The Coward Bowe Bergdahl, court-martial delayed until February 2017

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by glebo

Well, luckily, I think the present administration had to do with it...not directly, but in sentiment..

No help for him there under the current admin...Now the previous...he'd probably be able to skate... JMO of course...

MAGA

We can only hope 😉

[JJ_BPK]

Does Mom Army allow plea deals??

Could he be asking for a DD plus times served??

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

Does Mom Army allow plea deals??

Could he be asking for a DD plus times served??

Curious sir; what time served would that be?

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Curious sir; what time served would that be?

No idea.

This story from the get-go has been one continuing circus, so I would not be surprised if we end up paying him back pay, plus a 50K reenlistment bonus..

&*^)&*^)&^)&*^(&*^(&*^(&*^(&*^ &7

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

No idea.

This story from the get-go has been one continuing circus, so I would not be surprised if we end up paying him back pay, plus a 50K reenlistment bonus..

&*^)&*^)&^)&*^(&*^(&*^(&*^(&*^ &7

Thanks for the sanity check. If he was E3 then & E5 now then obviously... aw hell.

Maybe he could get in line for reparations from the Taliban.
"You are number 116,084 - now serving #2."

[echoes]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

No idea.

This story from the get-go has been one continuing circus, so I would not be surprised if we end up paying him back pay, plus a 50K reenlistment bonus..

&*^)&*^)&^)&*^(&*^(&*^(&*^(&*^ &7

JJ,

He will pay, in Hell for sure. He will pay.


JMHO,


Holly

[SF_BHT]

Originally Posted by Badger52

Thanks for the sanity check. If he was E3 then & E5 now then obviously... aw hell.

Maybe he could get in line for reparations from the Taliban.
"You are number 116,084 - now serving #2."

Well in my day you had to go to a board to get promoted. Guess when you runout on your unit that moves you to NCO rank in the Obama military.

I understand that real POWs have been promoted after captivity but he deserted his post. He should have never been promoted until he was cleared or convicted. That has always been a slap in the face to real soldiers. Sorry rant out.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by SF_BHT

Well in my day you had to go to a board to get promoted. Guess when you runout on your unit that moves you to NCO rank in the Obama military.

I understand that real POWs have been promoted after captivity but he deserted his post. He should have never been promoted until he was cleared or convicted. That has always been a slap in the face to real soldiers. Sorry rant out.

Roger, that was going to be my original point as he and a POW are apples/oranges. But as you say diff rules for someone "PR-annointed" by the POTUS at the time.

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

Does Mom Army allow plea deals??

Could he be asking for a DD plus times served??

Yes.

Not sure, only a few know what is in those envelopes.

In a CM proceeding, my understanding is that he gets the lesser of either the plea bargain, or the sentence.

For those who have read "Red Platoon", by MoH recipient Clint Romesha, he blames the resources being dedicated to the search for our POS deserter to the lack of support for COP Keating / Kamdesh, which was very nearly overrun. Excellent read, BTW.

TR

[CSB]

In a CM proceeding, my understanding is that he gets the lesser of either the plea bargain, or the sentence.

Exactly right, the lesser of what is imposed by the court or what the
convening authority has agreed to approve, for each of four categories:

1 - Confinement
2 - Forfeiture of Pay and Allowances
3 - Reduction in Grade
4 - Punitive Discharge

Example:

PRETRIAL AGREEMENT:

1 - Confinement = 2 years.
2 - Forfeiture = all pay and allowances.
3 - Reduction = E-1.
4 - Discharge = Bad Conduct Discharge.

SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE COURT:

1 - Confinement = 5 years.
2 - Forfeiture = 2/3 pay and allowances.
3 - Reduction = E-1.
4 - Dishonorable Discharge.

NET RESULT:

1 - Confinement = 2 years ("saved by the deal").
2 - Forfeiture - 2/3 pay and allowances ("beat the deal").
3 - Reduction = E-1 (no change, and a reduction to E-1 is
automatic with any confinement anyway).
4 - Bad Conduct Discharge ("saved by the deal").

But in this case there is no pretrial agreement. For better or worse,
he has pled without a safety net. Whatever the judge gives him, stands.

Perhaps that in itself is an acceptance of responsibility.

[PRB]

According to recent reports there was no plea deal.......he simply plead guilty.

Why? I suspect his lawyer thought that a litany of fellow soldiers telling their story, those that knew the men killed looking for him, junior leadership and then the dumb ass comments Bergdahl made to the press would get him the max.

[CSB]

According to recent reports there was no plea deal.......he simply plead guilty.

Why? I suspect his lawyer thought that a litany of fellow soldiers telling their story, those that knew the men killed looking for him, junior leadership and then the dumb ass comments Bergdahl made to the press would get him the max.

The Trial Counsel (prosecutor) can still present all of the "aggravating circumstances" at the sentencing hearing, and that means calling witnesses and presenting evidence as to the effect of the crime committed by the accused.

Once the trial defense attorney has developed a sense of the sentencing philosophy of the military judge, he can advise his client what would probably happen at sentencing even in the absence of a pretrial agreement.

But "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future."

Bergdahl has elected trial by judge alone as to findings (guilty) and sentence. He could have pled guilty and requested a court ("jury") for sentencing purposes only.

That would have been a most unwise move, for at least two reasons:

1 - A court of members would probably hammer him with the maximum just for the bragging rights afterward.

2 - A court of members would not normally* be told that there is no pretrial agreement, and if they are not informed "there is no pretrial agreement" some members may hold out for a maximum sentence, figuring that the accused will be "saved by the deal" and will actually receive punishment no greater than what he was willing to accept in the agreement.

When an accused proceeds at trial by judge alone, the judge knows whether or not there is a pretrial agreement, but if there is one, the judge is not allowed to know what that punishment portion of that agreement is.

The "quantum" portion of the pretrial agreement (the part describing the maximum sentence that will be approved) is placed face down on the court reporter's desk. The accused is asked if he has read it, and understands it, but the judge knows only that there is a pretrial agreement. The judge then proceeds to impose his sentence. When he has pronounced it, the next words out of his mouth are: "Hand me the quantum portion of the pretrial agreement."

The military judge then reviews the quantum portion, compares it to the sentence he has pronounced, and informs the accused of the net sentence.

That does mean that the military judge might also be tempted to sentence on the high side, because he realizes that there is a saving pretrial agreement lying face down on the court reporter's desk when he is done.

By going judge alone, with no pretrial agreement, the military judge knows that "What I say is what he will get" and that may cause him to limit his "high side" sentence options.

*Normally. I have had a case where the court members asked point blank if there was a pretrial agreement. In that case, there was not, and we agreed to inform them that there was not. But out of an abundance of caution, since that same court sat on other courts-martial later in the month, we told them at the beginning of each subsequent trial:
"Questions as to the existence or content of any pretrial agreements in this case are improper, should not be asked, and will not be answered. You are to impose a punishment that complies with the law and the facts as you have been instructed. In particular, you should not impose a more severe punishment than authorized by the law and facts in an expectation that there is any pretrial agreement to reduce that sentence, as reliance on a pretrial agreement may well be misplaced."

[craigepo]

Originally Posted by PRB

According to recent reports there was no plea deal.......he simply plead guilty.

Why? I suspect his lawyer thought that a litany of fellow soldiers telling their story, those that knew the men killed looking for him, junior leadership and then the dumb ass comments Bergdahl made to the press would get him the max.

We call those "stand-up pleas" here. They aren't done very often. The defendant's attorney often has a lot of experience with the particular trial judge before attempting this.

I think I had 2-3 stand-up pleas in the last year, and they were all done very well by the defense attorney. Of course, there is risk involved. It's sort of like going for a two-point conversion in a football game. You don't want to do it very often, and you don't want to be in the position to have to do it.

[Pete]

From the FayOb

A little hyperbole I'd say.

Convicted murderer at Bergdahl trial: ‘I got my firing squad standing by’

http://www.fayobserver.com/news/2017...ad-standing-by

"FORT BRAGG — An apparent security lapse enabled a convicted murderer to access Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl’s sentencing hearing last week, where the individual made threatening remarks about the former Taliban prisoner, who has pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy.

George Marecek, 85, was only a few feet from Bergdahl on Wednesday when he turned to another individual seated in the courtroom gallery and said: “I’ll be glad when this crap is over. I got my firing squad standing by.” Marecek’s comment was overheard by a Washington Post reporter. Bergdahl’s attorneys overheard him make other threatening statements, and a member of the sentencing proceedings alerted authorities...."

Many of us older guys know GM.

[cbtengr]

George Marecek has certainly earned his right to an opinion regarding Bergdahl.