Feds: Obama Broke Law with Bergdahl Swap

[trenchfoot]

You cruel bastard, chumming them in like that...

And Repubs up on the hill have been shown to be more than willing to get lured into snagging the bait, oblivious to the risk of backfire and shame time and again. They stumble all over themselves in a mindless stampede to get their Obama bashing in before the shine wears off, only to look like idiots for doing it.

Boehner, McConnell, Cruz, Palin, Bachmann, Rubio....they all led their own "Charges of the Light-headed Brigades" in order to appease their Tea Party kooks. How these folks debase themselves to get a ride on the Tea Party bandwagon is simply amazing to witness.

 

[boomerang]

$5 Billion to Qatar and 3 Gitmo detainees. Hell of a trade to get back a deserter who we may find out the middle of next month is also a traitor.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...aliban-prisoners-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/

 

[bshole]

$5 Billion to Qatar and 3 Gitmo detainees. Hell of a trade to get back a deserter who we may find out the middle of next month is also a traitor.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...aliban-prisoners-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/

Well since holding the Gitmo detainees without charges was an affront to international law and human morality, it was a good thing to release them.

 

[Jhhnn]

$5 Billion to Qatar and 3 Gitmo detainees. Hell of a trade to get back a deserter who we may find out the middle of next month is also a traitor.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...aliban-prisoners-for-deserter-bergdahl-video/

So, uhh, unconfirmed accusations are now fact?

Only in the right-wing-o-sphere.

Bergdahl's conduct prior to being captured is immaterial. He's an American Soldier, both responsible for his own actions and the beneficiary of the same treatment as any other.

He's ours. We wanted him back. That's over, despite the desperate back biting & sniveling after the fact.

Obama won by getting it done. Alternate scenarios are now bullshit.

Suck it up & move on, whiners.

 

[Angry Irishman]

So, uhh, unconfirmed accusations are now fact?

Only in the right-wing-o-sphere.

Bergdahl's conduct prior to being captured is immaterial. He's an American Soldier, both responsible for his own actions and the beneficiary of the same treatment as any other.

He's ours. We wanted him back. That's over, despite the desperate back biting & sniveling after the fact.

Obama won by getting it done. Alternate scenarios are now bullshit.

Suck it up & move on, whiners.

I'm going to guess you've never served.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Of course it doesn't make it so. As I said many pages ago, SCOTUS has the final say. That doesn't mean that Obama doesn't need to constantly make decisions based on his interpretation of the Constitution, some of which may involve not enforcing laws.

There's simply no even remotely feasible way for Obama to run everything he wants to do by the judiciary first. Hell, even if he wanted to do that the judiciary would throw out every attempt he made to do so for lack of a case or controversy.

Well this is an interesting turn of events. According to your reasoning Bush and Cheney might believe that the laws against torture weren't Constitutional and therefore not enforcing them was their right. Indeed it was their duty to do what they did if they felt that was the case. I find that a troubling thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Well this is an interesting turn of events. According to your reasoning Bush and Cheney might believe that the laws against torture weren't Constitutional and therefore not enforcing them was their right. Indeed it was their duty to do what they did if they felt that was the case. I find that a troubling thing.

They basically did that, as did Obama with his decision to execute a US citizen without trial.

It isn't possible to adjudicate these things in real time, but that makes future accountability even more important. I mean it's not like Obama should have waited the several years it would have taken to adjudicate this even if it was something the courts would take.

As I said before though I think ex post facto investigations and prosecutions should be saved for the most egregious offences. Going around congress to get a prisoner back doesn't rate highly for me. Torturing people to death and executing citizens without trial does.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As I said before though I think ex post facto investigations and prosecutions should be saved for the most egregious offences. Going around congress to get a prisoner back doesn't rate highly for me. Torturing people to death and executing citizens without trial does.

But we still have a problem here. The DOJ answers to Obama (or any President). Obama may or may not act, but I think our system is an utter failure if merely claiming something allows the most egregious crimes to be dismissed. I know you aren't defending Obama on this so I'm not faulting you for being an apologist- god knows we have too many on both sides- but IMO this would be intolerable if it turned out to happen.

 

[fskimospy]

But we still have a problem here. The DOJ answers to Obama (or any President). Obama may or may not act, but I think our system is an utter failure if merely claiming something allows the most egregious crimes to be dismissed. I know you aren't defending Obama on this so I'm not faulting you for being an apologist- god knows we have too many on both sides- but IMO this would be intolerable if it turned out to happen.

Well I think criminal prosecution of a sitting president is both nearly impossible and probably not appropriate. That's what impeachment is for. We also don't want to normalize the idea of the next administration going after the previous one legally, but clearly there has to be a line and to me the line is really fucking short of torture and murder.

Can you offer a practical alternative of what the executive branch can do in the case of where he needs to act? I honestly can't think of one.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well I think criminal prosecution of a sitting president is both nearly impossible and probably not appropriate. That's what impeachment is for. We also don't want to normalize the idea of the next administration going after the previous one legally, but clearly there has to be a line and to me the line is really fucking short of torture and murder.

Can you offer a practical alternative of what the executive branch can do in the case of where he needs to act? I honestly can't think of one.

My concern isn't about choosing to act so much as knowing egregious acts have happened and uses Constitutional justifications which are really excuses. If Obama decides to "look forward" and ignore monstrous abuses that may be his right under the system but I hope no one ever again tells us what a great President Obama is. Frankly I hope my concerns are groundless and he does what is right.

 

[fskimospy]

My concern isn't about choosing to act so much as knowing egregious acts have happened and uses Constitutional justifications which are really excuses. If Obama decides to "look forward" and ignore monstrous abuses that may be his right under the system but I hope no one ever again tells us what a great President Obama is. Frankly I hope my concerns are groundless and he does what is right.

I agree, "looking forward" meant "allowing war crimes".

While I get not prosecuting them immediately while looking for bipartisan help with the financial crisis, not ever circling back is deeply wrong.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm going to guess you've never served.

I'm going to guess it doesn't matter one way or the other.

I'm going to guess you were never held hostage.

Let's compose a letter to your captors from your CinC-

Dear Terrorists holding Angry Irishman;

We don't negotiate with terrorists. Just shoot the holier-than-thou, nit picky, back biting bitch. Send me the video.

Sincerely,

CinC

Maybe they'll let you read it before they put one behind your ear.

All better, right? Just the way you'd want it, I'm sure.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well this is an interesting turn of events. According to your reasoning Bush and Cheney might believe that the laws against torture weren't Constitutional and therefore not enforcing them was their right. Indeed it was their duty to do what they did if they felt that was the case. I find that a troubling thing.

Heh. You really seem intent on muddying the waters.

Constitutional? You pretend they might have cared.

 

[utahraptor]

I believe the constitution is not currently in effect. Our country did just admit to torturing individuals correct? Anything goes at this point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Heh. You really seem intent on muddying the waters.

Constitutional? You pretend they might have cared.

I was waiting for your apologistic attitude. In case you need to be reminded we has quite the little argument justifying Obama not investigating. You used everything you could think of to excuse him. Cared? Where were YOU then?

People like Eskimospy and I find this whole thing abhorrent and we're hardly political bedmates. I don't pretend they cared and I never said they did. I hope Obama and the DOJ investigate. I expect that if they do not you'll find a way to excuse or divert. I hope you too prove me wrong.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I'm going to guess it doesn't matter one way or the other.

I'm going to guess you were never held hostage.

Let's compose a letter to your captors from your CinC-

Dear Terrorists holding Angry Irishman;

We don't negotiate with terrorists. Just shoot the holier-than-thou, nit picky, back biting bitch. Send me the video.

Sincerely,

CinC

Maybe they'll let you read it before they put one behind your ear.

All better, right? Just the way you'd want it, I'm sure.

Yea, that's what I thought.....expected response received. .....nuff said.

 

[Jhhnn]

I was waiting for your apologistic attitude. In case you need to be reminded we has quite the little argument justifying Obama not investigating. You used everything you could think of to excuse him. Cared? Where were YOU then?

People like Eskimospy and I find this whole thing abhorrent and we're hardly political bedmates. I don't pretend they cared and I never said they did. I hope Obama and the DOJ investigate. I expect that if they do not you'll find a way to excuse or divert. I hope you too prove me wrong.

There's nothing to investigate. The truth is known & was known at the time. Prisoners were sent to Gitmo for domestic political purposes & no other. The American People went for it and few who did are willing to admit their complicity. The Party of the perpetrators closed ranks behind 'em & have been winning elections ever since in part because they still support such actions. So do the voters, sad to say.

Which is reason to blame Obama, right?

Which also has Jack & shit to do with the release of Bergdahl.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

There's nothing to investigate. The truth is known & was known at the time. Prisoners were sent to Gitmo for domestic political purposes & no other. The American People went for it and few who did are willing to admit their complicity. The Party of the perpetrators closed ranks behind 'em & have been winning elections ever since in part because they still support such actions. So do the voters, sad to say.

Which is reason to blame Obama, right?

Which also has Jack & shit to do with the release of Bergdahl.

You didn't even read the exchanges between eskimospy did you? You justified Obama ignoring Iraq, argued fought for his lack of action. You claimed "reality deal with it". Do I blame Obama for not being a leader then? You bet your ass. You? Oh, the public. Oh the Republicans. Oh, any excuse for failing to have a sense of moral outage and a thirst for justice. Do you even realize that people on the left, those who you think you are a member of find your excuses disgusting? Blame Obama? Damn right. Will you blame him if he does nothing now? Hell no!

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Nice to see that Republicans support leaving soldiers behind. Makes me wonder why they cry so those huge crocodile tears over Benghazi....

The difference is, we negotiated with terrorists.
Secondly, we got a raw deal out of the bargain. One of our guys for five of theirs?

There is a reason we don't do things this way. It creates a horrible precedent. It creates more reasons for terrorists of all kinds to believe that we will now give in to their demands.

Obama has once further eroded our ability to deal with countries and organizations that mean us harm.
But I wouldn't expect someone like you to comprehend those facts, simple as they are. It's way over your head. And apparently it is way over the Complainer-in-Chiefs head as well.

 

[Jhhnn]

You didn't even read the exchanges between eskimospy did you? You justified Obama ignoring Iraq, argued fought for his lack of action. You claimed "reality deal with it". Do I blame Obama for not being a leader then? You bet your ass. You? Oh, the public. Oh the Republicans. Oh, any excuse for failing to have a sense of moral outage and a thirst for justice. Do you even realize that people on the left, those who you think you are a member of find your excuses disgusting? Blame Obama? Damn right. Will you blame him if he does nothing now? Hell no!

Punting deep into Blame Obama! territory, again?

Even to the point of derailing whatever thread you can find to to express your oh so precious moral outrage against your favorite target?

What you want is over here-

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2413895

It's your thread- use it.

 

[Jhhnn]

The difference is, we negotiated with terrorists.
Secondly, we got a raw deal out of the bargain. One of our guys for five of theirs?

There is a reason we don't do things this way. It creates a horrible precedent. It creates more reasons for terrorists of all kinds to believe that we will now give in to their demands.

Obama has once further eroded our ability to deal with countries and organizations that mean us harm.
But I wouldn't expect someone like you to comprehend those facts, simple as they are. It's way over your head. And apparently it is way over the Complainer-in-Chiefs head as well.

Channeling Dick Cheney? How quaint. How utterly obtuse. How perfectly right wing of you.

It's pure hogwash, of course-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...negotiate-with-terrorists-we-always-have.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Punting deep into Blame Obama! territory, again?

Even to the point of derailing whatever thread you can find to to express your oh so precious moral outrage against your favorite target?

What you want is over here-

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2413895

It's your thread- use it.

You have your head so far up Obama's ass it's pathetic. Time to put you back on ignore, like I would any other good supporter of the Fatherland mentality. The person I was addressing was Eskimospy, and we took each other's meaning. Obama can dismiss anything he wants if he thinks, no, says he thinks it's unconstitutional. Bush could do the same. That's a serious flaw in our system. You being the Apologist are beyond your depth so I'll dismiss you for now. I've had enough of your sycophantic nonsense. "click"

 

[Jhhnn]

You have your head so far up Obama's ass it's pathetic. Time to put you back on ignore, like I would any other good supporter of the Fatherland mentality. The person I was addressing was Eskimospy, and we took each other's meaning. Obama can dismiss anything he wants if he thinks, no, says he thinks it's unconstitutional. Bush could do the same. That's a serious flaw in our system. You being the Apologist are beyond your depth so I'll dismiss you for now. I've had enough of your sycophantic nonsense. "click"

Mew!

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Channeling Dick Cheney? How quaint. How utterly obtuse. How perfectly right wing of you.

It's pure hogwash, of course-

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...negotiate-with-terrorists-we-always-have.html

You miss the point. Yes, we have (or have attempted to) negotiated with terrorists in the past. And pretty much got raw fucking deals every single time. And every single time we did so, it made it worse the next time we got threatened by terrorist demands. It doesn't matter whether it was a Democratic or Republican president who did the negotiating. It put us in a weaker position, each and every time.
Which is probably why the fucking terrorists still make demands of us. And probably why they continue to behead our people with what amounts to filet knives.

Your article proves my point numerous times. Silly liberal.

 

[Jhhnn]

You miss the point. Yes, we have (or have attempted to) negotiated with terrorists in the past. And pretty much got raw fucking deals every single time. And every single time we did so, it made it worse the next time we got threatened by terrorist demands. It doesn't matter whether it was a Democratic or Republican president who did the negotiating. It put us in a weaker position, each and every time.
Which is probably why the fucking terrorists still make demands of us. And probably why they continue to behead our people with what amounts to filet knives.

Your article proves my point numerous times. Silly liberal.

Yeh, the Bergdahl situation was obviously worse than the Iranian hostage crisis, right?

It's been downhill ever since by your reckoning.

And it's funny that the Taliban weren't declared to be terrorists until after we invaded their country. Shee-it, Sherlock, the Bush Admin was negotiating an oil pipeline with them in July of 2001.

When it comes to Afghanistan & the tribal areas of Pakistan we have a choice- negotiation or genocide. Take your pick. It was the same for the British & the Russians & every other invader since Genghis Khan. He didn't even flinch at undertaking the latter.