USMB Military & Vets is Bergdhal a deserter

[Lakhota]

NO, he's not a deserter - because as of this date we don't know yet what he is. He may be mentally ill. For whatever reason, I guess he was AWOL.

 

[Siete]

wonder if the mods will merge all the deserter polls ?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I served in the USMC and I voted other. He should be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty because otherwise all those with whom he served, and all those who have ever served in the military who suffered, were injured, maimed, or died defending the Constitution - did so in vain.

If you respect the military, the service of its members, and the memory of those who gave everything - then respect every citizens' Rights.

 

[Freewill]

Without further information I voted NO.

In my opinion reading Articles 85 and 86 of UCMJ he went AWOL.

 

[bodecea]

I will wait for the Article 32 at the least.

 

[whitehall]

From what I understand the Army promoted him two times while he was AWOL. Is the Army as crazy as the Hussein administration?

 

[OKTexas]

NO, he's not a deserter - because as of this date we don't know yet what he is. He may be mentally ill. For whatever reason, I guess he was AWOL.

After 30 days, AWOL becomes desertion.

 

[Freewill]

NO, he's not a deserter - because as of this date we don't know yet what he is. He may be mentally ill. For whatever reason, I guess he was AWOL.

After 30 days, AWOL becomes desertion.

COULD, but does not have to. Read the articles in the UCMJ.

 

[Freewill]

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm85.htm

Article 85—Desertion

Text.

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956), is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Guide Note: The offense of Desertion, under Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that's not quite true.

The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently." If one intends to return to "military control," one is guilty of "AWOL," under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85, even if they were away for ten years. The confusion derives from the fact that, if a member is absent without authority for longer than 30 days, the government (court-martial) is allowed to assume there was no intent to return. Therefore, the burden of proof that the accused intended to someday return to "military control" lies with the defense.

A person who is absent for just a day or two, then apprehended, could still be charged with the offense of Desertion, but the prosecution would have to show evidence that the accused intended to remain away permanently.


Article 86—Absence without leave

Text.

“Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm86.htm

 

[OKTexas]

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I served in the USMC and I voted other. He should be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty because otherwise all those with whom he served, and all those who have ever served in the military who suffered, were injured, maimed, or died defending the Constitution - did so in vain.

If you respect the military, the service of its members, and the memory of those who gave everything - then respect every citizens' Rights.

The question wasn't about what the law says, it asked for a personal opinion, I didn't think Marines were so adverse to giving an opinion.

 

[Lakhota]

NO, he's not a deserter - because as of this date we don't know yet what he is. He may be mentally ill. For whatever reason, I guess he was AWOL.

After 30 days, AWOL becomes desertion.

Not if he's captured by the enemy. Then he's a POW.

 

[OKTexas]

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 85—Desertion

Article 85—Desertion

Text.

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956), is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Guide Note: The offense of Desertion, under Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that's not quite true.

The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently." If one intends to return to "military control," one is guilty of "AWOL," under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85, even if they were away for ten years. The confusion derives from the fact that, if a member is absent without authority for longer than 30 days, the government (court-martial) is allowed to assume there was no intent to return. Therefore, the burden of proof that the accused intended to someday return to "military control" lies with the defense.

A person who is absent for just a day or two, then apprehended, could still be charged with the offense of Desertion, but the prosecution would have to show evidence that the accused intended to remain away permanently.


Article 86—Absence without leave

Text.

“Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Art. 86: Absence Without Leave - Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

If this regime decides to charge him I think it will be under Article 85, but honestly, I see some undue command influence in his future, as in giving him a pass.

 

[OKTexas]

NO, he's not a deserter - because as of this date we don't know yet what he is. He may be mentally ill. For whatever reason, I guess he was AWOL.

After 30 days, AWOL becomes desertion.

Not if he's captured by the enemy. Then he's a POW.

He was not captured by the Taliban, he was held hostage by a criminal organization, there is a difference. Then let's not forget the fact that he put himself in the position to be taken hostage.

 

[Zander]

Without question he is a deserter. He may even be a traitor and collaborator. The court martial will be interesting to say the least.

 

[BlackSand]

From what I understand the Army promoted him two times while he was AWOL. Is the Army as crazy as the Hussein administration?

I was wondering how he attended NCO school while he was a prisoner.
.

 

[Lakhota]

From what I understand the Army promoted him two times while he was AWOL. Is the Army as crazy as the Hussein administration?

I was wondering how he attended NCO school while he was a prisoner.
.

Online courses - like Starbucks.

 

[Freewill]

Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

Article 85—Desertion

Article 85—Desertion

Text.

“(a) Any member of the armed forces who—

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another one of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States Note: This provision has been held not to state a separate offense by the United States Court of Military Appeals in United States v. Huff, 7 U.S.C.M.A. 247, 22 C.M.R. 37 (1956), is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

(c) Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.”

Guide Note: The offense of Desertion, under Article 85, carries a much greater punishment, than the offense of AWOL, under Article 86. Many people believe that if one is absent without authority for greater than 30 days, the offense changes from AWOL to Desertion, but that's not quite true.

The primary difference between the two offenses is "intent to remain away permanently." If one intends to return to "military control," one is guilty of "AWOL," under Article 86, not Desertion, under Article 85, even if they were away for ten years. The confusion derives from the fact that, if a member is absent without authority for longer than 30 days, the government (court-martial) is allowed to assume there was no intent to return. Therefore, the burden of proof that the accused intended to someday return to "military control" lies with the defense.

A person who is absent for just a day or two, then apprehended, could still be charged with the offense of Desertion, but the prosecution would have to show evidence that the accused intended to remain away permanently.


Article 86—Absence without leave

Text.

“Any member of the armed forces who, without authority—

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

Art. 86: Absence Without Leave - Punitive Articles of the UCMJ

If this regime decides to charge him I think it will be under Article 85, but honestly, I see some undue command influence in his future, as in giving him a pass.

As was said, opinions were asked, if they charge him with article 85 they will have a hard time proving his intent was to leave and never come back. The 30 day deal goes out the window since he was captured by all accounts. All the other requirements for desertion do not necessarily fit. AWOL is what my reading tells me.

What is equally amazing is how many people have given their opinion without really know the difference between the two.

 

[Freewill]

From what I understand the Army promoted him two times while he was AWOL. Is the Army as crazy as the Hussein administration?

I was wondering how he attended NCO school while he was a prisoner.
.

there's is an NCO school??? Don't think so, but there are test, as far as I know.

 

[Wildman]

in my OPINION and by U.S. Navy standards ...., YES !

 

[Coloradomtnman]

"Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I served in the USMC and I voted other. He should be presumed to be innocent until proven guilty because otherwise all those with whom he served, and all those who have ever served in the military who suffered, were injured, maimed, or died defending the Constitution - did so in vain.

If you respect the military, the service of its members, and the memory of those who gave everything - then respect every citizens' Rights.

The question wasn't about what the law says, it asked for a personal opinion, I didn't think Marines were so adverse to giving an opinion.

My opinion is quite obviously what I wrote: that without all of the facts he should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, if he is found guilty. Jumping to conclusions is not the way to the truth. Marines may be opinionated, rash, extreme, deserving of the name jarhead but a good Marine thinks before acting and wants all of the facts before making a decision.