The Government Accountability Office has rendered a decision on the actions of the Obama Administration in swapping five Taliban leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl earlier this year. At the time on CNN and other forums, I noted that President Obama had again openly violated federal law which requires at least 30 days of advance notice in such a change. The GAO agreed and found that the Administration clearly violated federal law. I recently testified (here and here and here and here) and wrote a column on President Obama’s increasing circumvention of Congress in negating or suspending U.S. laws. As in past cases, defenders of the President insist that any violation was done for the best of reasons, but that is a dangerous rationalization for any violation of law. Presidents always insist that they are acting with the best of motivations when they violate laws. We remain a nation of laws and presidents do not have the option of not complying when the laws are inconvenient or counterproductive. Notably, it was not just one law that President Obama violated in taking this unilateral action.
In this case, the duty to inform Congress could have been easily satisfied and it was not even necessary to violate the law in order to carry out the exchange. It seems more likely that this was done for political purposes to avoid opposition in Congress.
The GAO found the obvious violation and added that the Pentagon broke another law by using funds that were not technically available. The GAO also concluded that the Obama Administration violated the Antideficiency Act, barring spending by agencies above the amount of money that Congress has obligated.
The appropriations dimension is another example of how the Administration has circumvented the “power of the purse” which is often cited as the core congressional check on presidential power. Indeed, as I have discussed in recent testimony, the Administration has repeatedly shown that this power is becoming something of a constitutional myth (despite the fact that it is often cited as a reason not to recognize standing by members in challenging unlawful acts of a president). The law in this case was part of a Defense spending bill states that no money can be used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to another country “except in accordance” with a law requiring that the secretary of Defense to notify key congressional committees at least 30 days before such a transfer.
In this case, the swap occurred May 31 but the committees were only notified between May 31 and June 2. The finding also puts to rest the spin put out by advocates that Congress was notified by the White House.
When some of use raised the violation of federal law as obvious at the time, many supporters of the White House insisted that there was no violation and that this was another partisan attack. However, the GAO found the violation “clear and unambiguous” and said that the Administration was dismissive of “the significance of the express language” in the law.
The report comes several months after the Obama administration released five senior Taliban members from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl, who had disappeared in 2009. Under the exchange terms, the five Taliban are to remain in Qatar for a year.
Lawmakers at the time complained about the security implications of releasing Taliban leaders from Guantanamo, but also about the late notification by the Pentagon that they were going forward with the swap.
In response, the Administration is saying that the law, which President Obama signed, was trumped by his inherent national security powers — an all-too-familiar argument for civil libertarians. The Administration insisted that the law “would have interfered with the executive’s performance of two related functions that the Constitution assigns to the president: protecting the lives of Americans abroad and protecting U.S. service members.” There are clearly good-faith arguments about inherent executive powers that have been made. Yet, even if you accept that the President can simply ignore such laws, misappropriating money is not part of any plausible claim of an inherent or absolute executive function. This is the type of dismissive Nixonian attitude that raises concerning about the rise of an uber-presidency in the United States.
Source: WSJ
Annie, Especially, when you see so many whites defending the action of the Ferguson police. Polls confirm this.
Jill, no I actually understand your point, but the notion that this incredibly divided country will get together in any kind of united front against tyranny, nah, won’t happen. Not in our lifetimes, maybe if things get really truly horrifically bad, then maybe or maybe if we are attacked again b a foreign entity. Sorry, but it seems like rainbows and unicorns to seriously think Americans will unite against a common American foe.
Why I like JT’s blog. Report back.
There’s a lot of dynamics and emotions at play with these hot topics.
I spent a better part of the day on a major NYC gay blog. One thread made fun of the ISIS beheadings. Bloggers were poking fun, joking, cursing and swearing in their posts.
I posted a comment and picture of the beheaded US journalist and stated, its not funny.
The post was up for about 2 hours, and I was getting hammered. In 3 hours it was all deleted and the IP address was blocked for further commenting from me. But the jokes, cursing and swearing from regulars continued!
Here is a great essay on what citizens can do:
http://time.com/3132635/ferguson-coming-race-war-class-warfare/
Annie,
You are missing my point. We need to stand united against the atrocities and lawless actions of the current president. If we don’t we are sunk.
Under Bush Republican partisans stayed largely silent or cheered him on. Under Obama, Democratic partisans have stayed largely silent of actively excused/cheered him on. Citizens need to be better people. There is something larger than belief in a party or a man and that is justice. Because only a few people will move beyond partisan bickering into the desire to create a just society, we don’t have one. The way out is honesty about the leadership of the US, no matter what their party, and the desire for justice, even if it means taking on one’s own sacred cows!
Well, Jill, I would be happy to see Professor Turley appear on MSNBC again. I so enjoyed his many appearances during the Bush years. So during the reign of the next Republican President who undoubtedly WILL overstep his authority, I will be watching with much anticipation, the hearings in front of Congress and MSNBC with much interest. I wonder how Fox will cover the Republican Imperial President, I kind of doubt they will have Professor Turley on much, well at least I hope not.
Reblogged this on veritasusa and commented:
Nothing you impacts every single citizen of this country as the overreach of a sitting President and the ever expanding powers of the Executive Branch while both the Legislative and Judicial abdicate their responsibility and their power to act as a check.
No simple criminal act by a citizen, of any ilk, rends the very fabric of our constitutional democratic triparate repubublic as this does. It matters not who the ongoing series of Perps are: from Lincoln, through Roosevelt, GWBush or indeed as affects us now and our future most directly, Obama.
As Nixon famously said “It’s not a crime when the president does it”.
LaserD – nothing you have mentioned impacts every single citizen of this country as the overreach of a sitting President and the ever expanding powers of the Executive Branch while both the Legislative and Judicial abdicate their responsibility and their power to act as a check.
No simple criminal act by a citizen, of any ilk, rends the very fabric of our constitutional democratic triparate repubublic as this does. It matters not who the ongoing series of Perps are: from Lincoln, through Roosevelt, GWBush or indeed as affects us now and our future most directly, Obama.
Annie, I know you speak for many Obama supporters when you say: “Wouldn’t it be interesting if our next President were to be a Republican? A president who made Obama look like a choir boy? Who will be pointing out the Nixonian qualities of the next President?” I cannot understand your point of view.
The way to stop the next president from committing lawless actions, including atrocities, is to stop the current president from committing them. We do this by demanding Obama follow the rule of law,– by absolutely never excusing Obama’s atrocities and law breaking. Yet I see Obama supporters excusing or even cheering Obama right along. It mystifies me!
Under Bush, before you came to this blog, there was intense and relentless criticism of Bush for his lawlessness and commission of atrocities. As part of those arguments, all of us argued that letting Bush get away with these things opened the pathway for the next president to continue and escalate presidential lawlessness. Of course, this is exactly what happened.
Unless all people, whether they be Republican or Democratic partisans recognize the danger of presidential lawlessness and reject it, we will get no where. It really won’t matter which major party is in power. We the people have stupidly greenlighted the atrocities and lawlessness of the executive.
The time to speak up is now!
It was briefly and only once reported on CNN two days ago that the terrorist who beheaded the reporter had been released from Guantanamo by Obama. If that was an erroneous report, it remains a fact that Obama has released dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo.
Putin invaded Ukraine today with a convoy of “humanitarian” provisions.
China “intercepted” a U.S. naval intelligence plane with a Chinese fighter jet last Tuesday and menaced it with aerial acrobatics, at one point, inverting its flight to deliberately display its weapons.
The Pentagon announces the brilliant strategy of not only pursuing further military operation against ISIS in the Middle East but invading Syria to do so.
Mystics tell us that Nostradamus’ predictions of WWIII are materializing.
America’s international relations are at a “tipping point.”
Obama violated the presidential eligibility section of the Constitution by not having two parents who were citizens at the time of his birth and exacerbating the violation by increasing the potential for the commander-in-chief to be susceptible to foreign allegiances or allegiances otherwise deleterious to the country by having a father who was a citizen of a foreign country.
OH THANK YOU! That was quick.
Why should the comment made at 12:59 be left up? It’s not any more civil than the comment of mine that got deleted. Can we have some equity? A bit of justice?
Nick S, I have deleted a comment containing a personal attack on another poster in obvious violation of our civility rule.
Very civil nick…
The point is, the Professor remains obtuse to serious heinous n egregious issues of tgranny, cronyism n corruption of the right;
But seeks to bust chops of everything left.
Its inexplicable n intolerable.
By the way, the crimes are continuous this very day!
LaserDliquidator, I retrieved your comment at 1:01.
Laser,
Mitt Romney has nothing to do with the conduct of our current President.
You know S29, I do not disagree with you at all…. But when Obama gets singled out as the bad actor….. And I don’t support a lot of what he does…. I will defend him…. A hypocrisy i do not abide well….
Maybe the folks that do this should really be aware of the origins of Jack and Jill…..
AY – so if your kid gets in trouble and other kids were caught with him/her it is alright because you kid was not the only bad actor? There are lot of things people on this blog are not aware, the origin of words for one. I do know the origins of some of the English childrens tales, but have forgotten Jack and Jill. Want to enlighten us?
I think that’s the point. I think very few on this blog defend the three stooges from the W admin. BUT, that doesn’t mean it’s a precedent; it means to me it’s time to push back hard before the next W, or Palin, or to be fascist emperor shows up.
@dredd
No, it isn’t NickS. Sometimes I just get in the mood to create.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter