Jump to content

What should be done about Bergdahl


Kirk W

Recommended Posts

I am going to assume that a young man who volunteered to serve his country is innocent until proven guilty. If guilty, then we can talk about punishment. I am sure lots of folks will want to condem him based on media reports, which we all know are never wrong. I will reserve judgement until the verdict is announced

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to assume that a young man who volunteered to serve his country is innocent until proven guilty. If guilty, then we can talk about punishment. I am sure lots of folks will want to condem him based on media reports, which we all know are never wrong. I will reserve judgement until the verdict is announced

 

Bill

Right on Bill, none of us know what went on over there. And for us to speculate on is guilt or innocence based upon what is written by the media is so wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on Bill, none of us know what went on over there. And for us to speculate on is guilt or innocence based upon what is written by the media is so wrong.

That's us as well. I am sure there's lots we have not been privy to. I'll wait for the trial evidence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

 

Innocent until proven guilty, that said "IF" proven guilty it should be remembered that other troops DIED because of actions taken by this person that being the case I would be for administering the maximum penalty allowable under the UCMJ.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if anyone read that he was discharged from the Coast Guard in a fairly short time and was later accepted for duty in the army. I will wait for facts that come out to pass judgement. I do know that there was a time when they wanted warm bodies. I believe that at one point we were accepting felons under some circumstances. I have been with guys I felt were a risk to my safety and should not have been in the military at all. I don't know if this was Bergdahl or not but based on what I have read I suspect so. I don't believe in automatic free passes but I also don't believe in use of resources to punish someone that is less than all there if that turns out to be the case with Bergdahl. I do suspect he had less than stellar treatment. I also think once he was captured early on he had no way to return so I am thinking desertion should be off the table. Yes it was his own fault but god knows that there a screw-ups all the time in the military. Officers and Nco's have caused troops to die even when in full controll of their faculties.

 

The actual charges will have to depend on the legal definitions as applied to the facts as presented. I just hope that they get it right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Desertions rarely go to trial. They usually end up with a plea," said Gary Solis, a Georgetown University law professor and a former military lawyer and judge.

Bergdahl's case is likely to end with a plea deal as well, according to military lawyers.

It seems to me that this would be the best answer for both the Army and the American public. I would assume that if he is totally innocent, he would not accept such a deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It takes a lot of strength to risk being imprisoned for years for prinicpal. Even the prinicipal of being innocent. Got to be even harder if you have already spent time as prisoner. I doubt seriously if he has the means to fight to prove his innocense if he is. My personal dealing with the legal system scared the hell out of me. All I can say is if our sytem of justice is the best god help the rest. It still could be the easiest way out whether it is right or wrong. Again based on what I have read over time he never should have been there and he was a risk to others and the mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy All,

 

Like I said in my first post on this topic, "Innocent until proven guilty". However I am sick and tired of plea deals, I am tired of people of all ages, and positions in life NOT being held responsible for their actions. If this guy was doing well enough to make the rank of Sgt. either they have really relaxed the standards since I was an NCO or those who promoted him should be called to account for promoting this person who wasn't up to the task.

 

The military until it became our nations favorite social experimental petri dish, was a place where the words, "Duty, Honor, Country" meant something. It was place where those who had no sense of direction, no self discipline, no self pride or self esteem could through hard work and the following of good example EARN it. It is a shame that those who still do join for the good of the country are saddled with those who for whatever political reason are encouraged to join in the so called interest of diversity which is supposed to make the military a better force.

 

Any time you lower standards, you impact the combat effectiveness of the force, maybe I am a dinosaur but in my mind the job of the military is to kill the enemies of our nation and to destroy their means of making war against us. It was when the politicians got it into their heads that we should "win their hearts and minds" that the whole thing started to go to HELL in a hurry. We have had to suffer as a nation from this misguided application of our military since 1951 and have learned NOTHING from it. We have sent our youth into battle, while not allowing them to fight effectively and use the full force of their armaments, we have tied their hands behind their backs with unrealistic "rules of engagement" and held those in the lower ranks responsible for atrocities commited that if not ordered by the higher ups were at least ignored or unofficially condoned.

 

Some have said that this person should not be held accountable because he had trouble fitting in; if this is true, why was he allowed to stay so long in the militarily, why was he promoted, why was he sent to a combat zone where his possible or actual actions would unnecessarily endanger his fellow troops? Where does the buck STOP? "IF" this person is adjudicated as guilty and gets a pass regardless of the pc bullcrap that will accompany the sentencing if there is any its a slap in the face to anyone who has taken the oath and served honorably in service to our country.

 

Its high time we start to hold everyone including those elected to political office, those who have attained high military rank or positions of authority within our communities and institutions to account not only for what they do but what they don't do supposedly in our name and for the betterment of our nation. To do so would require this person "IF" guilty to be held responsible for his actions, it would also require that anyone who had knowledge of his inability to perform the duties assigned to him be held responsible for allowing him to remain in the service and to be promoted within its ranks. We have a long and sad tradition of hanging the little guy while those truly responsible are never accused let alone brought to justice and in many cases advanced in their careers.

 

I was already given a warning for posting something that was construed as "political" I suppose the person who gave that warning or someone of their ilk will also look at this as political, issue me another warning and from what I have been told in PM's this would result in my being banned from this forum, if that is true so be it. I have enjoyed this forum, I have learned much from it, I have met what I hope will turn out to be life long friends on this forum but if one can't speak from their heart what they feel to be true without being censored by the pc police then I really don't belong here.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, they tend to give us some leaway but there are limits. You actually stated something and then answered your own statement. It is usually the lower ranks that pay the price and effectively Bergdahl is at the lower end of the spectrum. I don't remember what his rank was at time of capture but I know it was not SGT. I believe he was promoted while a prisoner based largely on time in rank and time in service. I think it is a valid point that someone should have prevented him from being in that position but he ended up there and I would guess that his nco's and officers tried to make the best of what manpower they had. I am sure that at some point there were people with quotas to fill that helped him along. So it seems it started with a recruiter under pressure due to not enough people volunteering. Thats why some standards were lowered. This is hardly the first time that has occured. My training for during the Viet Nam era was compressed to 8 weeks basic and up the line for subsequent training. I was told the training was just as good as the longer versions when we were not in a shooting war. I am proud of my training but in my estimation it was nowhere near good enough. We just had to adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...