Bergdahl faces little-known, rarely used misbehavior charge

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by lowendlinux, Apr 7, 2015.

  1. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #1
    http://www.stripes.com/news/us/bergdahl-faces-little-known-rarely-used-misbehavior-charge-1.338033

    If there is any gentleman that needs a little personal attention from a prosecutor it's this one. I do agree with his attorney that this does seem a bit of an add on but I do hope he spends a couple years in Kansas.
     
  2. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #2
    He's going to spend way more than a couple years in Kansas. I bet his gets 25-30 minimum.
     
  3. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #3
    I'd be surprised if got more than 10, 25 is much more fitting though.
     
  4. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #4
    Doubtful.

    Bergdahl spent six years in pretty horrendous conditions as a prisoner of the Taliban. That doesn't count legally as "time served" - but it obviously is going to play a part in deterring what his ultimate sentence is going to be.

    If I had to make a prediction: Bergdahl will serve little, if any, jail time. The Army is Court Martialling him because the facts showed he deserted his post. But keeping someone with obvious emotional issues, someone who - truth be told - should never have been accepted into the Army to begin with - in prison for decades serves no purpose.

    Actually: "Throwing the book" at Bergdahl would be ultimately highly counterproductive. Because it would set a dreadful precedent for future US service people who go missing under questionable circumstances. Such people would have every incentive to really turn traitor on the United States. And it would be handing enemy captors a huge weapon to turn on US troops they captured.

    Bergdahl will be less-than-honorably discharged, and forfeit rank and pay.
     
  5. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #5
    According to that MORON Susan Rice, he served with "honor and distinction." :cool:
     
  6. Scepticalscribe, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #6
    This is one of those somewhat bizarre cases where I suspect that there is a lot more than - initially - meets the eye to it.

    For one thing, especially, given how long Sgt Bergdahl has been held, there is the rather odd fact of the 'rarely used' actual charge of 'misbehaviour', rather than the more obvious one of 'desertion', which, on the face of it, would seem to be what is called for.

    However, re the actual background to this particular case, there are a number of elements that are also somewhat surprising.

    To get a sense of some of the background, it may be worth looking at is the issue of Rolling Stone magazine of June 2012, which contained a most interesting profile of Bowe Bergdahl, written by Michael Hastings. He painted a rather unsettling picture of the unit that Sgt Bergdahl served with, a unit that seemed to have been both unusually poorly trained and poorly regarded within the military.

    This is the same Michael Hastings who also wrote about drone attacks, and his reports - also in Rolling Stone - on General McChrystal's unflattering remarks about President Obama which cost General McChrystal his position as commander of the US forces in Afghanistan.

    Whatever about how and why he (Sgt Bergdahl) quit his unit, something which is still quite murky, the circumstances of his release and the exchange which enabled it are also rather opaque, deliberately so.

    My own sense is that this is one small piece of a much larger mosaic, one moreover, which may serve as a suitable distraction while other matters play out - well away from the public eye - elsewhere.
     
  7. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #7
    Keep your eyes on the pillory; pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
     
  8. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #8
    In general, I agree with your post.

    However, my understanding is that Sgt Bergdahl was held by a group known as the Haqqani Network, not the Taliban.

    They are not the Taliban; they have different chains of command, different agendas, different modus operandi, (for one thing, their attacks are usually quite a bit more sophisticated and better resourced than those mounted by the Taliban). Historically, the Haqqani network have enjoyed close, if controversial, ties with the Pakistani Military Intelligence, the ISI.

    Moreover, the five individuals whose release was secured as part of the exchange with Sgt Bergdahl included a few who were quite well respected and were thought likely to promote more moderate policies (i.e. possibly be more open to the idea of talks about talks).

    Quite a number of the more moderate Taliban (and a great many of the Haqqani network) have been assassinated in recent years in Pakistan and elsewhere.

    Moreover, Qatar was also thought to have played a role in helping to facilitate that particular exchange when it occurred.

    ----------

    Sigh.

    You are quite right, of course, and to a certain extent, that is what I think this is about.
     
  9. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #9
    Worth considering what his advocate has to say, anyway. Apparently even the Army came to the conclusion that he walked off the base to report wrongdoing and did not plan to permanently desert.

    http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/30/attorney_for_bowe_bergdahl_army_report
     
  10. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #10
    Actually, - while I accept that this is a military jurisdiction where things are done somewhat differently - I'd be surprised if some sort of plea bargain was not entered, or considered.
     
  11. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #11
    This charge is in addition to his desertion charge.

     
  12. Scepticalscribe, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #12
    Yes, but why?

    Why go to the trouble of bringing such an antiquated charge - one described by his lawyer in the link posted by mobilehaathi - as dating from 'the time of George III', when desertion is a more straightforward charge? Unless, that is, they do not intend to pursue the desertion charge?

    Again, my sense is that a lot more is happening behind the scenes here, but stuff which is not quite evident to the naked eye at this stage.

    Actually, my sense is that the Army may well feel that they have to make their point, but other elements are also in play.
     
  13. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #13
    I think its nothing more than the Army making a point.
     
  14. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #14
    But a very elaborately made one, don't you think?

    To my mind, something - odd - of this nature, begs questions. A sort of rhetorical approach, if you like.

    Questions such as why is this happening? Why is it happening now? Why is it happening this particular way - why this rather peculiar charge?

    And, what is not happening? What might be happening elsewhere that this is distracting us from paying closer attention to? And so on.
     
  15. lowendlinux thread starter Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #15
    You could be right, but with all the political eyes on this case the Army will have to keep everything above board. My gut still says that this is the Army being personal like the article says. The Army lost six soldiers searching for him while it was still thought he was captured that will anger a few leaders.
     
  16. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #16
    Let's peer a little closer and examine things with a somewhat more refined focus.

    Now, then. Did the Army actually lose six soldiers while 'looking for him'? And, more to the point, has the Pentagon actually confirmed this? Or is this statement something which is simply being asserted?

    I have already mentioned the issue of Rolling Stone which was published in June 2012; the article on Bowe Bergdahl - and it is a long one - is a rather unsettling read but worth the effort. More recently, they also seem to have had a thoughtful article on the topic which was published in late March of this years (2015), which is also worth looking at.
     
  17. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #17
    Is this the same Rolling Stone magazine that did such a wonderful job on reporting about the rape of a University of Virginia freshman?

    I wouldn't be so quick to take what they are reporting at face value.

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/12/everything-we-know-uva-rape-case.html
     
  18. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #18
    Well, as it happens, I haven't the first notion about the story about the rape of the University of Virginia freshman, and don't know a thing about the story, or how the story has been reported, and - to be honest - I have no view, thoughts or opinions on it. I'm not from the US, and much of the internal stuff that happens there is not of enormous interest to me. Are you suggesting that I read it?

    If the point of your post is to argue that publications - even respected media sources - sometimes get things wrong, or very wrong, I am not disputing that. I have seen instances where the BBC - in general an impressive news outlet, - have gotten things very wrong. Also, Al Jazeera, or The Economist (which I subscribe to) - are both excellent news sources, but sources which don't always get things right, and sometimes, indeed, get them very wrong.

    However, that does not negate the fact that quite often they get stuff right, and are thus, a bit more credible than sources which often get things wrong.

    Re Bowe Bergdahl, I do know that the RS story - written by Michael Hastings in 2012 - was very carefully researched, and I recommend it merely to highlight the fact that this is a story which is a lot murkier, and deeper than may be supposed at first glance.

    The purpose of my posts is not to defend Bowe Bergdahl, but to invite readers to use their grey matter and think a bit, and allow that this might be a much more complex matter than may at first be evident.
     
  19. mobilehaathi macrumors G3

    mobilehaathi

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Anthropocene
    #19
    Hastings? Little grey cells?
     

    Attached Files:

  20. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #20
    Yes I am.
     
  21. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #21
    And?

    I have read it. I am not disputing that reputable news sources sometimes get things very wrong, (or that disreputable sources sometimes get them right).

    What has this to do with RS's profile of Bowe Bergdahl other than it was published in the same magazine?

    The reporter, Michael Hastings, who wrote the profile of Bowe Bergdahl also wrote some other excellent stuff on the US involvement in Afghanistan, articles which broke the stories on the use of drones (a very controversial matter in Afghanistan) and he also was the person who broke the story of General McChrystal's unwise and unflattering remarks about President Obama, remarks which ultimately cost him his post as Commander of the US forces in Afghanistan.

    Therefore, while I would accept that while RS is - clearly - not a flawless or perfect source, I would also argue that when someone who was as well informed about US activities in Afghanistan as Michael Hastings evidently was, wrote a lengthy, and very well researched piece on Bowe Bergdahl, it is worth reading before arriving at a conclusion which may be somewhat hasty.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    I'll be the first one to say that the work on the UVA story is an absolute disaster, however, you can't attack all the reporting done by the magazine since its inception because of a screw up in November.

    The UVA story was written by a different reporter and while there was a huge problem in the editorial process at RS—they let themselves trust a single source—this doesn't mean that the same mistake was made with every story.

    Remember that RS wasn't shown to be lying or intentionally misrepresenting facts, but rather they trusted "Jackie." This is journalist malpractice, but far different than what results from other outlets that consistently lie or misrepresent the world.

    Rolling Stone suffers a credibility gap, however, I would argue that we'll see this kind of argument repeated because it's an easy ad hominem. Expect to see most of journalism painted with this black mark.

    And, people here should read both stories. The UVA story (and the CJR investigation) and the Bergdahl story.
     
  23. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #23
    I doubt that the military officers sitting on Bergdahl's court martial panel will give a damn about his conditions in Taliban captivity. They'll be thinking about the American soldiers who died looking for his sorry ass.
     
  24. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #24
    Maybe they will. But since the Pentagon itself has said that there is no evidence to tie the death or injury to any US servicemember directly to Bergdahl's disappearance, it seems unlikely.

    Obviously the former members of Bergdahl's unit express some anger at his desertion. However, it is also worth noting that the very unit Bergdahl deserted from had numerous reports of poor leadership and widespread violations of Army policy. So perhaps they are not the most reliable and unbiased of sources.
     
  25. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #25
    After the braggadocio of that Rose Garden ceremony and Susan Rice lauding Bergdahl's "honorable service," it's no surprise that Obama's flacks in the Pentagon are diminishing the cost in American lives caused by Bergdahl.

    That's a load of crap from Bergdahl's defensive team. There were no "reports of poor leadership" and Bergdahl's unit was due to rotate back to a large FOB for some R & R two days after he disappeared.
     

Share This Page