Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Prisoner Swap: Broken Law or Above Law?

  • 02-06-2014 2:08pm
    #1
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,347 CMod ✭✭✭✭


    Saturday USA Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was exchanged for 5 Taliban detainees held at Guantánamo. In doing so, the Obama administration violated a statutory law that required Congress be given 30 days notice before Guantánamo detainees were transferred from custody. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel admitted that Congress had not been notified within the required time limits.

    President Obama countered that when signing the Congressional statute into law, he included a signing statement that allowed him to override this 30 day notice through the use of his executive powers. Is this a contradiction between Congressional statute and signing a bill into law; i.e., the bill was passed by Congress to ensure 30 days notice, while the presidential signing statement circumvented it in advance?

    I understand that the 3 branches of US government are to act as checks and balances upon each other, but this bill appears to have a built-in contradiction, which in essence eliminates a check between 2 of the branches.

    What am I missing? Comments?


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    You’re not missing anything. This president uses shadowy reasoning for use of executive orders to bypass any law he doesn’t seem to like. And probably any president would if they felt they could do so with impunity. I blame the House for letting him get away with this sort of thing over and over again. and not doing their jobs in initiating impeachment proceedings.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Amerika wrote: »
    You’re not missing anything. This president uses shadowy reasoning for use of executive orders to bypass any law he doesn’t seem to like. And probably any president would if they felt they could do so with impunity. I blame the House for letting him get away with this sort of thing over and over again. and not doing their jobs in initiating impeachment proceedings.

    Yes, because if anything, the legal black hole secret prison that is Guantanamo has to be strictly governed by prisoner release laws

    We have principles to maintain here


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    the legal black hole secret prison that is Guantanamo…

    LOL. Just to bring you up to date... The whole wide world has known about it for over a decade.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Amerika wrote: »
    LOL. Just to bring you up to date... The whole wide world has known about it for over a decade.

    Not the full details of the torture/mistreatment

    Suspension of habeas corpus, rendition, black sites, illegal detentions, deaths under torture

    But there's a fuss kicked up over "laws" all of a sudden


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Not the full details of the torture/mistreatment

    Suspension of habeas corpus, rendition, black sites, illegal detentions, deaths under torture

    But there's a fuss kicked up over "laws" all of a sudden

    I thought you were talking about Guantanamo. Doesn’t habeas corpus only apply to US citizens in this context. And point me to illegal detentions and deaths under torture there. Or have you moved the goalposts once again?

    And is you answer “screw all laws” or just the ones you don’t like? If so it sounds a lot like our president.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Amerika wrote: »
    I thought you were talking about Guantanamo. Doesn’t habeas corpus only apply to US citizens in this context. And point me to illegal detentions and deaths under torture there. Or have you moved the goalposts once again?

    And is you answer “screw all laws” or just the ones you don’t like? If so it sounds a lot like our president.

    This is the point I am trying to make here..

    They don't seem to have a problem with the illegally held prisoners part, yet they seem to have a legal problem with Obama not informing congress of their exchange

    Doesn't that strike you as slightly selective..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    This is the point I am trying to make here..

    They don't seem to have a problem with the illegally held prisoners part, yet they seem to have a legal problem with Obama not informing congress of their exchange

    Doesn't that strike you as slightly selective..

    Once again... What illegally held prisoners?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Amerika wrote: »
    Once again... What illegally held prisoners?

    lol.. anyone held at Gitmo


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    You’re not missing anything. This president uses shadowy reasoning for use of executive orders to bypass any law he doesn’t seem to like.

    Can you cite some examples?
    And probably any president would if they felt they could do so with impunity. I blame the House for letting him get away with this sort of thing over and over again. and not doing their jobs in initiating impeachment proceedings.

    It's a rare case of foresight by the GOP that they haven't. They have neither the grounds nor the numbers to complete impeachment proceedings so there is no point in starting.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    Its important to follow due legal process when you are moving a prisoner you detained indefinitely & without charge & without hearing.

    The contradictions are beyond parody.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    Amerika wrote: »
    Once again... What illegally held prisoners?

    Extraordinary how you gleefully, willfully deny simple reality.

    Please educate yourself.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Mjollnir wrote: »
    Extraordinary how you gleefully, willfully deny simple reality.

    Please educate yourself.

    They are not held illegally in the same manner that George W Bush and his colleagues are not war criminals.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Brian? wrote: »
    Can you cite some examples?

    Oh, here’s just several:

    Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls.

    Unilaterally changed significant provisions of, and the timing of Obamacare.

    Changed established immigration policy by ordering the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.

    Made "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Congress was not in recess.

    Intervened militarily in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act.

    Obama had his DOJ, In violation of 10th Amendment:
    • Reject state voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    • Sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders.
    • Go to court to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration reform laws.


    Part of Article II of the Constitution:

    "He (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"


    (Who knows, perhaps President Obama issued an Executive Order, that we aren’t yet aware of, exempting himself from this provision.)
    It's a rare case of foresight by the GOP that they haven't. They have neither the grounds nor the numbers to complete impeachment proceedings so there is no point in starting.
    See above.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    lol.. anyone held at Gitmo

    :confused: Care to elaborate on that amigo?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Amerika wrote: »
    :confused: Care to elaborate on that amigo?

    Guantanamo was designed to operate outside standard judiciary principles and the Geneva convention

    It was just a loophole so they could bung up boys/men without trial, indefinitely.. and, as we now know, use torture

    Very similar in principle to the methods used by the Baa'ath regime in Iraq, the system under Mubarrak and recently in by Bashar Assad in Syria

    Black stain on US reputation and of course has always been a huge recruitment poster for Jihadists


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I think it's one of those cases that 'the law is an ass', and there seemed to be no good option. I don't blame Obama for acting quickly, though I do think he should have at least notified the Intel committees, even on two or three days' notice, that it was in the cards.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I understand from watching news reports on MSNBC this morning that the swap was in the cards for at least 3 weeks. The notice to Congress from the White House should have been made as early as possible that things were in the works. Notifying Congress was the law, Obama's signing statement was not the law.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,347 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    Admittedly, I am still in the learning mode with regard to the US Congressional and Executive legislative processes. It's very complex and sometimes counter-intuitive. This recent signing statement by Obama attached to a bill caught me by surprise. Apparently it is a all too common practice by past presidents. For example, it's reported that GW Bush had signed more Congressional bills including his "signing statements" than Obama.
    While Obama has not issued as many signing statements as Bush did, many say he employs them in much the same manner.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    Guantanamo was designed to operate outside standard judiciary principles and the Geneva convention

    It was just a loophole so they could bung up boys/men without trial, indefinitely.. and, as we now know, use torture

    Very similar in principle to the methods used by the Baa'ath regime in Iraq, the system under Mubarrak and recently in by Bashar Assad in Syria

    I admit I’m not familiar with all the intricacies of the Geneva Convention, but I think it could conceivable be extended to the Taliban but not al-Queda. And since there is ongoing conflict which the US is involved ... wouldn’t the Taliban be considered POW’s if it were? And I think the US didn’t sign onto some part of the convention that addressed combatants out of uniform.

    And what torture is going on at Gitmo?
    Black stain on US reputation and of course has always been a huge recruitment poster for Jihadists
    I disagree on the ‘black stain’ comment as I think it's smart to keep these people off US soil, but as for the recruiting part, for once we might actually have something we agree upon.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,696 ✭✭✭Jonny7


    Amerika wrote: »
    And since there is ongoing conflict which the US is involved ... wouldn’t the Taliban be considered POW’s if it were? And I think the US didn’t sign onto some part of the convention that addressed combatants out of uniform.

    It's not the capture of Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters - it's the fact that the same measures resulted with innocent people, taxi drivers, teenager boys, people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time being arbitrarily detained
    And what torture is going on at Gitmo?

    Was. Obama has since put a stop to most of it. It was mainly beatings, forced/stress positions, waterboarding, plus various psychological torture methods
    I disagree on the ‘black stain’ comment as I think it's smart to keep these people off US soil, but as for the recruiting part, for once we might actually have something we agree upon.

    I remember back in 2001, just after 911, a radio host asking people if American-Muslims should wear some sort of identifying badge - many said yes

    It's amazing what a little fear will do to people - Guantanamo was just another product of that. Likewise the extra-judicial rendition of (innocent) people to black sites in Eastern Europe and beyond


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    At least 6 soilders died looking for Bergdahl - Pfc. Matthew Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen, Pfc. Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews.

    Every soilder in Bergdahl’s squad was forced to sign a non disclosure agreement agreeing never to talk about his disappearance or attempts to recapture him however they have now started to come out talking about he betrayed them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    Jonny7 wrote: »
    We have principles to maintain here

    You're right...It's called the law.

    Obama said this was a tough decision...the law is there to avoid this decision being tough.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Just goes to show Whatever Obama does the republicans will find fault with it. Surely a soldier getting released would be cause for celebration.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    20Cent wrote: »
    Just goes to show Whatever Obama does the republicans will find fault with it. Surely a soldier getting released would be cause for celebration.

    Did you read my posts?

    Also on Obama...he is getting away with stuff that a republican or perhaps a white president would not get away with. Where the fcuk is the anti war movement?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 888 ✭✭✭Mjollnir


    sin_city wrote: »
    At least 6 soilders died looking for Bergdahl - Pfc. Matthew Martinek, Staff Sgt. Kurt Curtiss, Staff Sgt. Clayton Bowen, Pfc. Morris Walker, Staff Sgt. Michael Murphrey, 2nd Lt. Darryn Andrews.

    Every soilder in Bergdahl’s squad was forced to sign a non disclosure agreement agreeing never to talk about his disappearance or attempts to recapture him however they have now started to come out talking about he betrayed them.


    Wrong. Repeating memes won't make them true.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/middleeast/can-gi-be-tied-to-6-lost-lives-facts-are-murky.html

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/03/us/us-soldier-srgt-bowe-bergdahl-of-idaho-pow-vanished-angered-his-unit.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    What are the anti-obama's issue here?

    That a prisoner exchange happened?
    Or that John Boehner didn't have an input?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Or that John Boehner didn't have an input?

    ...or Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who leads the Intelligence Committee.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    20Cent wrote: »
    Just goes to show Whatever Obama does the republicans will find fault with it.

    No. Only the really stupid stuff he does and the stuff based on lies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    Obama broke a law he signed end of....where's the debate?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Amerika wrote: »
    No. Only the really stupid stuff he does and the stuff based on lies.

    Releasing a soldier is stupid stuff?
    Face it if it came out that he turned down the opportunity imagine the outrage from republicans. Giving kids some fruit instead of junk food for lunch caused outrage.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

    So he might as well just do as he chooses.
    The far right will hate him no matter what.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    20Cent wrote: »
    Releasing a soldier is stupid stuff?
    Face it if it came out that he turned down the opportunity imagine the outrage from republicans. Giving kids some fruit instead of junk food for lunch caused outrage.

    An exchange of a possible deserter, who hated the US, that puts the following back into action, yeah I'd say pretty stupid of colossal proportions
    Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban army chief of staff): Fazl is “wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites.” Fazl “was associated with terrorist groups currently opposing U.S. and Coalition forces including al Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU), Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), and an Anti-Coalition Militia group known as Harakat-i-Inqilab-i-Islami.” In addition to being one of the Taliban’s most experienced military commanders, Fazl worked closely with a top al Qaeda commander named Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, who headed al Qaeda’s main fighting unit in Afghanistan prior to 9/11 and is currently detained at Guantanamo.

    Mullah Norullah Noori (senior Taliban military commander): Like Fazl, Noori is “wanted by the United Nations (UN) for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims.” Beginning in the mid-1990s, Noori “fought alongside al Qaeda as a Taliban military general, against the Northern alliance.” He continued to work closely with al Qaeda in the years that followed.

    Abdul Haq Wasiq (Taliban deputy minister of intelligence): Wasiq arranged for al Qaeda members to provide crucial intelligence training prior to 9/11. The training was headed by Hamza Zubayr, an al Qaeda instructor who was killed during the same September 2002 raid that netted Ramzi Binalshibh, the point man for the 9/11 operation. Wasiq “was central to the Taliban's efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against U.S. and Coalition forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks,” according to a leaked JTF-GTMO threat assessment.

    Khairullah Khairkhwa (Taliban governor of the Herat province and former interior minister): Khairkhwa was the governor of Afghanistan’s westernmost province prior to 9/11. In that capacity, he executed sensitive missions for Mullah Omar, including helping to broker a secret deal with the Iranians. For much of the pre-9/11 period, Iran and the Taliban were bitter foes. But a Taliban delegation that included Kharikhwa helped secure Iran’s support for the Taliban’s efforts against the American-led coalition in late 2001. JTF-GTMO found that Khairkhwa was likely a major drug trafficker and deeply in bed with al Qaeda. He allegedly oversaw one of Osama bin Laden’s training facilities in Herat.

    Mohammed Nabi (senior Taliban figure and security official): Nabi “was a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles.” Nabi “had strong operational ties to Anti-Coalition Militia (ACM) groups including al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin (HIG), some of whom remain active in ACM activities.” Intelligence cited in the JTF-GTMO files indicates that Nabi held weekly meetings with al Qaeda operatives to coordinate attacks against U.S.-led forces.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/taliban-five-guantanamo_736892.html?page=1


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

    So he might as well just do as he chooses.
    The far right will hate him no matter what.

    I don't need no stinkin' laws, eh?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    Amerika wrote: »
    I don't need no stinkin' laws, eh?

    President Cheney set so many precedents there, people stopped noticing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    President Cheney set so many precedents there, people stopped noticing.
    Hmmm... When all else fails go with the hyperbole?


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    sin_city wrote: »
    Obama broke a law he signed end of....where's the debate?

    That what's open to debate. You can't simple say "end of" and leave it there.

    I am still trying to figure out whether he actually broke the law or simply used Executive privilege tbh.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 21,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Brian?


    Amerika wrote: »
    Oh, here’s just several:

    Directed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

    Gave states waivers from federal mandates if they agreed to education overhauls.

    Unilaterally changed significant provisions of, and the timing of Obamacare.

    Changed established immigration policy by ordering the federal government to halt deportation of certain illegal immigrants.

    Made "recess appointments" to the National Labor Relations Board and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau when Congress was not in recess.

    Intervened militarily in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act.

    Obama had his DOJ, In violation of 10th Amendment:
    • Reject state voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    • Sued to prevent Arizona from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within its borders.
    • Go to court to stop enforcement of Alabama's immigration reform laws.


    Part of Article II of the Constitution:

    "He (the President) shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed"


    (Who knows, perhaps President Obama issued an Executive Order, that we aren’t yet aware of, exempting himself from this provision.)


    See above.

    Now, that's a lot of examples alright. A fine list no doubt. However, I'll ask you this question: Why has none of this been challenged successfully in the supreme court? All executive orders are subject to judicial oversight. The Executive cannot operate outside the constitution.

    they/them/theirs


    And so on, and so on …. - Slavoj Žižek




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Brian? wrote: »
    Now, that's a lot of examples alright. A fine list no doubt. However, I'll ask you this question: Why has none of this been challenged successfully in the supreme court? All executive orders are subject to judicial oversight. The Executive cannot operate outside the constitution.

    Good question.

    The way to stop his Executive orders is by a 2/3 majority vote of Congress, or pass legislation that won't allow funding for his actions. And with such close numbers by both political sides in Congress (House controlled by R's, Senate by D's) in the current political environment a 2/3 majority is unlikely.

    Only a few times have Executive Orders ever been overturned by the courts. Sometimes Congress does turn to the courts to enforce their constitutional prerogative. But it is my understanding the problems lies with "standing." Standing is a constitutional prerequisite in maintaining a case in federal court, and without it a case is quickly dismissed. The plaintiff (members of Congress) only has standing in a court action when they can demonstrate a actual injury caused by the defendant (the President's Executive Order), which can be remedied by the court. "Abstract" injuries suffered by society at large do not suffice "standing." And it appears the Supreme Court has deemed actions brought about in court by Congress are deemed to be Abstract.

    Copied from elsewhere:
    The Supreme Court seemed to shut the door to congressional standing in Raines v. Byrd (1997), a lawsuit brought by six congressmen who challenged the constitutionality of the presidential line-item veto.The court held that the congressmen lacked standing, because the loss of congressional power they lamented was a "wholly abstract and widely dispersed" injury.

    Impeachment by Congress for a flagrant disregard of the President to uphold his oath to faithfully execute our laws is another way to stop his chicken sh!t actions.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,347 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    What has been unexplained during this Obama "signing statement" controversy was why the Republicans and the news media didn't challenge the legality of the signing statement when it occurred? Shouldn't they have been jumping-up-and-down when the bill was signed, rather than now, when the prisoner swap occurred? Not only did the Obama signing statement appear inconsistent with the Congressional bill, but the delay in the reaction to the signing statement also appears inconsistent.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    An exchange of a possible deserter, who hated the US, that puts the following back into action, yeah I'd say pretty stupid of colossal proportions

    Huh ??? Lier Lier, pants on fire.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Huh ??? Lier Lier, pants on fire.

    I'd be interested in reading the information you have to back up that accusation.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    I'd be interested in reading the information you have to back up that accusation.

    I should ask the very same of you since your statement is merely based on speculation and what ifs.
    How about you trust your elected commander in chief.
    This is just going to be a bengazhi witch hunt all over again.
    Nothing like right wingers wasting time and money on political agendas rather than trying to run the country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    I should ask the very same of you since your statement is merely based on speculation and what ifs.
    How about you trust your elected commander in chief.
    This is just going to be a bengazhi witch hunt all over again.
    Nothing like right wingers wasting time and money on political agendas rather than trying to run the country.
    Nothing... Just as I figured. I guess some feel the need to bring something into a conversation. I suggest from now on you bring silence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    Amerika wrote: »
    Nothing... Just as I figured. I guess some feel the need to bring something into a conversation. I suggest from now on you bring silence.

    How about you bring some real facts and not this agenda to attack the big bad black president that has apparently ruined the country.
    You are beyond reasoning and logic, its funny yet extremely scary as to how you come to this reasoning.

    In regards to these so called terrorists being extremely dangerous, give me a break, they are just going to be thrown back into the other thousands that hate america. They are being made out to be some kind of elite terrorists, they have been locked up for twelve years and were actually Taliban not al Qaeda, big difference.
    Who cares anyway, the US has to offload these guys at some stage if they are not going to put them on trial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 899 ✭✭✭sin_city


    How about you bring some real facts and not this agenda to attack the big bad black president that has apparently ruined the country.

    Ok fact here for you:

    Bowe Bergdahl's platoon mates say officers made them sign non-disclosure agreement after he 'deserted his post in Afghanistan'

    Some of them broke this...guess what they said?

    Is that real enough?


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Bergdahl was tortured while in captivity. Also Obama wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this would not be possible when there was one pow still captured. The gitmo prisoners have been released to Qatar where they will be monitored. Small price to pay really.

    Obama has signed less executive orders than George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan Nixon etc it is not unprecedented in fact he has used this power far less times than most presidents.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    20Cent wrote: »
    Bergdahl was tortured while in captivity. Also Obama wants to withdraw troops from Afghanistan this would not be possible when there was one pow still captured. The gitmo prisoners have been released to Qatar where they will be monitored. Small price to pay really.
    Perhaps he was, but it would have happened after his reported desertion and anti-American declarations. And don't you think some of the Gitmo prisoners should have been turned over to the UN? And "Monitored" LOL. I think the only monitoring that will be done is from some US drone, and that might eventually result in a happy ending.
    Obama has signed less executive orders than George Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan Nixon etc it is not unprecedented in fact he has used this power far less times than most presidents.
    Yet! And it's not quantity that matters, but quality, and have historically not been used to make major policy initiatives. Obama's executive orders tend to make us less free. He has blatantly disregarded laws he has sworn to enforce -- the worst example of the use of Executive Order IMO. He uses them for pettiness to prevent the legislature from acting (His "Dream Act by fiat" was done because Congress wouldn't pass his version of immigration reform and to stop Marco Rubio from presenting his own version which would have embarrassed Obama with Latinos). And he uses them to alter his own legislation that he has asked Congress to do and forced upon the US people against our will (he feels he deserves Mulligans I guess).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,753 ✭✭✭comongethappy


    Amerika wrote: »
    I think the only monitoring that will be done is from some US drone, and that might eventually result in a happy ending.

    Are you glorifying in the potential death of innocent people?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    Are you glorifying in the potential death of innocent people?

    To anyone who cares to look at things without their eyes wide shut, my comment was quite the contrary.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,002 ✭✭✭Carcharodon


    sin_city wrote: »
    Ok fact here for you:

    Bowe Bergdahl's platoon mates say officers made them sign non-disclosure agreement after he 'deserted his post in Afghanistan'

    Some of them broke this...guess what they said?

    Is that real enough?

    If you are telling me you know what happened then you are a liar. You can make assumptions all you want on the pieces of info we know but dont make it out to be one only possible scenario to suit your own agenda.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement