Posted on 01/28/2015 5:02:03 AM PST by Kaslin
Multiple news sources are now reporting that the US Army is charging Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl -- the American soldier handed over by terrorist hostage takers in exchange for the release of five high-ranking Taliban commanders from Guantanamo Bay last spring -- with desertion. This comes as no surprise for those who followed the Bergdahl controversy closely; as Katie reminded us earlier, Bergdahl's platoon mates unanimously spoke out against his actions. The evidence of his desertion is overwhelming. Other facts suggest that he may have crossed a line into active collaboration with the enemy. Despite the fact that the military had drawn negative conclusions about Bergdahl's conduct as far back as 2010 and declined to list him as POW, White House National Security Advisor Susan Rice declared that his service was marked by "honor and distinction" on national television. This was part and parcel of the Obama administration's public relations strategy surrounding the entire affair: Wave the flag about a captured American returning home to his family, and hope that the good vibes and emotional images of relieved family members and friends would crowd out the more sordid details -- such as the freed terrorists' long trail of blood and destruction, Bergdahl's alleged crimes, and the manner in which Obama bypassed strong objections from top military and intelligence officials to close the deal. Remember this?
Leaders of the U.S. intelligence community and military were opposed to freeing five senior Taliban commanders in exchange for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl when the White House first began exploring the prisoner swap in 2011 and 2012.The U.S. military wanted to bring Bergdahl home, but releasing Mullah Mohammad Fazl, Mullah Norullah Noori, Abdul Haq Wasiq, Khairullah Khairkhwa, and Mohammed Nabi Omari was seen as too dangerous at the time.
James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, according to three U.S. intelligence officials flat out rejected the release of the five detainees, saying there was too high a risk these Taliban commanders would return to the battlefield and orchestrate attacks against Americans.
Clapper was not alone. Leon Panetta, who was then the Secretary of Defense, declined to certify that the United States could mitigate the risk to national interests of releasing the Taliban commanders...Current U.S. intelligence and defense officials who spoke to The Daily Beast on Monday say the process for exchanging Taliban for Bergdahl this time was rushed and closely held, in some instances leaving little room for any push back against a policy clearly favored by the White House.
“This was an example of forcing the consensus,” one U.S. military official said. “The White House knew the answer they wanted and they ended up getting it.”
Before he was released from a U.S. maximum-security prison last week, a confessed al Qaeda sleeper agent was offered up in a potential prisoner swap that would have freed two Americans held abroad. The Daily Beast has learned that the proposal was floated in July 2014 to the then-U.S. ambassador in Qatar by an individual acting on behalf of that country’s attorney general. According to two individuals with direct knowledge of the case, the proposition was made shortly after the Obama administration traded five Taliban fighters for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Those fighters were also sent to Qatar, where they’re to remain under government watch until later this year. U.S. officials have said they’re at risk of plotting further attacks against the United States. The proposed swap involving the al Qaeda agent, Ali Saleh Al-Marri, raises troubling questions about whether the Bergdahl trade opened a kind of Pandora’s box, signaling to foreign governments that they can pressure the United States to make concessions on terrorism by trading American prisoners abroad for dangerous extremists held in the United States.
That is it and then he can become a spokesperson to America for Islam preaching peace and acceptance (taqiya?)
Charges must be forthcoming since the administration is so strongly denying it. Putting the pending charges aside, my anger remains focused on a Congress that allowed and continues to allow a rouge President to make unilateral decisions, thereby making themselves (and the will of the country) irrelevant.
Ozero set the tone 6 months ago. Some 2 star looking for another or becoming the attaché to our mission in Iraq will do his bidding.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but desertion in the face of the enemy is a capital crime per UCMJ, is it not?
Six American soldiers died trying to locate this POS. Maximum penalty.
Then he will go back to jihad.
and no mention of the $5 BILLION we paid the taliban... which will buy weapons to kill American soldiers
(if you’re wondering... yes, giving $5 BILLION to the enemy during war is an act of treason)
The one problem in your scenario....it notes he has to be captured. In Bergdahl’s case....he walked away and gave himself to the enemy.
I think the closer you get to a court episode....the more pressure on this guy. He’s too unbalanced to handle the pressure.
You have to admit on the entry paperwork that there was an episode, and cite the discharge. If there’s questions....the Army has to write a waiver. I suspect....there’s a waiver there, but the Army not grasp that he showed psychological signs of some type during the coast guard episode. Not to suggest such, but there might be a hundred Bergdahls in the Army today.
Can Obama give Bergdahl a pardon now, or does he have to wait until charges are brought? Obama doesn’t want a court martial to take place, but what can he do to prevent one, other than putting pressure on people in the Army who are involved in handling the case?
A pardon can only be issued after the court has rendered a verdict of guilty. If the court deemed an innocent verdict...the pardon is not necessary. Frankly though...if you read the general text of a desertion deal and measure up Bergdahl....unless he says he was crazy and unable to comprehend what he was doing...that’s the only way to avoid a guilty verdict. His entire case will revolve around him proving himself nuts....as sad as it sounds. Will a couple of military officers sit there for a three-week trial and accept that? It’s hard to say. I would also say this...I doubt that the case would occur in 2015, and likely to be a spring 2016 episode....in the middle of an election period. If I were the Democrats...I’d be pretty hostile that the President’s whole game came in the middle of an election year.
Ford granted Nixon a pardon before waiting for Nixon to be charged with any crime. The Constitution gives the President the power to grant reprieves and pardons—it doesn’t say anything about the person having to be found guilty first. There may be rules within the military justice system about this but we know Obama’s attitude towards keeping the law.
Under the military system, if found innocent of a charge via military court....you walk free. Zero need for a pardon. In a case where you’ve been offered an Article 15 and it’s a ‘light’ (I use this word sparingly) crime....then you get a punishment (usually stripes lost, some fine, some stockade time). In this case, afterwards, I could see a pardon coming up. But desertion isn’t fitting into a Article 15 type situation.
I should note....the Army has yet to say what crime will be pursued. Perhaps they’d like to overlook the desertion charge, and simply try him on AWOL or losing his weapon (leaving his weapon would be accurate, but maybe they just need a fake charge to get him out of the situation quickly). I believe if you ask an hundred Army personnel...describing the case...they’d all describe it as desertion.
Looking back over this...the idiot should have smoked some marijuana and just said he was a doper...Army would have moved reasonably quick to put him out of service.
We have another Army idiot case brewing in Germany...where some guy had re-enlisted and said that his NCO promised him he wouldn’t ever have to return to Iraq. Well...a month or two after signing the re-enlistment papers...the unit was notified of another deployment. The guy walks out the gate and asks Germany for asylum. That was six years ago. The Germans have yet to approve the case, and he’s been sitting for the whole time in some refugee center in Bavaria. Normally, they accept asylum seekers...but the problem in this guy’s case is that he re-enlisted....knowing full-well of the intent. They really don’t want to approve the guy’s status. So he sits there....in some two-star asylum center.
Obama could make a deal with Germany by promising to give the soldier an honorable discharge and 6 years’ back pay if they send him back. But Obama would have no incentive to do that because the soldier didn’t actually help the enemy, or get any other American soldiers killed, unlike Bergdahl.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
