What facts should the judge have considered that he didn't, Race?
How the fuck would I know that? What facts are in question that some piece of shit deserted (for one day)and got his fellow soldiers killed?
That's a death penalty. And he didn't even get time.
Bergdahl pled to a one-day desertion. The Government had an opportunity to prove up a greater number of days, and failed to do so.
There was a shit-ton of evidence that the Taliban beat the fuck out of him on the regular, and that he has permanent nerve damage and what-not. Doctors testified. His body is fucked up. That's mitigation.
There was no evidence presented that Soldiers were killed looking for Bergdahl. People citing six killed are naming everyone who died in the area. Records which I have seen indicate that those Soldiers were killed conducting other operations, not looking for Bergdahl.
You can argue that had other Soldiers and resources not been diverted to look for Bergdahl, those casualties could have been avoided. The trial could (and I think did) receive classified evidence, and those records, transcripts, and recordings should be out there.
You would have to posit that Bergdahl's chain of command was somehow in on the con, that they engaged in falsifying operations orders and so forth to cover for Bergdahl five years before Obummer decided to trade him for some Taliban commanders. Doesn't make sense.
Also mitigating was the fact that Bergdahl has some pretty significant mental health issues, not "oh, I'm sad" crap but like no-shit schizo stuff ("schizotypal" is what they call it). This has been documented by Army docs. Again, they would have to be in on the con to bail out an ex-PFC who was promoted in Taliban captivity.
Bergdahl also provided a ton of intel about Taliban TTPs and his observations of their network, which was reported as being very valuable to the anti-Taliban campaign. I'll defer to the guys who said that at trial.
The Army investigator (a brigadier general) and his MI debriefer both testified at trial against prison time.
Most JAGs that I've spoken to about the case (no liberal pansies besides me) thought that a Chapter 10 (other-than-honorable administrative discharge) would suffice under the circumstances. Most thought that pushing the case to trial at all was due to political pressure on the FORSCOM commander.
And everyone's pretty disgusted by the President's repeated statements about the case. As of today the case is still in the Judge's hands. He could make a ruling to further remit the sentence based on those statements based on UCI.
The Defense will ask for all kinds of stuff on clemency under Article 60, and will be rooting for the 4-star to deny any (which they almost always do) because that will give them a free shot at ACCA (the Army's appeals court) and probably CAAF (the DoD appeal court).
I'm not defending Bergdahl. I think he's a fucking shitbird. But he was never going to get the death penalty from any military court (Akbar got the death penalty - big difference).
My point in starting this thread was that the President needs to learn to get above the fray and let the cops, lawyers and judges do their thing. He may have handed Bergdahl the get-out-of-Leavenworth-free card with his pre-trial comments, and his statements post-verdict opened the door to an appeal wide.
Query: How many participating in this thread *knows* what @AZDuck does for a living?
Personally, I'm hanging on every word. It's likely that even those among you who have served (TYFYS, BTW) do NOT understand this as well as our resident quook fren.
I find the whole concept of UCI fascinating because of how inherently prevalent exertion of authority is inside the SOP of military hierarchy. AND that it can be claimed after you have a confession or a guilty verdict?
The way I read it, you might be able to claim UCI in all but the most extreme cases.
What the fuck do you know about the military justice system, pray tell?
Not a huge amount but being who you are I'm sure you're cheering letting this turd go. Me not so much. He needs a long time in the gray bar hotel at a minimum.
Not the case. I think Bergdahl is a pathetic piece of shit who never should have made it past a recruiter. But I also think that 5 years in a Taliban cage is sufficient under the circumstances.
He wasn't in a cage he converted just like his father. He was a sympathizer and liked them,
Query: How many participating in this thread *knows* what @AZDuck does for a living?
Personally, I'm hanging on every word. It's likely that even those among you who have served (TYFYS, BTW) do NOT understand this as well as our resident quook fren.
I find the whole concept of UCI fascinating because of how inherently prevalent exertion of authority is inside the SOP of military hierarchy. AND that it can be claimed after you have a confession or a guilty verdict?
The way I read it, you might be able to claim UCI in all but the most extreme cases.
I should have been an attorney. FMFYFE
UCI isn't super easy to prove up. Most cases don't have much, if any, command input.
Obama caused a minor shitstorm with some public comments he made about sexual assault in the military. There was a flurry of UCI motions in sex assault cases. But none of them really got very far.
There's an "actual prejudice" test. But the more high-profile the case, and the more specific the statements of the commander, the easier it becomes to demonstrate that the accused was prejudiced. So when the CinC starts popping off about how dumbass should be summarily executed at dawn and that the judge fucked up and the MJ system is all fucked up, well, that's just begging for it.
Query: How many participating in this thread *knows* what @AZDuck does for a living?
Personally, I'm hanging on every word. It's likely that even those among you who have served (TYFYS, BTW) do NOT understand this as well as our resident quook fren.
I find the whole concept of UCI fascinating because of how inherently prevalent exertion of authority is inside the SOP of military hierarchy. AND that it can be claimed after you have a confession or a guilty verdict?
The way I read it, you might be able to claim UCI in all but the most extreme cases.
I should have been an attorney. FMFYFE
UCI isn't super easy to prove up. Most cases don't have much, if any, command input.
Obama caused a minor shitstorm with some public comments he made about sexual assault in the military. There was a flurry of UCI motions in sex assault cases. But none of them really got very far.
There's an "actual prejudice" test. But the more high-profile the case, and the more specific the statements of the commander, the easier it becomes to demonstrate that the accused was prejudiced. So when the CinC starts popping off about how dumbass should be summarily executed at dawn and that the judge fucked up and the MJ system is all fucked up, well, that's just begging for it.
So when the CIC had the kick-ass Rose Garden presser with Daddy Bergdhal, it pretty much guaranteed a UCI acquittal?
Query: How many participating in this thread *knows* what @AZDuck does for a living?
Personally, I'm hanging on every word. It's likely that even those among you who have served (TYFYS, BTW) do NOT understand this as well as our resident quook fren.
I find the whole concept of UCI fascinating because of how inherently prevalent exertion of authority is inside the SOP of military hierarchy. AND that it can be claimed after you have a confession or a guilty verdict?
The way I read it, you might be able to claim UCI in all but the most extreme cases.
I should have been an attorney. FMFYFE
UCI isn't super easy to prove up. Most cases don't have much, if any, command input.
Obama caused a minor shitstorm with some public comments he made about sexual assault in the military. There was a flurry of UCI motions in sex assault cases. But none of them really got very far.
There's an "actual prejudice" test. But the more high-profile the case, and the more specific the statements of the commander, the easier it becomes to demonstrate that the accused was prejudiced. So when the CinC starts popping off about how dumbass should be summarily executed at dawn and that the judge fucked up and the MJ system is all fucked up, well, that's just begging for it.
So when the CIC had the kick-ass Rose Garden presser with Daddy Bergdhal, it pretty much guaranteed a UCI acquittal?
Query: How many participating in this thread *knows* what @AZDuck does for a living?
Personally, I'm hanging on every word. It's likely that even those among you who have served (TYFYS, BTW) do NOT understand this as well as our resident quook fren.
I find the whole concept of UCI fascinating because of how inherently prevalent exertion of authority is inside the SOP of military hierarchy. AND that it can be claimed after you have a confession or a guilty verdict?
The way I read it, you might be able to claim UCI in all but the most extreme cases.
I should have been an attorney. FMFYFE
UCI isn't super easy to prove up. Most cases don't have much, if any, command input.
Obama caused a minor shitstorm with some public comments he made about sexual assault in the military. There was a flurry of UCI motions in sex assault cases. But none of them really got very far.
There's an "actual prejudice" test. But the more high-profile the case, and the more specific the statements of the commander, the easier it becomes to demonstrate that the accused was prejudiced. So when the CinC starts popping off about how dumbass should be summarily executed at dawn and that the judge fucked up and the MJ system is all fucked up, well, that's just begging for it.
So when the CIC had the kick-ass Rose Garden presser with Daddy Bergdhal, it pretty much guaranteed a UCI acquittal?
Also, filing a UCI motion is a right held by the Accused. If the Government is prejudiced in a case, they could file an interlocutory appeal under Article 62 for relief from the military appellate courts. You can also take a look at RCM 104, and see if you think anything there applies. I don't think anything does in that instance.
I’m not conflicted. Easy case. Soldiers who DID their duties DIED while searching for an anti-American deserter. Died, not hurt.
If allowed to stand, this political stunt to intentionally harm the Military will do damage
Two people got chopped in half by a C-17 flap during maintenance because someone forgot to see if anyone was in there.
It's the military, people die all the time. ALL the time. Two guys carrying out a lawful order to burn shit barrels that get killed counts the same as two guys carrying out lawful orders to find someone and getting killed.
Your argument is irrelevant here, like all of your arguments.
Comments
There was a shit-ton of evidence that the Taliban beat the fuck out of him on the regular, and that he has permanent nerve damage and what-not. Doctors testified. His body is fucked up. That's mitigation.
There was no evidence presented that Soldiers were killed looking for Bergdahl. People citing six killed are naming everyone who died in the area. Records which I have seen indicate that those Soldiers were killed conducting other operations, not looking for Bergdahl.
You can argue that had other Soldiers and resources not been diverted to look for Bergdahl, those casualties could have been avoided. The trial could (and I think did) receive classified evidence, and those records, transcripts, and recordings should be out there.
You would have to posit that Bergdahl's chain of command was somehow in on the con, that they engaged in falsifying operations orders and so forth to cover for Bergdahl five years before Obummer decided to trade him for some Taliban commanders. Doesn't make sense.
Also mitigating was the fact that Bergdahl has some pretty significant mental health issues, not "oh, I'm sad" crap but like no-shit schizo stuff ("schizotypal" is what they call it). This has been documented by Army docs. Again, they would have to be in on the con to bail out an ex-PFC who was promoted in Taliban captivity.
Bergdahl also provided a ton of intel about Taliban TTPs and his observations of their network, which was reported as being very valuable to the anti-Taliban campaign. I'll defer to the guys who said that at trial.
The Army investigator (a brigadier general) and his MI debriefer both testified at trial against prison time.
Most JAGs that I've spoken to about the case (no liberal pansies besides me) thought that a Chapter 10 (other-than-honorable administrative discharge) would suffice under the circumstances. Most thought that pushing the case to trial at all was due to political pressure on the FORSCOM commander.
And everyone's pretty disgusted by the President's repeated statements about the case. As of today the case is still in the Judge's hands. He could make a ruling to further remit the sentence based on those statements based on UCI.
The Defense will ask for all kinds of stuff on clemency under Article 60, and will be rooting for the 4-star to deny any (which they almost always do) because that will give them a free shot at ACCA (the Army's appeals court) and probably CAAF (the DoD appeal court).
I'm not defending Bergdahl. I think he's a fucking shitbird. But he was never going to get the death penalty from any military court (Akbar got the death penalty - big difference).
My point in starting this thread was that the President needs to learn to get above the fray and let the cops, lawyers and judges do their thing. He may have handed Bergdahl the get-out-of-Leavenworth-free card with his pre-trial comments, and his statements post-verdict opened the door to an appeal wide.
Personally, I'm hanging on every word. It's likely that even those among you who have served (TYFYS, BTW) do NOT understand this as well as our resident quook fren.
I find the whole concept of UCI fascinating because of how inherently prevalent exertion of authority is inside the SOP of military hierarchy. AND that it can be claimed after you have a confession or a guilty verdict?
The way I read it, you might be able to claim UCI in all but the most extreme cases.
I should have been an attorney. FMFYFE
Obama caused a minor shitstorm with some public comments he made about sexual assault in the military. There was a flurry of UCI motions in sex assault cases. But none of them really got very far.
There's an "actual prejudice" test. But the more high-profile the case, and the more specific the statements of the commander, the easier it becomes to demonstrate that the accused was prejudiced. So when the CinC starts popping off about how dumbass should be summarily executed at dawn and that the judge fucked up and the MJ system is all fucked up, well, that's just begging for it.
Also, filing a UCI motion is a right held by the Accused. If the Government is prejudiced in a case, they could file an interlocutory appeal under Article 62 for relief from the military appellate courts. You can also take a look at RCM 104, and see if you think anything there applies. I don't think anything does in that instance.
And Kathryn Bell was in JAG and she was smoking hot.
Her nude video in Hotline is brb, yo shit. Google it yourself, motherfuckers.
It's the military, people die all the time. ALL the time. Two guys carrying out a lawful order to burn shit barrels that get killed counts the same as two guys carrying out lawful orders to find someone and getting killed.
Your argument is irrelevant here, like all of your arguments.