Prisoner trade by Obama: Malevolent or just Stupid?
- Thread starter Colpy
- Start date
Last edited:
me too, the republicans figure noone else but them are allowed to make any military decisions, and the
ones 'they' make usually find many people dead as a result.
Why do so many Canadians oppose the existing constitutional order established by the duly adopted US Constitution?
The law gives Obama the authority to make these deals and no authority to congress to block the deal.
Ignoring the near impossibility of congress getting any law passed in under 30 days, it wouldn't mean anything without Obama's signature, hence Obama having full legal authority to do this and congress having no legal authority to stop him.
Impeaching someone over something that is really just a formality and that has no impact on the actual decision is probably an over reaction, but I'm sure many people will just go with whatever they have got.
You make a lot of definitive statements based on nothing.
Do you not think that negotiating with enemies who are holding an American citizen hostage is a somewhat delicate situation? Making this into a political circus while the guy was still in the hands of the Taliban would have only made things worse.
There is no way that anyone thought that 30 days of congress yelling about it would be appropriate in a negotiation to release American POWs.
I only ever heard this provision being discussed in relation to Obama's desire to close Gitmo prior to this incident. Did you guys ever hear anything different?
Right.
You understand absolutely nothing about the law, the separation of powers, and I begin to suspect, reading comprehension.
You are either a troll or an idiot, and while I I love debate, this is getting tiring.
"Avoid arguing with idiots. They just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience." Mark Twain
At this point, I am going to take Mr. Twain's advice, as it is very late, I am tired, and my naturally sweet and benevolent nature is beginning to fray............................
How would congress change the legislation without Obama signing the new legislation?
The President has 10 days to sign or veto....or the bill automatically becomes law.. A veto can be over ridden by a 2/3 majority.
Fair enough. Do you think there is a chance in hell of that happening in this congress?
The legislation was signed into law by Obama. Under the US Constitution he is legally bound to enforce the law on noification. All legal scholars down here agree that Obama violated the law. Obama is acting as an imperial president. In doing so he is transgressing the system of checks and balances established explicitly by the Constitution. The precedents Obama is setting are of the same order and magnitude established by Augustus during the transition from the Roman Republic to Roman Imperium.
Another shabby day for the marshmallow President: As his Taliban hostage swap sours, why Obama is a pygmy compared with the wartime leader Roosevelt, says MAX HASTINGS
At the D-Day Commemoration, America’s representative will be a man who has disappointed his nation and its allies as have few presidents in modern times.
Another shabby day for the marshmallow President: As his Taliban hostage swap sours, why Obama is a pygmy compared with the wartime leader Roosevelt, says MAX HASTINGS | Mail Online
At the D-Day Commemoration, America’s representative will be a man who has disappointed his nation and its allies as have few presidents in modern times.
Another shabby day for the marshmallow President: As his Taliban hostage swap sours, why Obama is a pygmy compared with the wartime leader Roosevelt, says MAX HASTINGS | Mail Online
He clearly broke the 30 day law, but he also has other responsibilities under the constitution that he argues that he was trying to uphold, such as "protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. soldiers."
The fact of the matter is that every president has come into conflict with the law in some way during their term. I think that things like this, which are more about process than what he is actually allowed to do, do not merit impeachment, but obviously other people have different opinions.
And my answers above lead me to believe that the actions of this president and his cabinet call for impeachment .
But then again I am just a racist butt hurt white boy so what do I know ?
Asked whether the Taliban would be inspired by the exchange to kidnap others, he laughed. “Definitely,” he says. “It’s better to kidnap one person like Bergdahl than kidnapping hundreds of useless people. It has encouraged our people. Now everybody will work hard to capture such an important bird.”
Bowe Bergdahl: Taliban Captors Speak to TIME - TIME
Bowe Bergdahl: Taliban Captors Speak to TIME - TIME
Again, do you honestly think that US soldiers were not a top prize before this? How much more could they want to get the US than they did before?
The only thing that might change is their willingness to keep people alive instead of just killing them, thought even then, the concept of taking people hostage really isn't a new one.
