@hawkeye10,
Putting aside whether or not the swap was reasonable and justifiable, the Administration apparently did not comply with the law requiring 30 days advance notice to congress of prospective detainee releases for two primary reasons:
1. They didn't trust our elected representatives to not leak the news to the press. Whether or not such a leak, in and of itself, would have jeopardized Bergdahl's life is very questionable.
2. They didn't want any of our elected representatives to attempt to or succeed in putting a stop to the planned swap. Preventing the swap might have jeopardized Bergdahl’s life, but the Taliban has kept him alive for five years already and so it is uncertain that they would have killed him now.
In any case, the intent of the law requiring advance notice was to allow congress the opportunity to object to detainee releases. Whether any member would have done so for reasons of politics or principle is immaterial. The Administration shouldn’t get to violate the law based on a predicted reaction that might get in the way of what they want to do.
Quote:White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice said President Obama exercised his constitutional authority in green-lighting the swap — and it should not have been a shock to Congress.
"They were well aware that this idea and this prospect was one that the administration was seriously considering," Rice said on ABC's "This Week."
I don’t know that anyone would have expected a different opinion from the National Security Advisor, and particularly this one.
Obama would have to have signed any law passed by congress and it would be interesting to know if he issued a “signing statement” relative to this one. Obviously he could have vetoed it if he thought he wasn’t or shouldn’t be bound by it and so signing it and then flaunting it is at the very least disingenuous.
The question is what will congress do about this? The answer, I’m fairly certain is nothing.
Just about every president has, at one time or another, taken the position of acting first and then claiming the authority of the office allowed them to. I don’t know that this is one of the most egregious examples of presidential overreach, but certainly the fact that other presidents have done similar things doesn’t justify this one.
If congress isn’t going to event attempt to hold a president to compliance with the laws they pass, it’s pretty certain that non-compliance will be repeated again and again.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace