The release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only American soldier held captive in Afghanistan, has been a source of celebration but also concern in Washington. While the country has long insisted that it would not negotiate with terrorists, it seems like it has been doing precisely that for years in working out a trade that ultimately led to the release of five Taliban leaders. More importantly, federal law requires notice to Congress some 30 days before a release of a detainee from Guantanamo Bay — another federal provision that the White House appears to have simply ignored in a unilateral act. I am scheduled to discuss the case on CNN on Monday morning.
The circumstances of Bergdahl’s capture remain suspicious. He claimed in a videotape as a captive that he lagged behind a patrol and was captured. A friend who works closely with the military in Afghanistan says that that is highly unlikely given the protocols used on patrols. Fellow soldiers claim that Bergdahl was a deserter. My friend says that he was told that Bergdahl walked away from this base. He is quoted as saying that he was ashamed of being an American and disenchanted with the mission in Afghanistan. He was listed as missing in June 2009, three days after reportedly sending his parents an e-mail stating “I am ashamed to be an American” and “The horror that is America is disgusting.” Those sources say that he voluntarily left the mountain base. Worse yet, American soldiers were killed reportedly looking for Bergdahl, though there is still uncertainty about that claim.
That could put the President in a rough position. He declared that
“Sergeant Bergdahl has missed birthdays, and holidays and simple moments with family and friends which all of us take for granted. But while Bowe was gone, he was never forgotten”— not by his family or his hometown in Idaho, or the military. “And he wasn’t forgotten by his country, because the United States of America does not ever leave our men and women in uniform behind.”
If Bergdahl is a deserter, there will be pressure to charge him, but the trade may become even less popular if he is sitting in a brig. [Update: when I appeared on CNN this morning, the network aired the following statement from one of his former platoon members, Sgt. Matt Vierkant: “I was pissed off then and I am even more so now with everything going on. Bowe Bergdahl deserted during a time of war and his fellow Americans lost their lives searching for him.”]
Critics are likely to demand answers about his actions and alleged dissection while detailing the threat of these five leaders as well as their alleged Al-Qaeda connections. On the other hand, the White House is insisting that, with troops leaving the country, they needed to get him out and had no choice but to relent to the demand for a trade. The White House could also argue that the status of these Gitmo detainees remains a problem and the country cannot hold them indefinitely — so that these five would have had to be returned to Afghanistan eventually unless we were to use the widely ridiculed tribunal system.
Then there is the question of negotiating with terrorists and failing to comply with federal law.
Congressional leaders have warned that such trades only increase the incentive to capture U.S. soldiers and citizens around the world. The Taliban do not represent a nation state and many accuse them of regularly engaging in acts that would be deemed terrorism by the United States. The Obama Administration may be in the curious position of now insisting that they are freedom fighters or a legitimate military force rather than terrorists.
The federal law adds the obligation to notify congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners with explanations of the conditions and arrangements for such releases. No such notice was given. While President Obama denounced signing statements by George W. Bush as a Senator and as a candidate for the presidency, he issued such a signing statement when the law was passed to say that the condition was unconstitutional as an infringement upon his powers as commander in chief. He appears in clear violation of federal law. You may recall then candidate Barack Obama promising “I taught the Constitution for 10 years, I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution the of the United States. We’re not gonna use signing statements as a way to do an end-run around Congress, alright?”
I recently testified (here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws.
It is notable that Obama is again claiming near absolute executive power (and augmenting this claim with the use of the controversial signing statement tactic). He is claiming that Congress cannot limit — even with a notice requirement — his control over detainees at Gitmo. It is another glimpse into what I once called the “uber presidency” that has emerged under the last two presidents.
The five men released are considered highly dangerous. Khirullah Said Wali Khairkhwa and Abdul Haq Wasiq are classified as a “high risk” to the United States. Two others, Mohammad Fazl and Mullah Norullah Mori, were present during the 2001 prison riot at Mazar-e Sharif when CIA paramilitary officer Johnny Micheal Spann was killed. Fazl is thought to be the Taliban “army chief of staff”) and a longtime al-Qaeda ally. Wasiq reportedly helped train al-Qaeda. Mullah Norullah Noori, a senior military commander also reportedly have ties with al-Qaeda. Khairullah Khairkhwa, a Taliban governor was also allegedly an al-Qaeda trainer. One is believed to be responsible for the deaths of scores of Shiites in acts of religious terror.
The agreement only reportedly includes a one-year travel ban — making it likely that these Taliban commanders will be back on the front lines.
The Administration has been negotiating on this trade for sometimes — years according to some reports. Yet, it clearly decided to violate federal law and not inform Congress. Once again, it is not clear who would have the standing to challenge such a violation due to the rigid standing doctrine created by the federal courts — an issue that I have raised previously in my testimony to Congress.
Putting aside the violation of federal law, do you believe that the United States should negotiate with groups like the Taliban or make trades with such captors? If not, where do we draw the line — with soldiers to exclude citizens? There are clearly arguments to be made by those who believe that we should negotiate with terrorists but the current official policy is that we do not.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/ The quote at 7:11 was from digby
Annie,
Interesting Atlantic article. Thanks.
Signed,
A marginalized weird sycophant cult follower.
http://chocolatecoveredliesdotcom.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/assumptions.jpg
Regarding assumptions.
“A former Bush Administration official hired, then resigned, as Mitt Romney’s foreign policy spokesman played a key role in publicizing critics of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the released prisoner of war.
The involvement of Richard Grenell, who once served as a key aide to Bush-era U.S. ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and later worked for Romney’s 2012 campaign, comes as the Bergdahl release has turned into an increasingly vicious partisan issue.
The New York Times reported that “Republican strategists” had arranged an interview for them with men who served in Afghanistan with Bergdahl, who was released after five years of imprisonment by the Taliban in a controversial prisoner swap deal. In the article, the men express their anger at Bergdahl for leaving the base, causing other soldiers to risk their lives looking for him.” War of the Worlds rolls on All I need to know.
SWM, I see the “dear leader” as being that the followers of Obama are cult like. North Korea is a cult, not a country. I don’t even consider it Communist, but in name only. The people who follow Obama like cult worshippers is really weird to people who do not worship ANY politician. Not all Obama people are cult like. There are/were Reagan cultist, as there were Clinton. This was a HORRIBLE deal on MANY levels. To see people throw themselves on grenades defending it is just mind boggling to us regular folk.
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/prisoner-swap-history “George Washington had a problem as he tried to beat the British. Well, really he had a lot of problems, but central among them was the issue of prisoners. See, for the first four years of our Revolution, George Washington pretty much got his ass kicked by the Brits, four ways from Sunday. Along the way a whole lot of his men were taken captive. He needed them back. So he negotiated prisoner exchanges. That was pretty normal, and so a lot of Americans were exchanged for enemy prisoners.”
Terrorists fall under a different category in the Geneva Conventions. This would be like Washington trading 1 prisoner for 5 Major Andres
Nick
Just because we disagree with you, you must not assume we have not done any research. (Not ‘homework’ – I am not a child nor one of your students.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/the-defector/309436/
This is what happened to the soldier who defected to North Korea.
Presidents who negotiate with terrorists: (from Politifact)
George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson “accommodated what today would be viewed as terrorists,” Reiss wrote. “They each authorized payment to the Barbary pirates, and the U.S. Senate even ratified a treaty that enshrined the annual provision of naval supplies as ‘protection.’ ”
A century later, President Teddy Roosevelt granted demands from the descendants of those pirates to secure the release of captured American resident Ion Perdicaris.
Recent history
To his credit, Cruz said the policy of not engaging terrorists was decades old, not centuries. But there are more recent examples where, as Reiss wrote, “American presidents have negotiated with terrorists and rogue regimes to secure the release of hostages, to arrange temporary cease fires and to explore whether a more permanent truce might be possible.”
Here’s a few, according to Reiss’ book:
After the North Koreans captured the U.S.S. Pueblo in 1968, President Lyndon Johnson apologized for spying as part of negotiations to secure the release of 83 American prisoners.
In 1970, President Richard Nixon pressured Israel, Switzerland, West Germany and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
During the Iran hostage crisis of 1979 to 1981, President Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets after more than a year of negotiations with the Iranian revolutionaries.
In perhaps the most famous swap, after seven Americans were captured in Beirut, Lebanon, President Ronald Reagan agreed to send missiles to Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal.
President Bill Clinton’s administration sat down with Hamas in attempts to negotiate peace with Israel. His administration also worked directly with the Taliban nearly two decades ago on several occasions to see if the group would hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders.
Why is Obama mockingly called “dear leader?” “Kim Jong Il was North Korea’s president for a long time. He was called ‘Dear Leader’ (in Korean, of course). So people who want to hint that Obama is a communist dictator will call him that.
The Republicans believe the White House is THEIR house. When a Democrat gets elected, they refuse to recognize his legitimacy as president, they react to him as some evil foreign dictator who took over the government by undemocratic means, as happens in dictatorships like North Korea.
But Obama was legitimately elected by a goodly majority of the American people. TWICE! Unlike a previous president I could name. ” Yahoo
Bob, if you had actually read my words (instead of putting words in my mouth) you would’ve noted I never said that Bergdahl’s exit from his unit was correct. What I didn’t do is try him in the court of public opinion. I’m witholding my judgement until all the facts are in. The Army is investigating. Whatever he did, doesn’t change the fact that he is an American citizen and a military member and we don’t leave them behind.
It is painfully obvious that many people have done no HOMEWORK. leej, you have so I’ll respond. This specific exchange was floated out there in 2012 and McCain went ballistic. There was BIPARTISAN opposition to swapping the 5 worst killers. That’s why Obama didn’t consult this time. He needed some good press w/ all the feces hitting the fan. Little did he know he threw gas on that burning pile of feces.
Once again, Bergdahl was not listed as a POW for 5 years. He was not called a POW until AFTER he was released. He was a deserter, and quite possibly a traitor.
Bob, You can’t shame a shameless person. We saw the interview. And, anyone who sees it will learn a lot about the facts of this desertion, and even more about those who try and spin it. Self marginalizing on steroids. The brave soldiers who have served in Afghanistan deserve much better.
Good article from Gawker. Bethea forgives Bowe.
http://gawker.com/the-treason-case-against-the-last-u-s-taliban-hostage-1584613979/+aweinstein
Bob, that was all speculation and supposition. In America we require, or used to, proof rather then people’s impressions.
I don’t know if this guy was ill or deserter etc. I do know he is an American Those against, should he just have been left behind ?
It’s my understanding that prisoner exchanges have been done since Washington. Is this really a question?
Nick, he said :”Asked specifically by CNN’s Anderson Cooper about the prospect of a 5-for-1 prisoner exchange, McCain replied, “I would support. Obviously I’d have to know the details, but I would support ways of bringing him home, and if exchange was one of them, I think that would be something I think we should seriously consider.” He was responding to the 5 for 1
Annie,
I can only read what you write; I can’t read your mind.
leej, “I would have to know the details” are the critical words in McCain’s statement. I have also said I would have made an even up trade. I would then have special ops kill, or drone him if he returned to fighting.