Congratulations, House Republicans!

Obama got him free for the price 5 Taliban leaders, they aren't going to charge him for some time yet because to charge him to quickly, will cause Obama to look bad. It's all politics at this point, the UCMJ means nothing to Obama or his people.

Today the news is talking about the end of combat operations in Afghanistan. Obama is going to take credit for the news now, and in a year when things go wrong and Afghanistan is in ruin, people like you are going to forget who ended those operations and continue to blame Bush. Wait for it...

If there was never any war declared in Iraq or Afghanistan, then please stop the call for prosecuting people for war crimes. It's a door that swings both ways Bob.

OMFG. Did you really just say that? War crimes are often charged after wars are over because that is when the perpetrators can be arrested. See the Nuremberg trials for an example. This is simple history that everyone should know.

Really? Here in Europe, it only is said that the NATO-led military alliance in Afghanistan formally ended its 13-year-long combat mission.

And NATO’s Resolute Support mission will consist of about 13,000 personnel that will continue advising, assisting and training Afghan national security forces in their fight against the Taliban.

Really? During the 2012 Chicago Summit NATO and its partners agreed to withdraw its combat troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014.

Bob has declared that War was never declared in those places and that is the reason why Bergdahl won't be charged as a deserter. If that is the case, then there should be no call to prosecuting people for war crimes, there was no War according Bob.

Read what was written, not what you want it to say.

War crimes only require hostilities and actions during those hostilities that violate international law. There is no requirement that a war actually be declared by the US in order to charge anyone with war crimes.

War crimes are defined, inter alia, as "serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict" and "serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in an armed conflict not of an international character".

Do you have a serious source that a war has to be declared before? How could such be "in an armed conflict not of an international character"?

Does this mean Bergdahl can be charged with desertion?

The investigation of Bergdahl was concluded earlier this month. Now it is up to the army chain of command to look at the report and decide if charges are warranted. Of course he could be charged as a deserter if facts warrant it but that seems unlikely.

You on the other hand seem to want to convict Bergdahl of something without due process. You seem to want to let any US soldier rot in foreign hands if you there is a question about how he got there.

Crimes against humanity encompasses more than war crimes, and just because war wasn't declared doesn't mean one wasn't carried on. Fortunately the Army follows the law.

And really? Obama's holding up an Article15, seriously? Really? You know this how? Really? You believe this? You need to get your information somewhere other than Fox.

This isn't an article 15 issue. This goes beyond a unit or company level infraction and has been pushed up to a high level General. Since when do generals do Article 15's? Do General's serve at the company level?

You keep repeating that syllogism like its true. He "crimes" stand independent of those of Bush/Cheney and are prosecuted by different authorities. By the UCMJ there was no declared war, he can't be charged with desertion. He could be charged with AWOL. Bush Cheney face the world courts/Bergdahl faces the US Army.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/23/us/bowe-bergdahls-disciplinary-fate-placed-in-hands-of-army-general.html?_r=0
<snip>

Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, told reporters Friday that the briefing for Mr. Hagel had been "informational" only, and that the secretary would not have input into the investigation or make any decisions on the case.

Details about General Dahl’s findings have been closely held. Some members of Sergeant Bergdahl’s former unit, and some lawmakers, have been critical of the prisoner exchange and said he should be punished. They say that he deserted or otherwise voluntarily walked off his base, and that men assigned to search for him were put into harm’s way.

Eugene R. Fidell, a lawyer for Sergeant Bergdahl, said in an interview that his client was “glad to see some forward movement on this matter” and was “grateful to the Army for having taken care of him and for having respected his privacy.” Mr. Fidell said he assumed the Army would allow him and his military co-counsel to read General Dahl’s report.

“As the facts become known, as they presumably will at some point, perhaps those who were so quick to condemn Sergeant Bergdahl will have second thoughts, or at least, especially at this time of year, will see his conduct in a different light,” said Mr. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School.

He said Sergeant Bergdahl had answered every question General Dahl put to him and had spent considerable time with other officials describing his captivity.

“He has cooperated fully in debriefings by officials who are concerned with how to prepare Americans for the possibility they may fall into enemy hands,” Mr. Fidell said. He added, “He has cooperated with the Department of Justice in its efforts to hold accountable those who illegally kept him captive, and most recently he has cooperated with the International Committee of the Red Cross, which asked to meet with him at Fort Sam Houston to assess ways to improve the flow of information to and from people held as P.O.W.s.”
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

“I’m confident that all of these positive considerations will be taken into account when General Milley and his advisers review the matter,” Mr. Fidell said.

According to a Department of Defense official, there are no travel restrictions on Sergeant Bergdahl.

An earlier Army investigation into his disappearance, conducted by another officer and completed two months after Sergeant Bergdahl left his unit, concluded he most likely walked away of his own free will from his outpost at night, but it stopped short of concluding that he intended to permanently desert. The report also painted a critical portrait of lax security practices and poor discipline within his unit, and blamed the unit and chain of command for inadequately securing the area around the outpost, two American officials briefed on the classified report said in June.

Greg T. Rinckey, a former Army lawyer who now practices in Albany, predicted the recommended course of action would be an administrative separation from the Army, possibly combined with a nonjudicial punishment.

“I would be very shocked if there were some recommendation to court-martial here, but I’ve been shocked before,” Mr. Rinckey said. He noted that it would be unusual to invite the sergeant’s parents to the White House when his release was announced, only to “turn around and court-martial him” a few months later. He also said that he believed charges requiring a court-martial would be hard to prove, and that Sergeant Bergdahl’s five years in captivity would weigh in the decision.

So are you admitting that this isn't an Article 15?

It could end up an article 15. The rank of the commanding officer doesn't matter. Article 15's have been decided by generals before.


http://www.usmilitarylawyer.com/military-non-judicial-punishment-article-15.asp

This is the exception, not the rule. Most Article 15's are done at the Company level. If they move past the company level, they become more official, more serious and the punishments more severe. This is my experience with the modern day Army and the UCMJ.

Desertion is subject to national law.
I was just and only referring to "war crimes".

Again non-binding. Blow it out your ass, Shill.

Members of the military that are AWOL being held by a foreign power for 5 years are also the exception. Most AWOL's are a simple case of someone being gone for an evening or at most a few days. This case could well end up as an article 15 if there is no evidence to charge desertion and it appears it would be hard to prove it based on being a POW.

Well, since according to your above response the Geneva Convention(s) isn't binding (resp. aren't binding) - why did the USA sign it (them) and always refer to it (them)?

When you send things home, leave all your things piled up in a neat pile and walk away on purpose, that is desertion. He wasn't leaving base to get some ass from a local. He wasn't leaving to go to the local bar. He was in a war zone and left the wire, looking for the Taliban. He was looking for the enemy in order to join them.

The problem was the Taliban flipped the script on him and didn't want him, so instead of becoming a "freedom fighter", he became a prisoner. His initial intent was not to become a prisoner but a brother in arms.

You are right though. It very well could become an article 15, if the Army feels like covering Obama's ass. Imagine how it would look if he was charged with desertion. Obama and his admin claimed this guy was a hero and had his parents to the WH. To be charged with desertion would make Obama look foolish. That is why Obama and the media set the narrative they want. Let's see if the Army plays ball or charges Bergdahl for the deserter he is.

It is called politics, Wally.