14
   

Bergdahl Prisoner Swap:Obama Obeys ONLY the Laws He Wants To.

 
 
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 03:50 pm
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/hagel-congress-kept-dark-swap-because-bergdahls-life-danger-n119551

WOW, how many times have we seen this, either directly violating laws that get in his way or refusing to work to uphold laws that he does not agree with?

This is our president, who clearly firmly believes that the shortest distance between him and what he wants should be the road taken, laws be damned.

The reason given here is the same old song and dance we always get for why laws must be broken, to include the Constitution...."SAFETY!"
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 14 • Views: 21,541 • Replies: 408

 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 05:10 pm
@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.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 05:26 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Right on, and it makes me think that Congress petitioning SCOTUS on executive branch abuse of power is going to find the justices very hesitant to step into a jackpot that Congress themselves keeps avoiding. Since Bush V Gore they are gun shy already.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 05:54 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/hagel-congress-kept-dark-swap-because-bergdahls-life-danger-n119551

WOW, how many times have we seen this, either directly violating laws that get in his way or refusing to work to uphold laws that he does not agree with?

This is our president, who clearly firmly believes that the shortest distance between him and what he wants should be the road taken, laws be damned.

The reason given here is the same old song and dance we always get for why laws must be broken, to include the Constitution...."SAFETY!"
Obama knows that if he were impeached and removed from office,
that wud favor the Democrats because the GOP wud be facing an incumbent Biden.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 06:23 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
BIDEN being in charge of anything is what nightmares are made of.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 09:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Are you suggesting that Obama is angling for his own impeachment to put the Democrats in a favorable position to win in 2016?
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 10:43 pm
We should be concentrating on the fact that the Taliban got five killers released for one American deserter.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:02 pm
Quote:
JAKE TAPPER, CNN: Fellow soldiers call Bowe Bergdahl a deserter, not a hero.

I think Obama bypassed Congress because would have said let the asshole rot there. Maybe not?
Quote:
Many are flocking to social media, such as the Facebook page “Bowe Bergdahl is NOT a hero,” where they share stories detailing their resentment. . . . Emails reported by the late Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone in 2012 reveal what Bergdahl’s fellow infantrymen learned within days of his disappearance: he told people that he no longer supported the U.S. effort in Afghanistan.


http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/189616/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pjmedia%2Finstapundit+%28Instapundit%29
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:27 pm
@coldjoint,
plus nobody could figure out how he got taken, if taken he was. He has had plenty of time to come up with a good story.

He was worth 5 high level Taliban, breaking the law, risking a team of Special Forces to do the trade?
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:39 pm
@hawkeye10,

Quote:
He was worth 5 high level Taliban, breaking the law, risking a team of Special Forces to do the trade?


No he wasn't. And it is stupid to even think so. I'll say it again, it is treason to abet a traitor.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:44 pm
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:


Quote:
He was worth 5 high level Taliban, breaking the law, risking a team of Special Forces to do the trade?


No he wasn't. And it is stupid to even think so. I'll say it again, it is treason to abet a traitor.


well hell, at this point Obama making a colossally bad decision is just another day at the office. He is certainly giving Carter a run for his money to be the worst president in my lifetime.

coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Sun 1 Jun, 2014 11:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
at this point Obama making a colossally bad decision


Obama knows Islam. He knows he has given them a huge victory. He also knows what they are capable of and is enabling them. It is not a bad decision, it is a treacherous decision.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 02:57 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
well hell, at this point Obama making a colossally bad decision is just another day at the office.

I heard a few days ago that the White House just accidentally publicized the name of the top CIA agent in Afghanistan.

Of course, no huge national tantrum like when Valerie Plame was accidentally exposed.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:18 am
Sgt. Bergdahl was not a hostage but a prisoner of war taken off the battlefield and the negotiations were with Qatar (not terrorist) who will hold the prisoners for another year. Moreover, congress has known the negotiations were underway, and his health required urgency. Given all of that, I am not sure what law Obama violated. They knew about the negotiations, I don't think there has to be a vote on it before the President can act on it.

Republicans Slam Obama For Securing Release Of American Prisoner Of War
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:24 am
@revelette2,
Quote:
Sgt. Bergdahl was not a hostage but a prisoner of war taken off the battlefield


According to proven liar Susan Rice. The people who served with him have something different to say. At best he went AWOL, at worst(and most likely) he is a traitor.Who do you think the American people will believe?
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:28 am
Quote:
If Barack Obama had a son in the US Army, he’d be Bowe Bergdahl.


Quote:
We now know why President Obama traded five top Taliban for Bowe Bergdahl

http://www.theminorityreportblog.com/2014/06/02/we-now-know-why-president-obama-traded-five-top-taliban-for-bowe-bergdahl/
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:33 am
Quote:
TEN Terrorists for One Traitor: The Prisoner Release You Didn’t Hear About

http://www.dcclothesline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/bowe-bergdahl-traitor-600x307.jpg
Quote:
In late July of 2013 there was a release of 5 Guantanamo detainees as a good will gesture to the Taliban. In other words, they got five of their people back and we got the right to open peace talks with them. Do you find that the least bit submissive? It was not widely reported, because compared to the news of that time it seemed relatively insignificant.

I had somewhat forgotten about this release and stumbled upon it by accident in our site archives. But in light of the Obama Administration trading five very dangerous Taliban leaders for a traitorous American deserter who once told his father that he was ashamed to be an American, I think this is very important.


http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/06/02/ten-terrorists-yes-ten-one-traitor-release-didnt-hear/
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 10:47 am
@coldjoint,
I don t usually care much about anyone 's religion,
but in this case: I wonder if that family are Moslems ???

How did that father come to learn to speak Moslem ?

(IF it actually happened), it seems odd that the prisoner
FORGOT how to speak English.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 11:04 am
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

We should be concentrating on the fact that the Taliban got five killers released for one American deserter.



So now US soldiers are deserters if they are captured? Are they suicides if they are killed by the enemy in your mind as well?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 2 Jun, 2014 11:14 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

coldjoint wrote:

We should be concentrating on the fact that the Taliban got five killers released for one American deserter.



So now US soldiers are deserters if they are captured?
Are they suicides if they are killed by the enemy in your mind as well?
I was not there looking to see what happened,
but the allegation is that he snuck away from his unit,
un-armed, in the middle of the night and headed to the enemy.

Tell us all about it!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Bergdahl Prisoner Swap:Obama Obeys ONLY the Laws He Wants To.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/04/2024 at 05:47:19