Bowe Bergdahl

[jimnyc]

Anyone know what happened to this character? How long does it take to investigate something like this? Either you walked away or you did not - and the facts already released, by his own men, seems to point to him bailing on his unit. I know they said they "extended" the investigation.

Does someone getting captured due to their own stupidity allow them to walk from charges?

And what if it is shown, that if not for the search to find him, soldiers would not have lost their lives?

I hope I'm wrong, but I smell yet another coverup.

[aboutime]

Anyone know what happened to this character? How long does it take to investigate something like this? Either you walked away or you did not - and the facts already released, by his own men, seems to point to him bailing on his unit. I know they said they "extended" the investigation.

Does someone getting captured due to their own stupidity allow them to walk from charges?

And what if it is shown, that if not for the search to find him, soldiers would not have lost their lives?

I hope I'm wrong, but I smell yet another coverup.


Jim. NOT A COVERUP when the President's best Bud uses a huge BROOM to sweep Bergdahl, and all references to him....Under the rug, out of view, out of mind.
There are simply TOO MANY OTHER THINGS more important these days...like School Lunches from Mooshell, and No American Flags being permitted on SCHOOL property.

[Gunny]

Anyone know what happened to this character? How long does it take to investigate something like this? Either you walked away or you did not - and the facts already released, by his own men, seems to point to him bailing on his unit. I know they said they "extended" the investigation.

Does someone getting captured due to their own stupidity allow them to walk from charges?

And what if it is shown, that if not for the search to find him, soldiers would not have lost their lives?

I hope I'm wrong, but I smell yet another coverup.

The military is not restricted by the same constraints as civilians. They'll take as long as they want. What I bet they're looking for is a definitive "smoking gun", rather than the hearsay of people who obviously don't like him.

Getting captured for stupidity is not a crime. If it was, McCain would be toast.

In the meantime, the administration has to justify the high-ranking terrorists they traded for him, so the pressure is on. If the Army can't produce a "smoking gun", he's going to walk. Rules of evidence.

I don't see it being so hard to prove. If he walked off his post, he is guilty of violation of article 86, absent without leave (AWOL). Violation of article 85, Desertion is harder to prove. You have to prove he had no intent of coming back. The same rules that apply to abandoning the household as a civilian are in effect. He would have had to have taken all his gear with him. Unless he did so under fire. That isn't the case here.

There is no article in the UCMJ for stupidity.

The Army's just trying to get it right. Because if they slam him, they're going to be going head on against the administration that traded high level terrorists for him and made him out to be a hero. I'd want my ducks in a row too.

[jimnyc]

The military is not restricted by the same constraints as civilians. They'll take as long as they want. What I bet they're looking for is a definitive "smoking gun", rather than the hearsay of people who obviously don't like him.

Getting captured for stupidity is not a crime. If it was, McCain would be toast.

In the meantime, the administration has to justify the high-ranking terrorists they traded for him, so the pressure is on. If the Army can't produce a "smoking gun", he's going to walk. Rules of evidence.

I don't see it being so hard to prove. If he walked off his post, he is guilty of violation of article 86, absent without leave (AWOL). Violation of article 85, Desertion is harder to prove. You have to prove he had no intent of coming back. The same rules that apply to abandoning the household as a civilian are in effect. He would have had to have taken all his gear with him. Unless he did so under fire. That isn't the case here.

There is no article in the UCMJ for stupidity.

The Army's just trying to get it right. Because if they slam him, they're going to be going head on against the administration that traded high level terrorists for him and made him out to be a hero. I'd want my ducks in a row too.

That's about what I read. But if guilty of AWOL, why would he then walk?

From all I read, he had prepared a note even, stating he was going to start a new life, and that he was disillusioned with the army. If this is true, and they have this note, they better charge this dirtbag with the minimum, at least.

I admit to being a nobody when it comes to military law though. Just seems if he walked away from his unit, not happy with the army, and one or more folks died looking for him, it would be a shame if he walks - while terrorists walk in Qatar.

[Gunny]

That's about what I read. But if guilty of AWOL, why would he then walk?

From all I read, he had prepared a note even, stating he was going to start a new life, and that he was disillusioned with the army. If this is true, and they have this note, they better charge this dirtbag with the minimum, at least.

I admit to being a nobody when it comes to military law though. Just seems if he walked away from his unit, not happy with the army, and one or more folks died looking for him, it would be a shame if he walks - while terrorists walk in Qatar.

I had to sit on a few courts-martial. No, that note would imply desertion. Now it has to be authenticated. Qatar is not a combat zone. The proof required for desertion basically has to be iron-clad. Did he quit his post with no intention of returning? What is the evidence? A note? The hearsay of other members of his unit? Did he take all of his possessions when he left? Did he verbally express his desire to leave and never return?

On the other end of this, the Army is under pressure to get it right. You either come strong with your A game or back off. Bucking the administration can and will ruin careers. "I'm a general officer in the US Army with 30+ years active duty. Is it worth my career and any political aspirations I may have for this one soldier?" That may not sound right to you, but it's real.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Reality is --if the bambastard says he has to walk then he will walk. And the way they played bamasshole as a genius and hero in the worst trade in recorded history my guess is that the bamshit already put the word out to let this ffing piece of scum walk..
Myself, I think he is a damn deserter that should be shot right between the eyes. I tend to see things in black and white and to hell with the liberal -- "million shades of grey" excuses. The coward is an admitted muslim , he ran away to muslims , they have evidence from the locals that he was seeking to join the enemy.
Get the ducks in a row, find him guilty and shoot his ass.
Of course that's not going to happen because the ffing bamtraitor already called the ffing scum a hero..--Tyr

[Gunny]

Reality is --if the bambastard says he has to walk then he will walk. And the way they played bamasshole as a genius and hero in the worst trade in recorded history my guess is that the bamshit already put the word out to let this ffing piece of scum walk..
Myself, I think he is a damn deserter that should be shot right between the eyes. I tend to see things in black and white and to hell with the liberal -- "million shades of grey" excuses. The coward is an admitted muslim , he ran away to muslims , they have evidence from the locals that he was seeking to join the enemy.
Get the ducks in a row, find him guilty and shoot his ass.
Of course that's not going to happen because the ffing bamtraitor already called the ffing scum a hero..--Tyr

Really, dude? Geez.

Prove he's a deserter,tyr. Let's see your evidence. Because if I'm sitting on a court-martial and all you got is hearsay and note you can't authenticate, I'm hanging the board. Period. Your opinion is NOT due process. It's vitriol.

And if I'm going to going to go against the administration I want a slam dunk case. And your opinion ain't a slam dunk. It's nothing in a court.

The penalty is death only for desertion under fire.

You don't even know the damned rules. How're you going to get your ducks in a row?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Really, dude? Geez.

Prove he's a deserter,tyr. Let's see your evidence. Because if I'm sitting on a court-martial and all you got is hearsay and note you can't authenticate, I'm hanging the board. Period. Your opinion is NOT due process. It's vitriol.

And if I'm going to going to go against the administration I want a slam dunk case. And your opinion ain't a slam dunk. It's nothing in a court.

The penalty is death only for desertion under fire.

You don't even know the damned rules. How're you going to get your ducks in a row?




Get the ducks in a row, find him guilty and shoot his ass.

^^^^^ I guess this part did not register. And was he not in a war zone when he deserted?
Is it only when under active enemy fire? I never mentioned me getting ducks in a row. I know the military does the investigation.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/us-military-death-penalty

An excerpt from:
"A Matter of Life and Death: Examining the Military
Death Penalty's Fairness" by Dwight Sullivan (The Federal Lawyer, June 1998) (reprinted with permission of author)

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 15 offenses can be punishable by death, though many of these crimes -- such as desertion or disobeying a superior commissioned officer's orders -- carry the death penalty only in time of war.

The "convening authority" -- a high-ranking commanding officer who decides to bring the case to trial -- chooses whether the government will seek a death sentence. If the case is referred capitally, the defendant cannot choose a bench [judge only] trial; rather, the case must be tried before a panel of at least five military members (DPIC note: now 12 members are required on the panel for a capital case (RCM 501(a)). The Uniform Code of Military Justice also precludes the defendant in a capital case from pleading guilty. Thus, every military death penalty case is resolved by trial before a panel of servicemembers.

A death penalty will be imposed only if the panel members reach unanimous agreement on four separate points. First, a military defendant cannot be sentenced to death absent a unanimous conviction of a death-eligible offense.... If the panel returns a unanimous conviction, the case then enters the sentencing phase.... The case's outcome will depend upon the [panel] members' resolution of three issues. First, they must determine whether the government has proven a specified aggravating factor beyond a reasonable doubt.... Most of these aggravating factors -- such as killing more than one person or being the triggerman in a felony murder -- are similar to those found in civilian capital punishment schemes. Other factors -- such as committing an offense with the intent to avoid hazardous duty or knowingly endangering a mission -- are unique to the military.

[The panel] must then weigh all of the aggravating evidence in the case against any evidence in extenuation and mitigation. A death penalty may not be imposed unless the members unanimously conclude that the aggravating circumstances substantially outweigh the mitigating circumstances.

Finally, even if every member agrees upon the existence of an aggravating factor and concludes that the evidence in aggravation outweighs the extenuating and mitigating evidence, any member is still free to choose a sentence other than death. Thus, members must unanimously conclude that death is an appropriate sentence.

When a death sentence is imposed, the record is initially reviewed by the convening authority, who has the power to reduce sentences and to set aside guilty findings.... The convening authority can reduce the sentence, but cannot increase it. And this review is no mere rubberstamp. Several years ago, a Marine Corps general commuted an adjudged death sentence to imprisonment for life. If the convening authority approves the death sentence, the condemned servicemember will be moved to military death row....

The record of trial then goes before one of the military justice system's four intermediate appellate courts: the Army, Navy-Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals.... If the Court of Criminal Appeals affirms a death sentence, the case then goes before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, as the Court of Military Appeals was renamed in 1994. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is a five-member Article 1 court that sits atop the military justice system. Its judges are civilians appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate to serve 15-year terms.

[If the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirms the sentence], the case is eligible for Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction over military justice cases... was enacted in 1983.... When the Supreme Court affirms [the sentence] or denies certiorari in a military capital case, the death sentence is then reviewed by the executive branch. If the President approves the death sentence, the condemned servicemember can seek habeas relief from the Article III judiciary. If the habeas petition is ultimately denied, the condemned servicemember will be led from death row down a flight of stairs to the USDB's death chamber. There he will be strapped to a gurney and executed by lethal injection.


Not saying you are wrong on the under fire bit but I did not see that mentioned in the link provided above.-Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Looks like you are correct about how hard it will be to prove..
I saw video of what his comrades in arms stated about him deserting and took their word over his.
I do not have to prove he deserted to state my opinion that he deserted.
I can ask why all (0r most ) those comrades in arms either lied or turned on him falsely. -Tyr




Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/08/the_armys_bergdahl_problem.html#ixzz3E6MlXs8P
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

. Keiler

Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl recently returned to duty, and was interviewed by Army investigators. This has many people confused and upset. If Bergdahl is a deserter or even a traitor, many Americans wonder why he still in the Army, or feel that if he wears a uniform it should be in a stockade. Other people, mainly on the left, see Bergdahl as a hero. Also, regardless of how Bergdahl ended up with the Taliban, he might have critical intelligence for the United States, making him valuable. Thus, Bergdahl’s case presents a perplexing problem for the Army. In the end, I suspect, the final outcome of this case will not please those who, like the president, think Bergdahl is a hero, or many veterans and other Americans, who see Bergdahl as a deserter and traitor.
President, Obama’s Rose Garden announcement of Bergdahls’ exchange for Taliban terrorists, accompanied by Bergdahl’s bizarre parents, made this case, like much else in America under his administration, more complicated. Obama’s evident glee as Bergdahl pere quoted from the Quran, the pomp surrounding the announcement of the exchange, and his spokespeople’s descriptions of Bergdahl as a “hero” leave little doubt as to where the president stands on the matter.




As the Commander in Chief, Obama is supposed to keep these things to himself. He might have learned that lesson when he stepped over the line in discussing sexual assault cases in the military, but Obama doesn’t seem to learn much. The generals and admirals who eventually have to decide whether to prosecute cases, as political animals themselves, are not immune to the clear preferences of their boss, even though they are supposed to ignore him with respect to judicial decisions.

Even without the Obama factor, Bergdahl’s case is difficult. It’s never been as simple as just kicking him out. For those who are convinced that Bergdahl deserted, and/or is a traitor to boot, the problem is proving it.

The easier of the two crimes to prove is desertion, but even proving that may be problematic. Desertion is a specific intent crime. To secure a conviction, the Army will have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that when Bergdahl left his post, he intended to permanently absent himself from duty. This is difficult, and why desertion charges are infrequently brought by military prosecutors. It is much easier to charge a soldier with AWOL and kick him/her out of the Army administratively.

There is circumstantial evidence that Bergdahl deserted. His writings show an increasing hostility toward the United States and many of his fellow soldiers believe he deserted. He shed his weapons and walked off the post with a compass, knife, water and a few personal items. These things inferentially suggest he did not intend to return. But is this proof beyond a reasonable doubt? The officers and NCOs who would be on Bergdahl’s court martial panel know that soldiers gripe all the time and sometimes do remarkably foolish things.

Further, if Bergdahl raises the defense of duress, i.e., that the Taliban prevented his return to duty, the Army would have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this was not the case. Since it appears that at least part of the time Bergdahl was indeed kept as a prisoner of the Taliban (whether or not he initially sought them out voluntarily) this would be an extremely high hurdle for Army prosecutors to clear.

Bergdahl’s odd psychological and family background adds fuel to suggestions that he was indeed a deserter, or even a traitor. But none of that is likely to be admissible in court. Plus, Bergdahl has refused to see his parents since his release.This is a good legal strategy, but it appears to pre-date Bergdahl’s retention of counsel. So unless Bergdahl seriously and correctly thought through his legal predicament on his own at the time of his release -- which is entirely possible -- it reflects a genuine break with his parents. What that means is open to interpretation, and is likely not going to be admissible in court anyway.

Berdahl has lawyered up and is represented by Eugene R. Fidell an attorney experienced in military justice cases. Fidell allowed Army investigators a limited opportunity to talk to his client on August 6, and indicated that this would be Bergdahl’s only interview with investigators.

Pursuant to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Bergdahl was advised of his rights against self-incrimination. But the supposedly cordial interview suggests that there is little likelihood that Bergdahl incriminated himself. He supposedly answered all questions, and there is no indication that he invoked his 5th Amendment Rights. And since Bergdahl’s interview will likely be the only thing he says publicly about the matter until the issue of his legal jeopardy is resolved, he will not expose himself to any self-contradictory statements.

It is likely that Bergdahl, through his attorney, told investigators that he has no memory of leaving his post or of his capture. The information provided about Bergdahl’s mental state upon his release might support a claim of post-traumatic amnesia. If indeed Bergdahl claimed amnesia, it’s likely that Fidell limited any questioning by investigators about his client’s capture which is why Bergdahl probably did not need to plead the 5th.That or Bergdahl just answered “I don’t remember.”

But by talking to investigators about other things, Bergdahl gives the impression he is cooperative, and sets up his defense of duress. If he has information about the Taliban that might assist American intelligence operations, he presumably gave it, or gave some version of the facts of his time with the Taliban.

So what is the Army going to do? First of all, keeping Bergdahl on duty leaves him open to judicial action, and at least allows the Army to not only investigate possible court martial charges, but also the nature of Bergdahl’s release from duty; whether it will be honorable or less than honorable.

Moving beyond that to a prosecution for desertion -- there is no way the Army is going to make a case for treason or likely even try -- is going to be hard. Without an admission from Bergdahl, proving desertion will be difficult, if not impossible.

If the Army decides to prosecute for desertion, Bergdahl would have to be charged, and then the charges referred to an Article 32 hearing. Article 32 hearings are the military equivalent of a grand jury, but more probative. Bergdahl and his attorneys can be present, cross-examine witnesses, and present their own.

Article 32s can be good way for a convening general to get out of a difficult case if he wants to, simply by following the advice of a hearing officer who might find that insufficient grounds exist to pursue the case as charged. For example, the officer can suggest that the case proceed as an AWOL. But it is up to the general. He doesn’t have to follow the recommendation of the hearing officer.

In the end, this case may actually boil down to whether Bergdahl is entitled to several hundred thousand dollars in back pay. Regardless of whether Bergdahl is prosecuted, the Army must make an administrative decision about that. The Army probably can get out of paying Bergdahl if it makes an administrative determination that Bergdahl went AWOL or deserted, and did not earn his pay in the line of duty. This doesn’t require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Presumably, Bergdahl and his attorneys know this. If there is anything a defense lawyer wants more than getting his client off, it’s getting paid. In the end, the Army might offer Bergdahl a form of non-judicial military punishment for going AWOL (Article 15), in return for some percentage of his back pay. The partial payment will be justified on the theory that if Bergdahl went AWOL (not deserted) he would have at some point returned to duty, but for his “capture” by the Taliban. So he should be entitled to some, but not all his back pay. Then the Army could kick him out and determine the appropriate discharge -- honorable or not.

[Gunny]

^^^^^ I guess this part did not register. And was he not in a war zone when he deserted?
Is it only when under active enemy fire? I never mentioned me getting ducks in a row. I know the military does the investigation.




Not saying you are wrong on the under fire bit but I did not see that mentioned in the link provided above.-Tyr


Looks like you are correct about how hard it will be to prove..
I saw video of what his comrades in arms stated about him deserting and took their word over his.
I do not have to prove he deserted to state my opinion that he deserted.
I can ask why all (0r most ) those comrades in arms either lied or turned on him falsely. -Tyr

Got anymore cut n paste bullshit?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Got anymore cut n paste bullshit?

Why do you need some more? -Tyr



http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj85.htm



Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)

ART. 85. DESERTION





More of this Feature
• UCMJ Menu
• Punitive Articles of the UCMJ



(a) Any member of the armed forces who--


(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States;

is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

[Gunny]

Why do you need some more? -Tyr

I don't. That's the point. All you do is put down Islam, and aboutime has a fetish with obama. Could y'all make a legitimate argument without posting rhetoric? What part about any of that makes you think you are smart?

Believing BS that someone tells you makes you no smarter than a Democrat. In fact, it makes you exactly the same thing.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I don't. That's the point. All you do is put down Islam, and aboutime has a fetish with obama. Could y'all make a legitimate argument without posting rhetoric? What part about any of that makes you think you are smart?

Believing BS that someone tells you makes you no smarter than a Democrat. In fact, it makes you exactly the same thing.

Not sure just who you think has been "telling" me. I am 60 years old and form my opinions from multiple sources and have presented a great many of those sources here over the years. Not possible for me to present the name and contents of the personal library of books I've read nor would anybody care.

We all have our causes and our biases. Any that claim they do not are just liars..
I cite plenty of linked sources in my posts about Islam. I also just like everybody else here cite my own views, values and judgments made from a lifetime of living.
Of course I have an extremely long thread on Islamic terrorism around the world, did I miss where you replied there, countered any facts presented there or what?
And its in the religion forum of all places. -Tyr

[Gunny]

Not sure just who you think has been "telling" me. I am 60 years old and form my opinions from multiple sources and have presented a great many of those sources here over the years. Not possible for me to present the name and contents of the personal library of books I've read nor would anybody care.

We all have our causes and our biases. Any that claim they do not are just liars..
I cite plenty of linked sources in my posts about Islam. I also just like everybody else here cite my own views, values and judgments made from a lifetime of living.
Of course I have an extremely long thread on Islamic terrorism around the world, did I miss where you replied there, countered any facts presented there or what?
And its in the religion forum of all places. -Tyr

Really? I have an non-partisan assessment and personal experience dealing with the Arabs/Persians.

You haven't presented a fact. You've presented rhetoric. Kind of blows my mind some of you people and your opinions when you haven't even been there. Want me to provide you with a link of the reality over there? You'd actually have to open your mind and read.

Your buddy likes to attack the fact that Im a Marine, and play the emo accusations, but the fact is, I lost some Marines over there. You think I don't know what the fuck is happening? Neither of you have been there, I have.

Y'all's hatred don't sound no different than their's.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Really? I have an non-partisan assessment and personal experience dealing with the Arabs/Persians.

You haven't presented a fact. You've presented rhetoric. Kind of blows my mind some of you people and your opinions when you haven't even been there. Want me to provide you with a link of the reality over there? You'd actually have to open your mind and read.

Your buddy likes to attack the fact that Im a Marine, and play the emo accusations, but the fact is, I lost some Marines over there. You think I don't know what the fuck is happening? Neither of you have been there, I have.

Y'all's hatred don't sound no different than their's.

ahhh, my hatred is all American. I hate the freaking enemies of this nation. Salute you for your service but still disagree about your
judgment of my posts here.
I guess if I am that bad of a member, a poster here then it's ok--somebody has to be that person..
Of course I have yet to see the positive or relative improvement if you succeed in making me believe in my errors and weaknesses.
I'll tell you why. We all have such weaknesses in our lives. Mine has always been my temper, cost me aplenty in my life..
I am not going to discuss AT's comments, I respect him as a man and his honorable service same as I do yours.
Since you've started sharing your attention with him I am jealous.
Lets just leave the guy behind. He is a land sailor now. :laugh:--Tyr

[Gunny]

ahhh, my hatred is all American. I hate the freaking enemies of this nation. Salute you for your service but still disagree about your
judgment of my posts here.
I guess if I am that bad of a member, a poster here then it's ok--somebody has to be that person..
Of course I have yet to see the positive or relative improvement if you succeed in making me believe in my errors and weaknesses.
I'll tell you why. We all have such weaknesses in our lives. Mine has always been my temper, cost me aplenty in my life..
I am not going to discuss AT's comments, I respect him as a man and his honorable service same as I do yours.
Since you've started sharing your attention with him I am jealous.
Lets just leave the guy behind. He is a land sailor now. :laugh:--Tyr

I said nothing about anyone being a "bad member". That's not for me to say.

I posted clearly and concisely what the Army is doing in handling this guy's case. I understand the process as well as the politics involved. The knee jerk reaction to convict based on the word of some troops doesn't work.

The administration is hoping it will go away, and the media is in collusion by paying more attention to what NFL players are doing, Honey Boo Boo's parents have split up and the I-phone 6.

If it gets swept under the rug, it gets swept under the rug. I wouldn't risk MY career over it. Certainly no general officer is going to. Not without a slam dunk. They're just not going to do it.

Now, what happens if the Army comes out and says they don't have anything on him but hearsay, and clears him? Those that have already snap-judged this guy guilty are going to squeal cover up and drag THAT into the dirt. The reality is, if there's not enough evidence to convict, and I mean REAL evidence not the rumor mill evidence, they aren't going to prosecute.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I said nothing about anyone being a "bad member". That's not for me to say.

I posted clearly and concisely what the Army is doing in handling this guy's case. I understand the process as well as the politics involved. The knee jerk reaction to convict based on the word of some troops doesn't work.

The administration is hoping it will go away, and the media is in collusion by paying more attention to what NFL players are doing, Honey Boo Boo's parents have split up and the I-phone 6.

If it gets swept under the rug, it gets swept under the rug. I wouldn't risk MY career over it. Certainly no general officer is going to. Not without a slam dunk. They're just not going to do it.

Now, what happens if the Army comes out and says they don't have anything on him but hearsay, and clears him? Those that have already snap-judged this guy guilty are going to squeal cover up and drag THAT into the dirt. The reality is, if there's not enough evidence to convict, and I mean REAL evidence not the rumor mill evidence, they aren't going to prosecute.

Well, if, I mean when they clear him then people will decide which to believe his guilt or innocence. Kind of like we all did with O.J Simpson. It all looked like O.J. did the deed before his trial and it did after the trail. Only in this case we'll not be privy to the trial part so if the guy walks. We will pretty much only have the witnesses(or hearsay) evidence now made public by his comrades in arms.
Of course if it walks like duck, quakes like a duck and swims like duck then its a damn duck to most people. I suspect that Berghdal being muslim, and searching out muslim terrorist(our enemy in a war zone) and then coming back as a hero on Obama's agenda makes many of us think he is a "duck"..--Tyr