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.
Byron – so true. And when you keep presenting facts, some resort to ad hominem attacks or emotional arguments. True Believers (of any party) do not research all facts, including those that erode their position.
But there are some in the Democratic Party, including Professor Turley, who do not see right and wrong through political glasses. Wrong is wrong, even when it benefits your party.
Paul,
“Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we’re looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn’t test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.”
–P. J. O’Rourke
Here’s an article form CNN about how the soldiers who served with him feel betrayed and angry.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/
“What you have to realize about the Conservatives at this site is that when presented with the unpleasant truth; they cover their ears and refuse to hear the facts.”
What you have to realize about democrats is that they think they are speaking unpleasant truths, when in actuality they are giving their opinion based on their perceptions informed by their epistomology.
Steve Kellam: “@ Bob, Esq.; So your justifying Obama’s and other Dems behavior because they “raged” against the same wrong behavior in 2008?”
Was I too subtle?
Read it again.
“When pressed on how the White House circumvented the law, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel cited the signing statement.
If that sounds legally questionable to you, you agree with Democrats in the George W. Bush era—including Senator Barack Obama. Democrats raged against Bush’s use of signing statements, which they insisted was unconstitutional. Answering a questionnaire from reporter Charlie Savage, then of the Boston Globe, in 2008, Obama wrote:
Obama: “I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation …. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-three-kinds-of-bowe-bergdahl-backlash/372002/
Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue. — Francois de La Rochefoucauld
Did you catch what the Democrats and Obama said about signing statements?
You know, the idea that it’s wrong when G.W. Bush does it, but it’s okay when Obama does it?
Did you catch that quote about Hypocrisy?
Hint hint?
“You know, the idea that it’s wrong when G.W. Bush does it, but it’s okay when Obama does it?” *************************************************************************************************************
Yeah. Just like if you lie to a Cop; it’s a crime but they can lie to you and that’s Ooooo-tay’
Like if you owe the IRS they’ll track you down but; if they owe you; Mum’s the word.
Like that?
It is true that we are inclined to be forgiving of such things in those we believe are acting with good motive but not in those whose motives we find suspect.
So yeah; it’s ok with me if Obama breaks a few laws to achieve his ends as long as his ends are Progressive. I admit it even though I intellectually believe it is wrong and I know I am applying a double standard because I believe his intention is to do the right thing for the people more than anyone else.
On the other hand; I completely condemn George W. for his lies and subsequent illegal and immoral starting of the Iraq war because I firmly believe his motives were to enrich the wealthy; feed the Military Industrial Complex; and avenge the insult paid his father by Sadaam Hussein and for Sadaam’s igniting of the Kuwaiti oil wells.
I’ll accept that Obama has probably lied to Republicans about the effect the Affordable Care Act would have on them, because of the Republicans consistent and perpetual resistance to a reasonable plan to give Americans that which every other civilized nation has; healthcare for all of its citizens. Because of the raging paranoia fostered by the Republicans about what they like to call “European Socialism” and their refusal to embrace any policy which does not enrich the wealthy; disenfranchise the poor and minorities; and work to drive our economy under faster than screaming freight Train.
See how that double standard thing works? Don’t like it much? Nah; me either but you know what the Republicans believe. “The end justifies the means.”
Maybe you’re right after all. Seems to be working rather well. Suck it up. Turn about really is fair play.
Want to talk about “Trickle Down Economics”? LIE
Want to talk about “Weapons Of Mass destruction In Iraq”? LIE
9/11?????? Possible lie if we really wanted to know but I don’t think we do. If it is a lie; it’s a BIG LIE and the cover is likely impeccable so…..
I believe you get the point.
We lied to the Nazis too when we needed to end their tyranny
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:30 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:
> Bob, Esq. commented: “Steve Kellam: “@ Bob, Esq.; So your justifying > Obama’s and other Dems behavior because they “raged” against the same wrong > behavior in 2008?” Was I too subtle? Read it again. “When pressed on how > the White House circumvented the law, Defen” > Respond to this comment by replying above this line > New comment on *JONATHAN TURLEY * > > > > *Bob, Esq.* commented > > on President Obama Trades Al Qaeda-Linked Taliban Leaders For Release of > American Soldier > . > > > in response to *jonathanturley*: > > 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 […] > > Steve Kellam: “@ Bob, Esq.; So your justifying Obama’s and other Dems > behavior because they “raged” against the same wrong behavior in 2008?” > > Was I too subtle? > > Read it again. > > “When pressed on how the White House circumvented the law, Defense > Secretary Chuck Hagel *cited the signing statement.* > > If that sounds legally questionable to you, you agree with Democrats in > the George W. Bush era—including Senator Barack Obama.* Democrats raged > against Bush’s use of signing statements, which they insisted was > unconstitutional. *Answering a questionnaire from reporter Charlie > Savage, then of the Bost
I’ve been reading that many in the military are agreeing with the credo of “No soldier left behind”. My own daughter has expressed as much. What kind of message would we be sending to our military members if we would’ve left him there when there was an opportunity to get him back?
Karen S:
“angryman:
So I guess you are not a fan of Condoleeza Rice? She is well educated, articulate, and a consummate diplomat in the shark pool of DC.”
probably not, Dr. Rice is an uppity negroe who doesnt know her place on the democratic party plantation.
How many times have we heard white and black democrats call black republicans Uncle Toms and house negroes, etc and so forth?
Karen, I generally leave the labeling of people as “Uncle Toms” to those of their own race. Actually, Black people don’t seem to mind so much as long as you get it right but still, I would rather describe their behavior and not go there. I also almost never suggest that my Black friends stay on anyone’s “Plantation” but then *my *Black friends are intelligent and savvy enough to know who the real Plantation Owners are. Jesus; did you really choose that analogy all on your own Karen? How many owners of slave farms all over this country do you suppose are Democrats? How many of the Corporate “Plantation” owners are Democrats? Now how many of the Republican’s Policies are clearly designed to and clearly destined to impoverish the middle class; devastate the poor; and enslave both?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:25 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:
> Byron commented: “Karen S: “angryman: So I guess you are not a fan of > Condoleeza Rice? She is well educated, articulate, and a consummate > diplomat in the shark pool of DC.” probably not, Dr. Rice is an uppity > negroe who doesnt know her place on the democratic par” >
Steve:
You are absolutely right. The military is furious about Begdhal’s desertion, as well as the way the trade went down.
War is very serious, very frightening for those involved. The boots on the ground depend on each other to make it through. When one of their own declares he hates America and walks off base right to the Taliban, and then they lose 6 of their own looking for him, it’s a terrible betrayal. There were men badly injured in the search that will never be the same. Because of his willful actions. If it was someone captured in action, it would be a different story. They’d move mountains to leave no man behind. But he defected. And his fellow soldiers had to pay the freight.
I do not blame the parents. They love their son and wouldn’t care what he did. They’d just want him back. But he is going to have to live with a lot of guilt, if he has any conscience at all.
Does he still hate the country who sacrificed 6 men’s lives, and wounded others, for him, even thought he’d dishonored the military?
At least Condoleezza Rice appears to be very intelligent. Kay Bailey Hutchinson seems quite intelligent also. There are actually several more. I am not in agreement with their politics, but I certainly couldn’t criticize their intelligence.
Paul: ” no one knows less about foreign affairs but thinks they know more than Barack Obama.”
As Daffy Duck would say
“Pronoun trouble.”
Care to elaborate?
Bob, Esq – Barack Obama knows less about foreign policy than Daffy Duck. Does that help. 😉
A private system may be devoted to profits. But if they do a bad job, customers vote with their feet. A government system has no competition, fines customers for not buying its product, and is inevitably a bloated, bureaucratic morass.
Happens every single time.
Government union employees are very difficult to fire. Hence, we are wasting time in Congress working on a bill that would fire the VA managers responsible for the deaths of patients. It actually DOES take an act of Congress to address what is essentially an HR staffing problem.
Yep. That’s efficient.
angryman:
So I guess you are not a fan of Condoleeza Rice? She is well educated, articulate, and a consummate diplomat in the shark pool of DC.
Well, Condoleezza Rice has at least managed to maintain some decorum while in DC. I am indeed not a fan of Ms. Rice as I am not a fan of any Black or Hispanic person who aligns themselves with racists. I am also not a fan of poor and middle class people who align themselves with the Corporate Masters; the 1%. I am not a fan of Conservatives because this nation wasn’t designed to be conservative. It was designed to be progressive. It was designed at the behest of people who didn’t really grasp just how progressive it was and it was never intended that the people seize the power but it turned out that it was a virtual hotbed and incubator for progressive ideas and once the people discovered that, it was only a matter of time before they discovered the various ways they have been screwed and their access to their rights has been inhibited. Conservatives; the leadership at least; already understood much of this from the get-go because Conservatives are a much misunderstood group. Most of us would say that Conservatives resist changes from the way things were when this country began *BUT; *the truth is that Conservatives are resistant and have been resistant to changes since long before this nation was even inaugurated. They were originally called Tories; Loyalists; those whose head was up the proverbial Royal Ass. Now we Call them Conservatives because that is their American guise. But they are the same people. They seek the failure of this great American experiment in Progressive Government. What they are seeking; though they will deny it until death is the reinstitution of the Monarchy. They began by moving to have George Washington named King when the Revolution proved successful despite all of their subversive machinations. Since then they have moved from political party to political party as their needs and the climate changed. Today we know them; as Republicans.
Republicans desire to re-institute the Monarchy in the form of a Plutocracy of Corporate 1%ers.
So a fan of Connie Rice? No. But I will admit that she is an example of a Republican woman; in the news; who has not become a caricature. Ok. Now about those politics.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2014 at 7:11 PM, JONATHAN TURLEY wrote:
> Karen S commented: “angryman: So I guess you are not a fan of > Condoleeza Rice? She is well educated, articulate, and a consummate > diplomat in the shark pool of DC.” >
angryman – so, you are not a fan of Obama who is now worth $7 million?
I am a fan of Obama because he was the only choice in both 08 and 12. I like him. I think his motives are better than most. I think he has done some real good which is more than I can say about any other President since LBJ.
On the other hand; he is still too far Right for my taste. It shows in certain areas.
I am happy that we found a Black guy who qualifies and has done so well. He pissed of the Right even if he had done nothing else. He also highlighted the harshly Racist attitudes and agenda of the Right-Wing who simply couldn’t resist yeowling and spitting their venom at every opportunity or whenever they weren’t too busy showing their disrespect by ignoring him.
So all in all; yeah. I am a fan but as I say; with reservations. 7 million huh? It may be that the money is what keeps him from making the big jump to Progressivism. I don’t know but wealth alone is damning. t is what you do with it and how clutching you are about it.
Criticizing someone’s politics is absolutely fine.
Bill Mayher called her a bad word that starts with a “c.” Martin Bashir said someone should defecate in her mouth. (Here’s a news break: saying you are a “slave” to something or someone is in the vernacular. How many songs is it in, for example?) People have said her husband sired her grandson, that her Down’s syndrome child should have been aborted, and that Trig is actually her daughter’s child.
It goes so far beyond the pale of disagreeing with someone’s point of view, it is laughable when people contort themselves trying to defend the indefensible.
Investigate away. Nothing at all wrong with suggesting an investigation is in order.( My opinion only)
I heard Afghanistan combat veterans on the radio today saying this guy should be investigated. A congresman, former combat soldier, is saying the same thing.
Steve:
They will punish Sarah Palin for the rest of her life for daring to run as a conservative. They will never stop going after her, or her family, or bringing her up as a non sequitor. Joe Biden can say that Obama is the first well spoken, neat black man but it’s OK. He’s a Liberal.
I find it amusing that some attempt to turn critisicm of a Republican woman into “The war on women”. Simply because the Republican is a woman, another woman should not dare criticize her? Seriously?
And has been pointed out, the US looks incompetent at negotiating with goat herders.
We handed over 5 top Al Qaeda master minds in exchange for a deserter that handed himself over to the Taliban.
Seriously? The mighty US couldn’t make a better deal? Not even a 1:1 exchange? I would have loved an exchange with a tracking device so we could swoop in and recapture them, along with some others.
The Taliban has declared this a victory:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/taliban-declares-victory-prisoner-swap-article-1.1813274
I am happy we got an American back. Regardless of his selfish actions, I don’t want any American to be hostage. But we did not go about it the right way, and there will be ramifications.
KT McFarland, a Middle East analyst, has often said that Al Qaeda constantly tests their limits. Every inch they get, they go further next time.
SWM, it’s almost as if Palin is a sacred cow, mustn’t dis!
It’s so interesting when people declare the VA is seeing patients at an unprecedented level. It was formed in the 1930s (and there were previous incarnations). So when you consider we had a World War, Vietnam, and the Korean War, it’s absurd to consider it is unprecedented. And there was a Veterans Bureau before that which cared for WWI patients. And before that, there were federal agencies that cared for Civil War patients. So don’t argue that war excuses utter incompetence and deceit. They deleted patient records to falsify turnaround times. That is deceit and criminal. Anyone involved should go to jail. I am not a lawyer, but wouldn’t it be manslaughter if someone died because of their deceit?
The VA was designed to serve veterans in times of peace AND in times of war. An IG investigated them from 2005 – 2007 and discovered many problems. And that was only 2 years after the war started.
If it fails our vets, don’t blame the wars. That is their mandate.
Its budget has increased every year for at least the past decade.
It is a management problem, not a money problem. In addition, there is a flaw in government healthcare. An investigation discovered that 8 salaried VA cardiologists had the combined case load of a single private sector cardiologist. There is zero inducement for salaried government physicians to see more patients, but for a private sector cardiologist, more patients grows his business. Good customer service grows his business. Patients have choices about where to go to.
I want the VA restructured to simply be an insurance benefit the military can take anywhere. If they need a specialist, they’re not limited to those at the VA hospital. They should be able to take that insurance card and go anywhere.
I don’t know about any of you, but if I was faced with a 9 month waiting list, in which I would probably die before I had my first appointment, I would really appreciate the ability to vote with my feet for a different provider and better care.