The law that Obama broke

a reply to: eriktheawful

I had my booth at the farmer's market this past weekend, a lot of my regular customers are older retired people...some are Vets from WWII, and conflicts/wars after that.

To a T...this is all they were talking about. On my drive home, in my very rural area, I decided to spin through the radio dial. Guess what I heard on a Christian radio station that never talks politics. Yep...the whole half hr. I listened to was over this horrible Taliban exchange Obama did. Telling their listeners, how damn important it was to let their representatives know how they felt. That this was the most important thing to do if they wanted their children to live the life of freedoms they were raised with. If people didn't make their voices heard now, they would lose the freedom to say what they really feel.

This was a shocker to me. People are mad as hell, and questioning if their President is even an American.

For this administration to think, the common people don't care, or will let this blow over like everything else they've done.

They are in for a big surprise. I had 4 people who were die hard democrats, tell me they will not vote for that party again. They expressed an overwhelming sense of betrayal.

Des

a reply to: kruphix
Yea, I'm not really following your argument here. If the law says the Sec. of Defense has to do these things in order for a prisoner exchange to be completed and Obama made the swap without first letting the Secretary make the case, is that not breaking the law? Since when were some people exempt from the laws?

a reply to: Destinyone

Dear Destinyone,

You've pointed out a serious mis-calculation which Obama made. In the past, he's been very successful in finding wedge issues which would split the electorate and make it easier to appeal to them. He'd give a speech in favor of Group A, then one to Group B, and so on.

This time, he rather carelessly believed that he was doing it again, although I can't see which group he thought he was appealing to. His luck ran out and he took an action which angered just about everyone, except those that believe Obama is nearly infallible and must be supported at all costs.

The fact that even the left in Congress is criticizing the move proves they can read the popular mood much better than Obama can. No one up for reelection is going to shout that it was a good thing to let five "Super Star" terrorists loose.

By the way, it is still just a rumor, but it is being whispered that Obama included some cash in the deal. If he did, I'm sure he'll keep that secret after seeing the uproar he's caused.

With respect,
Charles1952

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Destinyone

Dear Destinyone,

You've pointed out a serious mis-calculation which Obama made. In the past, he's been very successful in finding wedge issues which would split the electorate and make it easier to appeal to them. He'd give a speech in favor of Group A, then one to Group B, and so on.

This time, he rather carelessly believed that he was doing it again, although I can't see which group he thought he was appealing to. His luck ran out and he took an action which angered just about everyone, except those that believe Obama is nearly infallible and must be supported at all costs.

The fact that even the left in Congress is criticizing the move proves they can read the popular mood much better than Obama can. No one up for reelection is going to shout that it was a good thing to let five "Super Star" terrorists loose.

By the way, it is still just a rumor, but it is being whispered that Obama included some cash in the deal. If he did, I'm sure he'll keep that secret after seeing the uproar he's caused.

With respect,

Charles1952

Exactly Charles.

What Obama didn't realize when he let loose 5 of the most feared Taliban terrorists, on his own private whim. Was that he took something from everyone. No matter if we are white, black, yellow red, and all the colors in between.

He took something from us all equally. He took a sense of security and a measure of safety from us all. He couldn't pit us against each other, because he took the same thing from all of us. He made the world a more dangerous place for all of us.

He is his infinite arrogance, forgot that he threw us all together into the pit of from now on, feeling less safe. It unified us in a way we probably couldn't have done it on our own, in such a short amount of time.

He left himself exposed, with few standing with him. His once mesmerizing lies, are falling on too many deaf ears. He can't point to any one group and say...you are more safe than that political party. Or, you are more safe than those color of people, or straights or gays are more safe.

Because we're not, and we know it. It makes us all the same in one direct way. We are all less safe, no matter who we are.

Des

a reply to: charles1952
My Dear Friend, it's So Good To see Your Post.
Yes, I had heard of this before, last year I think, Let me look,,,, Yes, Yes, here it is.

A senior intelligence official with intimate knowledge of the years-long effort to locate and rescue Bergdahl told the Washington Free Beacon that the details of that exchange do not add up.
The official, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak to the press, speculated that a cash ransom was paid to the Haqqani Network to get the group to free the prisoner.
The Obama administration taliban-bergdahl-trade-officials-say/” target=”_blank”>reportedly considered offering cash for his release as late as December 2013. The State Department has repeatedly refused to say whether the deal that released Bergdahl involved any cash payment.
The ransom plan was reportedly abandoned, but the intelligence official insisted that there is reason to believe that cash changed hands as part of the deal.

The W T

a reply to: guohua

I did see Oliver North, in 2 interviews state, that inside highly placed sources, told him it was 5 to 6 million cash as part of the exchange.

I think as more people get angry over how this is falling out, more information will be forthcoming. Though I'm sure it will be shoved in the classified category in attempts to keep it quiet. Whistle blowers are crawling out of the woodwork.

Des

a reply to: kruphix

Sounds an awful lot like a mob boss court case to me. They usually have spotless records.

originally posted by: The_Phantom
Obama said, "We have a rule a principle that when somebody wears our countries uniform and the're in a war theater and they're captured we're going to do everything we can to bring them home. And we saw an opportunity and we took it. And I make no apologies for it, It was a unanimous decision among my principles in my government and a view that was shared by my, the members of the joint chiefs of staff "this is something that I would do again and I will continue to do wherever I have an opportunity"

Follow up: "For the lack of Congressional communication?:

Obama's answer: "The main concern was that we had to act fast in a delicate situation that required no publicity."

Oops ... which meets the definition of ... wait for it ... Conspiracy which does meet the criteria for "high crimes and misdemeanors" and is an impeachable offense.

Hoo boy!! What a frikkin mess.

This has been one of the best political discussions I've seen in a while on the boards. I am thoroughly enjoying my time here. Anyone have any clue what would possess 0bama to set this in motion?

of course you do realize that they were classified illegal enemy combatants, and therefore not under the scrutiny of that law.

originally posted by: HauntWok
of course you do realize that they were classified illegal enemy combatants, and therefore not under the scrutiny of that law.

You can explain all that right ?

And of course, why they (Obama Inc.) admitted they were wrong.

originally posted by: HauntWok
of course you do realize that they were classified illegal enemy combatants, and therefore not under the scrutiny of that law.

"The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee."

They weren't Guantanamo detainees?

originally posted by: beezzer
The relevant section(s) start on page 216
Link

PDF of NDAA 2014

Many threads on different aspects of the Bergdahl trade.

The important point is this. .

Link 2

What the law requires:

Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 requires the following before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee:

• The Secretary of Defense must determine that the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated and that the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

• The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee.

• The Secretary of Defense must provide detailed information regarding the circumstances of the transfer or release along with the notification, including how the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated, the security arrangements in the receiving country, and an assessment of the capacity, willingness, and past practices of the receiving country.

Now people can argue over the definitions of POW's.
They can fight over Bergdahl's state of mind.
People can even question the reason we're in Afghanistan.

None of that matters as much as Obama, breaking the law.

• The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee.



Discuss, ignore, reply, build jetpacks for iguanas. It's up to you all. But in the next few days/weeks this might be a good thread to bookmark.

beez

18 USC sections 2339

Obama gave material aid to terrorists.

That's the one that he needs to be charged with.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Again, he can't break a law that doesn't apply to him.

And you are really stretching now just fishing for something since your original argument is now flat on it's face.

The President can't break a law that applies to the Secretary of Defense...period.

The President is not "above the law" as you are claiming. Neither was Clinton. We are not talking about a blowjob in the Oval Office.

Just in case you are confused.

originally posted by: Xeven
a reply to: beezzersure Obama gives sec def orders but it's sec def job to do it correctly not Obamas. Now if Obama order sec def to do it specifically without notification to Congress then you might have something else your just crying.

That will teach Obama not to hire incompetent Republicans to do jobs that require competence lol.

Do you mean like trading 5 terrorists for a collaborationist?

Obama gave the order, not Chuck Hagel. Feinstein is even agreeing with Chambliss that Obama broke the law .. what is all this nonsense you are spouting?

It seems to me like you are trying to claim President Obama cannot be charged with anything as he can do no wrong.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Destinyone

Dear Destinyone,

You've pointed out a serious mis-calculation which Obama made. In the past, he's been very successful in finding wedge issues which would split the electorate and make it easier to appeal to them. He'd give a speech in favor of Group A, then one to Group B, and so on.

This time, he rather carelessly believed that he was doing it again, although I can't see which group he thought he was appealing to. His luck ran out and he took an action which angered just about everyone, except those that believe Obama is nearly infallible and must be supported at all costs.

The fact that even the left in Congress is criticizing the move proves they can read the popular mood much better than Obama can. No one up for reelection is going to shout that it was a good thing to let five "Super Star" terrorists loose.

By the way, it is still just a rumor, but it is being whispered that Obama included some cash in the deal. If he did, I'm sure he'll keep that secret after seeing the uproar he's caused.

With respect,
Charles1952

It isn't a rumor ... he financed the Haqqanis for 10 years.

The same Pakistani Taliban that took credit for the airport attack yesterday.

Gee ... their top 5 leaders got a get out of jail free card and they are already celebrating by committing acts of mass violence. What exactly did Obama think was going to happen?

originally posted by: HauntWok
of course you do realize that they were classified illegal enemy combatants, and therefore not under the scrutiny of that law.

Incorrect, they were classified as war criminals by the UN and Gitmo detainees by the US. Enemy combatants is a political term coined by the left.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden? Oh my goodness!

No.

I'm saying that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense. Obama is not the Secretary of Defense and so he can't break a law that is applied to the Secretary of Defense.

If you want to talk about how the Sec Def broke a law...be my guest. But Obama didn't break any of the laws you highlighted in your thread...in fact Obama can't break any of those laws because he is not the Sec Def.

That really depends...doesn't it? If Obama told the Sec/Defense to back off, or didn't allow him the information required or (what a surprise) overrode him...that could still be illegal. You can't force someone to break the law and if you do, you are responsible. Given this "president's" history, who would doubt that he did whatever he wanted? This man has no respect for the law, the Constitution or the people. He reminds me of a spoiled child but being an adult and in the highest office we have here in the US...he "should" be impeached if he broke any laws or forced others to break laws. Legally...no one, including the President is above the law. And since Nixon, no one has deserved a criminal charge more than Obama. Of course...in my opinion.

a reply to: kruphix

You have to remember that this is a Republican ranting site. Doesn't matter that you pointed out the law is specific for the Sec. of Def. Since HE is a Republican he's an innocent victim. By the logic of this thread, apparently only people's bosses should be accountable for laws that are broken, well, if their bosses are Democrats.

originally posted by: mymymy
a reply to: kruphix

You have to remember that this is a Republican ranting site. Doesn't matter that you pointed out the law is specific for the Sec. of Def. Since HE is a Republican he's an innocent victim. By the logic of this thread, apparently only people's bosses should be accountable for laws that are broken, well, if their bosses are Democrats.

Ahhh puddin', just wait a little longer.

Then you and I can attack the republican president for breaking laws.

Of course, I won't be considered a hypocrite then . . . . but we can star each others posts just for the heck of it.

For those who claim Obama was 'working with congress' on this ....
POPPYCOCK ...

White House: 90 in Administration Knew of Bergdahl Deal, But Not Congress

Between 80 and 90 administration staffers knew about the trade of five Taliban leaders for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl even though Congress was kept in the dark, CNN reports, and members of both parties are unhappy about it.

During a classified briefing to the entire House of Representatives late Monday afternoon, White House officials said that up to 90 people had prior knowledge of the trade.

House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon called that news "disturbing," partly because of the high number who knew and partly because the White House has been saying it didn't inform Congress until after the swap was made because it feared Bergdahl's life might be in danger if there had been a leak.

McKeon, a California Republican, told CNN he wants to get an exact number of those who knew and their names.

"My question to them was, if you don't know who knew, then how could you – if a leak had happened and the sergeant had been killed – how could you go back and find out who leaked?" McKeon said.

The House Armed Services Committee Chairman is going to find out exactly who those 90 administration people were .... and they weren't congress. So if the White House secretaries ended up knowing and congress didn't .... you can expect that there will be a stink raised ... and rightly so.