owned by warren buffet will be buying kraft. for more www.aljazeera.com. you can catch up but watching us live by clicking on the "watch live" icon. www.aljazeera.com is the address again. managers and traders. the gender apartheid imposed by >> this is al jazeera america. i'm david shoes center new york. sergeant bowe bergdahl, the soldiers recovered in afghanistan last spring, is being charged with desertion and misbehavior. let's listen. >> good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for coming to fort bragg today.

i'm spokesman for u.s. army forces command, i'll provide you with a statement with regard to the army's investigation of sergeant robert bowdry bergdahl's dis disappearance in afghanistan. i'm unable to take your questions. our statement follows: . the u.s. army forces command has thoroughly reviewed the army's investigation surrounding sergeant bergdahl's disappearance 2009 in afghanistan. with desertion, with intent to

sherk duty, and has referred its case to article 32 political 32 preliminary hearing. again, sergeant bergdahl is charged with one count of article 85 desertion with intent to shirk duty and misbehavior by endangering the safety of a command unit or place. as you recall, sergeant bergdahl disappeared june 30 2009, from command outpost in afghanistan and was subsequently captureed. regarding next steps. in article 32 preliminary

hearing is a legal procedure under the uniform code military justice designed to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to merit a court-martial, and is required before a case can be tried by a general court-martial. legal experts often compare an article 82 hearing to a civilian grand jury inquiry. the article 32 hearing will take place in texas specific scheduling details and procedures for news media coverage of the hearing will be announced at a later date. following the article 32 preliminary hearing and seat of the article 32 preliminary hearing officer's recommendations the report will be forwarded to a general court-martial convening authority. who may refer the case to a general court-martial refer the

charges to a special court-martial dismiss the charges, or take any other action deemed appropriate. there are potential punishments associated with the two charges. article 85 of the uniform code of military justice desertion with intention to shirk duty, discharge, reduction to the rank of e-1 total for fitture of all ahow lances, and maximum confinement of five years. it carries a maximum potential penalty of dishonorable discharge, reduction to the rank of e-1, to the forfeiture of

paying allowances and possible confinement for life. this specific legal elements associated with article 85 and article 99 are available within the written statement provided to you here today. command officials associated with this legal case cannot discuss or disclose the findings of the 2014 investigation while legal actions are pending out of respect for the judicial process, the rights of the accused, and to insure the proceedings fairness and i am and impartiality. the investigation into the disappearance and capture in afghanistan is currently being treated as potential evidence in the pending article 32 preliminary hearing. this concludes our statement. thank you.

>> colonel dave king, officer in the public affairs device down at fort bragg formerly afounding that bowe bergdahl has been charged with misbehavior before the enemy. he has received a slew of accusations that he abandoned them on the battlefield and triggered a manhunt that di diverted resources and put their lives in danger. he faced criticisms a year ago about the swap of prisoners for bergdahl and provoked sharp criticism when said that he served with honor and distinction and said she was referring to the fact that he enlisted in the first place. a very different situation facing bowe bergdahl now. you can see the five taliban prisoners swapped for him a year ago in order to secure his release. jamie mcintyre has been covering the pentagon for decades and has done plenty of

these article 32 hearings. what do you think of the charges the army is bringing today? >> according to what colonel king said, he's not facing the death penalty which under the uniform code of military justice can be one of the penalties for desertion and shirking has hazardous duty. it carries a five-year imprisonment sentence for that charge and the shirking dutyies carries potential life imprisonment. when he left the manhunt put many of in danger. and the next step is this

article 32 hearing compared to a civilian grand jury, one interesting difference between the military article 32 hearing and the civilian grand jury in case of a civilian grand jury, just the prosecution presents evidence to make the case if there is enough evidence to go to trial. in the military system both sides get to present evidence and call witnesses as they determine if there is enough to proceed to the general court-martial. you get more of a full day in court before the--before you decide whether it's going to go to a full trial. of course there is always the possibility that another deal could be cut a plea bargain where bowe bergdahl would agree to some charges with perhaps being able to leave the army and not face confinement. >> we'll talk with a jag lawyer in a couple of minutes about the possibility of a deal and how

that might working. but since you're so well-connected and you've been covering that building to so long, what has been the feeling a year ago when bergdahl was a swap and also as this investigation took place examining whether or not he should be charged with desertion. >> very ambivalent feelings among the military. people did feel it was the responsibility to get it back even if it was to face military justice because he was suffering some brutal confinement. and that wasn't seen as a suitable fate for any u.s. soldier with the pentagon's ethos of not leaving anyone behind. but there was this feeling that he may have, in fact broken the military law and put his fellow soldiers at risk, and he should not be with regarded for that. he has been basically flying a desk down at san antonio in houston since his return while

the army has been debating what to do with this. many have wondered why it it was taking so long to determine whether charge should be brought. the military has a system where there can be no outside influence on the convening authority, the two-star general who made the decision, any communication with him is seen as influence, it really fell to him. this process will still be reviewed. it is go to the article 32, and then to another convening authority, which will have to decide whether to proceed to the court-martial. very mixed feelings is the way to describe how it was met here at the pentagon. >> so interesting. jamie mcintyre we're joined on the phone by former military prosecutor and professor at south texas college of law. regarding the possibility that--and it was so strikeing to hear about the possibility of the article 32 hearing would recommend no charges. what is the likelihood or

recommend that the charges be dismissed. what is the likelihood there is some sort of deal or as this article 32 suggests, five years in captivity was punishment enough. there is nothing to be served by putting him in captivity in the united states. >> a couple of points by the article 32. it's not really a grand jury. it's more like a preliminary hearing, but the most significant difference between a civilian preliminary hearing and article 32 is that the outcome is not binding. it's just a recommendation to the the convening party. even if the recommending officer were to recommend not going forward to trial it does not restrict the commanding general from overriding that and sending the case to trial. i don't think that's going to happen. the article 32 is simply looking at the evidence and deciding whether it's strong enough to support the charge, and whether the charges are appropriate for the misconduct. and most article 32 hearings result in a recommendation of

going forward so i think that's a very unlikely outcome. i think some type of plea bargain is a more likelyout come. but that require an agreement by both sides. normally the defendant would initiate the process and we just don't know whether they're going to advise any type of plea negotiation or whether his client would be willing to engage in that. there is a range of options. when the command talks about the maximum permissible punishment, people need to understand that there is no guideline in military punishment. if this goes to trial the court-martial is free to select any punishment from no punishment all the way up to the maximum. i think it's unlikely that this guy will get anything close to life in prison. i think if he goes to trial on

these charges he will risk some additional time in jail, but i don't think it will be in the decade length. even though the maximum penalty seems very severe for misbehavior before the enemy there is no requirement that the court-martial that convicts him if we get to that point actually pick that very high penalty. >> the evidence that bowe bergdahl abandoned his comrades on the battlefield seem pretty substantial. let's assume that the article 32 hearing recommends that this moves forward. what you as a former military prosecutor would want to hear from the defense, from bowe bergdahl's lawyers as far as some possibility. what would you need to hear to agree to a plea, and what do you think that plea would look like? >> there are two options. one is that he offers to quit the army in exchange for anything other than an honorable

discharge without a trial. that's a chapter 10 proceeding. it's a unique military proceeding. it's a discharge in lieu of court-martial. he would come to the commanding general and say i will agree to accept an other than honorable discharge and be out of the military in three days, i'll lose all my v.a. benefits because of this bad discharge if you'll drop the charges. bergdahl avoids jail, conviction, and the military gets rid of him very quickly. the reason why i think that is probably not going to be a viable option for the command is because one of the real challenges with this case is the issue of back pay and benefits. this is such an unusual case because he was in captivity for so long that during that period of time he was accruing pay and benefits. if the military believes that he deserted when he first left the base, then the commanding general is going to be reluctant

to come up with any type of bargain that would let him get a financial windfall from his misconduct. the only way to avert that, and i'm not even positive about this, but i think the only way that that plausibly even avert that is to do a court-martial and get a conviction. i don't think i would recommend a chapter 10 administrative discharge, but i think the commanding general might be open to a guilty plea in exchange for no confinement so the court could consider disjudging a dishonorable or bad conduct discharge. he would have the federal conviction. all that time would be bad time, and he would forfeit his pay and alou wants and he is--allowances, and he's gone. >> sergeant bowe bergdahl who was captured by the taliban and released a year ago as part of a prisoner swap, he was charged

today for desertion and misbehavior before the army. this is an extremely control controversial significance. we're going to talk about that and what it means in terms of potential damage to the barack obama administration on the other side of this break. you're watching al jazeera.

>> i think we're into something that's bigger than us... >> that's the pain that your mother feels when you disrespect

disfigurement by people swearing >> thereduring the war is bergdahl's case unique specifically because he did it on the battlefielder her uncle threatened to disown battlefield her when she applied to >> that's the other issue here. having done it overseas in the face of the enemy. and the other charge of working with the enemy as well. it just goes to show that that changes the stakes. there have been hundreds who have left their posts in the united states, never went over. similar to what we've seen in previous wars, vietnam of decertifications thousands of in fact. the military can run them down when they get their driver's license, trying to do different things but in this situation they can't tolerate a soldier in a combat zone who walks away from his unit. >> the article 32 hearing has been described as something like a grand jury hearing how long

does an article 32 hearing last? and what is the timing we're looking at. >> it's a preliminary hearing. it will be held in san antonio texas, that's where sergeant bergdahl is now. it's a chance to layout all the evidence. at that point the judge will look at it in the best light of the prosecution and decide if there is enough to recommend going to trial. it should take three or four days. that's typically of what happens in the military system. but we'll just have to see how it plays out. there is always that possibility of a plea deal that could end the process all at once. >> jamie, do you have a sense with all your years of covering the pentagon and covering these types of hearings, of how this type of case might go? >> my sense is that people don't want to heap more punishment on sergeant bergdahl. my sense is that i'll lose all

pay and benefits. >> he'll pay a stiff penalty not perhaps spending captivity in the united states given that he spent five years with the taliban. >> i think they'll have that compassion. they just don't want to give the windfall. >> and the army that message that army will get it end. >> you still have to toe the line. you can't walk away from your unit regardless of what your intentions prove. >> thank you to mike lyons who join us on the phone and jamie mcintyre who covers national affairs for us. and again the big headline coming that bowe bergdahl will spend five years in captivity in afghanistan, a lot of people

pleading to do whatever it takes to get him out. they got him out a year ago last june, in a prisoner swap for five taliban prisoners. it was exceptionally controversial at the time. the obama administration said it had a duty to get a prisoner of war back to the united states regardless of the circumstances of him being capture: now we know after a year-long investigation the army has determined that charges should move forward to a preliminary hearing, charges of desertion and misbehavior before the enemy for sergeant bowe bergdahl. that will happen in months ahead. i'm david shuster with al jazeera america. "mondaymoney for nothing" is next. you deserve. >> real money with ali velshi only on al jazeera america

>> sunday. you know his music but what about the man? >> i was given a gift. >> up close and personal. behind the scenes of the biggest hits... >> she was a troubled girl. >> brightest stars... >> kids don't want to "own", they just want to "play". >> and the future of music. >> the record business is in trouble. >> every sunday night, >> i lived that character.

>> go one on one with america's movers and shakers. >> we will be able to see change. >> gripping. inspiring. entertaining. talk to al jazeera. sunday, 6:30 eastern. only on al jazeera america. >> >> the dollar is the most remarkable achievement in the history of money. think of it. this piece of paper cost nothing to produce, there's nothing behind it except the goodwill of