SGT Bergdahl faces little-known, rarely used misbehavior charge

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by major56, Sep 8, 2015.

Loading...
  1. major56

    major56 Active Member

    "According to his charge sheet, Bergdahl misbehaved in front of the enemy by leaving his observation post in Paktika province on June 30, 2009. His absence endangered his fellow soldiers and those who were ordered to search for him in hostile territory, according to the charges."

    "Conviction under Article 99 can result in even more severe punishment than the desertion charge Bergdahl faces. The maximum punishment for misbehavior before the enemy is life imprisonment, compared with up to five years in prison, a dishonorable discharge, reduction in rank to E-1 and loss of pay and allowances for desertion."

    Bergdahl faces little-known, rarely used misbehavior charge - U.S. - Stripes
    Military selects rarely used charge for Bergdahl case - Times Union
     
  2. major56

    major56 Active Member

    [​IMG]

    :loser:
     
  3. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    And Chelsea Manning was convicted of having toothpaste that had exceeded its expiration date.

    No wonder there are those who suggest that "military justice" is an oxymoron.
     
  4. major56

    major56 Active Member

    First and foremost, the former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning (a.k.a. Bradley Manning) faced a general court-martial for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); subsequently convicted and imprisoned for providing classified documents to Wikileaks (e.g., violations of the Espionage Act /leaking classified information).
     
  5. airtorn

    airtorn Moderator

    Are you suggesting that Bergdahl either shouldn't be tried on these charges or that they are bogus charges?

    Also, what make you think that Manning was convicted of this? That statement is incredibly inaccurate.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 8, 2015
  6. major56

    major56 Active Member

    As per your reference to the expiration dated toothpaste and broadly equating this to be a contradictory term regarding military justice is IMO disingenuous Dr. Bear.

    As a prisoner serving his (Chelsea Manning a.k.a. Bradley Manning) conviction sentence at the United States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), Ft. Leavenworth—the toothpaste incident you (under the guise of there are those who suggest) refer to as somehow cogent argument to generally propose military justice being an oxymoron is a very misleading correlation. First, these charges (e.g., the four charges consist of medicine misuse, prohibited property, disorderly conduct and disrespect) according to CNN politics (8/19/15) are considered as institutional offenses—the court-martial is over (e.g., espionage conviction). Secondly, Manning is a convict who has been subsequently charged while at Ft. Leavenworth for not following correctional facility (USDB) policy /rules. Prison is not nor is it intended as a democracy—a punitive setting…

    PS Also, what did your Chelsea Manning post /intent have to do with this particular discussion thread re SGT Bergdahl’s current additional /pending misbehavior criminal charge?
     
  7. major56

    major56 Active Member

    In my view, that’s exactly what John is being suggestive of, e.g., both (re the irrelevance to this particular thread via initiating a pro-Manning posting while insinuating individual cynicism toward the U.S. military justice system).
     
  8. major56

    major56 Active Member

    The added misbehavior before the enemy (Article 99) charge might be leverage strategy by Army prosecutors to get Bergdahl to plead-out to the lessor punitive charge of desertion...
     
  9. TEKMAN

    TEKMAN Semper Fi!

  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    In that situation, the matter was adjudicated in civil disciplinary proceedings--all prisons have them. One consequence of the outcomes of these proceedings is the security status of the individual. Moving an inmate from minimum to medium security, for example, can affect not only his/her privileges, it can also affect his/her release date and/or eligibility for parole.

    The problem with this is that the very officials who run the prison also run the disciplinary hearings. The inmate is without representation and really is presumed guilty. It is unfortunate that such a system can have a tremendous impact on someone's life...and freedom.

    This is in no way unique to the military, however. Every prison system has it. Doesn't make it right, of course.
     
  11. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Nor does such make it wrong either Rich…

    The operative language and my counsel to prisoner Manning would be … better to follow USDB rules. It’s immaterial as to disagreement with the institutional rules as regards the inmate's view. Of course Manning’s decision to not follow the law (UCMJ), rules, DOD, Army policy, etc. ultimately placed him at Leavenworth with both the espionage conviction and DD.
     
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    It's very, very wrong. Civil rights go out the window, yet one's freedom is on the line in these proceedings.

    The toothpaste deal is a sham. They were looking for any excuse and found one. There is no way--NO WAY--legitimate prison officials would take disciplinary action for such a thing...unless that was their goal.

    As for her conviction, it is naive to think it was due only to UCMJ violations and the like. (Here comes the complicated part.) She could have violated the UCMJ and been railroaded at the same time.

    I had court-martial authority over three squadrons during my military career, carrying out many Article 15 hearings and referring cases for prosecution at court-martial. I've sat on a court-martial panel. And I've had custody of over 300 medium-security inmates while working in two prisons. All of the Manning affair is about politics. You can put lipstick on that pig (the military persecution of her), but it's still a pig.

    My point: there are many legitimate ways to look at this matter.
     
  13. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Manning was charged (Article 32 hearing) and subsequently convicted of five counts of espionage and theft re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning (illegally passing classified information to an unauthorized entity, e.g., WikiLeaks) via a general court-martial; that's legitimate. That’s not putting lipstick on a pig; and to just say it is doesn’t make it so. What’s your source/s of evidence that [all] the Manning affair is/was simply about politics and possible railroading and not about this individual engaging in espionage and being convicted of violating the Espionage Act? Who’s really trying to lipstick the pig Rich? Nonetheless, the thread was intended to invite conversation regarding the current charges SGT Bowe Bergdahl faces; not to hijack the discussion opportunity by implanting dialogue on U.S. Disciplinary Barracks prisoner Chelsea a.k.a. Bradley Manning (legal name) … who in my experience as a former commissioned officer (TS/SSBI security clearance: Defense Investigative Service (DIS)) in the U.S. Marine Corps and afterward serving as a U.S. Army officer: Manning should have never had access to sensitive material in the first place AND should never have been approved for /granted a Top Secret/SCI clearance (e.g., Manning self-admits to suffering from gender identity disorder (GID)). Such a condition would have been a disqualifier for a TS clearance when I served.
     
  14. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    So sorry. I believed the CNN headline, "Wikileaks source Chelsea Manning convicted over magazines, toothpaste." Chelsea Manning convicted over magazines, toothpaste - CNNPolitics.com And Newsweek ("Prison Punishes Chelsea Manning for Having Expired Toothpaste...") http://tinyurl.com/pvz92gc

    Etc.

    She's a hero[ine] to me. Clearly not to you. Such is life. See ya in the political forums.

    John Bear, Ph.D., Michigan State University,
    who proudly marched in the Barry Goldwater
    Victory Parade in San Francisco in 1964
    (Republicans imitating Ku Klux Klan members condemning Barry Goldwater... News Photo | Getty Images)
     
  15. major56

    major56 Active Member

    You have yet to relevantly reply to the original subject matter (re SGT Bowe Bergdahl), yet almost immediately hijacked the discussion by waving a subjective flag on behalf of a duly tried and convicted collaborator (Manning), who now imprisoned, and as per your reference links—continues in having issues with following policy /rules—even now within the confines of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (a penal /nondemocratic setting).

    Although your responses to date have been irrelevant as regards SGT Bergdahl; nevertheless, in that you make it appear you’re so openly concerned with the plight of the allegedly exploited Manning…

    Question: What have you explicitly done, going to do, or even propose to do constructively toward righting the asserted injustice? After all and as per your statement … Manning [is] your hero /heroine. Surely you haven’t just injected as an exploitation strategy the Manning circumstances to promote a personal cynicism toward and/or a self-serving agenda aimed at denouncing the U.S. military and its process of justice (?). Moreover, in that you also had the need to include an auxiliary link regarding your historic (seemingly noteworthy in your opinion) marching experience Republicans imitating Ku Klux Klan members condemning Barry Goldwater... News Photo | Getty Images; please tell me about some /any of your in-house military service experience, along with, your personal experience with the laws and procedures governing members of the armed forces of the United States...

    [​IMG]


    I expect your overall distaste for the U.S. military goes fairly deep John—and of course, that’s your prerogative. So you opting to endorse the duly convicted of violating the Espionage Act (1917) /leaking classified information, theft of classified /U.S. government documents, etc., dishonorably discharged and confined U.S. Army PVT (E-1) Bradley /Chelsea Manning as your champion are not at all surprising. I consider your approach suggests insight as to your fundamental disposition toward the military—well beyond dismissing such as merely political differences. Of course, the readers can/will draw their own inferences…
     
  16. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Gee, why didn't you save some of that military-hating ad hominem for me? It would be just as baseless.
     
  17. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    No, I don't hate the military. Not at all.

    Yours sincerely, John Bear
     
  18. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Gee, I addressed my recent comments /observations to John Bear … not you Rich. Yet if you want to disagree with what I wrote; at least reasonably attempt to do so—don’t merely challenge or try to dismiss my thoughts with some small and nonsensical reply. Even so, I did reply to your previous comment, although you chose not to respond—that’s okay too. Perhaps you couldn’t support your wholesale statement contending the Manning situation as fundamentally just politics (sham /railroading). Nonetheless, prior to me submitting the post, I knew you’d almost immediately chime in on John’s behalf—poorly, but you did. Although we haven't always agreed over the years … as to this particular topic … I do give credence to the fact that you did serve.

    Cheers

    PS Try to not to be such a minion Rich.
     
  19. major56

    major56 Active Member

    I can appreciate that; I’ll take you at your word. :unitedstates: :smokin:
     
  20. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I don't want to disagree with it. But I do want to laugh at it. Your perspective on this subject is incredibly narrow. You come across like an idiot who knows some facts. But you don't have a shred of judgment that can be usefully applied. I'm sure you're not an idiot, which makes your posts even more puzzling.

    I'm no one's minion, but thanks for the ad hominem. I was missing it.
     

Share This Page