Bowe Bergdahl, Facing Desertion Trial, Asks Obama for Pardon

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/bowe-bergdahl-facing-desertion-trial-asks-obama-for-pardon/ar-AAl4ikD?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=SK2ADHP


Bowe Bergdahl, Facing Desertion Trial, Asks Obama for Pardon
The New York Times

This undated photo provided by the FBI shows fugitive Marlon Jones who is wanted for multiple counts of murder in Los Angeles.
FBI catches one of '10 Most Wanted'
Speaker Paul D. Ryan signing a measure in January to repeal major provisions of the Affordable Care Act. It was vetoed by President Obama.
G.O.P. Plans Quick Repeal of Health Law, Then a Delay

WASHINGTON — Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the former American prisoner of war in Afghanistan who was freed in a 2014 swap for five Taliban detainees, has asked President Obama to pardon him before leaving the White House to President-elect Donald J. Trump, who has called the soldier “a no-good traitor who should have been executed.”

After the presidential election, Sergeant Bergdahl’s legal team submitted copies of a clemency application to the White House, the Justice Department and the Pentagon, according to White House and Justice Department officials.

It requested a pre-emptive pardon that would avert Sergeant Bergdahl’s court-martial trial on charges of desertion and misbehaving before the enemy that endangered fellow soldiers. The trial is scheduled to begin on April 18.

Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter

Sergeant Bergdahl left his outpost in Afghanistan without permission in 2009 and was captured by militants, prompting a dangerous but fruitless search. His captors held him in brutal conditions for five years, including locking him in a cage and in darkness for lengthy periods.

The Obama administration eventually secured his release in exchange for sending five high-level Taliban detainees from the Guantánamo Bay prison to Qatar, which agreed to monitor them and not let them travel.

That deal set off intense political controversy. Against that backdrop, an Army investigation last year recommended against punishing Sergeant Bergdahl with jail time, concluding that he had acted under good but delusional motivations and noted his suffering in captivity. But in December 2015, a commander instead ordered him prosecuted in a general court-martial, where a conviction could yield a life sentence.

Eugene R. Fidell, Sergeant Bergdahl’s lead defense lawyer, declined to comment on the pardon petition. But he said if the case is still pending on Inauguration Day, Jan. 20, he will file a motion to have it dismissed, arguing that a fair military trial will be impossible after Mr. Trump becomes the commander in chief.

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, right, arriving for a hearing at Fort Bragg, N.C., in July. © Andrew Craft/The Fayetteville Observer, via Associated Press Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, right, arriving for a hearing at Fort Bragg, N.C., in July. At rallies, Mr. Trump repeatedly brought up the prisoner exchange as a bad deal. At a town hall-style meeting in August 2015, for example, he called Sergeant Bergdahl a “dirty, rotten traitor” and pantomimed shooting him. Mr. Trump also falsely claimed that Americans were killed searching for Sergeant Bergdahl and that the five Taliban ex-detainees were back on the battlefield.

Mr. Fidell has also complained about comments by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican who, as the Armed Services Committee chairman, oversees confirmation hearings for commissioned officers. He called Sergeant Bergdahl a deserter and vowed to hold an oversight hearing if he went unpunished.

“I have grave concerns as to whether Sergeant Bergdahl can receive a fair trial given the beating he has taken over many months from Mr. Trump, who will be commander in chief, as well as Senator McCain’s call for a hearing in case Sergeant Bergdahl is not punished,” Mr. Fidell said. “It is really most unfair.”

When Sergeant Bergdahl was released in May 2014, Mr. Obama appeared alongside his parents in the Rose Garden. The national security adviser, Susan E. Rice, said he had served with “honor and distinction.” His hometown in Idaho prepared a celebration. But the deal swiftly degenerated into a legal and political debacle.

The administration transferred the Taliban detainees without obeying a statute requiring it to notify Congress 30 days before the transfers. It said acting without delay was necessary to protect Sergeant Bergdahl’s life and argued that disregarding the statute in such circumstances was lawful, but Republicans maintained that the transfer was illegal.

In addition, former soldiers came forward to describe the circumstances of his capture, accusing him of desertion. That fueled Republican complaints that sending the Taliban detainees to Qatar had been too steep a price.

As furor swelled, the narrative about Sergeant Bergdahl further darkened. Some former soldiers alleged that he had been trying to join the Taliban and that five to seven Americans had died searching for him. Those allegations, however, proved false.

in June 2014, the secretary of defense at the time, Chuck Hagel, testified that, “In all of our reports, I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl.” The military investigation also spotlighted the absence of such evidence.

Still, prosecutors have sought to introduce evidence in the trial that several soldiers were injured during the search. The defense has sought to block that evidence, arguing, among other things, that the real cause of the two most serious injuries prosecutors cited was botched planning for a particular raid. A judge has not yet ruled on that dispute.

The Army investigation concluded in 2015 that Sergeant Bergdahl had left his outpost intending to hike to another military post and report to an officer there on perceived wrongdoing involving his unit. A sanity board found that he had been suffering from a “severe mental disease or defect” at the time.

Didn't we know this was coming???
Traitor wants his traitor president to grant pardon and most likely he will get it....
Trump said it right-- he should have been executed!--Tyr

[Elessar]

Didn't we know this was coming???
Traitor wants his traitor president to grant pardon and most likely he will get it....
Trump said it right-- he should have been executed!--Tyr

There is no way he should be allowed to walk away free.

[Gunny]

There is no way he should be allowed to walk away free.

I'd shoot his lame ass. He cost the lives of of some damned good men who unlike him, showed the f*ck up. They didn't get to go home but that scumsucker did.

[Black Diamond]

He should hang.

[Elessar]

He should hang.

Confused...slowly or quickly?

He let down his garrison by walking away. Let down his teammates...

Combat soldiers do NOT do that unless they are willing to face the consequences.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

He should hang.
He should be ---


https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanged,_drawn_and_quartered



Hanged, drawn and quartered
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The English used in this article or section may not be easy for everybody to understand. You can help Wikipedia by reading Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages, then simplifying the article. (January 2012)
Seventeenth century print of the execution, by hanging, drawing, and quartering of the members of the Gunpowder plot

To be hanged, drawn and quartered was a punishment in England used for men found guilty of high treason.

The full punishment was made up of the following - the victim was:

Dragged, usually by a horse, on a wooden frame to the place where he was to be publicly put to death. This is one possible meaning of drawn.[1] A more likely meaning of drawn is the removal of the inner organs.[2]
Hanged by the neck for a short time or until almost dead (hanged).
Removed from hanging and placed on a table. Still alive, the victim was cut open in the abdomen and his intestines and sex organs removed (this is another meaning of drawn—see the reference to the Oxford English Dictionary below). The removed organs were burned in a flame, prepared close to the prisoner.[3]
The victim's head was cut off, and the rest of the body hacked into four parts or quarters (quartered).

Typically, the five body parts (i.e. the four quarters of the body and the head) would be put on public display in different parts of the city, town, or - in more famous cases such as that of William Wallace - in the country, to discourage would-be traitors who had not seen the execution. After the Crimes Act 1814 was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the prisoner was instead hanged until dead - not having to suffer the extremely painful remainder of the punishment while alive. The public display of the bodies of executed prisoners (whether by hanging, drawing and quartering, or some other method) was removed from English criminal law in 1843; drawing and quartering in 1870.

There is debate among modern historians about whether "drawing" referred to the dragging to the place of execution or the disembowelling, but since two different words are used in the official documents detailing the trial of William Wallace ("detrahatur" for drawing as a method of transport, and "devaletur" for disembowelment), there is no doubt that the subjects of the punishment were disembowelled.[4]

Judges delivering sentence at the Old Bailey also seemed to have had some confusion over the term "drawn", and some sentences are summarized as "Drawn, Hanged and Quartered". Nevertheless, the sentence was often recorded quite explicitly. For example, the record of the trial of Thomas Wallcot, John Rouse, William Hone and William Blake for offences against the king, on 12 July 1683 concludes as follows:

Then Sentence was passed, as followeth, viz. That they should return to the place from whence they came, from thence be drawn to the Common place of Execution upon Hurdles, and there to be Hanged by the Necks, then cut down alive, their Privy-Members cut off, and Bowels taken out to be burned before their Faces, their Heads to be severed from their Bodies, and their Bodies divided into four parts, to be disposed of as the King should think fit.[5]

The Oxford English Dictionary notes both meanings of drawn: "To draw out the viscera or the like, to the place of execution". It states that "In many cases of executions it is uncertain [which of these senses of drawn] is meant. The presumption is that where drawn is mentioned after hanged, the sense is [the second meaning]."[6]

The condemned man would usually be sentenced to the short drop method of hanging, so that the neck would not break. The man was usually dragged alive to the quartering table, although in some cases men were brought to the table dead or unconscious. A splash of water was usually employed to wake the man if unconscious, then he was laid down on the table. A large cut was made in the gut after removing the genitalia, and the intestines would be spooled out on a device that resembled a dough roller. Each piece of organ would be burned before the sufferer's eyes, and when he was completely disembowelled, his head would be cut off. The body would then be cut into four pieces, and the king would decide where they were to be displayed. Usually the head was sent to the Tower of London and, as in the case of William Wallace, the other four pieces were sent to different parts of the country. The head was generally par-boiled in brine to preserve the appearance of the head in display, while the quarters were more often prepared in pitch, for longer-lasting deterrent displays.
References

The Straight Dope (04-Aug-1995). What do "drawn and quartered" and "keelhauling" mean?
Drawn Dictionary Deffinition15 of Drawn
Extracts from the transcript of the October 1660 trial and execution of 10 regicides At the end of the article there is a description of the executions. They were all hanged, drawn and quartered apart from Francis Hacker who was hanged.
George Neilson, "Drawing, Hanging and Quartering" published in Notes and Queries, 15 August 1891; s7-XII: 129–131.
Thomas Wallcot, John Rouse, William Hone, William Blake, offences against the King: treason, 12th July, 1683. The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Ref: t16830712-4. See Proceedings of the Old Bailey
Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 1989

THAT BASTARD GOT OTHER SOLDIERS KILLED , WHILE LOOKING FOR HIS SORRY, WORTHLESS, MUSLIM LOVING ASS.

I'D SKIN HIM ALIVE IF ONE OF THOSE SOLDIERS KILLED WERE ONE OF MY RELATIVES( MY NATIVE AMERICAN BLOOD CALLS FOR HIS BLOOD)!!
Always start at the soles of the feet(while they hang upside down) to make it last longer!
Sorry, I don't intentionally mean to make the wimpy libs here cry.. ;)--Tyr

[aboutime]

Desertion


Desertion is an aggravated type of Unauthorized Absence (UA) or Absence Without Leave (AWOL). Military prosecutors charge desertion under UCMJ Article 85.

Article 85 provides:

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; or

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

The charge of desertion is more aggravated if it is committed in time of war or to avoid hazardous service.

The key to any desertion charge is the intent or mental state of the service member. Since it is usually difficult to prove what someone is actually thinking at any given time, prosecutors will look to circumstantial evidence to prove the intent to remain away permanently. Factors like destruction of uniforms or an identification card, changing a name or SSN, remarks of intent, failure of the member to turn himself in when he had the opportunity to do so, moving to foreign countries, and remaining absent for many years are the types of circumstantial evidence that can help to establish intent to remain away permanently.

Almost always, the best course of action for a member in an unauthorized absence status is to return to military authority voluntarily for resolution of the situation. Very few people can live an entire lifetime in an unauthorized absence status without someday being forced to answer to authorities. It is particularly difficult today, with the advent of pervasive and interconnected databases that reflect unauthorized absence status.

Most unauthorized absence cases are resolved administratively. However, a command always has the option of resolving more aggravated cases at court-martial. Many unauthorized absence cases have important extenuating and mitigating circumstances. When presented properly, by a competent military lawyer, such circumstances can reduce punishment or lead to a better characterization of discharge in the event of administrative discharge.

If you would like to discuss your case with a skilled military lawyer, Jeff Meeks and Bruce White have over 45 years of experience. They have effectively resolved thousands of unauthorized absence and desertion cases. Call now for your free consultation.

Manual for Courts-Martial (2012)

[Gunny]

Desertion


Desertion is an aggravated type of Unauthorized Absence (UA) or Absence Without Leave (AWOL). Military prosecutors charge desertion under UCMJ Article 85.

Article 85 provides:

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; or

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

The charge of desertion is more aggravated if it is committed in time of war or to avoid hazardous service.

The key to any desertion charge is the intent or mental state of the service member. Since it is usually difficult to prove what someone is actually thinking at any given time, prosecutors will look to circumstantial evidence to prove the intent to remain away permanently. Factors like destruction of uniforms or an identification card, changing a name or SSN, remarks of intent, failure of the member to turn himself in when he had the opportunity to do so, moving to foreign countries, and remaining absent for many years are the types of circumstantial evidence that can help to establish intent to remain away permanently.

Almost always, the best course of action for a member in an unauthorized absence status is to return to military authority voluntarily for resolution of the situation. Very few people can live an entire lifetime in an unauthorized absence status without someday being forced to answer to authorities. It is particularly difficult today, with the advent of pervasive and interconnected databases that reflect unauthorized absence status.

Most unauthorized absence cases are resolved administratively. However, a command always has the option of resolving more aggravated cases at court-martial. Many unauthorized absence cases have important extenuating and mitigating circumstances. When presented properly, by a competent military lawyer, such circumstances can reduce punishment or lead to a better characterization of discharge in the event of administrative discharge.

If you would like to discuss your case with a skilled military lawyer, Jeff Meeks and Bruce White have over 45 years of experience. They have effectively resolved thousands of unauthorized absence and desertion cases. Call now for your free consultation.

Manual for Courts-Martial (2012)

My question is this: If you are in a combat zone, but in the rear with the gear, can they still execute your lame ass?

And IIRC, 6 Soldiers were lost looking for him. That doesn't count?

Sorry. All out of mercy.

[CSM]

My question is this: If you are in a combat zone, but in the rear with the gear, can they still execute your lame ass?

And IIRC, 6 Soldiers were lost looking for him. That doesn't count?

Sorry. All out of mercy.

Yes they can execute REMFs... particularly if the front line guys are depending on that REMF to do his job... delivering ammo, for example.

[Gunny]

Yes they can execute REMFs... particularly if the front line guys are depending on that REMF to do his job... delivering ammo, for example.

I just wasn't sure. I never had to deal with that kind of BS. The few deserters I ever even heard tell about were during peacetime. They just get busted and the boot. They weren't worth fooling with.

If someone had shot this tard I'd offer to help with the legal defense fund. You know as well as I do there is zero excuse. You get 3 hots and a cot for your services. You don't get to pick and choose.

[CSM]

I just wasn't sure. I never had to deal with that kind of BS. The few deserters I ever even heard tell about were during peacetime. They just get busted and the boot. They weren't worth fooling with.

If someone had shot this tard I'd offer to help with the legal defense fund. You know as well as I do there is zero excuse. You get 3 hots and a cot for your services. You don't get to pick and choose.

Most of the time, the idiots don't really "desert" but rather go AWOL (chasing some bimbo or there is booze involved). I personally never saw anyone desert. It doesn't happen often anyway which makes this particular idiot so unique. If I had been there when the got this sh*tbird back, I would have throat punched him so hard he would piss bones for a month.

[Gunny]

Most of the time, the idiots don't really "desert" but rather go AWOL (chasing some bimbo or there is booze involved). I personally never saw anyone desert. It doesn't happen often anyway which makes this particular idiot so unique. If I had been there when the got this sh*tbird back, I would have throat punched him so hard he would piss bones for a month.

I got stuck with one when I was a Lance Cooly. Low man on the totem pole. :laugh: He deserted stateside during Nam. He was already a damned Pvt. They just wasted a bunch of time and money feeding and paying him for 3 months while they did the paperwork. The distinction to me is he didn't get anyone killed.

When the order is hold the line, I don't need to be looking around for your ass. I expect you to be there, in place.

Unlike what happened you desert on MY ass and get people killed I'll let the ragheads keep you. Cuz I'm just a nice guy like that.

[aboutime]

My question is this: If you are in a combat zone, but in the rear with the gear, can they still execute your lame ass?

And IIRC, 6 Soldiers were lost looking for him. That doesn't count?

Sorry. All out of mercy.


Gunny. Easy answer to that. You said "COMBAT ZONE". To me, and probably for you. That means you are fighting in some kind of enemy war zone where LIFE and DEATH are seconds away for you, or your buddies trying to protect you.
BERGDAL left his post in a War Zone or COMBAT ZONE where other Americans lost their lives trying to find his SORRY ASS.
If you violate the UCMJ, or RULES OF ENGAGEMENT....YOU should get the maximum punishment. They used that as far back as Washington, in Valley Forge, and it helped to convince anybody else who wanted to LEAVE..not to do it.
Here's the real story link: http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/george_washington_1732-1799

http://www.infoplease.com/t/history/true-washington/congrsssional-interference.html

[Gunny]

Gunny. Easy answer to that. You said "COMBAT ZONE". To me, and probably for you. That means you are fighting in some kind of enemy war zone where LIFE and DEATH are seconds away for you, or your buddies trying to protect you.
BERGDAL left his post in a War Zone or COMBAT ZONE where other Americans lost their lives trying to find his SORRY ASS.
If you violate the UCMJ, or RULES OF ENGAGEMENT....YOU should get the maximum punishment. They used that as far back as Washington, in Valley Forge, and it helped to convince anybody else who wanted to LEAVE..not to do it.
Here's the real story link: http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/george_washington_1732-1799

http://www.infoplease.com/t/history/true-washington/congrsssional-interference.htmlI'm not arguing your point. I'm just curious about the nuances. You know the civvies don't think like us. They see one guy's worthless life and we see the lives they cost.

He's a disgrace to the uniform they let him foul by putting it on his body. I'd give his ass an old school drumming out the Fort gate. Then tell the Kiowas where his ass would be.

He disgraces every one of us.

[Elessar]

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just curious about the nuances. You know the civvies don't think like us. They see one guy's worthless life and we see the lives they cost.

He's a disgrace to the uniform they let him foul by putting it on his body. I'd give his ass an old school drumming out the Fort gate. Then tell the Kiowas where his ass would be.

He disgraces every one of us.

Well Put!

He is a total disgrace and now just an Obama face-tool to show how 'benevolent' Obama wants to appear.

[Gunny]

Well Put!

He is a total disgrace and now just an Obama face-tool to show how 'benevolent' Obama wants to appear.Barbi-dahl is a perfect compilation of the is administration. The epitome. He can't get fired quick enough.

I see no difference between Berghdal and his faggot in chief. And guess who's getting audited? Could call it coincidence. I don't. I don't make enough money to be on the radar. Imagine that,.

[Drummond]

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just curious about the nuances. You know the civvies don't think like us. They see one guy's worthless life and we see the lives they cost.

He's a disgrace to the uniform they let him foul by putting it on his body. I'd give his ass an old school drumming out the Fort gate. Then tell the Kiowas where his ass would be.

He disgraces every one of us.

For what little my contribution is worth ... not only as a civilian, but as a non-American ... I'd say, don't be so sure that we don't think like you. Some won't -- that's true. But I for one completely get the sentiments I'm seeing expressed on Bergdahl.

Bergdahl is indeed a disgrace. He failed to represent the uniform, and the country, his duty charged him with representing and honouring with his service. He let down his comrades. He deserted his duty and his responsibilities to a criminal extent. His behaviour was traitorous.

As a civilian, I've no capacity to understand what the experience of warfare is like. Nonetheless, desertion IS desertion, and once you put on the uniform of the country you serve, it should define your commitment to fighting for that country .. if called upon to do so.

[Gunny]

For what little my contribution is worth ... not only as a civilian, but as a non-American ... I'd say, don't be so sure that we don't think like you. Some won't -- that's true. But I for one completely get the sentiments I'm seeing expressed on Bergdahl.

Bergdahl is indeed a disgrace. He failed to represent the uniform, and the country, his duty charged him with representing and honouring with his service. He let down his comrades. He deserted his duty and his responsibilities to a criminal extent. His behaviour was traitorous.

As a civilian, I've no capacity to understand what the experience of warfare is like. Nonetheless, desertion IS desertion, and once you put on the uniform of the country you serve, it should define your commitment to fighting for that country .. if called upon to do so.

Your opinion is good with me. I tried to explain this last night. As the Sergeant Major says .. not enough words. My own addition to his thread is you just had to be there. There is no explanation.

[aboutime]

I'm not arguing your point. I'm just curious about the nuances. You know the civvies don't think like us. They see one guy's worthless life and we see the lives they cost.

He's a disgrace to the uniform they let him foul by putting it on his body. I'd give his ass an old school drumming out the Fort gate. Then tell the Kiowas where his ass would be.

He disgraces every one of us.


Agreed Gunny. Which is also why WE should stop talking about him. Let the Courts Martial, Obama-ites who will play SAVE-MY-JOB in the Pentagon deal with him until...

BULLDOG arrives on the front steps of the Pentagon in January.

That's when KICKIN' BUTT, AND TAKIN' NAMES begin, and END.