Jump to content

Talk:Bowe Bergdahl

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

News report suggests error

[edit]

This news report suggests that our phrase "similar to a Grand Jury hearing in civilian court," was inaccurate. Our article on Article 32 hearings seems to get it right: it's similar to a preliminary hearing, not similar to a grand jury. But I am not confident in this area, so rather than possibly make things worse, I've just removed the claim for now. Hopefully someone who knows about the military system can improve it further from this point.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment in captivity

[edit]

Those knowledgeable about Sgt. Bergdahl may be interested in this or this. Sca (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is "traitor" NPOV?

[edit]

The opening line of the article states that "Robert Bowdrie "Bowe" Bergdahl (born March 28, 1986) is a United States Army traitor". I'm not here to defend him, but as he is currently awaiting court martial, and to the best of my understanding, the charges against him don't include treason, is it NPOV/accurate to describe him as a "traitor"? I'm not going to change it without other input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaikinMan (talk • contribs) 13:04, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was some vandalism. It was removed. It was followed by another piece of vandalism adding "hero" to the lead, that was also removed. So the universe is all at balance again. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else has put 'hero soldier' which is equally NPOV. The person who deleted it found the need to weasel word their edit with 'minor word change' as the description. I'm finding it difficult to maintain good faith, but most of these people are probably coming off Bing. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 07:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Podcast - Season two is about Bowe Bergdahl

[edit]

Season two of the Serial Podcast is about Bowe Bergdahl. The first episode was released today. Shouldn't this be a major heading for the article?

https://serialpodcast.org

03:29, 11 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.254.138.123 (talk)

There's a bit of an edit-war going on about whether the Serial coverage should be in the top paragraph. My opinion is that it should not—it would be more appropriate in a "news coverage" section, or in "see also". But given the controversy on this, I thought it would be better for me to express my opinion here instead of making another revert... — Narsil (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Per WP:LEAD the most important aspects of the subject are summarized at the top. The podcast is not a particularly important part of Bergdahls story. – S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prisoner of War Medal

[edit]

Is there any way to know whether SGT Bergdahl has been awarded this? Deltopia (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deltopia: This Washington Post article from today remarks that he was not wearing it during arraignment today at Fort Bragg, and that this is an indication that the Army has reserved judgment in awarding it to him. I don't usually put much weight in websites like this one, which claims he has been awarded the medal, but the website is privately maintained and although it claims, "All recipients in the database are verified by source material such as official award citations, narratives and/or synopses from individuals or records from the National Archives," I don't see it pointing to any such sources here. So it looks like it has not been verifiably awarded to him. I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Deltopia: The other approach to take here is to do some good ol' letter writing and contact the National Archives directly. : ) I, JethroBT drop me a line 23:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@I JethroBT: I guess I should have asked "Does anyone know" rather than "is there any way to know"; I did not think that the governing regulations allowed the Army any latitude in deciding whether to award it... so I looked it up. According to Army Regulation 600-8-22, Military Awards, ch 2.9 para h:
Any person convicted of misconduct or a criminal charge by a U.S. military tribunal, or who receives a less than honorable discharge based upon actions while a POW, or whose conduct was not in accord with the Code of Conduct, and whose actions are documented by U.S. military records is ineligible for the medal. The SECARMY is the authority for deciding eligibility in such cases.
According to the article, none of his actions while a POW are actually being questioned, just the circumstances that led to him being captured. So it's interesting that they would withhold the medal, or maybe it implies that they think some of his actions as a POW were questionable. AR 670-1 definitely indicates, though, that if they'd awarded it to him, he should be wearing it -- so that Washington Post photo definitely answers my question. Thanks! Deltopia (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tense

[edit]

Bergdahl is no longer a United States Army soldier. He was a United States Army soldier. Perhaps someone with the necessary privileges and a concern for topical accuracy will make the necessary editorial revison. 2A02:C7F:A025:2500:398A:1563:F7A0:3BCD (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, you'll note that Bergdahl is not discharged yet. Although the judge sentenced Bergdahl to a dishonorable discharge on 3 November 2017, all punitive discharge sentences are stayed pending automatic appeal. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The search for Bergdahl, and claims that Bergdahl search killed comrades; Bergdahl's claim he attempted to report lapses from order

[edit]

When Bergdahl was exchanged many publications reported 6 GIs died searching for him.

Shortly after, some RS, including Reuters and the NYTimes, debunked those reports.

Nevertheless some partisan publications continued to report the search for him was responsible for the deaths of other GIs.

In 2016 the Serial podcast reported on the official inquiries into those six men's deaths. The official inquiries confirmed Reuters earlier reporting -- all six men died when engaged on missions that had nothing to do with searching for Bergdahl.

Even so, some partisan publications continued to report the search for him was responsible for the deaths of other GIs.

I updated the article with the new information, removing some out of date info. Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Currently, a paragraph of this section starts: "Due to resources being diverted to find Bergdahl, the closing of Combat Outpost Keating was delayed, which may have led to eight American soldiers being killed on October 3, 2009,<ref name=Cnn2014-06-01B/> after 300 Taliban insurgents overran the base."
The CNN article doesn't say eight GIs were killed on 2009-10-03. It says a total of 8 GIs were killed at the base, without saying when they were killed. How many died in the months or years prior to Bergdahl's capture? Geo Swan (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Geo Swan, CNN does not specify that eight were killed on October 3, 2009, when Taliban insurgents overran Combat Outpost Keating, but The New York Times does say so. I've rearranged these references to clarify which source says what. KalHolmann (talk) 05:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bowe Bergdahl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status?

[edit]

It's 2018. What's the status of Bergdahl's sentencing now? And is he in custody? Sca (talk) 21:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's not in custody, nor will he be in custody. The discharge is stayed pending automatic appeal, so until that appellate process completes itself he won't be discharged. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mentally ill

[edit]

This man was mentally ill and released from Coast Guard duty after 26 days. He was totally unfit for military service. The US Army gave him a waver for his mental illness and accepted him into the Army. While in the Army overseas his mental illness caused him to leave his post. HE actually was absent only one day. He was captured by the enemy and not allowed to return to his base. His trial was a farce to punish a mentally ill man who the Army wavered to let join. The Army is the one who is completely at fault here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.17.223.192 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any relevant sources to back up your claims (BTW, from the article: "On July 27, 2015, memorandum from the sanity board stated "Though Sgt. Bergdahl did have a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, he was able to appreciate the nature and quality and wrongfulness of this conduct."")? Without WP:RS, this just sounds like a lot of hoopla (also, what's the point of this? Are you suggesting an article change?) --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He intentionally left his post to "start a new life". That makes him a deserter and a traitor. 2600:8805:5800:F500:4CB0:ECF:7A9B:F8EA (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of the available info is that Bergdahl believed orders were being disobeyed, and that his only option was to make his way, overland, to the next nearby base, to file a report on his immediate superiors.
Is this legal? Maybe.
When the photos from Abu Ghraib emereged naive civilians though Ivan Frederick, and the other guards, who weren't sadists, should simply have refused to obey orders to torture and abuse the captives. Frederick said he told his superiors he was concerned their orders put them in the position of committing war crimes, and that they mocked him when he requested they let him read an official copy of the Geneva Conventions.
A patient guy, who had served in the US military, explained to me the kind of bravery it would have required of Sgt Frederick to flat out refuse to obey orders he considered illegal.
He explained that Frederick risked serious penalties, a long prison term, if he escalated matters to the point that an official determination was made whether the orders were illegal, and it determined they were.
I don't know if he explained this to me, or I reached the conclusion myself -- even if the orders were illegal, even if he was reporting genuine war crimes, the most likely result would be a cover-up, that sanitized the records of his superiors, and ended his career, possibily after scrutinizing his own record with a fine-toothed comb, and landing on him with enormous impact for molehills routinely committed by every GI The Helicopter pilot who reported the My Lia massacre told 60 minutes he worried about being "fragged" for every day of the remaining days of his hitch.
I don't believe there are any genuinely reliable sources that support claims Bergdahl's intention was to desert, or to defect to the Taliban. Geo Swan (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still on active duty 2021

[edit]

He was sentenced to be dishonorably discharged in Nov 2017 but is still on active duty until the sentence is verified or appealed. He will be released on the date of that final judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.117 (talk) 05:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On aug 28,2020 the court of appeals verified the final judgment. His case has been appealed to the supreme court and as such he is still on active duty as of January 2021. Up until the supreme court accepts or declines the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.95.117 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He is still on active duty waiting appeal. Who is the idiot who keeps saying he is out of the army as of 2020. As long as he has active appeals going on he is in the Army. Call his base in Texas and ask to speak to him he is still there in Texas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.74.63 (talk)

Life after military??

[edit]

Anyone know what happened to Bowe after leaving the military. I think that would make a good follow-up paragraph at the end of the article. Blockhouse321 (talk) 12:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't left the military. His sentence to dishonorable discharge is on hold until all his appeals are exhausted. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discharge status

[edit]

@Richard-of-Earth: Bergdahl's appeal to USCAAF to try and get the trial's outcome overturned was decided by USCAAF on August 27, 2020. The cited source in the body of this article says that USCAAF affirmed the 2017 decision from the trial court (recall the trial court's order sentenced Bergdahl to be discharged). That discharge took effect on August 27, 2020 as there was no further staying of the trial court's order; USCAAF clearly affirmed the decision of the trial court as well as the lower appellate court. Bergdahl has since (2021) gone to a U.S. District Court seeking federal review of his criminal case to try to have his conviction and sentence expunged (he may or may not be successful), but the U.S. District Court did not in any way stay the USCAAF's August 27, 2020 decision which took effect immediately on August 27, 2020. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

here is a link to the complaint filed 17 February 2021. Note on page 1 address for the plaintiff is "Fort Sam Houston, Joint Base San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 28234". Note on page 2 item 3 under "Parties" says "Plaintiff is a soldier in the U.S. Army." That was long after 28 August 2020. Nothing has changed since. This is the docket for the case. On that page you can also click on the "Parties" tab and see Bergdahl's address is the Army base. The next action is 22 November 2022. Bergdahl is still in the Army. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good find. Although we're totally in OR territory now with a Scribd document which can't be authenticated, I assume it's authentic and note the point about the February 2021 pleading stating in present tense that he "is a Soldier in the U.S. Army". Secondary RS's state he's just trying to get his conviction and sentence expunged (which matches the prayer for relief, paragraph #83 in the filing) and there's nothing to indicate that the District Court stayed the USCAAF's August 2020 order. Paragraphs #27 through 31 give no indication, but I'm thinking (speculating) now USCAAF must have also issued a stay anyway (with regard to the discharge) at the time of it's own August 2020 order, we just aren't able to see it in any available record and of course that nuance wasn't reported in the secondary RS's again.
What drew me to this article was that I chanced upon it again yesterday (my last edit was in February 2020), saw that the Infobox had been changed to "2008-2020" for the Army service entry (since I last saw it 2.5 years ago), and observed the lead was out of date (it ends with the point about it still being on appeal at USCAAF). Clearly the lead and Infobox need to be updated. The part about "2008-2020" has also been wrong for quite some time, your edit here in September 2021 reverted another mistaken "former" edit but apparently you didn't catch the "2008-2020" at the time. What's needed here now are some updates to the lead to deconflict and make everything congruent. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out the infobox. I did miss that. It is fixed now. Yea, none of what I found is usable in the article. I presume when he is ether exonerated or discharged it will be mentioned in the news somewhere. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since this last post, nothing has happen. The next action has been continued twice and is scheduled for May 5th. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As of April 19, 2023 he is still in the Army stationed at fort hood Texas. He is in legal hold status until he exhausts his appeals. The army considers him worthless and puts him on menial jobs while awaiting his final appeals. How do i know this? My brother played poker with him today. 2600:1015:A022:2D41:BF4:37BE:3C0E:47D (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to know, but still nothing to add to the article. This article shows the appeals are still ongoing and Bergdahl is winning some and losing some. It seems too ambiguous to add to the article now. Apparently, we will know more by the end of May. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing my brother told me I find very interesting about this case is the fake letter someone planted to use as evidence to promote the desertion charge. Handwriting experts have shown that letter to be fake and not his handwriting. If the Army used fake evidence in a military court, he would end up winning. 2600:1015:A020:28F4:4159:6EE1:39E2:2AC8 (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AzureCitizen:, This Stars and Stripes article from September 26th, 2023, way down on the bottom, mentions “All this, along with the unprecedented actions of the nation’s highest elected official [Trump], and the passage of over two years since the plaintiff became a civilian, six years since his trial, nine years since the wheels of military justice began to turn, and over 14 years since the charged offenses, furnish a compelling basis for dismissing the charges with prejudice,” Bergdahl’s attorneys wrote." (bold added by me). So, if this is true some time in 2021, Bergdahl was discharged very quietly. This is Judge Walton's opinion that summarizes the court's decision in July 2023 to vacate the charges against Bergdahl. It seems to make no mention of Bergdahl being actually discharged. We have been operating on the assumption that while the various appeals were being made that Bergdahl's discharge would be on hold, but apparently he was discharged. This motion from 4 October 2021 on page 60 mentions On June 30, 2009, in Paktika Province, Afghanistan, Appellant, who was then a soldier in the United States Army, intentionally walked away without authority from his combat observation post which it was his duty to defend. This corroborates that Bergdahl was no longer a soldier at that time and had not been for a year at the time this discussion was started. AzureCitizen was right and I was wrong and I apologize. Unless anyone objects we should change the article to reflect his civilian status. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, the exact technical status of Bergdahl's discharge has been very difficult to ascertain. A lot of uninformed reporting in the media left us with little to go on and now in a stroke of luck, you've found an article quoting his attorneys mentioning in a pleading that he became a civilian two years earlier. What we should do now is incorporate it into the article with a reference or note in such a way that future editors don't change it again because it isn't apparent to them either. Also, I assume you wrote "2021" above because the judge's decision was written in July 2023 and 2023 minus two is 2021, but if you look a few sentences up from where you quoted the Stars and Stripes article, it's apparent that his attorneys were speaking in a September 2022 court filing. So 2022 minus two is 2020, and given that the colloquial interpretation of "two years" would mean that is has been at least been two years, that would make it September 2020 or earlier. That lines up very closely with the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirming the trial court's sentence on August 27th, 2020, so it was probably effective August 27th, 2020. Your thoughts? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where the Stars and Stripes article says his attorneys wrote in a Sept. 22 court filing it is referring to 22 September 2023. The docket has no filings in September 2022, but does have one on 22 September 2023. The complaint filed 17 February 2021 states specifically 3. Plaintiff is a soldier in the U.S. Army. So Bergdahl was discharged some time from then until October 2021. I corrected the article and added prose with this conclusion and a comment explaining it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, September 22nd, not September 2022! Okay, the date of discharge really is sometime between February 2021 and October 2021 then (good work confirming the docket). Concur with this fix, that ought to do it so that future editors can follow the logical inference here. Sure is weird that he wasn't discharged when the CAAF issued its final order in August 2020 affirming the sentence and nothing stood in the government's way to finally implement it, so why the additional six to fourteen months delay? Unless Bergdahl writes a book about this entire experience, we'll probably never know. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately thought "ask google" and got The time it takes to get discharged from the military depends on the command. A general discharge can take as little as 30 days but could take up to six months. Separation from the military can take longer than six months. and a link to this article to support it. Apparently, that is not unusual. I imagine television and movies make it seem like it happens overnight, Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a civilian He is still on active duty. Simply call his command in Texas and ask to speak to him. They will give you his extension and you can get it directly from his mouth. 2600:1015:A015:DE9:90DB:2D78:CBCC:DB62 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be WP:OR and would not prove anything as he could be working as a civilian for the Army.Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:26, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bowe_Bergdahl&oldid=1257226666"