Heads at Fox:

(Not yet on this issue) the main stream liberal press will cower and cover for this president.

That's what they're told by Glenn Beck (I think that's where they get it from).

dontcha know?!

Forfeit your pay if you are guilty.

Still being investigated for circumstances around his departure from camp.

The story about a left behind confession was right wing bullshit propaganda.

They simply said they had no reason to think that he did anything wrong, misconduct, during his time as a captive.

I think they still plan of investigating why he left his post.

It's usually a thirty day threshold; there has to be demonstrable proof--not the word of assholes from his unit who got general discharges for misconduct--that he left the unit intending NEVER to return.

Practically, the Services wait a month at least, usually, to figure that someone isn't coming back.

He had no opportunity to "change his mind," and that is assuming he was on his way outta the theater, that the balance of his mind wasn't disturbed, and/or that he was just going walkabout for a bit and intended to come back to base.

He was, at worst, AWOL when captured. And once captured, he can't be called a deserter--his life was not in his hands, he had no control over where he went and what he did. So if he was even AWOL--and given how fucked up his unit was, that's debatable, too--that's usually handled by non-judicial punishment, and it doesn't result in loss of five years' worth of pay. It's usually a percentage of pay for a max of three months...and that's assuming that the commanding officer would be inclined to impose a fine at all. Even loss of rank is usually suspended pending good behavior.

initial absence was not authorized, whatever followed was not in the line of duty and he is responsible. I had a friend that was AWOL - just away a few days when he was injured in an auto accident that was not his fault. Once the LOD investigation determined he was AWOL, his actions were not in the line of duty, but not due to his own misconduct. Then he was informed that because he was NLOD, his medical expenses were his personal responsibility. He could not continue in serve and was administratively discharged (General under Honorable - slightly less than an Honorable discharge). Since his injuries were NLOD, it affected his VA priority group.

If his injuries had been due to willful negligence it would have been NLOD plus due to own misconduct. Is wandering away from a secure area in a combat zone willful negligence?

https://g1arng.army.pentagon.mil/HRCommunity/Systems/HumanResources/LODModule/Documents/Supporting%20Documents/IO%20GUIDE2_5oct09%20(3).pdf

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/milarticles/bllod.htm

not being punished for a previous AWOL is not a defense for committing another offense. Nor does a USMJ AWOL charge have to be pursued before a Line of Duty Investigation determines it from an administrative perspective. And if AWOL is pursued under the UCMJ, the Manual for Courts Martial (President Obama's Executive Order on military legal procedure) articulates the elements of proof for each offense. A guilty verdict of AWOL requires proving the following:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/MCM-2012.pdf

Article 86—Absence without leave
a. Text of statute.
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.

The relevant elements of Proof for Absence from unit, organization, or place of
duty.
(a) That the accused absented himself or her­
self from his or her unit, organization, or place of
duty at which he or she was required to be;
(b ) That the absence was without authority
from anyone competent to give him or her leave;
and
(c) That the absence was for a certain period of time


c. Explanation.
(1) In general. This article is designed to cover
every case not elsewhere provided for in which any
member of the armed forces is through the mem­ber’s
own fault not at the place where the member is
required to be at a prescribed time.

It is not neces­sary that the person be absent entirely from military
jurisdiction and control. The first part of this ar­ticle—relating to the
appointed place of duty—ap­plies whether the place is appointed as
a rendezvous for several or for one only.

(2) Actual knowledge. The offenses of failure to
go to and going from appointed place of duty re­
quire proof that the accused actually knew of the
appointed time and place of duty. The offense of
absence from unit, organization, or place of duty
with intent to avoid maneuvers or field exercises
requires proof that the accused actually knew that
the absence would occur during a part of a period of
maneuvers or field exercises. Actual knowledge may
be proved by circumstantial evidence.

(3) Intent. Specific intent is not an element of
unauthorized absence. Specific intent is an element
for certain aggravated unauthorized absences.

(4) Aggravated forms of unauthorized absence.
There are variations of unauthorized absence under
Article 86(3) which are more serious because of
aggravating circumstances such as duration of the
absence, a special type of duty from which the ac­
cused absents himself or herself, and a particular
specific intent which accompanies the absence,
These circumstances are not essential elements of a
violation of Article 86. They simply constitute spe­cial
matters in aggravation. The following are aggra­vated
unauthorized absences:

(a) Unauthorized absence for more than 3 days
(duration).

(b ) Unauthorized absence for more than 30 days
days (duration).

(c) Unauthorized absence from a guard, watch,
or duty (special type of duty).

(d) Unauthorized absence from guard, watch,
or duty section with the intent to abandon it (special
type of duty and specific intent).

(e ) Unauthorized absence with the intention to
avoid maneuvers or field exercises (special type of
duty and specific intent).

e. Maximum punishment.

(1) Failing to go to, or going from, the appointed
place of duty. Confinement for 1 month and forfei­ture
of two-thirds pay per month for 1 month.

(2 ) Absence from unit, organization or other place of duty.

(a) For not more than 3 days. Confinement for
1 month and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month
for 1 month.

(b) For more than 3 days but not more than 30
days. Confinement for 6 months and forfeiture of
two-thirds pay per month for 6months.

(c) For more than 30 days. Dishonorable dis­
charge, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and
confinement for 1 year.

(d) For more than 30 days and terminated by
apprehension. Dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of
all pay and allowances , and confinement for 18
months.

(3 ) From guard or watch. Confinement for 3
months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay per month
for 3 months.

(4) From guard or watch with intent to abandon.
Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay and­
allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

(5) With intent to avoid maneuvers or field
exer­cises. Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of all pay
and allowances, and confinement for 6 months.

Finally on the forfeiture of pay. It is referring to future pay. Whether you receive back pay is an administrative decision that turns if you were in the line of duty.

also sat on many courts martials. I've also held Captain's Mast.

If this kid had gone "walkabout" in the past, with the knowledge of his superiors, and had returned, that is an enormous factor in mitigation. He wasn't being "willfully negligent," he was behaving in a fashion that was permitted by leadership as a consequence of an unsavory and unprofessional command climate. The shit rolls downhill, as it were.

I do understand the point you are making, but I also understand that at the command level, to say nothing of the DOD level, mitigating factors can be and often are taken into consideration.

Also, this isn't a drunken kid in an auto accident assigned to a peacetime installation. This is a kid captured in a combat zone by an enemy combatant under somewhat murky circumstances, who has been tried in the media by a "peer" who apparently was an abusive husband, a deadbeat dad, and who got a general discharge in a permissive military environment--hardly an authoritative source.

The "defense" -- if we ever get to that point -- can argue that the soldier was suffering from PTSD or some other mental impairment, that the balance of his mind was disturbed, and he wasn't competent at the time he went walkabout to make reasonable or responsible decisions--and that fact would indemnify him from responsibility.

Keep in mind, too, that this young man washed out of Coast Guard boot camp after 23 days....now, if he couldn't handle USCG boot camp, he had no damn business in the Army. You could go all the way back to his enlistment packet, and probably discover that he was accessed on the "last day of the month" (historically a very crowded environment at a MEPS facility, where a lot of shit slips through) and that there were gaps in his accession records. That would qualify him as a faulty enlistment, and that's not the kid's fault, that goes to the recruiter, the recruiting command, the MEPS staff, and the staff at the boot camp who are supposed to verify the records as the recruits make their way through training.

They can also cast aspersions on the military leadership at his duty station, the lax adherence to regulations, the unpreparedness and unprofessionalism of the personnel at the outpost, and the lack of good order and discipline which contributed to an environment where "rules" were regularly ignored. This kid, when he went wandering off, WAS a 'kid' -- he was an order-taker, not an order-giver. Where were his supervisors? Why weren't they looking out for him?

My sense is that we don't want to go there. I'm looking at this in a big picture way. If he goes down, he doesn't go down alone. Medically retire him, give him his back pay, send him home. There will always be a segment of society that paints him as Chuck Connors in "Branded," and there will be another segment of society who hold him up as the antiwar hero, even if all he was, was a dumb dolt who did a dumber bolt.

liberty. Buddy was in the hospital, the driver returned to base and didn't mention anything reporting in. Buddy got masted and busted a rank even though he'd been unconscious for three days before reporting.

But he got an involuntary admin discharge.

of the one's girl friends car on the way to a drive in, and the girls gets seriously rear ended and they towed the car with the two still in the trunk.

I'm enjoying it.

and was nabbed, in all likelihood.

So he really didnt do anything wrong that many havent done, the difference is most of them dont get caught, they go back to their post before anything bad happens.

He got nabbed by the bad guys, bad luck.

Every single American that has said anything bad about this man should hang their disgusting heads in shame and send him a letter of apology.

Stupid fucking assholes

and frequently went for long walks off base. He came back every time - except the last. He was captured. That's what I'm working with until I get more info.

I hope the town can welcome this man home, but I am afraid that might end up being an impossibility,.

there is no misconduct.

Do you really think soldiers are free to wander off bases in that area? Incredible.

"Army clears Bergdahl..." straight to "desertion"?

That's one giant leap...

Read more carefully this time.

Again - rumor, innuendo, accusations and conjecture about "desertion" has nothing to do with what the ARMY DID.

Will you be disappointed if they don't convict him of desertion? I really don't understand why you would wish that on anyone, much less a POW for almost 5 years?

The central question was why did Bergdahl leave. He has not been cleared of that. I will be disappointed, but not surprised, if the army whitewashes this case as they usually do to avoid bad PR.

Bergdahl's unit was a mess. His leadership sucked. They'd committed war crimes.

Berdahl was conscientious about documenting this stuff and sending his observations back home. His fellow soldiers have a lot to gain by smearing him first before he can tell his side of the story

Be that as it may, its an undisputed fact that Bergdahl had walked away before and always come back. Always. Without reprimand. That FACT cannot be ignored imho and definitely warrants a healthy dose of wait-and-see before the guy is summarily pronounced guilty by you or the rest of America.

Your position is untenable. I suggest you take cover.

They enlisted a guy who flunked out of Coast Guard boot camp, who had a history of failing to complete tasks, who probably had attention deficit or some other issues that made it hard for him to stay on task. He wasn't fit for service, but they were desperate and they snatched him up anyway.

I think they'll send him home--pay no attention to the armchair generals who want "retribution" here. If the services were able to give amnesty to Vietnam vets, and to let guys off with a wrist slap who went over the wall to North Korea (drunkenly and stupidly) who ended up making propaganda films for the North Koreans and "aiding and abetting" them for decades, this kid is just not going to be frog-marched, no matter how much the wingnutty Hoo-Rah Harries of the First Barcolounger Brigade want to "make an example" out of him.

Why don't you add "FOX NEWS ALERT" to your comments?

and judgmental without knowing all the facts. The army is going to "whitewash". geez.

Which it seems you wish to dismiss.

of things from the Vietnam era that aroused my suspicions about the army's investigative abilities. Calley was a patsy. Yet, the Bergdahl thing has me perplexed because of the obvious problems that have arisen. Did he desert or do something common for that unit in wandering around a 'secured' area? I don't know and the RW BS that has muddied these waters is typical, shout as loud as one can spewing out toilets full of BS and maybe, just maybe some will stick. His mental state has to play into this also. There were times in Vietnam that I definitely was amazed and disgusted at some of the things done in the name of 'democracy' to innocent Vietnamese.....I still think about those things that were done. The only reason I didn't crack was that I was an 'army brat' and part of a military family that has served this nation since the Revolutionary War. A few times I felt like walking though. Had friends in Thailand. Nope, the jury is still out on Bergdahl, and I will not assume anything until the whole story is known. And it will come out.

got it.

But I also am not going to make up silly excuses for him either like some posters --'he was just trying to find someplace to get high'.

no use.

But have a nice day.

" I have not called him a deserter in any of my posts...."

Merely that you will be disappointed if he is cleared of as such. You've painted quite the distinction lacking any real difference...

I guarantee these threads will be full of complaints if he even gets a slap on the wrist. You trust army stories. I don't. Heard too many that later were found to be BS.

And it was not them anyway. The army concluded in 2010 that he had probably deserted.

A Pentagon investigation concluded in 2010 that Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl walked away from his unit, and after an initial flurry of searching the military decided not to exert extraordinary efforts to rescue him, according to a former senior defense official who was involved in the matter

http://news.yahoo.com/us-concluded-2010-bergdahl-walked-away-185047684--politics.html

The only way its "desertion" is if they can prove he didn't intend to come back. You have to be willingly AWOL for 30 days before its desertion and considering, from everything we know, he got captured the night he left base, I don't see how desertion could EVER be proven until he straight up admits that he never intended to come back.

It is funny to see the same posters who blasted the army for their fairy tale stories about POW Jessica Lynch and the shooting of Pat Tillman are immediately accepting of anything the army says in this case. But the truth will come out eventually. It always does.

Wherever that leads. It is funny that you say I have an agenda when it is pretty clear posters don't want to hear anything negative about Bergdahl.

you're chowing down spoon-fed teabagger bullshit like it's ice cream. knock yourself out taking the word of shitbags like Cody Full.

Since he is so outstanding it is really unfortunate he ended up in that unit

We don't know yet about Bergdahl.... as for him, I'd far prefer to wait and let the guy tell his story before he's pronounced guilty.

They did it because they were frantic to make "mission" goals during a period when they were truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The Army bears an enormous degree of responsibility in this entire imbroglio--that's something that you, in your angry quest for for something you regard as "justice," aren't seeming to be able to grasp. You seem to want to make an example out of this kid, when in reality he is a brilliant example of the Army's sliding standards when they were pressed to plus-up their all-volunteer ranks.

The junior individual in this entire equation is Bergdahl--the leadership, from the recruiting command to this soldier's last duty station--failed him and their Service at every turn. That is becoming quite clear as more details are revealed about this young man's circumstances.

He's not a hero, he is more like a victim--an unqualified individual, pressed into service, who was too quirky, psychologically unfit, and ill prepared for the drudgery and monotony that is par for the course for junior military personnel. There's a lot of "blame" to go around, but blaming someone who doesn't have the requisite psychological capacity for failing to have that capacity is just a non-starter. He was mentally unfit for service, but they let him in anyway. Someone has some 'splainin' to do, but it ain't Bergdahl.

I don't know if he was fit for the military or not. I have not seen any investigation of that matter. The army in general has not had much of a problem with volunteers. They only need to get 2% of those turning 18 to meet their goals. Here in Phoenix they just turned away 500 because of tattoos. If they are doing that they must not have much of a problem.

The Army lowered standards precipitously during the war years--it's easy to "not have a problem" when one's expectations are so low in the first place. They needed to lower those standards to make the numbers they needed. They tossed high school grad requirements pretty much out the window, they took CAT IV recruits, normally a very small minority of the total force, hand over fist, they even took on overweight recruits and those with felony records. Tattoos were the least of their worries.

In case you haven't been keeping up, the Army is in the midst of a rather profound drawdown. They're shuffling them out by the thousands, and they're doing it without much in the way of ceremony, either--it's leaving a bad taste in some mouths.

That's why they are now turning people away in droves (people who know some slacker in uniform who hasn't been shown the door yet are astounded that they can't make the grade with the newer, stricter requirements), that is why they have changed their tattoo policy, and that is why they have started enforcing weight and fitness standards.

What's true in Phoenix today was NOT true when they were churning them out in droves in the post Nahn Wun Wun decade, and it wasn't true when the Army, in need of bodies, chose to take on a kid who washed out of USCG training after three weeks.


http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140120/CAREERS02/301200005/Tougher-screening-starts-next-month

http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/15/news/economy/military-recruiting/

Here's a link:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/06/03/fox-news-contributor-behind-pr-campaign-for-sol/199565

The Army has been extremely careful to NOT say that he deserted because the answer is nobody knows. Bergdahl had taken walks before and always come back without any punishment at all. That's not even a point of dispute. The Army knows that. Even his unit members knew that.

From the same article:

In 2010 they had one side of the story. Now, if Bergdahl is saying anything, they have another side.

That's pretty much what i said in my post.

They have not concluded desertion, or what his intent upon leaving his unit was.

AWOL, maybe. If he was on duty and walked away to go have a stroll, he could get a dereliction charge.

But we're learning, as time passes, that the angry rantings of a "battle buddy" who was no real buddy, who managed to get a general discharge in a very permissive environment, who was a problem child himself in his unit and a shitty husband and non-supporting father, did plenty to muddy the waters with regard to this guy.

I think he was quirky, maybe a little fucked up, but he's no Benedict Arnold. He should be medically retired and sent home.

the whole bunch were tweeting about their "grand reunion" in NYC for FOX taping and meeting Megan Kelly.

Everyone in the unit except boy scout Bergdahl was corrupt.

Are you actually defending a bunch of RW nuts by making a snarky comparison?

The boy is innocent until he is convicted. Why not leave it at that?

who said there was a "desertion note" then later had to retract that statement when those who saw the report said there was NO NOTE. He pulled it out if his ass.

We know he was gone for five years. We also know he was a prisoner of war for five years and attempted several escapes.

From what I remember he had gone on "walks" before. Apparently he didn't get in any trouble for doing it, because you KNOW we would have heard about that shit. There's an Army regulation that requires commanders to post the results of nonjudicial punishment hearings and courts-martial on the unit bulletin board, and one of the eight-balls in his outfit would have been sure to tell Fox News all about it if Bergdahl had been so punished.

So let's sort this out.

There are three different kinds of unauthorized absence that could apply to Bergdahl. (The fourth wouldn't because it only applies to people with routine access to Secret-and-above classified information. It's called "knowledgeable AWOL" and if someone commits it your unit will immediately go into security lockdown to figure out if your guy could have left with a bunch of secrets.)

The most severe is Desertion - intent to vacate permanently, in accordance with Article 85 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In practice, no matter whether the guy throws his uniforms away, bends his dog tags and runs his ID card through a paper shredder, they don't prefer Article 85 charges unless he leaves for more than 30 days with no intent to return. Factor in mitigation: he spent almost all those five years in a Talibani field-expedient prisoner of war camp and tried to escape. My feeling is: because he was impeded from returning to friendly lines (leg irons do that), he has a record of wandering around in the forward area, attempts to escape show willingness to return to friendly lines, and no misconduct while in captivity has been charged, this isn't how they'll go.

The least severe is Failure to Repair. This basically means missing formation once too often. If you're gone more than 24 hours, they can't give this to you. If they charge him with anything it won't be with this if for no other reason than civilians don't know what it is.

That brings us to Absence Without Leave, which in this case has the factor in mitigation that his chain of command apparently didn't mind if he just took off on occasion. If it was okay to stroll off those times, why not this one?

There's a very good chance the Army will just want to close this as fast as possible. He's already past his normal Expiration, Term of Service date so nothing fancy will need to be done to discharge him. They can give him a reenlistment eligibility code that will keep him from rejoining the service and declare the Taliban already punished him enough.

And Desertion is very specific; there are conditions that need to be met before AWOL (absent without leave) becomes desertion.

The most common forms of when being charged with desertion are 1) extended AWOL over 7 days after missing movement and 2) extended AWOL over 30 days . Basically, if you drop off the command's radar for 30 days without taking leave of absence, or if you don't try to re-connect or make arrangements to reconnect with your unit within 2 weeks after missing unit movement or deployment, it's automatically desertion and brig time. Before then, it's confinement to quarters, post mast (Capt's mast). One of the guys who worked for me back in the early 80's did that, disappeared for two years after he found the love of his life - who was another man. Before DADT. He actually got a better discharge (Administrative discharge after 18 months in the Brig) due to an AWOL desertion, claiming he had to take care of his dying grandma who lived alone out in the boonies with no phone during that time at his courts-martial than if he had been found guilty of Sodomy with his partner. He finally got caught because the Long Beach Naval district was cleaning up the books before they started BRACing and went out looking for him at his grandma's, where they were staying.
To summarize; in extended AWOL situations, unless you have a damn good excuse like you were in an accident and there was no way to identify you and contact your command in time to meet the deadlines, or being held hostage by a f'ed up psychopath or something like that - a situation that you had no reasonable expectation to be in or had not sought out, you will be charged and tried for desertion. Being in jail is not an excuse, but usually in those cases, your command will be informed about where you are and desertion charges are waived for other articles that you can be charged for under the UCMJ.

The third most common form considered desertion is leaving while on duty - running away in a situation where your situation does not warrant it - i.e., you dropped your rifle and ran while not in danger of being over-run by the enemy, or not in an ambush. There were guys in Vietnam that could have been charged with that if they were not fragged by their unit because they were already disliked by everyone else or given the grace of a psyche exam because their unit felt sorry for them. Similar situations include walking off with keys or classified documents to make things harder for your command to recover from your loss.

The final official form of desertion is leaving one's guard or sentry post while on duty. That is never, never, never acceptable to anyone in the military, because it puts a big gaping hole in the security of the unit. This is the form most faux noise patriots are suggesting when they initially claimed Bergdahl deserted, which from all indications is not the case. Especially since the initial investigation was that he walked away from his command, which is far different than leaving his guard post.

Basically, when people who have not had to deal with the UCMJ go on spouting things about desertion, they have no idea what they are actually talking about, nor do they have a clue about what the actual legal ramifications of desertion is to the military.

Walking off a base without leave is going AWOL. That's one story about what happened to him. Being left behind by his patrol unit who still talk like they consider him a useless bleeding heart wimp because he didn't take joy in killing random rag-heads is not AWOL or desertion on his part - and that's another potential serious UCMJ issue that they will have to deal with if they are still active duty.

At most, right now, I'd call him AWOL and unlucky because he was determined to be detained by the Taliban within a week, keeping him out of the desertion category. Because that's all the f***'n information I have on the situation, not having access to the official military investigation on the situation when it happened, and the ongoing investigation since they brought him back.I semi-dated a JAG for a couple weeks, and went to at least 4 UCMJ courses as part of my CPO leadership requirements over the years. There's a lot of gaps in all of the reporting going on with Bergdahl, and from some of the things I've been hearing from people who were over there and what little has leaked out, the situation has a lot more internal complications to it than we see. There's some heads that are going to roll in leadership that is still active (or reserve), even if they had covered their assess over time.

Haele
(USN-Ret.)

And a lot will depend on what he says was the reason for his leaving -- and whether they believe that account -- or whether they even care that much and just want the story and him to go away. I will not join in and be an armchair general and try to smear the other members of his unit no matter what their story is.

reading his own writing he is racist, sexist, bigot, supports Clive Bundy, HATES the president, wants to kill all Hillary supporters. He is committing verbal fratricide of another soldier, inflaming the situation with his "opinions" and presenting them as facts. Accusations of collaborating with the enemy, and treason, with no proof of any of it, is obscene. He gives me the creeps and makes my skin crawl. I hope Maj. Gen. Dahl, leading the official Army investigation, gives the whole bunch a polygraph. Especially Cody Full who seems to get sadistic pleasure smearing Bergdahl knowing how helpless he currently is and cannot defend himself. Full is hiding something.

Let the chips fall where they may.

is different from desertion. Look at princeboybush, he was awol a lot and nothing happened to him. It happened during a time of troops being deployed to an hostile area in which they were in harms way, so same difference. I hope they leave Bergdahl alone. let the man sort out his life and try to move on.

A bunch of Rethug hotheads, that's who.

Wandering off base for a walk is stupid and against the rules, but it's not desertion.

I am wondering if this soldier was mentally ill. Maybe he thought he was Jesus or something.

...been reported over the years about some of the things John McCain did and said while he was being held captive, this guy was a genuine patriot.

what exactly did McCain do and say while being held captive. And how was it different than all of the other POWs who were tortured?

John McCain ‘Sang Like a Canary’ to the North Vietnamese©
Material Supplied by Colonel Ted Guy
John McCain’s SRO at the Plantation
Dedicated to the Memory of Ted Guy
15 April 2008

Within the first four days of his capture, while in his initial interrogation (26-30 October 1967) at the Hoa Lo prison in Hanoi, and while recovering from his shootdown wounds in the North Vietnamese military hospital (31 October 1967 through mid-December 1967), John McCain provided military information far beyond that which the Code of Conduct – and that which other POWs, while undergoing extreme torture – refused to divulge to the enemy. Colonel Ted Guy, McCain’s Senior Ranking Officer (SRO) while they were both imprisoned at the Plantation prison complex in Hanoi, gathered information from various sources after the POWs were released in March 1973.

This information comes from U.S. intercepts of North Vietnamese broadcasts to American servicemen in South Vietnam around 31 October 1967, as well as from dispatches by North Vietnamese and Cuban correspondents — using material from a Nhan Dan (the central organ, the voice of the Communist Party of Vietnam, then and now) correspondent who interviewed John McCain. This material was published on 9 November 1967. The latter were backed up by the intercepts of these messages by the Message Center of the U.S. Department of Defense National Military Command Center, dated 11 November 1967..

A separate interview of McCain by a Soviet Union correspondent was published by Pravda in Moscow on 8 December 1967. A copy of this interview is presented below. And finally, McCain was interviewed by a French correspondent who published a series of interviews announced on 25 December 1967 and began 27 December 1967. This interview was intercepted by the Message Center of the U.S. National Command Center and disseminated via message on 1 January 1968.

Each of these official records of John McCain’s interviews with foreign correspondents, while held captive in Hanoi is reproduced below. Observe that every one of these interviews contains military information — far, far beyond the limits required by the Code of Conduct. Indeed this information is far beyond what nearly all of the POWs were severely tortured to obtain — the insignificant ‘gray area’ information such as nebulous ‘air pirate’ signed statements. Only those few who were turncoats and anti-war sympathizers among our POWs gave up more information to the enemy than did John McCain.

Indeed, John McCain made good on his promise to his interrogator, ‘the Bug,’ to provide U.S. military information in return for medical attention to his shootdown wounds. See the essay, ‘John McCain as a POW’ for the context of this promise. These interviews are documented below.
___________________________________________________________________________________
I have collected many articles and photos of original articles on McCain. I was in the military (Navy) during Vietnam, although I was never in Vietnam, I heard a lot of rumors and read many articles. Please do not use McCain as an example. He as W had protection from prosecution by being the son of an important family. God help him if he was poor and especially if he was black.

Col. Ted Guy died in 1999.

Just as I suspected.

He believed he'd get better medical care. He thought he was going to die and felt he had to provide some info to get medical care. I don't blame him!

That's undisputed... even by McCain...

Here's the website where much of the McCain POW myth is laid out...

http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

Where McCain and the rest were held. Once in November, 1992 when it was still an active prison. John Kerry had been appointed by Bush I to lead a delegation investigating prisoners held after the war. I saw the conditions that Americans were held in. I also visited it in 2009 when it no longer was an active prison. All the POWs who were tortured gave statements. None of them dishonored their service or country in doing so. McCain was held out for special torture because he refused release when offered. He demanded all go. They tortured him so badly that even today he can't raise his arms above his shoulders and needs people to do his hair, etc.

Just because we disagree politically does not mean we should create smears of these people whether McCain or Kerry by the swiftboaters.

AND I DON'T BLAME HIM!!

Its background so you understand those of us who are aghast at McCain smearing Bergdahl as a less-than-stellar-soldier/POW.....

I don't blame McCain in the least. But the least HE could do is give Bergdahl some space to offer his side of the story.

Instead we have McCain blasting the RW talking points as though they're gospel.

And they're shit until we know better.

You also need to back off the shitty Faux News talking points. Fact is nobody knows what happened that night. There isnt a single eye-witness to what happened to Bergdahl. He'd taken "walks" before and always come back, without reprimand, by his unit commanders.

I don't know what was or is in his mind. I hope he decides to talk at some point. But since he still has not talked to his parents I am not optimistic on that point.

Just stop.

You are relaying the ugliest RW smear jobs - all of which have been discredited.

If you believe John McCain was unfairly tarnished, then surely you are willing to extend the same courtesy to Bergdahl? At least until he's had some kind of investigation into what happened?

Instead you're spewing the shittiest sources on this and that's fucked up.

And if you look at my posts I certainly am awaiting the investigation. I have never said Bergdahl was guilty of anything. However you may trust the military more than I do.

and I think that you are a well educated and good person, I just have never liked McCain. I do not judge him, I just do not like him. What you are telling me is because he said it, and it is in his book, it is the truth. Most of my friends that talked about him are dead. Sorry to be such a pain, I just hope you will be supporting Democrats this year. Thanks for the conversation.

And I am a Democratic candidate for a local position in my town this year.

and when you brought his name into the discussion it raise a red flag with me. I did not go to North Vietnam, I just heard and read articles and saved them at the time. I do not want to go any further, because no matter what I say and how I back it up, it will not be believed as it was back then.

I think that Sgt. Berghdahl deserves the same consideration.

Another poster did and I replied and it went from there. But no matter, I agree Bergdahl deserves every consideration.

You've already judged him guilty and any thing other than guilty is a "whitewash"...

I do fear army investigations because that is their history.

I have photos of original documents also to go along with the below references:

1) Atkinson, Gerald L., “Who Chooses Our ‘Heroes’ in the Age of Multiculturalism,” Atkinson Associates Press, 4 July 2001.
2) Hubbell, John G., “P.O.W.: A Definitive History of the American Prisoner-of-War Experience in Vietnam, 1964-1973,” 633 Pages, Reader’s Digest Press, 1976.
3) Rochester, Stuart I. And Kiley, Frederick, “Honor Bound: American Prisoners of War in Southeast Asia 1961 – 1973, 706 Pages, Naval Institute Press, 1998-1999.
4) Timberg, Robert, “The Nightingale’s Song,” Simon & Schuster, 543 Pages, 1995.
5) Ibid, ‘Honor Bound,” pp. 360.
6) Ibid, ‘P.O.W., pp. 364.
7) McCain III, John S., “Inside Story: How the POWs Fought Back,” U.S. News & World Report, pp. 47, 14 May 1973.
8) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 437-438.
9) Ibid, “P.O.W.,” pp. 363.
10) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 360.
11) Ibid, “P.O.W.,” pp. 342.
12) Ibid, “P.O.W.,” pp. 193.
13) Bell, Dora Griffin, “The Heros’ Wife,” Authorhous, pp. 440, 2006.
14) Ibid, “P.O.W.,” pp. 328-334.
15) Ibid, “P.O.W.,” pp. 506.
16) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 340-543.
17) Ibid, U.S. News & World Report, pp. 50.
18) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 159-160.
19) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 212-214.
20) Ibid, “P.O.W.,” pp. 210.
21) Ibid, “The Heroes’ Wife,” pp. 433.
22) Ibid, “U.S. News & World Report,” pp. 51.
23) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 141-148.
24) Ibid, “U.S. News & World Report,” pp. 50.
25) Ibid, “Honor Bound,” pp. 364.

No one who was imprisoned with McCain agrees with you. No one. Bud Day, Medal of Honor winner, was McCain's cellmate and said McCain handled himself in a outstanding matter. The smear stuff almost all comes from right wing kook sites.

What kind of misconduct could he possibly have engaged in? Revealing important information? What information could he possibly have, anyway?

However, this will barely make get any attention compared to all the stories and speculation about him being a deserter.

you might as well lay down them law books cause their no damn good. I'm ecstatic that the army is not charging him.

This is yet another savage liberal blow to the Republicans this week.

and now this. they make me sick with their hatred.

LOL

right place.

If I had to guess, anyway...

For some reason, I'm happy to read this. I'm not emotionally invested in either the individual or the story, yet I'm happy to read this. Maybe it's another reinforcement in my "people are basically good" outlook.

From what I have read he was a very troubled young man. The army was granting wavers to those even convicted of even felons to get recruits. The military shares a great deal of the blame in the case if I have been properly informed of the situation.

years. His family requested NO contact by reporters of any type and no info on family meetings or not.

The military will respect that, and any info is just speculation.

The only info out there is from wiki leaks. They have the captors communications the day he went 'missing' and wikileaks released that file.

We don't know all the facts. As to why he hasn't spoken to his parents? Perhaps they were the ones who encouraged him to enter the military? Perhaps they encouraged him to go AWOL? Maybe the Bergdahl family was dysfunctional? All speculation for now.
I wish him well, in any event.

media verbal assassination squad. Wanna bet there won't be a word of apology or even a reference.

Broken while captive...possibly broken before, probably should not have been inducted in the first place.

My gods, I feel sorry for him and his family.