Capitol Hill Blue Forums Forum News & Information Tell It To The Editors Trump Forum

What bolded portion of what? You have failed to supply any reference. I think the very first sentence says it all:


"nor any other commanding officer" has to include everyone up the command chain besides the officer who convened the court martial. This includes Commander In Chief Trump. He has said many times in many public media appearances that Bergdahl is guilty and should be shot or thrown from an airplane.

His intemperate remarks in public have destroyed any chance Bergdahl had of getting a fair trial. Bergdahl walks.

The above is INDEED a VERY intemperate remark and no doubt it's the reason why Bergdahl's attorneys felt confident enough that it was that they specifically referred to those remarks in their demand for a dismissal.
Many judges tend to take a dim view of attorneys who abuse the demand for dismissal right out the gate. They consider such a tactic an example of showboating if there isn't a compelling reason to make such a submission.
I would hazard a guess that a military tribunal would take an even more dim view of such a stunt, if it were a stunt.

I think we are arguing the same point, but are out of sync. As to a reference or link: two posts above my previous one is the link. As to the bolded portion, where you said - "Officers on the jury are used to following orders, so if someone up the chain of command says "convict" they will."

I am saying no Military Court would convict with out evidence and most certainly would not do what they were told to do by any Commanding Officer or President Donald (I am the boss) Trump as it relates to the trial. That Article 37, UCMJ, prevents that interference, protects from that interference and in effect says that a Military Court is obligated to disobey and ignore any interference, as it relates to the trial, from Command.

As to Sgt. Bergdahl, I am not aware of the evidence and have no opinion at this time. What little I have read leaves me with many questions.

I hope I cleared up any confusion.

But the interference has ALREADY occurred! The Commander In Chief has ALREADY said that Bergdahl should be convicted and executed. Article 37 says what commanders must not do for a fair trial. It does not say what jurors must do because it assumes they will follow the wished of their commanding officer.

Now he can't get a fair trial so a request for dismissal is not some stunt. It's very likely going to be granted.

Personally, I would have liked to hear the evidence at a fair trial. I really don't know enough about the case. It sounds like he was only guilty of going for a short walk (which I am sure soldiers do all the time) and everything that happened after that was not his fault. But I doubt a fair trial can happen now.

per US Magazine

Imagine if Michelle Obama had left kid duty to the Secret Service! I guess you can only be a lazy bitch FLOTUS if you're white AND Republican.

In the interest of fostering understanding of the Military Justice System, I submit for your interest this thesis of a Major, a student, at the The Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, from April 1992. The US Military Justice System is, in part, based upon the American Justice System and yet outside that system as supported by a SCOTUS decision a few years ago.

In the military time scale, 1992 can be yesterday in some cases...


The link ---> THE COURT-MARTIAL PANEL MEMBER SELECTION PROCESS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS

Nice!!

Okay, I've failed to weigh in on an issue in my wheel house (as a retired JAG officer). There are actually two separate, but related, issues here regarding Bergdahl: 1) unlawful command influence, and b) ability to have a fair trial.

Article 37 is difficult to prove, and disfavored by judges. To my knowledge, it has never been argued regarding the CiC status of the President, but I've not researched the issue specifically. On the other hand, Trump's statements were very specific which is usually required to sustain an article 37 claim, so there is a good deal of merit to that assertion.

With regard to a fair trial, it is a little mushier, because it is fairly easy to assert that an officer (s) was/w ere not influenced by the statements, but, conversely, the criteria are a bit broader for the making a claim.

In combination, though, I think Bergdahl has a surprisingly strong claim.

edited: OOPS, right idea wrong forum

To NWP, Hand Salute, thanks for the analysis. Over the years of lurking, I figured you had some type of training in law.