Prisoner trade by Obama: Malevolent or just Stupid?

[BaalsTears]

The problem with the American left is that they will use any means to accomplish their objectives. They are relentless. The only way to deal with them is to be equally relentless and ruthless.

When did this "no man left behind" trope begin?

Lol, now it's a "trope"? Was it a trope when everyone was quoting it in relation to Benghazi?

...

You're well advised to avoid answering my question...you sense a trap.

 

[BornRuff]

The problem with the American left is that they will use any means to accomplish their objectives. They are relentless. The only way to deal with them is to be equally relentless and ruthless.

Well, when the issue is freeing a US soldier being held captive by the Taliban, many people would say that it is a pretty good idea to use all available means.

You're well advised to avoid answering my question...you sense a trap.

If you want a history lesson, I'm sure you know how to use google.

 

[BaalsTears]

Well, when the issue is freeing a US soldier being held captive by the Taliban, many people would say that it is a pretty good idea to use all available means.

Macbeth:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth Act 5, scene 5, 19–28

If you want a history lesson, I'm sure you know how to use google.

I don't need google. I asked you a question the way a prosecutor asks a hostile witness.

 

[Colpy]

From a White House press briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, June 21, 2013:

Q: Jay, going to back to Afghanistan, the Taliban has offered to release Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five members of the Taliban who are currently being held at Guantanamo Bay. Is this something that the administration is considering? Is this something that the President would agree to?

Mr. Carney: What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans—between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long.

We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue—using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools—the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family.

With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made—the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen.

As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.


IMPEACH OBAMA

 

[BornRuff]

A couple of years ago, the idea of trading some Taliban from Guantanimo was brought up to Congress by the White House. In response, Congress passed a law SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDING the action taken by Obama without 30 day notice to Congress.

Obama broke that law.

Obama was NOT elected Emperor, and has brazenly broken the law and trashed the constitution.

Impeach him. It is the only recourse left to those that believe in democracy.

If I remember correctly, this provision was brought up in relation to Obama's plans to close Gitmo. I don't remember anything about prisoner trades, but I could have missed that.

I think it is pretty easy to see why skipping the 30 day notice period in this case was necessary. It is a pretty dumb provision since it doesn't actually give congress the ability to stop the transfer, just 30 days to yell about it and make things very dangerous for Bergdahl.

Impeachment over skipping a procedural step in the interest of bringing a solider home seems like a pretty dramatic over reaction, but I'm sure some people will be really excited about the idea.

I don't need google. I asked you a question the way a prosecutor asks a hostile witness.

You would be a pretty bad lawyer if you came into court and yelled at a witness to do research for you.

I'm more than happy to give you my opinion on something, but if you have a research question that you want answered, you are going to have to do it yourself.

 

[Colpy]

If I remember correctly, this provision was brought up in relation to Obama's plans to close Gitmo. I don't remember anything about prisoner trades, but I could have missed that.

I think it is pretty easy to see why skipping the 30 day notice period in this case was necessary. It is a pretty dumb provision since it doesn't actually give congress the ability to stop the transfer, just 30 days to yell about it and make things very dangerous for Bergdahl.

Impeachment over skipping a procedural step in the interest of bringing a solider home seems like a pretty dramatic over reaction, but I'm sure some people will be really excited about the idea.



You would be a pretty bad lawyer if you came into court and yelled at a witness to do research for you.

I'm more than happy to give you my opinion on something, but if you have a research question that you want answered, you are going to have to do it yourself.

Right.

Next bank robber that gets hauled into court should explain that he just missed a "procedural step" in the interests of feeding his family.....see how much sympathy it gets him.

It is the LAW. Not only that, Obama flaunted the constitution, which was carefully set up to separate powers, so to prevent the gathering of power into one division of gov't.

Man, you "progressives" sure love tyrants and cult of personality.

Impeach him.

From the pen of Mark Steyn:

What of the five high-level terrorists Barack Obama has just sprung from Gitmo to wander around Qatar at liberty for a year and then head off wherever they wish? Let's take just one of them, Mullah Norullah Noori, according to a report from JTF-GTMO, leaked by Wikileaks:

Detainee was a senior Taliban military commander in Mazar-e-Sharif during hostilities against US and Coalition forces in late 2001. Detainee was also the Taliban governor for the Balkh and Laghman provinces and is wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims.
​

So Barack Obama has just liberated an internationally wanted war criminal who's killed thousands of people. If going to a Boston restaurant with terrorists who've killed three people is worth 40 years in the Big House, how long would you get for helping terrorists who've killed thousands?

Not All Aiders and Abetters are Equal :: SteynOnline

 

[darkbeaver]

Wow.

I have rarely met anyone so determined to never admit they are wrong.

So, now all the men that this guy served with are Republican shills.

Uh huh.

Give your head a shake.

All the men! You are a sexist sir, shirly he worked with women as well. But their being offened bothers yuou not in the least. Blatant hypocrisy I say. What about the LGBTB community whom he may have served with?

 

[BornRuff]

Right.

Next bank robber that gets hauled into court should explain that he just missed a "procedural step" in the interests of feeding his family.....see how much sympathy it gets him.

It is the LAW. Not only that, Obama flaunted the constitution, which was carefully set up to separate powers, so to prevent the gathering of power into one division of gov't.

Man, you "progressives" sure love tyrants and cult of personality.

Impeach him.

Laws against robbing banks are not procedural.

In the case of this law, it is. The notice period for congress doesn't serve any practical purpose. They don't get to approve it or block it. It just gives them a chance to yell and play politics.

What part of the constitution did he violate by doing this?

 

[Colpy]

Laws against robbing banks are not procedural.

In the case of this law, it is. The notice period for congress doesn't serve any practical purpose. They don't get to approve it or block it. It just gives them a chance to yell and play politics.

What part of the constitution did he violate by doing this?

So.

Please explain to me the difference between "procedural" law and any other particular type of law.

Funny, I don't remember ever tripping across the concept of "procedural" law ever before.

Or did you just invent it??

Article II, Section III Constitutional Powers of the President

"....... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"

Funny, I don't see an exemption for "procedural" law, whatever the **** THAT is.......

 

[BornRuff]

So.

Please explain to me the difference between "procedural" law and any other particular type of law.

Funny, I don't remember ever tripping across the concept of "procedural" law ever before.

Or did you just invent it??

Well, procedural law is most definitely a real thing, but I wasn't using the word procedural to refer specifically to that.

The fact is that this law isn't about what he is and isn't allowed to do. It was clearly within his legal authority to authorize this deal. The issue is that he didn't follow the proper procedure as defined by law. His actions bypass anyone or anything that could have blocked this move.

That is what I am getting at.

Article II, Section III Constitutional Powers of the President

"....... he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,"

Funny, I don't see an exemption for "procedural" law, whatever the **** THAT is.......

You can see their stance on this. The defense would be that he does not believe that congress intended this law to apply to situations like this.

 

[Colpy]

Well, procedural law is most definitely a real thing, but I wasn't using the word procedural to refer specifically to that.

The fact is that this law isn't about what he is and isn't allowed to do. It was clearly within his legal authority to authorize this deal. The issue is that he didn't follow the proper procedure as defined by law. His actions bypass anyone or anything that could have blocked this move.

That is what I am getting at.



You can see their stance on this. The defense would be that he does not believe that congress intended this law to apply to situations like this.

Bull****.

The law is EXACTLY about what he is, or is not allowed to do.

Diane Feinstein, idiot Democrat and head of the Senate intelligence committee, sure seems to think so.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bo...y-white-house-broke-law-bergdahl-deal-n121721

Oh, and read this....

President Obama's Prisoner Swap Weakened the Rule of Law - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

What you are "getting at" if true, would make Obama an absolute monarch..............exactly what the US constitution is there to prevent.

 

[BornRuff]

Bull****.

The law is EXACTLY about what he is, or is not allowed to do.

Diane Fienstein, idiot Democrat and head of the Senate intelligence committee, sure seems to think so.

Oh, and read this....

President Obama's Prisoner Swap Weakened the Rule of Law - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

What you are "getting at" if true, would make Obama an absolute monarch..............exactly what the US constitution is there to prevent.

You understand that the duty to notify congress didn't include any right for congress to block the decision, right?

So it's not about what he is allowed to actually do, but how he did it.

 

[Colpy]

You understand that the duty to notify congress didn't include any right for congress to block the decision, right?

So it's not about what he is allowed to actually do, but how he did it.

They most certainly could have blocked him.

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't see the importance of this American political theatre, except in diversion of attention, this gut will be forgotten nextr week at the latest. One a week, then one a day, What about the CO2 problem, seals, polar bears,cod? I think what we need is an alien invasion, a much bigger story, are you prepared?

They like to eat petroleum jelly.

 

[WLDB]

I don't see the importance of this American political theatre, except in diversion of attention, this gut will be forgotten nextr week at the latest.

Personally I find it entertaining. Because I'm not American I don't particularly care how this or many other US issues go - but they make it really fun to watch no matter how it goes. Arguing can be fun too.

 

[gopher]

Ironically, just a few months ago right wingers were angry at Obama for supposedly abandoning Bergdahl:


Horrible. Obama to Leave US POW to Rot in Afghanistan After Withdrawal | The Gateway Pundit

Horrible. Obama to Leave US POW to Rot in Afghanistan After Withdrawal

Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 23, 2013, 9:34 AM


Sgt. Bowe Robert Bergdahl was captured by the Taliban in 2009 in Afghanistan.
Four months ago, his family in Idaho received a letter from their son through the Red Cross.
He was still alive.


But sadly it looks like Barack Obama is going to leave US POW Sgt. Bowe Robert Bergdahl behind.


-----------------


As for the law there's this:




"Despite some restrictions, the National Defense Authorization Act gives authority, and has since 2012, to the president to resume prisoner transfers without congressional approval through a National Security Waiver. Under this provision, the secretary of defense can approve a transfer if he, in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of national intelligence, determines that adequate steps are being taken to “substantially mitigate” the potential risk that a former prisoner might engage in future acts of terrorism once home."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text

 

[BornRuff]

They most certainly could have blocked him.

How?

 

[Kreskin]

Can they trade 6 more for Snowden?

 

[Colpy]

You understand that the duty to notify congress didn't include any right for congress to block the decision, right?

So it's not about what he is allowed to actually do, but how he did it.

THIRTY DAYS....in which to block the President's proposed actions, by legislation, or simply by the "Bully Pulpit" of appealing to the people to protest.

"Despite some restrictions, the National Defense Authorization Act gives authority, and has since 2012, to the president to resume prisoner transfers without congressional approval through a National Security Waiver. Under this provision, the secretary of defense can approve a transfer if he, in consultation with the secretary of state and the director of national intelligence, determines that adequate steps are being taken to “substantially mitigate” the potential risk that a former prisoner might engage in future acts of terrorism once home."

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4310/text

So....exactly how did the administration take adequate steps to “substantially mitigate” the potential risk that a former prisoner might engage in future acts of terrorism once home." ??

They did not.

Therefore they broke the law.

 

[BaalsTears]

Obama didn't want Congress to attempt to prevent him from making a bad decision. That's why he broke the notification law. This entire episode gives us a glimpse into the mindset of Obama and his advisers. They've violated Sun Tzu's rule about knowing one's enemy.