A federal appeals court restored Bowe Bergdahl’s conviction on Tuesday, undoing a 2023 decision that wiped away the court-martial of the former U.S. Army soldier who walked off his base in Afghanistan, kicking off an intensive search that wounded other troops.
On Tuesday, a three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit ruled that the federal court that overturned Bergdahl’s military conviction did not have the jurisdiction to do so, arguing that only the military justice system could reverse Bergdahl’s judgment.
“District courts lack jurisdiction on collateral review to vacate court-martial judgments,” Judge Robert Wilkins wrote on behalf of the panel.
The former U.S. Army soldier, then 23, walked off his base during a deployment to Afghanistan in 2009 and was subsequently captured by the Taliban. American soldiers were severely injured and one military working dog, Remco, was killed during the operations to find him. Bergdahl said he left his post in an attempt to reach another headquarters and report perceived issues with leadership. Instead, he was abducted, tortured and held in brutal conditions.
Then-President Barack Obama negotiated Bergdahl’s release in a 2014 prisoner swap. He was exchanged for five members of Taliban leadership who were held at Guantanamo Bay.
Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy during a 2017 military court-martial, after which he was dishonorably discharged and ordered to forfeit $10,000 in pay. Though prosecutors sought 14 years’ imprisonment, he was not sentenced to any time after presenting evidence that he was tortured.
The prisoner swap, case and sentencing set off political fireworks, with former Sen. John McCain and President Donald Trump calling for Bergdahl to be harshly punished. Trump called for Bergdahl’s execution during his 2016 campaign, and the former soldier’s attorneys argued that Trump’s comments could have influenced the military judge.
Around three years ago, a civilian judge vacated Bergdahl’s conviction, arguing that the military judge in his initial court-martial did not disclose an application for an executive branch job as an immigration judge, which could have been a potential conflict of interest.
The D.C. panel did not rule on whether the case was influenced by Trump’s incendiary comments or whether the initial military judge should have disclosed that he was looking for a Justice Department job.
Eugene R. Fidell, Berdahl’s attorney, in an interview with Military Times, said the case is about “the integrity of the military justice system,” and added that “there is a grave command influence problem that has pervaded this case from the very beginning.”
He said he had hoped the appeals court would address that issue, but it did not. Fidell’s team has 45 days to weigh several options for challenging the ruling, including asking the same panel to reconsider or seeking a discretionary review by the Supreme Court.
Eve Sampson is a reporter and former Army officer. She has covered conflict across the world, writing for The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Associated Press.
Read the full article here