terrorism

Two Suicide Bombers Hit Paramilitary Force in Kirkuk, Iraq

Kirkuk, Iraq was rocked by two suicide bombers that killed at least five people and wounded another 20 more. The city, in the northeast area of Iraq, was the scene of a battle between Islamic State fighters and the Iraqi government troops before another confrontation in October when Iraqi government and Shiite militias moved quickly into the city to retake control from Kurdish peshmerga fighters. The Kurdish Regional Government held an Independence Referendum in September.

An official speaking on condition of anonymity said the attackers struck near a former police station used by Saraya al-Salam, a Shiite paramilitary force led by powerful Iraqi cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The Kurds claim the PMU, the paramilitary force is nothing more than a tool of Iran, whose goal is to destabilize the region and give Tehran undue influence in Iraq.

The two explosions in Atlas Street, a key shopping street, were reportedly about 15 minutes apart.
Kirkuk is at the center of a conflict between the central Iraqi government in Baghdad and the autonomous Kurdish region.
Last month Iraqi forces captured Kirkuk and other territories from Kurdish peshmerga fighters after the Kurdistan Regional Government held a September 25 independence referendum.

Nearly 93 percent of the vote favored breaking away from Iraq in the referendum vote and the Iraqi government wasted little time in moving in federal troops and Shiite militias (PMU) into the oil-rich province and the regional capital.

The two sides were once unified in the fight against the Islamist State. When Iraqi government forces were being pushed out of Kirkuk by ISIS fighters, it was the Kurdish peshmerga who helped solidify the area.

The peshmerga also played a key role with the government in liberating the city of Mosul.

To read the entire article from The Deutsche Welle, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Bowe Bergdahl Walks With No Jail Time, Was Justice Served?

Army Judge, Colonel Jeffrey Nance ruled in the Bowe Bergdahl sentencing that the former Sgt. now a private doesn’t have to serve any jail time. The judge in a surprising ruling, reduced Bergdahl to private, forfeiture of $1000 a month for 10 months and put him out of the service with a dishonorable discharge. The biggest question and one that will probably never be answered to anyone’s gratification is, “was justice done?”

Pvt. Bergdahl chose to walk away from his unit in Afghanistan, chose to seek out the Taliban, mailing most of his personal effects home to his parents. Telling them of his plan. It was only after his return to the United States that his story changed. He was leaving his post to seek out his commander because of supposed issues within his unit. His story that he tried to escape and was tortured has never been questioned or verified. Self-serving? You be the judge.

His unit and others made a concerted effort to find him. Several soldiers were killed and injured. One of those soldiers, Master Sergeant Mark Allen was shot thru both temples and is permanently confined to a wheelchair. A Navy SEAL who also went on a rescue mission suffered wounds that force his separation from the service. Another soldier got hit with a rocket-propelled grenade and suffered permanent damage to his hand. But according to both his lawyers and the judge, Bergdahl had suffered enough. What about those three soldiers? Have they suffered enough? Apparently not to Bergdahl’s attorney, because their injuries were permanent. Was justice served?

Bergdahl walked off his post in 2009 and was scooped up by the Taliban within hours, and after his parents were the guests of the President, he traded five Taliban detainees in Guantanamo Bay to get Bergdahl back.

Because all dishonorable discharges are automatically reviewed, Pvt Bergdahl’s lawyers are already working on an appeal and as such, if his discharge status is changed, then the VA will be treating him for a variety of illnesses, including what is reported to be a schizotypal personality disorder, a schizophrenia-like condition, and post-traumatic stress disorder when he walked away from his unit in Afghanistan.

His lawyer, Eugene Fidell read a statement outside the courtroom and said Bergdahl was grateful to those who had searched for him and worked to secure his release, plus “those good-hearted people who have expressed sympathy for his plight and have been willing to wait for the facts to emerge rather than relying on assumptions or politically inspired misinformation.”

In a report by NBC News, Fidell is already making his case for complete dismissal of charges which will change Bergdahl’s status. And he’s already trying his case in the court of public opinion, making light of Bergdahl’s desertion and trying President Trump for his comments about this case.

“On the other hand, President Trump’s unprincipled effort to stoke a lynch-mob atmosphere while seeking our nation’s highest office has cast a dark cloud over the case,” he continued, referring to criticism Trump made about Bergdahl in the past.

Dishonorable discharges automatically trigger an appeal in military court. Fidell said he would pursue an appeal, citing a need for Bergdahl to receive benefits in light of his mental health.

“A dishonorable discharge is a lifetime stigma,” Fidell said.

He added that he looked forward to the appeal and that he felt Trump weighing in on the case had caused one of the “most preposterous” legal minefields in American history.

“We think there’s an extremely strong basis for dismissal of the case,” Fidell said.

During the 2016 presidential election, Trump, when asked about Bergdahl stated that he was a “dirty, rotten traitor.” And that he should be shot by a firing squad or tossed from an aircraft without a parachute.

Judge Nance halted the sentencing hearing for a short time after seeing a video of Trump in mid-October when asked about his campaign trail comments in which he said he couldn’t discuss the Bergdahl case, but added, “But I think people have heard my comments in the past.”

His military defense attorney Captain Nina Banks reiterated during the sentencing hearing that Bergdahl had been punished enough. She said the torture he received at the hands of the Taliban and his being labeled a traitor was more than enough. She said that, “it is undisputed, that Bergdahl has paid a heavy price.”

There were reports that Bergdahl helped military intelligence organizations on how the Taliban treat their captives. Bergdahl reportedly remembered all of the details of his incarceration which were characterized as a “treasure trove.” Could that have played a role in his non-sentencing? Absolutely.

But there were many in his former unit that weren’t jumping for joy at his return. A former sergeant in his unit, Matt Vierkant said he was a deserter. “I was pissed off then, and I am even more so now with everything going on,” said Vierkant. “Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war, and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”

One thing that the judge didn’t rule on was his ability to turn a profit on his experiences. He is not under any kind of gag order prohibiting his writing a book on his time with the Taliban and you can rest assured that some publishers will be soon rushing to get his story in print. Meanwhile, six of his ex-platoon mates who were trying to get a book published calling for Bergdahl’s prosecution weren’t finding any takers because publishers didn’t like the idea because it would have discredited President Obama.

Former Sergeants Evan Buetow and Cody Full wanted to set the record straight. “There was no way we were going to sit down and be quiet while Obama was calling him a war hero,” said Buetow. “We’re just trying to tell the truth. It’s not my fault this would make Obama look bad.”
“We didn’t politicize this,” said Full, Sgt. Bergdahl’s former roommate. “They brought his parents out at a White House Rose Garden ceremony and presented him as a hero. Why wouldn’t you just have a quiet press release? Why do you have to have a big parade? You don’t do that for the parents who have kids who have died in Afghanistan.”

So was justice served on Bowe Bergdahl? The feeling here is absolutely not. And what kind of message does this send to the troops who continue to serve honorably?

Photo: Wikipedia

Trump Touts United States Military Might on Trip to Japan

President Donald Trump on his first visit to the Far East addressed US troops at Yokota Air Base in Japan, raved about American military might. Speaking to the troops, Trump was sporting a bomber jacket and was trying to boost the troops’ morale.

“We dominate the sky. We dominate the sea. We dominate the land and space,” Trump said. “Not merely because we have the best equipment, which we do, and by the way, a lot of it’s coming in. You saw that budget. That’s a lot different than in the past. A lot of beautiful brand-new equipment is coming in. And nobody makes it like they make it in the United States. Nobody.”

While the president did not directly address North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un, the president’s choice to address troops in his very first action in the region set the tone of his trip as he seeks to send a clear message to the North Korean regime to back down from its nuclear ambitions.
“No one, no dictator, no regime, and no nation should underestimate ever American resolve,” the president said, standing on a stage in an airplane hangar on the base. “Every once in a while in the past they underestimated us. It was not pleasant for them. Was it? It was not pleasant. We will never yield. Never waiver, and never falter in defense of our people, our freedom and our great American flag.”

Trump made it a point to single out for praise for our Japanese allies as well as the family members who support the military members all over the world. He called the troops and the Japanese allies, confident, competent and capable.

To read the entire article from ABC News click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Release of Bin Laden Files by CIA Presents Iranian Connection?

When Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in 2011, they brought back thousands of documents on computer hard and thumb drives that, it was hoped would shed much more hope on the al-Qaida organization. Now as the CIA released thousands of pages of documents seized in the raid, it has once again raised questions about the support that Iran gave the terror network prior to 9/11.

It has always been the belief within US intelligence organizations that the Iranians had at least some ties to the terrorists of bin Laden since 1991. The 19-page report released by CIA as part of their other 47,000 documents released show just that.

For its part, Iran has long denied any involvement with al-Qaida. However, the report included in the CIA document dump shows how bin Laden, a Sunni extremist from Iran’s archrival Saudi Arabia, could look across the Muslim world’s religious divide to partner with the Mideast’s Shiite power to target his ultimate enemy, the United States.
“Anyone who wants to strike America, Iran is ready to support him and help him with their frank and clear rhetoric,” the report reads.
The document had been included in the CIA release and was available online Wednesday. The CIA later issued a warning about the files on its website, saying that since the material “was seized from a terrorist organization … there is no absolute guarantee that all malware has been removed.” The CIA then took down the files entirely early Thursday, saying they were “temporarily unavailable pending resolution of a technical issue.”
The unsigned 19-page report is dated in the Islamic calendar year 1428 — 2007 — and offers what appears to be a history of al-Qaida’s relationship with Iran. It says Iran offered al-Qaida fighters “money and arms and everything they need, and offered them training in Hezbollah camps in Lebanon, in return for striking American interests in Saudi Arabia.”

The Iranians allowed al-Qaida members to pass through their borders without getting a stamp on their passports to avoid suspicion and met with Iranian intelligence officials. It was also reported that 8 of the 10 so-called “muscle hijackers” of 9/11 passed thru Iran.

The Iranians have long denied any involvement with al-Qaida.

To read the entire article from Fox News, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

US Special Operations Forces, FBI Capture Key Benghazi Suspect

File this story under, “you can run, but you can’t hide.” Five years after the deadly attack on the US diplomatic compound and CIA annex in Benghazi, Libya, a joint operation involving US Special Operations Forces and the FBI have captured a key militant who was in involved in the terror operation.

The suspect’s name is Mustafa al-Imam. US officials wouldn’t confirm the exact location of al-Imam’s capture, just saying that it was somewhere in Libya.

The attack, which al-Imam is believed to have played a key role in was on September 11, 2012, and killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, a State Department Information Officer and two former Navy SEALs Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.

They said President Trump had approved the mission, which was carried out in coordination with Libya’s internationally recognized government.
“Our memory is deep and our reach is long, and we will not rest in our efforts to find and bring the perpetrators of the heinous attacks in Benghazi to justice,” Trump said.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson added that he’d spoken with the relatives of some of the Americans who died in Benghazi. Tillerson said the U.S. would “spare no effort” to ensure al-Imam is held accountable.
“I am grateful to the FBI, our partners in the intelligence community, and the Department of Defense who made this apprehension possible. The United States will continue to investigate and identify all those who were involved in the attack – and we will hold them accountable for their crimes,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions reacted.

US officials added that al-Imam will not be going to Guantanamo Bay but is en route to Washington D.C. and will stand trial there in Federal Court.

Perhaps then, Department of Justice prosecutors can ask the suspect about the video, that supposedly triggered the attacks.

To read the entire article from Fox News, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

U.S. Pledges $60 Million, for New Sahel Counter-Terror Force

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced on Monday that the United States has pledged $60 million dollars to support the counterterrorism initiative by allies in Africa’s Sahel region.

Tillerson said the US will support the Group of Five Sahel Joint Task Force, a military headquarters that will encompass up to 5,000 troops set up by Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger earlier this year.

“Defeating terrorism depends on making sure terrorist organizations cannot have safe havens on any continent,” Tillerson said. “This money will bolster our regional partners in their fight to ensure security and stability in the face of ISIS and affiliated groups and other terrorist networks.”

At a U.N. Security Council meeting about the Sahel Joint Task Force Monday, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley made clear that the funding would be on a bilateral basis, subject to congressional approval, and not given through the United Nations, which is trying to establish sustained funding and assistance to the force.
“We believe that the G5 force must be, first and foremost, owned by the countries of the region themselves,” Haley said, referring to the group of five African nations. “We also have serious and well-known reservations about using U.N. resources to support non-U.N. activities,” she added.
In the coming weeks, the Security Council will discuss four options for U.N. support to the force to make its work fully operational. They range from expanding the mandate of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in Mali – known as MINUSMA – to establishing a dedicated U.N. support office to deliver logistics and other soft support on a limited scope.

Mali’s foreign minister Abdoulaye Diop welcomed the news but said that other countries can do more in helping Mali and the other countries fighting terrorism. He said the financially strapped country is spending 70 percent of its GDP to combatting terror, and multi-national criminal networks while trying to improve its infrastructure.

Among the terror networks active in the five-country Sahel region are the Islamic State, several al-Qaida-linked groups operate in the area, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Nigeria-based Boko Haram.

To read the entire article from The Voice of America, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Iran President Rouhani: Iran’s Missile Production Will Continue

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani said on Sunday, that the country’s missile program will continue and is not in breach of its nuclear deal, despite objections from the Trump White House.

Earlier this month, Trump said that the nuclear deal signed in 2015, was one of worst, one-sided agreements that the US had ever entered into and claimed that Iranians have committed “multiple violations of the agreement.”

Rouhani fired back, in quotes from the country’s official website, calling into question the Trump administration’s credibility.

“If a government like the US government states that it is not committed to an important international commitment, and its reason is that the previous administration has been tricked, then what happens with the continuity of the responsibility of the governments?” it quoted him as saying. “You are explicitly violating your previous agreements and neglecting a UN Security Council-approved agreement.”
The fact that the plan does not address Iran’s nuclear missile program is one reason why Trump had been dissatisfied with the agreement.
“Iran just test-fired a Ballistic Missile capable of reaching Israel. They are also working with North Korea. Not much of an agreement we have!” the US leader tweeted in late September.
In his October 13 speech, Trump said: “We cannot and will not make this certification. We will not continue down a path whose predictable conclusion is more violence, more terror and the very real threat of Iran’s nuclear breakout.

Rouhani struck a typical defiant tone citing that the missile program was not part of the nuclear deal and that the Iranian government will continue to build and store any weapon they feel that they need to defend themselves. He finished with the requisite threat that “the enemies should know that violation of any agreement will be detrimental to them and the Islamic Republic of Iran will give them a decisive answer.

The decision by Trump to decertify the agreement puts the onus back in Congress’ hands. They’ll have 60 days to decide whether or not to re-impose sanctions on Iran which would put the US in violation of the deal.

To read the entire article from CNN, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush Signs the Patriot Act

On this day in 2001, President George W. Bush signs the Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism law drawn up in response to the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Just 45 days after the attacks of September 11, the Congress passed the Patriot Act nearly unanimously in the Senate (98-1) and easily in the House of Representatives (357-66).

The USA PATRIOT Act, as it is officially known, is an acronym for “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.” The stated goals of the Patriot Act were to strengthen domestic security and broaden the powers of law-enforcement agencies in order to identify and stop future terrorists from hitting America again.

There have been many people critical of the controversial act and there, of course, two sides of the coin. Supporters claim that it gave the government the tools it needed to identify, investigate and arrest terrorists. Some argued that the US didn’t have the same rules for terrorists that it did in investigating the Mafia. Critics claim that this act gave the government too much power, threatened our civil liberties, and undermined the very democracy that it claims to protect. But before going further, some quick background information on it.

Background and beginnings: On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four aircraft taking off on the East Coast. Two of those aircraft were flown into both of the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. Another flew into the Pentagon in Washington D.C. The fourth was en route to Washington when the plane’s passengers attempted to take over the flight back from the terrorists after learning what happened to the other aircraft and in the ensuing melee, the plane crashed into the rural countryside of Pennsylvania. Over 3000 Americans died.

Just a couple of days later, the White House announced that the terrorists were from Al Qaeda. The terrorists were headquartered in Afghanistan but had cells all over the world. The hijackers had support cells working here in the United States. The Global War on Terrorism had begun.

Not long after that US Attorney General John Ashcroft submitted to Congress the changes the government was requesting in regards to investigating terrorist activity. Many of these changes were resisted by the Congress in the past and had been pushed back, but 9/11 changed all of that.

The Patriot Act sailed thru the Senate 98-1, with the only nay vote coming from Senator Russell Feingold (D-Wis). It then sailed easily thru the House with a 357-66 vote. The final bill encompassed 342 pages of legalese and changed many of the existing laws. Most of the items that Ashcroft and the Justice Department requested were adopted.

The intention of the law, in President Bush’s words, was to “enhance the penalties that will fall on terrorists or anyone who helps them.” The act increased intelligence agencies’ ability to share information and lifted restrictions on communications surveillance, which includes everyday communication between citizens.

Law enforcement officials were given much more leeway in what they were allowed to do to fight financial counterfeiting, smuggling and money laundering schemes that funded terrorist organizations. The Patriot Act allows the FBI increased powers to access personal information such as medical and financial records and superseded all state laws.

In the uncertainty following 9/11, some advocates for the Patriot Act felt like the bill didn’t go far enough. Others such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argued that this gave the government far too much power to curtail civil liberties and would give the government carte blanche to investigate ordinary Americans with no checks and balances reminiscent of the 1960s and early 1970s. Some aspects of the Patriot Act were set to expire in 2005, but in 2006, President Bush renewed the so-called “sunset clauses” that were expiring.

The Patriot Act: President Bush signed the bill into law on October 26. He spoke about fighting a new danger “a threat like no other our Nation has ever faced.” He also sought to allay some fears by stating that the Patriot Act “upholds and respects the civil liberties guaranteed by our Constitution.”

The term “domestic terrorism in the new law is defined actions that are taking place within the United States that are dangerous to human life and are designed to:

to intimidate or coerce a civilian population
to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion
to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

While Congress has debated several features of the Patriot Act, including the controversial “National Security Letters”, how long the FBI can hold records, and forcing the government to provide more information and explanation for their reasons for requesting search warrants, surveillance or subpoenas, it has remained intact.

Has it Worked? The biggest question is just that, has the Patriot Act worked? Are we safer as a nation now than before? The entire basis of the Patriot Act from the government was that in the face of terrorist threats, Americans must balance their freedom with the need for security. Is that fair?

Certain countries such as Israel live in a very dangerous place where terrorist attacks happen far too frequently and the people live in a perpetual fishbowl it seems. They’ve balanced the very real need for security with the civil liberties they enjoy, where they are freer than any other country in the Middle East.

Since 9/11, several terrorist attacks from organizations such as Al Qaeda or the Islamic State have been thwarted before they could begin. Is it because of the Patriot Act itself or just a heightened awareness after 9/11 and the resultant better communication between agencies, which failed us in 2001? The Justice Department claims that the roving wiretaps and surveillance authorized under the Patriot Act has been instrumental in defeating terrorist operations before they begin.

Critics of the law point to one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin said, “those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.”

Critics even worked in a quote by none other than Julius Caesar about being wary of being whipped into a patriotic frenzy by the war and the law. Later it was proven to be false, Caesar never did say that, but dead men and politicians always make for great quote machines. So while JC never did utter these words….we’ll give whoever did write this, their due (they were brilliant):

“Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and
blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.”

The scope of the government’s surveillance collection was revealed when Edward Snowden released the extent of the NSA’s collection of American citizens’ communications. Those programs remain intact.

While some in Congress want to repeal or amend it others such as Senator John McCain, (R-AZ) and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have continued to argue that had those laws been in place in 2001, 9/11 may have never happened.

The debate will go on and as events change our perceptions, this too shall change. One way or another.

Photo: Wikipedia

Duterte’s Claims Of “Loan” of Military Equipment Debunked

On Friday, Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte thanked the China and Israel for providing military assistance for the clearing operations in Marawi City. And then he gave a back-handed compliment to the US for “loaning” military equipment to the Philippines Army, which he then claimed they returned.

Duterte, making his remarks before the 43rd Philippine Business Conference and Expo concluding ceremony, also made the claim that the sniper rifle that killed Abu Sayyaf leader Isnilon Hapilon was made in China, adding that the bulk of weapons used in Marawi came from the Chinese.

“It was only China who gave it on time and plenty,” Duterte said.
The president, meanwhile, said that the equipment provided by the US was only borrowed and were already returned.
“So I said, the countries helped us. China. We needed it badly, you gave it to us. Thank you very much and President Xi Jinping. And of course the Americans just provided the — we just borrowed it, we have returned it already,” the president said.
“They are not willing to give it to us unlike China,” he added.

The PhilStar debunked all of his claims stating that after checking with US government officials, the US provided a major grant of arms and munitions worth at least P250 million last May, about the time the conflict in Marawi started.

“In May 2017, a major grant of 200 Glock pistols, 300 M4 carbines, 100 grenade launchers, four mini-guns and individual operator gear worth P250 million was delivered,” US Embassy press attache Molly Koscina told Philstar.com.

In January 2017, the U.S. delivered a Raven tactical UAV system worth P60 million.

The US also provided P250 million worth of aid consisting of 25 combat rubber raiding craft and 30 outboard motors to support the Philippine Marine Corps.

In July, the US officially turned over two C-208 Cessna aircraft worth P1.6 billion to the Philippine Air Force. The surveillance aircraft were used to help in fighting against ISIS-inspired militants in Marawi City.
In August, Washington transferred a radar system to the Philippine Navy, which would enhance its maritime surveillance capabilities.

All of the above mentioned were major grants of the US to the Philippines, disputing Duterte’s remarks that the equipment were only borrowed.

The US, thru USAID, is also giving millions of dollars of Humanitarian Aid as well. Thus far totaling over $14 million US or P370 million.

As for the Chinese Sniper rifle, word from the Philippines Scout Rangers has the weapons being American made, including an SR-25

To read the entire article from The PhilStar, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia

Judge in Bergdahl Case Considers Trump Impact on Sentence

The sentencing for the court-martial trial of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl was supposed to begin on Monday. But the military judge deciding his punishment said that he’s concerned that comments made by President Donald Trump both before and after being elected could impact the public’s perception of the military justice system.

Bergdahl pled guilty that he endangered members of his unit by walking off his post in Afghanistan back in 2009. He faces a maximum sentence of life in prison but Army Col. Jeffery R. Nance allowed last-minute arguments by defense attorneys that recent comments by the President will prevent a fair proceeding.

Nance allowed the attorneys to question him about whether he was swayed by Trump’s comments. Nance said he wasn’t aware of the comments beyond what was in the legal motions. Nance said he plans to retire as a colonel in about a year and isn’t motivated by pleasing commanders to win a future promotion.
“I don’t have any doubt whatsoever that I can be fair and impartial in the sentencing in this matter,” Nance said.
But he had stern words and pointed questions for prosecutors about what effect Trump’s comments would have on public perception of the case. He indicated he would issue a written ruling later on the defense request to have the case thrown out over Trump’s comments.
Nance previously ruled those comments were “disturbing” but didn’t amount to unlawful command influence and noted the statements were made before Trump assumed his position at the top of the armed forces’ command structure.

While campaigning for the Presidency in 2016, Trump called Bergdahl a “dirty rotten traitor”, who deserved to be executed by a firing squad or tossed from an aircraft without a parachute. Last week, asked about the case by the press, Trump said that he couldn’t comment on the case but intimated that they (media) already know his thoughts on the subject of Bergdahl.

To read the entire article from ABC News, click here:

Photo courtesy Wikipedia