American POW freed in prisoner swap. And the GOP doesn't like it.....

Sounds like a genuine dilemma between two branches. None of this is easy to navigate and signed laws are as good a benchmark as any.

 

When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

 

What message did Obama just send to our enemies?

I'm thinking they see a weakened administration willing to bargain for hostages.
Indeed, they traded one soldier for 5 important players in the Taliban.

I'm happy as can be for the young man and his family, but the question remains...

Will this be the last American held hostage in hopes of FUTURE trades?

 

And the legislators who passed the bill are sticking by it, while the Court hasn't yet ruled it unconstitutional.

 

People mention impeachment a lot more times than it's ever actually implemented or acted upon.

 

Could care less how it went down.......Berg is coming home! No man left behind. Our brother is coming home! Finally....

 

My nephew, who just finished his third tour in either Afghanistan or Iraq, landed in Texas yesterday on his way home to South Carolina. According to my brother-in-law, his son either trained with or was stationed with Bowe Bergdahl and he's as happy as can be for the boy and his family.

My BinLaw openly mocks Obama but is happy for this exchange.

 

What an a$$ move. Obama is going to add those 5 taliban to his kill list and take them out over the next 3 years. Or maybe not, since he seems to have tunnel vision toward those directly involve in attacking the US - al-Qaeda.

 

Only a dictator can override a law.

This is a terrible time for the GOP to jump on Obama. They should have waited a couple weeks for this to die down. Either way, the law is the law. This is what happens when you take POW's and deem them terrorists.

 

Bowe Bergdahl was a deserter who did not believe in the mission and was "captured" 5 years ago when he was off base.

Obama just illegally traded 5 high level security risks in Guantanamo Bay for a military deserter. How is this commendable? Bergdahl willingly abandoned his duty, yet we break the first rule in the book -- not negotiating with terrorists -- to retrieve this guy? It's ludicrous. The Obama Administration is banking on people not getting the real story, and erroneously thinking that this is some type of POW-feel good story. It's not. It's yet another foreign policy misstep by an Administration that is just clueless. The sad part of this entire story is that this Administration motivation to do this was likely to pump up their sagging polling after the VA scandal. Intelligent people see through these amateurish ploys.

 

The taliban will probably take over the country when US leaves. Maybe they are just making this offer so they can control the taliban somewhat.

 

Seeing now lots of rumors about this desertion charge. Oh boy!

 

Yes, lots of rumors. Military guys, Secret Service, and the rest of us are not exempt from passing off bad info as good. Let's see what happens next. And regardless of whether he ends up a hero or in the stockade, he is an American and we don't want to leave anyone behind.

 

Most of us don't want to leave anyone behind, but obviously some Americans don't mind at all.

 

So much so that a sitting President can apparently flagrantly ignore the laws of the United States (you know...the ones he swore to uphold) and release five known terrorists in the process.

As for his signing statement...I can't remember another time when a President has told us he was going to ignore the law as he was signing it. He says it is unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, that isn't his call. We have a Supreme Court for that function.

Regardless of his reasons, the President is clearly in violation of one of the laws he swore to uphold.

 

Not sure this one makes a good political football. It's really a subject on which educated men can disagree. It sends to wrong message to negotiate with terrorists. It also sends the wrong message to leave a soldier behind when you have a way to rescue him. That our exposure in Afghanistan is a lot less than it was 5 years ago probably had something to do with the calculus -- there aren't as many targets to capture as there were 5 years ago.

Well, it's really not at all that simple. If Obama is correct that the law is unconstitutional, it should be challenged and then reviewed at the Supreme Court. Congress is still subject to the Constitution when they legislate. Unfortunately, we don't have a good mechanism for the Supreme Court to step in and adjudicate these sorts of questions.

 

...unless they are the United States Ambassador to Libya... in which case calls for aid are ignored. Amazing the flip flopping... Obama/Clinton wouldn't even answer the call to help for Christopher Stevens, but Susan Rice says that the Administration is "joyous" to exchange five high ranking GITMO prisoners for 1 member of the Army -- a deserter.

How can anyone defend this? Are people even paying attention at this point?