The law that Obama broke

This is a rule for that lays down how specificly the Sec Def can release a prisoner. What is does not cover is if somebody else releases the prisoner be it the President or Congress. So if the SecDef did this on his own with no orders then yes he may have violated this law. Although this law does not define a penalty for it being broken, leaving it up to his or hers supervisor. Of course if the order came from the Sec Defs supervisor it all becomes irrelevant anyway. If the law stated that for anyone to release a gitmo prisoner they have to follow these steps then you could go after Obama. Of course both Congress and the President apporved this law and its very specific wording so they could by pass it if they wished. That is the nature of both parties.

a reply to: kruphix

I see...then Hitler is not the evil madman we think he is, since he didn't do any of those things the Nazis are accused of, just his underlings.

a reply to: kruphix

Oh...and, in a nutshell, Obama already accepted the responsibility for not following the law. You probably already know that.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.

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!

Obama will probably just claim he "didn't know". Then he'll admit to finding out when he saw it on the evening news. If something comes out of this, you bet the Secretary of Defense will be thrown under the bus. Remember, Obama isn't accountable for anything!

originally posted by: Wookiep

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.

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!

Obama will probably just claim he "didn't know". Then he'll admit to finding out when he saw it on the evening news. If something comes out of this, you bet the Secretary of Defense will be thrown under the bus. Remember, Obama isn't accountable for anything!

And that's it in a nutshell.

Just look at the panic defense running the forum now.

They can blame Hagel all they want, but Hagel takes his orders from Obama.

I'm feeling sorry for the administration, though.

They can't blame Bush for this.

Now..my opinion is that perhaps this should be investigated.

Reason being: I have heard the reason presented: that the prisoner's life was on the line if the trade was leaked to the media.

However...!!!: Was the take-down of Osama any less critical to even more soldiers safety? The Osama operation was communicated to members of congress, but yet this was not?

I have to wonder why?

a reply to: kruphix

Doesn't matter. The law applies to the Sec Def, not the President. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

So Charles Manson shouldnt be in prison .........I mean, he didnt kill anyone.........

Just saying, thats the logic you are using here....

Obama is stupid, he is trying to reinvent the wheel, he should use excuse that are tried and tested to work....should just say stuff Bush said, the right wing bought that without questioning.

Doesn't matter. The law applies to the Sec Def, not the President. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

OH YES IT DOES.

Because ALL the 'kings' men get their marching orders from the messiah sitting in the oval office.

POINT OF FACT.

Sec def, and other APPOINTED administration shills DO WHAT THE ADMIN wants.

See the IRS, DHS,ICE, EPA for example.

My only beef here is OBama broke the law ?

HELL he has been breaking LAWS(plural) since he was 'elected'.

originally posted by: neo96


My only beef here is OBama broke the law ?

HELL he has been breaking LAWS(plural) since he was 'elected'.

Agreed.

But there has been MASSIVE misdirection going on here on the part of the media and pundits.

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

a reply to: beezzer

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

The true implications here are:

1. Yet in another in the long line of picking, and choose what laws matter, and what ones don't we have Bergdhal.

2. After 6 years of not wanting to call the 'WAR on Terrorism' a WAR. They labeled a deserter a 'POW'.

3. By DHS own 'definition' Bergdhal is not a POW, as the offical term for 'the war on terrorism' was 'man caused disasters'.

4. After 13 years of 'WAR' only 1 'POW' after tens of thousands have been 'in country'; ? That stinks to high heaven.

5. After 6 years of whining about GITMO the administration made an asinine calculation for political reasons by releasing known 'enemies of the state'.

As a precursor to 'finally' closing Gitmo all together, but that solution was just to 'fly' them somewhere, and make them someone else's 'problem'.

The current commander in chief is an enemy of the state, and by extension and enemy to we the people.

He has his defenders, but then again so did Hitler, so did Stalin,so did Mao, so does Putin.

The 'right' thing was not done here.

The final implication here is the current 'commander in chief' effed us over yet again.

a reply to: beezzer

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

And what are the true implications?

a reply to: beezzer

I'm feeling sorry for the administration, though. They can't blame Bush for this.

Don't worry beezzer, they can always fall back on the 'You're a Racist' defense.

a reply to: butcherguy

If it quacks like one.

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

And what are the true implications?

That Obama broke the law.

a reply to: beezzer

That Obama broke the law.

Broke the law for his political gain.

Putting Party.

Putting Politics.

Above this country.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

And what are the true implications?

That Obama broke the law.

LOL.

Ok, let's try this one...let's say your argument, and others, that Obama broke the law because he "ordered" Hagel to break the law...I'll call it the Manson defense...is logical (which it is not....at all).

What is the FIRST step that has to happen BEFORE Obama would even be considered for being part of breaking the law?

I'll give you a hint...FIRST, someone else would have to be charged and found guilty of breaking the law....who would that person be?

a reply to: neo96

That sounds like the guy who coined the term "Terrorizors"

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

I just wanted to create this thread to clarify the true implications.

And what are the true implications?

That Obama broke the law.

LOL.

Ok, let's try this one...let's say your argument, and others, that Obama broke the law because he "ordered" Hagel to break the law...I'll call it the Manson defense...is logical (which it is not....at all).

What is the FIRST step that has to happen BEFORE Obama would even be considered for being part of breaking the law?

I'll give you a hint...FIRST, someone else would have to be charged and found guilty of breaking the law....who would that person be?

He's guilty by his own admission.

He (Obama) took ownership of this. He has stated it time and time again.

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: neo96

That sounds like the guy who coined the term "Terrorizors"

Mean Carter ?

Or Reagan ?

Or was it Bush?

OR was it CLinton ?

Or was it GW ?

We know is wasn't the current guy he reserved that word for his political opposites that stand in the way of his agenda.

All of the above is the correct answer with the word has been used since man has been calling himself 'civilized', and even before this country ever existed.