14
   

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

 
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 02:51 pm
Bush released?

Quote:
The releases were done under international pressure, as well as pressure from democrats. It involved the release of low level "grunt" soldiers, and people supposedly picked up though they were not actually combatants.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 02:52 pm
@Baldimo,
I wouldn't know, but it is protested by the left on blogs and such which is what I was talking of. Drones wasn't protested as a separate issue either during the Bush years, but rather the Iraq war was.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 02:55 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

You guys werent mad at Bush. Why are you mad at the Democrat?


I can't speak for Baldimo, but I wasn't happy about all of the releases.

So I presume you'll now take what I've posted more seriously since I've countered the only argument you seem capable of making in this thread.

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 02:58 pm
@Baldimo,
The requirement to notify congress wasn't passed until Obama was president. Apparently congress trusted Bush not to let the really bad guys go or to empty the place out.

In some cases their trust was misplaced.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:01 pm
Quote:
Timeline of the release and transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees

Two hundred detainees were released in 2004 before any Combatant Status Review Tribunals were held, including the Tipton Three, all British citizens.

On 27 July 2004, four French detainees were repatriated and remanded in custody by the French intelligence agency Direction de la Surveillance du Territoire.[198] The remaining three French detainees were released in March 2005.[199]

On 4 August 2004, the Tipton Three, ex-detainees who had been returned to the UK in March of that year (and freed by the British authorities within 24 hours of their return) filed a report in the U.S. claiming persistent severe abuse at the camp, of themselves and others.[200] They claimed that false confessions were extracted from them under duress, in conditions that amounted to torture. They alleged that conditions deteriorated after Major General Geoffrey D. Miller took charge of the camp, including increased periods of solitary confinement for the detainees. They claimed that the abuse took place with the knowledge of the intelligence forces. Their claims are currently being investigated by the British government. At the time, five British residents remained as detainees: Bisher Amin Khalil Al-Rawi, Jamil al Banna, Shaker Abdur-Raheem Aamer, Jamal Abdullah and Omar Deghayes.[201]

By November 2005, 358 of the then-505 detainees held at Guantanamo Bay had Administrative Review Board hearings.[202] Of these, 3% were granted and were awaiting release, 20% were to be transferred, 37% were to be further detained at Guantanamo, and no decision had been made in 40% of the cases.

Of two dozen Uyghur detainees at Guantanamo Bay, The Washington Post reported on 25 August 2005, fifteen were found not to be "enemy combatants."[203] Although cleared of terrorism, these Uyghurs remained in detention at Guantanamo because the United States refused to return them to China, fearing that China would "imprison, persecute or torture them" because of internal political issues. U.S. officials said that their overtures to approximately 20 countries to grant the individuals asylum had been declined, leaving the men with no destination for release.[203] On 5 May 2006, five Uyghurs were transported to refugee camps in Albania, and the Department of Justice filed an "Emergency Motion to Dismiss as Moot" on the same day.[204][205] One of the Uyghurs' lawyers characterized the sudden transfer as an attempt "to avoid having to answer in court for keeping innocent men in jail."[206][207]

In August 2006, Murat Kurnaz, a German legal resident born in Germany, was released from Guantánamo, with no charges after having been held for five years.[208]

As of 15 June 2009, Guantánamo held more than 220 detainees.[209]

The United States was negotiating with Palau to accept a group of innocent Chinese Uyghur Muslims who have been held at the Guantánamo Bay.[210] The Department of Justice announced on 12 June 2009, that Saudi Arabia had accepted three Uyghurs.[209] The same week, one detainee was released to Iraq, and one to Chad.[209]

Also that week, four Uyghur detainees were resettled in Bermuda, where they were released.[209] On 11 June 2009, the U.S. Government negotiated a deal in secret with the Bermudian Premier, Doctor Ewart Brown to release 4 Uyghur detainees to Bermuda, an overseas territory of the UK. The detainees were flown into Bermuda under the cover of darkness. The U.S. purposely kept the information of this transfer secret from the UK, which handles all foreign affairs and security issues for Bermuda, as it was feared that the deal would collapse. After the story was leaked by the U.S. media, Premier Brown gave a national address to inform the people of Bermuda. Many Bermuda residents objected, as did the UK Government. It undertook an informal review of the actions; the Bermuda opposition, UBP, made a tabled vote of no confidence in Premier Brown. The UK government is considering whether to overrule his agreement to have the Uyghur men resettled in Bermuda.[211]

Italy agreed on 15 June 2009, to accept three prisoners.[209] Ireland agreed on 29 July 2009, to accept two prisoners. The same day, the European Union said that its member states would accept some detainees.[209] In January 2011, WikiLeaks revealed that Switzerland accepted several Guantanamo detainees as a quid pro quo with the U.S. to limit a multibillion tax probe against Swiss banking group UBS.[212]

In December 2009, the U.S. reported that, since 2002, more than 550 detainees had departed Guantánamo Bay for other destinations, including Albania, Algeria, Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Belgium, Bermuda, Chad, Denmark, Egypt, France, Hungary, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Maldives, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Palau, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Tajikistan, Turkey, Uganda, United Kingdom, Canada and Yemen. The Guantanamo Review Task Force issued a Final Report 22 January 2010,[213] but did not publicly release it until 28 May of that year.[214] The report recommended releasing 126 current detainees to their homes or to a third country, prosecuting 36 in either federal court or by a military commission, and holding 48 indefinitely under the laws of war.[215] In addition, 30 Yemenis were approved for release if security conditions in their home country improve.[214]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp
If any of you Obama bots would like to read this you will find out Bush followed procedures. Obama does as he pleases. Also note that a lot were transferred and re jailed in other countries. To compare Bush to Obama again is ludicrous, but it is all the left has. Actually Obama makes Bush look better everyday.

Obamas legacy might just well be his vindication of Bush.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:05 pm
Does anyone know if SCOTUS has ruled that Presidents can sign bills into law and then write at the bottom "This that and the other portions of this law do not apply to me", and thus make it so? I was reading the other day that Obama acts alarmingly like what Nixon said to Frost post presidency when he said (paraphrased) "what ever a president does is by definition legal". In Obama we seem to get nixons lack of willingness to follow the law AND Carters incompetence. YIKES!

this sounds constitutionally iffy, at best.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:07 pm
@Baldimo,
It's all politics, all the time, and with this White House it can get real nasty. The soldiers who are speaking up are either pretty courageous or naive, and can't imagine there will be any repercussions from their government simply for telling the truth as they know it.

The smear campaign has only just begun.

You have to believe that the White House has been looking far and wide to find someone who served with Bergdahl who will testify that he served with "honor and distinction." I suspect those who are still serving will come under the greatest pressure.
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:16 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
(me)
Quote:
The former Bush advisor said the particular Taliban members who were picked (because they were the ones chosen by the Taliban) did not commit crimes against Americans.


Quote:

(You) No he did not. Go back and reread the article.


(me) yes he did.

Quote:
I don’t see how these particular Taliban officials could ever have been tried in the southern district of New York,” John Bellinger, who served as an adviser to President George W. Bush explained during an appearance on Fox News Tuesday. “They’re certainly some Al Qaeda detainees who committed actual terrorist acts against Americans who perhaps could have been tried in a federal court because they committed federal crimes, but these particular Taliban detainees I think could never have been tried in federal court.” Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, several of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.


(from the previous source)


Bellinger said on Fox news some AQ members committed actual terrorist acts against Americans so could be tried in a federal court because they committed a federal crime (of terrorist acts.) He said the particular detainees released couldn't have been tried in federal court. With the obvious conclusion is that the reason the couldn't be tried in a federal court for the federal crime of a terrorist act is because they didn't commit the crime to be tried.

As far as the term enemy combatant being abandoned:

here


Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:20 pm
@revelette2,
(you)
Quote:
The former Bush advisor said the particular Taliban members who were picked (because they were the ones chosen by the Taliban) did not commit crimes against Americans.


(him)
Quote:
Although some of the released prisoners posed a danger to the United States when they were captured in 2002, especially toward soldiers serving in Afghanistan, several of the detainees did not commit crimes against Americans.


(me)
Since when does several mean five? You clearly implied that none of the released Taliban committed crimes against Americans. He clearly did not.
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 03:33 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Bellinger said the particular detainees released couldn't be tried in a federal court for crimes of committing a federal act of terrorism. The two left were more than likely soldiers for the Taliban in some kind of way, the others were just picked up probably. I don't really know. I just know they are not AQ and that's the main point.
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 04:48 pm
@woiyo,
woiyo wrote:

Agree, bring him home. Yet, no one can answer why him and why now and why for 5 Gitmo detainees?

Him because he was the only American POW in Afghanistan, and there was concern for his health. Apparently, he was worth the five detainees.

woiyo wrote:
This administration to me is AGAIN attempting to cover up ineptitude over it's failure in telling the entire truth surrounding the release of the 5 Gitmos or something else even more sinister.


It's prolly to make the world safe for Islam, Obama being, of course, a Liberation Christian-Muslim, Commie Pinko.

woiyo wrote:
For Susan Rice to say he served "honorably" and Spokeperson Hahn to say they did not know the circumstances wreaks of a coverup.


It's obvious, they're reeking Liberation Christian Islam upon America and the world!
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 05:00 pm
Obama did exactly what any other president, who is winding down a war, would have done. Bush did the same thing, but he wasn't winding down a war when he did it.
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 09:30 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
but he wasn't winding down a war when he did it.

No, but he was facing constant attacks from Democrats. And instead of demonizing them released prisoners. Also the world saw more victims. And were on his ass too.

In short Bush bent, cooperated at least to some extent. Obama has not done that.
0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 09:47 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
It's obvious, they're reeking Liberation Christian Islam upon America and the world!


It is obvious that the only country that could stop terror would be the US. We could expand our energy output and undersell the middle Eastern countries. We could impose sanctions on any country using Sharia law. Would America go that far for freedom? Remember what tomorrow is, we have done it before.

0 Replies
 
coldjoint
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Jun, 2014 10:49 pm
Quote:
Krauthammer Raises Possibility of “Witness Tampering” At German Hospital Where Bergdahl Is Being Treated

Quote:


On Special Report Thursday, Charles Krauthammer raised suspicions that witness tampering could be going on at that hospital in Germany where Bowe Bergdahl is currently being treated.

Krauthammer noted that there has been “infinitely less information from our own government” about Bergdahl’s health than from the Taliban. “If this goes on any longer, I think we’re going to have to imagine that perhaps there might be some witness tampering happening,” he said.

“At some point, we’re going to have to have a look at this guy, have him speak to America – have a judgement about how healthy he is or was and explain exactly what were the circumstances of him leaving service.”

At which point, we’ll most likely be able to figure out if he’s spouting a false narrative given to him by the Regime.

Because, let’s face it – at this point, we have a lot of experience at that.


Cant argue with that.

http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/krauthammer-raises-possibility-of-witness-tampering-at-german-hospital-where-bergdahl-is-being-treated/
0 Replies
 
revelette2
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 06:16 am
I think after reading in Wikipedia the reason the 500 something detainees were released or transferred to their country was something to do with the Supreme court rulings and Habeas corpus. Its all a little complicated, however right before Obama became President, the Bush administration won a court ruling which made it harder to release detainees.

Guantanamo Bay detention camp

For the most part, it is depressing and shameful reading. I don't understand why the Obama administration has put so resistance in prisoners who were tortured to bring their tormentors to trial. I really hold that against him.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 09:49 am
I understand that Obama attached a "signing statement" to the bill that required the president to consult with congress before a prisoner release, which exempted himself from such requirement. See:


Signing statement
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Ronald Reagan, left, and George H. W. Bush; both presidents issued significant numbers of signing statements containing constitutional objections to laws passed by Congress.
A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN).

During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes. The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and has since been continued by the Obama administration.[1] In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".[2]
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 10:20 am


Here is the law Obama supposedly broke. -
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr4310enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr4310enr.pdf
Section 1028 is the relevant part of the code.
It allows for waivers to the 30 day requirement if the Sec of Defense determines it is in the national security interests of the US. (subsection(d))

You can argue all day or the next 10 decades about whether getting a US POW returned is in the national security interests. But such an argument means there is a very real question as to whether he broke the law or not.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 10:55 am
@parados,
Quote:
It allows for waivers to the 30 day requirement if the Sec of Defense determines it is in the national security interests of the US.


1) that is not the claim, the claim is that it was in the interests of Bergdahls health

2) there is no way in hell to argue that this trade further Americas security interests, in fact it clearly degrades Americas security interests. It also clearly degrades the safety of American troops long into the future as we have established that we will pay big for hostages, thus incentivizing the taking of hostages.

While you might be stupid enough to believe that you can further your argument using Firefly's trick of redefining words to suit your purposes, some of us around here are on to the ploy, and will call you on it.

" America's national security interests" does not equal "what Obama wants to do"
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Jun, 2014 10:59 am
@hawkeye10,
1.) So, there is no national security interest when US soldiers die? That seems a rather outlandish statement to make.

2.) Your opinion doesn't count for much when it comes to national security. The government makes those decisions. The argument that US troops will be less safe in a war zone is ridiculous. US troops knowing they will be left to die if captured certainly has a security interest for the US.
 

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
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 08/15/2022 at 07:30:05