- Does “five years” with the Taliban expiate the sin, desertion in the face of the enemy?
- Bergdahl’s admitted crime was not merely AWOL and then capture – it was desertion, aggravated by casualties (including death and cataclysmic permanent disability) incurred by others to rescue him.
- Does the physical result of his claimed torture at the hand’s of the Taliban measure up to the pain and disabilities (the painful permanent prison) his actions caused?
- Reminder — Obama interfered, sent signals in the case
- Why not banish Bergdahl to Afghanistan, permanently, at least as long as the disabilities and grieving he caused?
Bergdahl says he was tortured but that the US treated him worse????
Unbearable administrative duties? From Michael Hechtman writing at the New York Post (photo and caption not part of article)
Bowe Bergdahl, the Army deserter who walked off his base in Afghanistan, is whining that the US treated him worse
Bergdahl said he was tortured by Taliban but that Army treatment worse. Not seeing independent verification of torture in either “venue”. Maybe Army uniform not as comfortable, constituting torture?
than the Taliban.
The 31-year-old sergeant told British TV journalist Sean Langan in an interview reported in the Sunday Times of London: “At least the Taliban were honest enough to say, ‘I’m the guy who’s gonna cut your throat.’ ”
That got him less upset than the “administrative duties” the Army assigned him while awaiting trial, he said.
From Conservative Daily Alert, by Joe Otto: (excerpt)
Traitor Bowe Bergdahl Goes Free While Innocent Soldiers Remain In Prison
Bowe Bergdahl is a traitor. He deserted his post during a time of war and sought out the enemy. Brave men died while searching for him. A military dog died during the search as well.
Barack Obama had the gall to say on national television that Bergdahl served with honor and distinction, and he traded four terrorist masterminds in order to bring this traitor back to the United States. . . .
Meanwhile, there are innocent servicemen who remain behind bars and with criminal records because of the Obama administration’s politics. This is shameful . . .
Note from V-pac –. Otto summarizes six cases as examples
During the trial, Navy Seal James Hatch was asked why he went out searching for Bergdahl, knowing full well he was a deserter and traitor. Hatch responded that he went out because despite what Bergdahl did, he was still an American. More than a thousand soldiers spent upwards of 45 days looking for Bergdahl. Six of them died.
They were volunteers. They answered the call to defend this nation and paid the ultimate sacrifice.
They deserve more justice than this!
From Shawn Hall, Esq., writing at Town Hall
Referring to President Trump commenting on Bergdahl’s guilt and punishment, and the Judge’s (Nance) injudicious, uncalled for reaction to it: (bold emphasis ours)
The Bergdahl Sentence is a Travesty
The president’s ill-advised words don’t mitigate in favor of Berdahl. They weigh against continuing the case. They run the risk of tainting the prosecution by undue influence. The case then, should either be deemed compromised and dismissed, or the statements excluded and ignored, and justice administered by the book. They provide no factual, legal, or moral justification to alter a just sentence in Bergdahl’s favor.
This is especially true in a case where the relevant decision maker is a judge and not a jury. Federal rules of evidence allow the exclusion of evidence that may be more prejudicial than relevant or probative. But the concern is primarily about improperly influencing lay jurors. Col. Nance is not an impressionable member of a jury who needs to be protected from sensational headlines. He is a sworn and trained officer and jurist. His appropriate comment should have been: “I will disregard the president’s irrelevant and inadmissible commentary. “
He should not have said, and then acted, on the suggestion that he would actually use the president’s comments as a thumb on the scale to benefit the defendant.
Nance might have meant his ruling as a defiant middle finger aimed at President Trump (which, itself would indicate he was not influenced by unlawful pressure). But, the ruling did not produce a gesture at the president. It was much bigger. It fully, offensively spoke to the men and women who serve and sacrifice, their families, and millions of informed Americans who bear witness.
The president’s ill-advised words don’t mitigate in favor of Berdahl. They weigh against continuing the case. They run the risk of tainting the prosecution by undue influence. The case then, should either be deemed compromised and dismissed, or the statements excluded and ignored, and justice administered by the book. They provide no factual, legal, or moral justification to alter a just sentence in Bergdahl’s favor.
This is especially true in a case where the relevant decision maker is a judge and not a jury. Federal rules of evidence allow the exclusion of evidence that may be more prejudicial than relevant or probative. But the concern is primarily about improperly influencing lay jurors. Col. Nance is not an impressionable member of a jury who needs to be protected from sensational headlines. He is a sworn and trained officer and jurist. His appropriate comment should have been: “I will disregard the president’s irrelevant and inadmissible commentary. “
He should not have said, and then acted, on the suggestion that he would actually use the president’s comments as a thumb on the scale to benefit the defendant.
Nance might have meant his ruling as a defiant middle finger aimed at President Trump (which, itself would indicate he was not influenced by unlawful pressure). But, the ruling did not produce a gesture at the president. It was much bigger. It fully, offensively spoke to the men and women who serve and sacrifice, their families, and millions of informed Americans who bear witness.
May God please comfort the families and rest the souls of the men who died searching to find and rescue the deserter. And may Karma please visit Barack Obama and Susan Rice in their thoughts and dreams and torment them for the lies they knowingly told the nation about former Private Bergdahl.
We especially appreciated this response to the Town Hall author’s analysis
TexasMom2012
Rice and Obama put their foot on the scale claiming Bergdahl was an upstanding member of our military. They also gave him a Rose Garden ceremony for his parents. They traded 5 heinous Taliban leaders for him who they could not track and who most likely have returned to the battlefield costing more American lives but also the lives of Afghanis.
So who mislead whom?
Obama commented all the time on cases and his comments were not taken into account in those trials. TRAYVON Martin COULD BE HIS SON. Michael Brown was a gentle giant. Connecticut police acted stupidly. Obama ran his uneducated mouth and his opinion before he gathered facts all the time as the (President) of the United (States).
At least Trump had the facts before he commented. . . .
R Mall
