Bowe Bergdahl, once missing U.S. soldier, charged with desertion

Here is the UCMJ for those who are interested -

Uniform Code of Military Justice

History

History On 30 June 1775, the Second Continental Congress established 69 Articles of War to govern the conduct of the Continental Army.

Effective upon its ratification in 1789, Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution provided that Congress has the power to regulate the land and naval forces. On 10 April 1806, the United States Congress enacted 101 Articles of War (which applied to both the Army and the Navy), which were not significantly revised until over a century later. The military justice system continued to operate under the Articles of War until 31 May 1951, when the Uniform Code of Military Justice went into effect.

The UCMJ was passed by Congress on 5 May 1950, signed into law by President Harry S. Truman, and became effective on 31 May 1951. The word Uniform in the Code’s title refers to the congressional intent to make military justice uniform or consistent among the armed services.

The current version is printed in the latest version of the Manual for Courts-Martial (2008), incorporating changes made by the President (executive orders) and National Defense Authorization Acts of 2006 and 2007.

and

About

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, 64 Stat. 109, 10 U.S.C. Chapter 47), is the foundation of military law in the United States. The UCMJ applies to all members of the Uniformed services of the United States: the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Navy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Corps, and Public Health Service Commissioned Corps. The Coast Guard is administered under Title 14 of the United States Code when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy. However, commissioned members of the NOAA and PHS are only subject to the UCMJ when attached or detailed to a military unit or are militarized by presidential executive order.

Members of the military Reserve Components under Title 10 of the United States Code (Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Forces Reserve, and Air Force Reserve) or Title 14 of the United States Code, Coast Guard Reserve when not operating as part of the U.S. Navy, are subject to the UCMJ if they are either (a) active duty Full-Time Support personnel such as FTS or Active Guard and Reserve (AGR), or (b) traditional part-time reservists performing either (a) full-time active duty for a specific period (i.e., Annual Training, Active Duty for Training, Active Duty for Operational Support, Active Duty Special Work, One Year Recall, Three Year Recall, Canvasser Recruiter, Mobilization, etc.), or (b) performing Inactive Duty (i.e. Inactive Duty Training, Inactive Duty Travel and Training, Unit Training Assembly, Additional Training Periods, Additional Flying Training Periods, Reserve Management Periods, etc., all of which are colloquially known as “drills”).

Soldiers and airmen in the National Guard of the United States are subject to the UCMJ only if activated in a Federal capacity under Title 10 by an executive order issued by the President. Otherwise, members of the National Guard of the United States are exempt from the UCMJ. However, under Title 32 orders, National Guard soldiers are still subject to their respective state codes of Military justice.

Cadets and midshipmen at the United States Military Academy, United States Naval Academy, United States Air Force Academy, United States Merchant Marine Academy, and United States Coast Guard Academy are also subject to the UCMJ. On the other hand, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) cadets and midshipmen are by law exempt from the UCMJ (even while on active duty for training such as CTLT, LTC, LDAC, or while attending various training schools such as Airborne School, Air Assault School, Mountain Warfare School, etc.).

Members of military auxiliaries such as the Civil Air Patrol and the Coast Guard Auxiliary are not subject to the UCMJ, even when participating in missions assigned by the military or other branches of government. However, members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary can be called by the Commandant of the Coast Guard into the Temporary Reserve, in which case they become subject to the UCMJ.

Retired members of the uniformed services who are entitled to retirement pay are also subject to the UCMJ, as are retired reservists who are receiving hospital care in the VA system.

Here is the Federal Law codifying the UCMJ -
10 USC 47

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
From the news report there will be no death penalty pursued.

this is making me wonder if a deal has already been made, and the article 32 hearing is just to bring it out.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Sremmos80
Please show me one example of this idea of the UCMJ superseding the bill of rights

And Obama claiming he didn't know the law doesn't fly.
He knew it.

He probably heard about it in the news......

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh well, that makes it all better doesn't it! Case dismissed, lets execute the bastard!

Unfrigginbelievable.

youtu.be...

a reply to: Kryties

Here, I will be blunt.. for the sake of everyone else here, because that is what I am.


I wouldn't kill him. I would just beat him. His actions, cowardly actions, resulted in brothers dying while trying to find him.

Don't need lethal injection. Don't need bullets. I was trained in phlebotomy and I have my hands and imagination.

But....I do find it amusing that you parade around in some fake manner, with your faux concern and all for the Rights of a US Military member.

Guess you must self identify with him, and also think that some Rights are of your persuasion while others aren't. And the absolute kicker with all of this..........wait for it................................wait...........................You aren't even a US citizen. You don't even have any of these Rights.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Sremmos80

I will ask again...does the service member retain the right to free speech while serving?

Are you done splitting hairs and grasping at straws?

That is not my point and you know it.

But the answer is yes and no, if some one wanted to push it far enough they do.
The simple answer is no.

Does that mean that since one is reduced that all of them are gone?

a reply to: Kryties

I'm not sure what your problem is. The man committed a crime. It doesn't sound like legal proceedings will look for the death penalty. So we won't be taking him out back and putting a bullet in him. He clearly committed a capital offense. He needs to pay for that.

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: Vasa Croe

Oh well, that makes it all better doesn't it! Case dismissed, lets execute the bastard!

Unfrigginbelievable.

Yeah...a written admission to desertion to the enemy...

What...you think someone else wrote the letter and it's a conspiracy?

a reply to: Sremmos80

So, no the military member while serving does not have the right to free speech.

Now, does the military member, while in active service, have the right to bear arms?

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
He probably heard about it in the news......

He had spoken about the law previous to his breaking it.

Washington Times - House Rebukes Obama over Bergdahl Taliban exchange

In the Bergdahl case, Mr. Obama had previously issued a statement questioning the legality of the defense policy law that required 30 days’ notice for releasing prisoners.

Democrats said that was a signal to Congress that Mr. Obama might not follow the law as written.

a reply to: macman

No...it's his. But why was he there? His fellow soldiers knew he was a loon. Why wasn't it formally addressed and dealt with? He didn't have the trust and confidence of his fellow soldiers and yet a decision was made to put him on duty. He walked away, he owns that. But obviously there was enough going on that his fellow servicmen knew it was bull#. But his C.O. didn't?

I didn't think some of you cared for military members in the least bit, which makes this somewhat ironic.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Vasa Croe
He probably heard about it in the news......

He had spoken about the law previous to his breaking it.

Washington Times - House Rebukes Obama over Bergdahl Taliban exchange

In the Bergdahl case, Mr. Obama had previously issued a statement questioning the legality of the defense policy law that required 30 days’ notice for releasing prisoners.

Democrats said that was a signal to Congress that Mr. Obama might not follow the law as written.

Wonder if he asked under his breath if it was ok to trade with terrorists too.

This administration is so backwards it kills me.

If he's found guilty...put him in Gitmo; Ironic Obamaesque justice.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: macman

No...it's his. But why was he there? His fellow soldiers knew he was a loon. Why wasn't it formally addressed and dealt with? He didn't have the trust and confidence of his fellow soldiers and yet a decision was made to put him on duty. He walked away, he owns that. But obviously there was enough going on that his fellow servicmen knew it was bull#. But his C.O. didn't?

I am sure they all knew, but hand holding isn't exactly top priority in a combat situation in hostile territory.

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Kryties

I wouldn't kill him. I would just beat him. His actions, cowardly actions, resulted in brothers dying while trying to find him.

Yes, yes. I am well aware of your violent tendencies from other threads. I have no desire to see you flex your muscles and act all tough yet again, I was thoroughly disgusted the last few times you did.

a reply to: kosmicjack

I served with a kid that didn't want to bath....I mean at all. The kid was a grease factory. Doesn't mean that he is not fit for duty.

If the military removed everyone that was a "loon" from performing their duties, it would be chaos.

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: macman

No...it's his. But why was he there? His fellow soldiers knew he was a loon. Why wasn't it formally addressed and dealt with? He didn't have the trust and confidence of his fellow soldiers and yet a decision was made to put him on duty. He walked away, he owns that. But obviously there was enough going on that his fellow servicmen knew it was bull#. But his C.O. didn't?

Same goes for Nidal Malik Hasan, they knew he had issues, but we have the PC military now.

a reply to: macman

Ok guy, keep dancing around and beating around the bush.
We are done, the UCMJ does not supersede the Constitution, end of story can't be argued.



He had the right to a trial, by both sets of laws, and is now getting that.
Barry made a bunk deal no doubt but in the eyes of both those sets of laws the man was innocent.