Bergdahl Sentencing: No Prison Time, Dishonorable Discharge

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Kapusta

When will the time be “right” for your revelation then? Do we have some sort of time frame or just the ambiguous cryptic statements?

I’d be pretty careful with the “all of you” type assertions you’re making. Not “all” of us are doing anything.

Don't wait on me go do your own research . Savvy?

This is a disgrace.

Should stick his shiny mug on milk cartons so everybody he interacts with can recognise him.

a reply to: Kapusta

So....”never.”

All ya had to say. Savvy?

The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

originally posted by: face23785
The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

Maybe the judge was influenced by what Obama said and did, rather than what Trump said.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: face23785
The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

Maybe the judge was influenced by what Obama said and did, rather than what Trump said.

That's certainly possible too. My point is he acknowledged not being objective. Isn't there some ethical requirement for him to recuse or something?

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: face23785
The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

Maybe the judge was influenced by what Obama said and did, rather than what Trump said.

That's certainly possible too. My point is he acknowledged not being objective. Isn't there some ethical requirement for him to recuse or something?

Any military judge would have the same problem as this judge. Trump is the problem not this one judge in this case.

a reply to: face23785

Well, he's a two-faced liar then. He said previously that Trump's criticism would not affect the outcome, so if he is saying now that he was influenced, we have a problem....or, rather, the military courts have a problem.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: face23785
The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

Maybe the judge was influenced by what Obama said and did, rather than what Trump said.

That's certainly possible too. My point is he acknowledged not being objective. Isn't there some ethical requirement for him to recuse or something?

Any military judge would have the same problem as this judge. Trump is the problem not this one judge in this case.

I have a hard time believing every military judge is afraid of reprisal from the President if they gave a fair sentence.

a reply to: Kapusta

No it isn't. Read what I actually said. It's irrelevant to the case. He was charged with Desertion and Misconduct in the face of the enemy. The misconduct charge states that he put others at risk as a result of his actions.

And if you read the Pentagon reports, they couldn't confirm whether anyone was killed as a direct result of his actions.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: face23785
The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

Maybe the judge was influenced by what Obama said and did, rather than what Trump said.

That's certainly possible too. My point is he acknowledged not being objective. Isn't there some ethical requirement for him to recuse or something?

Any military judge would have the same problem as this judge. Trump is the problem not this one judge in this case.

I have a hard time believing every military judge is afraid of reprisal from the President if they gave a fair sentence.

Trump is in EVERY SINGLE military members chain of command. So every member of the military is under the influence of statements from the president. This issue isnt about a single judge but Trump's statements.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Kapusta

No it isn't. Read what I actually said. It's irrelevant to the case. He was charged with Desertion and Misconduct in the face of the enemy. The misconduct charge states that he put others at risk as a result of his actions.

And if you read the Pentagon reports, they couldn't confirm whether anyone was killed as a direct result of his actions.

It's relevant here on ATS as the OP makes the claims that soilders died as a result of bowe desertion. Do you support the the OP claim ?. If the Pentagon can't confirm it nor can the military reports then why is it ok for OP to assert his claim here ?

a reply to: Kapusta

My father knew four or five B-52 crew members that died on missions they weren't supposed to be on. In at least one case it was because the crew member he was replacing did something stupid and got hurt. His replacement died as a result of his actions, but not as a direct result of them.

Soldiers were injured as a direct result of his actions, but we don't know how many were later killed on missions that he should have been on instead. That's why they can't confirm whether any soldiers were killed as a result of his actions. Would some have been doing other things and not on the patrol where they were killed? Maybe, hell I'll go so far as to say probably. But we don't know for certain, because he was no longer there. So it can be said that yes, some soldiers may have, or even probably did die as a result of his actions. But not as a direct result of them. They weren't killed searching for him, but by being on patrols that they might not have been on otherwise.

The Pentagon can't come out and say that though, because they deal in certainty, and it might have influenced the case. So they're going to say that they can't confirm if some did.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: face23785
The judge straight up admitted he had been influenced by the President. If he felt he could no longer be objective, surely there's some legal requirement for him to step away from the case and let another judge rule on the sentence. If you don't think the President should be trying to influence cases, surely you would agree that judges should resist any such attempts at influence and try to rule like the President didn't say anything. Ruling the complete opposite of what the President said is just as bad as if he had given the max sentence possible in line with what the President said.

Maybe the judge was influenced by what Obama said and did, rather than what Trump said.

That's certainly possible too. My point is he acknowledged not being objective. Isn't there some ethical requirement for him to recuse or something?

Any military judge would have the same problem as this judge. Trump is the problem not this one judge in this case.

I have a hard time believing every military judge is afraid of reprisal from the President if they gave a fair sentence.

Trump is in EVERY SINGLE military members chain of command. So every member of the military is under the influence of statements from the president. This issue isnt about a single judge but Trump's statements.

I'm well aware of that, having been in the military myself. If the President made a campaign statement or a tweet about how I was supposed to do my job it would have zero bearing on how I did it. I have a hard time believing there's no judge in the military with that kind of integrity.

I was under the impression that dishonorable discharge meant you were basically fired from the military. No rank, no pay/salary, no benefits etc. Why then a demotion in rank? And this:

Fort Bragg, North Carolina (CNN) — Bowe Bergdahl received a dishonorable discharge from the US Army, but will avoid prison time for desertion and misbehavior before the enemy after abandoning his outpost in Afghanistan in 2009, a military judge ruled Friday.

The judge ordered that Bergdahl's rank be reduced from sergeant to private. Additionally, Bergdahl will be required to pay a $1,000 fine from his salary for the next 10 months.

a reply to: StoutBroux

Because any time there is a dishonorable discharge as a result of a hearing, as in this case, there is an automatic appeal. He can't be discharged until the appeal is completed, which could be another year or longer. By reducing him in rank, they reduce the amount of money he receives during that time.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I read the Sgt had serious mental issues. You are ignoring one side of this equation.

Post the link, then. And I'm not ignoring anything.

In fact, my wife (was also in the JAG Corp, and was a military court reporter for years, even as a contractor after she got out) discussed this with some of her old attorneys with whom she worked, and they said that the judge's mentality behind not sentencing him to confinement had to do with threat of appeal--he was concerned that any further confinement, since he is officially considered as being a prisoner of war for the entire time that he was missing, save for the first day of desertion, would be overturned upon appeal, and he was trying to stop that appeal from happening.

I don't agree with that--give the guy what he earned through his actions--and then let the appeal process play out. Maybe that was just a subjective determination from the military attorney, too, who knows. But I have yet to hear anything, nor does my wife, concerning chatter about mental-health problems playing into the sentencing.

I'd love to see your source for that information.

originally posted by: intrptr
What a bunch of warmongers.

I think y'all jealous.

He got excused, so what.

In your opinion, what does "excused" mean in a court-martial sentencing?

I'm just wondering...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Wake up and smell the ashes.

www.abovetopsecret.com...