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

Prisoner Swap: Broken Law or Above Law?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users 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 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: 20,884 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: 20,884 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: 47,223 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 Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭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 Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭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 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: 8,934 ✭✭✭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 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 Posts: 3,952 ✭✭✭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
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,176 ✭✭✭Amerika


    The verdict is in... the Bergdahl prisoner swap was illegal.

    No consequences? No hell to pay? Does the President go golfing?

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/22/bowe-bergdahl-deal-us-government-watchdog


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    Frankly, no, i don't see any. This appears to be one of those cases where the law is an ass. The president should be fined one cent, to acknowledge the illegality, and we all move on.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,223 CMod ✭✭✭✭Black Swan


    10 October 2014 Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Dahl has completed the investigation of Bowe Bergdahl's disappearance and capture by the Taliban in 2009, but will not release the results to the news media. Did Bergdahl desert is post and/or go AWOL? The general has set no timeline to make a decision regarding this case. In the mean time, Bergdahl is on active duty at Joint Base San Antonio-Fort Sam Houston.


Advertisement