his 5 years of torture and his mental health in any conviction/sentence.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: actually

Yeah, either way I didn't think we actually undertook that mission...

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: My points on this

Originally posted by Purdue97:
Fair enough. I was not sure how to interpret your comment below about blaming Obama for the snow as it related to this.

Because many conservatives blame Obama for everything, just like many liberals blamed Bush for everything. No matter what, "Obama BAD!" I just poke fun at it because it's silly both ways.

 

[Purdue97]

Re: "widely known"

Well, considering the fact that the guys that were given the gag order were in his unit, and they were the soldiers that were in the media, both tv and print talking about it, yes.

 

[Purdue97]

Ok thanks

I see time served as being a captive as his sentence enough.

To play devils advocate, I see your point about doctors and nurses at Fort Sm Houston being on the panel. One way it could backfire is if soldiers down there rehabbing or were reassigned to desk jobs from combat arms get on the panel. They might have more of an axe to grind.

 

[qazplm]

they were given an order

you think they were given an order, openly disobeyed it, and nothing was done?

 

[Purdue97]

Re: they were given an order

I was not in his unit. That unit sounds like it had a lot of problems on many fronts. The word around Regional Command East was these soldiers signed non disclosure agreements in regard to anything related to Bergdahl.

Here is an article that granted it is from the washington examiner, but it does directly quote CNN reporter and soldiers from Bergdahls unit. A quick google search brings up a ton more articles. The article from the washexaminer isdated today but the cnn link is from 7 months ago.

Here you go

 

[BoilerMadness]

Seriously?

"So no, the President has no control over whether it "comes out" that Bergdahl is charged"

You're in the Army and you can say that with a straight face? Really?

The President calls the General overseeing the case and suggests that it would be a good idea, if the case were put on the back burner for 6 months to a year, and the General is going to say, "Hell NO, full speed ahead". I don't think so. The General may voice a minor objection, but he'll do what he's told.

Obama's lack of knowledge about the Army caused him to have the touching meeting with Bergdahl's parents in the rose garden, which led to the embarrassment he's going to face, when charges are brought. He couldn't have screwed that up any more, if he intended to do it.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Re: they were given an order

Originally posted by qazplm:
you think they were given an order, openly disobeyed it, and nothing was done?

I saw an interview on TV with a couple of the guys, that were in his unit. I was under the impression, that they were no longer in the Army.