Will Obama be Bergdahled?

Finally, the American military ‘manned-up’ and told the White House where it could shove its peculiar pro-Islamist interference.  Last year, in a blaze of administration-induced publicity, Obama took full credit for ‘negotiating’ the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, an American soldier accused by many of the soldiers in his unit of deserting to the Taliban, in exchange for five leading Taliban operatives.  Obama’s National Security Advisor, the ineffably stupid glove-puppet otherwise known as Ms. Susan Rice, went so far as to describe Sgt. Bergdahl as having served “with honour and distinction”.  Obama was proud to stand with Bergdahl’s parents in a White House ceremony to applaud his release.

 

 

Since then, I suspect but will not know for sure unless I live long enough to read the history books, a year of severe, even brutal bargaining, I will not grace the process with the word ‘negotiation’, has taken place between the military and the administration.  The former, knowing the huge amount of evidence supporting treachery on the part of Bergdahl, are determined to have him court-martialled on the strongest possible charges.  The White House, appalled lest their fairy-tale fancy be shown up for the unmitigated pile of brown stuff that it is, are equally determined to maintain the façade – or perhaps ‘charade’ might be a better word.  Anyway, the military have prevailed and Bergdahl faces two charges one of which could put him away for life.  As John R. Schindler puts it in the LA Times:

The next step in this case is an Article 32 hearing, the military's version of a grand jury, and there seems little doubt that a full court-martial will result.

The Army's investigation was thorough and meticulous. That trial will generate major media attention, and key evidence against Bergdahl will likely include what he told Army debriefers after his return home. Intelligence information detailing Bergdahl's dealings with the enemy, which is believed to be unflattering, is not expected to be used at trial due to classification issues.

How the White House will deal with the Bergdahl case from this point on will be a crucial component of this continuing saga.

I should add that I, personally, have no idea whether or not Sgt. Bergdahl is guilty as charged.  However, I will look forward to watching the White House wriggle as his former comrades come forward, one after another, to tell the world what they think about it all!

Comments

[jimmy glesga]

It could end up being the case that the CO says march in the next guilty bastard Sgt Major.

[JK]

Actually the Article 32 (UCMJ Investigation) was completed in October.

Since, Susan G.[enius] Rice, she of such "intellectual gifts"

http://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-fell-for-a-particularly-embarssing-death-hoax-2015-3

has been "studying the results."

[Hank]

David

One of the little technicalities of US Military Justice is that any one subject to the code can file charges against any other person subject to the code, which in a felony case must result in an article 32 hearing. The goal being to prevent arbitrary action by commanders (in chief) since the lowest private can raise the question to very high visibility. This is seldom done, but on a case like this it was pretty certain that if charges were not brought in the normal procedure some one was going to swear out the charges.

[JK]

Hank, I hope you're well.

(& thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet - wishing he'd waited though til I'd sold off my voluminous texts on the UCMJ!)

"In order for military charges and specifications to be referred to trial by General Court-Martial, the case must first be considered in an Article 32 investigative hearing (UCMJ Article 32 and RCM 405). In an Article 32 investigation, an appointed Investigating Officer considers the case (witnesses and evidence) and makes non-binding recommendations about his/her view of the truth of the allegations, how the case was charged, and how the case should be resolved (a court-martial or some other course of action). These non-binding recommendations are then considered in the referral decision. An Article 32 hearing is not required for a Special Court-Martial.

An Article 32 Investigating Officer can make many different recommendations. For instance, the Investigating Officer can recommend that the case proceed to a General Court-Martial, that charges be amended or added, that the case proceed to Special Court-Martial, that alternative dispositions (such as administrative discharge, resignation, or nonjudicial punishment) be considered, or that the case be dropped altogether; however, again, this recommendation is not binding."

[Hank]

JK

I am well, and you I hope.

You are right of course, the point being that even if an article 32 recommended doing nothing, the fact that there would be one could be one greatly limits the opportunities to sweep things under the rug.

I am afraid I threw my USMJ stuff in the trash long ago, so I guess it is good Al Gore invented the internet.