When asked my opinion of the Bowe Bergdahl case, here’s what I said.
As Lord Sankey said in 1935, the presumption of innocence is the golden thread that runs through the criminal law. That is as true of our code of military justice as it is of our civil code. I’m concerned that too many are forgetting that in the case of Bowe Berdahl. Let the case work its way through the courts. That’s what hearings and trials are for.
I do find it interesting that the editors of the New York Times a) assume that Berdahl is guilty and b) think he should be absolved from that for political reasons. There is another ancient legal dictum that covers that: fiat justitia ruat caelum or let justice be done though the heavens fall.
I suspect that Bergdahl will get off with time served with no trial. If it really goes to trial, the military will have to deal with the issue of his having left and returned at least one other time. Having to bring charges against members of his platoon, mostly its leaders, would be pretty tough after all they went through.
Steve
Given that Berghal’s defense appears to be merely AWOL, not a deserter, and AWOL as a whistle-blower, I think we are struck with assuming a range of misconduct, at the lowest level excusable misconduct, assuming AWOL whistle-blower is a thing in the Army.
If anyone caught interviews with the men who served with him, there is a different story to be told, including conflicting feelings espoused by him via emails to his parents and what he discussed with others while serving. With his parents he appeared disgusted with the army. However, with the men around him he seemed disenchanted with the lack of action. Apparently he was earlier deemed unfit to serve by Coastguard standards, but given a waiver to join the Army. So apparently Bergdahl was gung ho on being in the military, one way or another. What the men in his unit want is for a trial to be held — no plea deal — having all the details of his story unfold honestly and publicly. There is also a special desire for these men to know “why he did what he did.”
I personally think the initial mistake was the waiver allowing him into the Army, as he appeared to have had red flags indicating some preexisting internal flaws at the get go. However, once he was in the service, by his own persevering volition, how much slack do you give him for leaving his duty station, causing his unit to needlessly search for him for months resulting in at least a half dozen mission-relation deaths of others. If you give Bergdahl a pass then you will be sending a mixed message to those who follow through on their military commitment. Worse yet, if he gets an Honorary Discharge, with benefits etc., how does that reflect on the Honorary Discharges of those who indeed did serve without so many self-inflicted ruts in their military service? IMO, it kind of discredits the very nature of honorary service, adding even more confusion and demoralization to those who voluntarily serve in the military.
jan- If they make a plea deal it will almost undoubtedly be something other than honorable. The military should never have let him in. Knowing that he was in on a waiver he should have been on a short leash, When he walked away the first time he should have been booted.
If his platoon wants a trial, they should have one also, at least those who knew he left before.
Steve
Many years ago the US government “promised/vowed” to exit Afghanistan if an election did not take place. It didn’t yet the US stayed. Why should BB be any more honorable than the government?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/202641/we-need-million-more-bowe-bergdahls-says-former-us-army-ranger
Personally, I don’t think the desertion charge with stick. It will be difficult to prove he didn’t intend to come back and whatever his intentions, he couldn’t come back because he was a prisoner. I wouldn’t be surprised if that charge didn’t make it past the article 32 hearing. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he was granted a discharge in lieu of a trial.
I’m of two minds about this. On the one hand, people died attempting to find and recover him and his actions therefore contributed to their deaths. On the other hand, his time with the Taliban wasn’t exactly a picnic and there are other extenuating circumstances. So, at the end of the day I think he should be convicted on a lesser charge, receive a punitive discharge, and serve no time in confinement. This is all assuming the facts, as currently known, remain true.
steve,
“If his platoon wants a trial, they should have one also, at least those who knew he left before.”
What?
I’m not sure it will be that difficult to determine Bergdahl ‘s intentions upon vacating his post, as his behavior beforehand indicated premeditated preparedness in clearing out possessions and sending them home prior to “walking away.”
Quite frankly, I also don’t believe his period of captivity should be applicable to any “time served” equivalent, as actions do oftentimes have negative consequences that just can’t be wiped cleanly off the board because of their harshness. It’s like a kid who plays chicken with a car, has an accident rendering him paralyzed. It’s a result he has to live with, incorporating it into his life. Bergdahl made a decision to walk away from his post, an act he is now being indicted for. Whatever decision is rendered he must then incorporate into how he wants to live the rest of his life.
Jan,
“Walking away from his post” does not meet the legal definition of desertion. The government will have to prove his intention was not to return to his unit. That will be difficult because he was captured soon after leaving so he was physically unable to return to his unit.
It seems like more of play on words, Andy. Maybe I’m just a civilian and look at mailing personal effects home, walking away from one’s work, responsibility or military unit as irresponsibily “leaving,” and, for all intensive purposes, the same as desertion. If Bergdahl goes to trial more details will surface, possibly clarifying his intention. If a plea deal is made then we’ll never know the story behind the story.