according to my sources

[Clark]

we will be hearin the result of the Bowe Bergdahl investigation next week.. stay tuned..but my guess is the potus has directed the outcome so as to not look bad..once again

[Jess from VA]

Lets see what spin they put on desertion in the face of the enemy.

[old2soon]

Isn't desertion in time of war punishable by death or other measures as a Court Martial may direct? I M H O the obuminater will sugar coat this for his own agenda.  But I could be wrong cause as everyone is aware of he would never do anything against the Constitution of the United States of America!  Sarcasm definitely INTENDED. Besides-at this point in time what does it matter?  Again-sarcasm INTENDED. RIDE SAFE.

[..]

'nd pissed off whitey will ramapge and burn and riot and cause general mayhem in major cities across the land.

[Jess from VA]

(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. Art 85, UCMJ

However, a death case would unlikely be brought/charged for desertion in time of war from a stateside or noncombat location.  A death case would more likely be brought for desertion in the face of the enemy (front lines)..... like where he was.

And we had formally declared wars in 1812, 1846, 1898, 1917, and 1941. None since.

However, for the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many[who?] have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.  Wiki

Pvt Eddie Slovik was the last man executed for desertion in 1945 (though there were over 20,000 desertion convictions in WWII).  Before that, the last desertion executions were in the Civil War.

Of course since our Commander in Chief (gag) saw fit to trade him to return five confirmed killers to their ranks, one may justifiably wonder if he will ever see a courtroom for anything.  

[PAVALKER]

The POTUS will twist the outcome to go along with his original story line..... Trading 5 useless low level so called Terrorists for a US POW.  Do you doubt he will make it look bad on him if has anything to say or do about it? 

We all know the truth in how we have perceived it.  Their truth is how they spin it for them.

[Serk]

Remember plebes, Ignorance is Strength!

[Jess from VA]

When B was returned to the Army, it was reported that his case would undergo the same investigation and process as any other.  

A full report has been referred to B's General Court Martial Convening authority (a general officer/commander).  His command judge advocate reviews it and makes a recommendation to that commander before he decides what if anything to do.  If he believes a trial is indicated, it must then become the subject of an Art. 32 pretrial investigation conducted by a judge advocate  (like a one-man grand jury) (I did around 25 of them).  The 32 officer reviews all the evidence, and conducts a hearing interviewing any or all witnesses (the defendant is present with counsel and can present any evidence he desires), and issues a recommendation to charge or not, and what charges are supported by the evidence.  This goes back to the commander, with another legal review (of the 32) by his command judge advocate.  The commander then decides to refer charges to trial, or not.  

It is a crime to exert unlawful command influence over a junior officer in the performance of his duties, including duties of a General Court Martial Convening Authority (Military Justice 101 - Part VII).  Zero, as the Commander in Chief is that Authority's superior officer.  But senior commanders do have some options not considered unlawful.

The Commander may not order a subordinate to dispose of a case in a certain way. The law gives independent discretion to each commander at every level possessing authority to convene courts-martial. A senior commander may not try to influence the exercise of that discretion
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa103000d.htm

We'll see.

Oh, BTW, check this out.   http://www.stripes.com/judge-obama-sex-assault-comments-unlawful-command-influence-1.225974 

[Jess Tolbirt]

where is judge roy bean when we need him?

[Master Blaster]

Is it true that the Putz got back pay and a promotion????   

[Jess from VA]

I believe so, he was not carried as a deserter but missing, so regular pay bumps and promotions happened on time.  Even deserters are not generally tried in absentia. 

[specialdose]

 
                    No worries, Obama would neeeeeever do any thing that's unconstitutional. 

                    He said so.       

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3IWq3CXHyc&feature=em-share_video_user