Tweet
Originally posted by ram57ta
View Post
-
He's been offered a job in Arizona at a secluded ranch with feral cats so no. No he won't. He'll legally change his name, lay low for a few years, grow his hair out, grow a beard and no one will recognize him.I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool -
-
Wait... the dude washes out of Puddle Pirate basic training due to an anxiety attack... and the Army still takes this guy?Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
Why the hell was this guy in a uniform to begin with?
Comment
-
Not just uniform, infantry uniform.Originally posted by Gargamel View PostI wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Originally posted by Gargamel View Post
Interesting. Looks like they really dropped the ball here. If they'd done their job we'd have never heard of this guy. Knew a guy named josh a long time ago that was discharged for having an anxiety attack. He said that is all it took and he was out.WHComment
-
Bergdahl's Attorney Wants Him to Receive POW Medal
The lead defense attorney for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl said he wants him to receive the Prisoner of War medal.
His civilian lawyer, Eugene Fidell, on Friday said his client should be recognized for the five years he spent in Taliban captivity after deserting his post in Afghanistan, according to an article by USA Today.
"We have long felt he was entitled to the POW medal," Fidell said, the newspaper reported.
It wasn't immediately clear whether Bergdahl's defense team plans to push for the award as part of the process to appeal his dishonorable discharge.
Earlier Friday, Army Col. Jeffery R. Nance, the military judge at Bergdahl's court-martial at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, sentenced the 31-year-old defendant to a dishonorable discharge, a reduction in rank to E-1 and a monthly reduction in pay of $1,000 for the next 10 months.
Despite the fact Bergdahl received a dishonorable discharge sentence, his defense team indicated they will still seek the "Prisoner of War" medal for Bergdahl. The award was authorized by Congress and signed into law in 1985 by President Ronald Reagan.
The award generally goes to those "taken prisoner and held captive while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
So this means he'd get up to $2500 a month in payments for life
Priority lifetime healthcare from the VA
Presumption of service connected disability (anything wrong will be presumed to be from his captivity)
Free dental for life
He goes to the front of the line for healthcare, in front of purple hearts, etcI wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."Comment
-
Originally posted by Forever_frost View Post
It's like I woke up one day about 10 years ago and the world turned inside out like Bizarro World from a comic book.
Just when you think the pendulum is going to swing back to sanity, it just goes farther every day.
Just another example I guess.
Makes one wonder where this all leads on a larger stage.Last edited by Gargamel; 11-05-2017, 04:47 PM.Comment
-
You should really consider killing him.Originally posted by Forever_frost View PostMagnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.Comment
-
I only take life if there's no other choice. I try to live in peace these days.Originally posted by svauto-erotic855 View PostI wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Is this just a legal defense, or was this guy really nuts all along? Some people can pull off some semblance of sanity, yet are basically just barely making it all work.
Either way I'd still be looking for whoever fucked up and let him stay after they knew he wasn't fit for military service.WHComment
-
Army to determine if Bergdahl is owed back pay for his time in captivity
By: Meghann Myers 16 hours ago
When Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl came home in 2014, he was potentially entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay that accumulated over five years while he was in Taliban captivity in Afghanistan.
Bergdahl was captured after walking off base on June 30, 2009, while deployed to Paktika province with 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. He pleaded guilty in October to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. On Nov. 3, a military judge ruled Bergdahl would not serve any jail time but be dishonorably discharged from the Army and reduced in rank to private.
From the moment he was captured, Bergdahl became eligible for extra pays available to captive troops.
In total, along with his basic and deployment pay, he could be entitled to more than $300,000.
But the Army has not calculated that pay yet, a G-1 spokesman told Army Times, because the legal proceedings since his homecoming in 2014 have put that in limbo.
“Based upon the results of trial, the Army is reviewing Sgt. Bergdahl’s pay and allowances,” Lt. Col. Randy Taylor told Army Times. “His final pay and allowances will be determined in accordance with DoD policy and Army regulation.”
Those policies and regulations require the Army to wait for Gen. Robert Abrams, the commander of Army Forces Command and the convening authority in this case, to approve the sentence that was handed down to Bergdahl, an Army official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told Army Times.
If Abrams accepts Bergdahl’s sentence, the official said, the service can begin the long process of determining how much money Bergdahl earned in the past eight or so years.
“My understanding is there has to be an administrative determination of his duty status at each point, from the time he was captured until now,” the official said.
The Defense Department marked Bergdahl as “Duty Status-Whereabouts Unknown” on June 30, 2009, Military.com reported in 2014. Three days later, he was switched to “Missing-Captured,” when a Taliban propaganda video showed him alive and detained.
The Army will use that timeline to determine his pay. Ordinarily, the official said, a soldier who has been marked missing or captured would be entitled to back pay upon return.
But Bergdahl, who has been assigned to a desk job since his return and drawing commensurate pay, may not be considered a prisoner of war after pleading guilty to desertion.
“In order to figure out what he’s owed, you’re basically going to have to start from that point of captivity,” the official said.
In the end, the official added, Bergdahl may be entitled to his accumulated basic pay while in captivity but not the Basic Allowance for Housing, Basic Allowance for Subsistence and per diem given to prisoners.
Or, he added, it may turn out that Bergdahl “owes us,” if it’s determined he should not be paid for his time in captivity, or that he has been overpaid since his return.
Reached for comment, Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, said the defense team’s focus has turned to preparing the case for an appeal. He declined to elaborate.
“We are currently identifying the issues we will be pursuing,” Fidell said.
An appeal would put off the Army’s pay and benefits determination, the official said.
Fidell declined to comment on the back pay situation, or on a report by USA Today that he believed Bergdahl should receive the Prisoner of War Medal.I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Army to determine if Bergdahl is owed back pay for his time in captivity
By: Meghann Myers 16 hours ago
When Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl came home in 2014, he was potentially entitled to hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay that accumulated over five years while he was in Taliban captivity in Afghanistan.
Bergdahl was captured after walking off base on June 30, 2009, while deployed to Paktika province with 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. He pleaded guilty in October to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy. On Nov. 3, a military judge ruled Bergdahl would not serve any jail time but be dishonorably discharged from the Army and reduced in rank to private.
From the moment he was captured, Bergdahl became eligible for extra pays available to captive troops.
In total, along with his basic and deployment pay, he could be entitled to more than $300,000.
But the Army has not calculated that pay yet, a G-1 spokesman told Army Times, because the legal proceedings since his homecoming in 2014 have put that in limbo.
“Based upon the results of trial, the Army is reviewing Sgt. Bergdahl’s pay and allowances,” Lt. Col. Randy Taylor told Army Times. “His final pay and allowances will be determined in accordance with DoD policy and Army regulation.”
Those policies and regulations require the Army to wait for Gen. Robert Abrams, the commander of Army Forces Command and the convening authority in this case, to approve the sentence that was handed down to Bergdahl, an Army official, who was not authorized to speak on the record, told Army Times.
If Abrams accepts Bergdahl’s sentence, the official said, the service can begin the long process of determining how much money Bergdahl earned in the past eight or so years.
“My understanding is there has to be an administrative determination of his duty status at each point, from the time he was captured until now,” the official said.
The Defense Department marked Bergdahl as “Duty Status-Whereabouts Unknown” on June 30, 2009, Military.com reported in 2014. Three days later, he was switched to “Missing-Captured,” when a Taliban propaganda video showed him alive and detained.
The Army will use that timeline to determine his pay. Ordinarily, the official said, a soldier who has been marked missing or captured would be entitled to back pay upon return.
But Bergdahl, who has been assigned to a desk job since his return and drawing commensurate pay, may not be considered a prisoner of war after pleading guilty to desertion.
“In order to figure out what he’s owed, you’re basically going to have to start from that point of captivity,” the official said.
In the end, the official added, Bergdahl may be entitled to his accumulated basic pay while in captivity but not the Basic Allowance for Housing, Basic Allowance for Subsistence and per diem given to prisoners.
Or, he added, it may turn out that Bergdahl “owes us,” if it’s determined he should not be paid for his time in captivity, or that he has been overpaid since his return.
Reached for comment, Eugene Fidell, Bergdahl’s attorney, said the defense team’s focus has turned to preparing the case for an appeal. He declined to elaborate.
“We are currently identifying the issues we will be pursuing,” Fidell said.
An appeal would put off the Army’s pay and benefits determination, the official said.
Fidell declined to comment on the back pay situation, or on a report by USA Today that he believed Bergdahl should receive the Prisoner of War Medal.I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
-
Court Upholds Bowe Bergdahl's Sentence Despite Trump 'Dirty Traitor' Comments
28 Aug 2020
Military.com | By Hope Hodge Seck
In a narrow decision, the U.S. military's top appeals court has upheld a conviction against former Army Sgt. Robert "Bowe" Bergdahl on charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, saying public comments by President Donald Trump and the late Sen. John McCain condemning the soldier did not invalidate his prosecution.
The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces handed down a decision Thursday on the sentence, which was delivered in 2017 and has already been upheld at the lower appellate level. All five appellate judges on the case agreed at least in part on the conclusion, but two judges filed partial dissents expressing their dismay at the viciousness with which Bergdahl was treated and the conduct of the leaders in question.
Read Next: SecDef Throws Support Behind Medal of Honor for Fallen Hero Alwyn Cashe
Bergdahl, who abandoned his post in June 2009 on a deployment to Paktika province, Afghanistan, was subsequently captured by the Taliban and held as a prisoner of war for nearly five years. He was ultimately released and returned to the U.S. through a controversial prisoner exchange involving the release of five Taliban detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
While Bergdahl was received with a celebratory welcome at the White House upon his May 2014 return, public opinion rapidly turned against him as the facts of his disappearance and capture became known. He ultimately pleaded guilty at court-martial to desertion and misbehavior, and was sentenced in Nov. 2017 to a dishonorable discharge, reduction to the grade of private, and forfeiture of $1,000 in salary per month for ten months.
At issue in his appeal is whether his fair prosecution was jeopardized by the statements of senior leaders. On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly called Bergdahl "a dirty, rotten traitor;" after he became president, his comments were more reserved, but he pointedly referred back to his previous remarks on the subject. And while Bergahl's case was in the investigation phase in 2015, McCain told a reporter, "If it comes out that [Bergdahl] has no punishment, we're going to have to have a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee."
These remarks are significant because of a military legal issue known as unlawful command influence. Because Trump is at the top of the military chain of command, remarks he makes might be interpreted as orders by the convening authority and other troops involved in the prosecution process. McCain, as a retired Navy officer and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, also had the ability to commit actual or apparent UCI, the court found.
For Judge Kevin Ohlson, who delivered the opinion of the court, the deciding issue, however, was Bergdahl's decision to file a guilty plea, a step that comes with rigorous evaluation to ensure it is voluntary and not coerced.
"Based on Appellant's own words, no impartial observer would conclude that it was the comments made by the President of the United States and/or by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee that caused Appellant to plead guilty; rather, it was the strength of the Government's evidence that caused him to take that step," Ohlson wrote.
He added that Bergdahl was given the chance to withdraw his guilty plea after his legal team raised the issue of apparent unlawful command influence in the case, but declined to do so.
"Indeed, it is telling that at his sentencing hearing after his guilty plea, and fully aware of his own case in mitigation, Appellant specifically recognized that he was deserving of punishment and asked to have a dishonorable discharge imposed upon him," Ohlson wrote.
The judge also noted that Bergdahl's sentence was not as harsh as it could have been; he received no confinement although he could have gotten a life sentence on the charges to which he pleaded guilty.
CAAF's chief judge, Scott Stucky, wrote a brief but poignant partial dissent, saying he favored dismissal of Bergdahl's charges in light of Trump and McCain's remarks. While McCain was within his rights to announce plans for a hearing, he said, he should not have conditioned that hearing on the sentence Bergdahl received. And Trump's comments, he wrote, were "vicious and demeaning" and clearly communicated
"One final thing needs to be said," Stucky wrote. "This case is unique in modern American military jurisprudence. Let us hope that we shall not see its like again."
Another CAAF judge, John E. Sparks, also said Bergdahl's charges should have been dismissed.
"Never in the history of the modern military justice system has there been a case in which the highest level figures, including the Commander in Chief, have sought to publicly demean and defame a specific military accused," Sparks wrote in a lengthy partial dissent. "The vilification of Sergeant Bergdahl before, during, and after his court-martial was unprecedented, hostile, and pernicious in the extreme. It both placed an intolerable strain on the military justice system and denied the accused his due process right to a fair trial."
Bergdahl's attorney, Eugene Fidell, told Military.com he planned to continue to press for dismissal of charges.
"Yesterday's 3-2 decision validates our objection to President Trump's attack on the military judge and equally unprecedented vilification of Sergeant Bergdahl. It also validates our objection to the late Senator John McCain's threat to hold a hearing if Sergeant Bergdahl were not punished," he said via email. "Importantly, all but one of the judges held that unlawful command influence can be committed by a sitting president. We believe the two dissenting judges, who included the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, got the rest of the case right."
-- Hope Hodge Seck can be reached at hope.seck@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @HopeSeck.I wear a Fez. Fez-es are coolComment
Comment