Did Obama’s Taliban deal for Bowe Bergdahl break the law?

9
1788
President Obama speaks on the recovery of Sgt. Bergdahl

LOS ANGELES, June 4, 2014 — Less than 24 hours after President Obama announced a deal to free U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the positive coverage of that news was swamped by negatives.

Obama freed five high-ranking radical Islamist terrorists in exchange for Bergdahl: The U.S. government negotiated with terrorists.

The administration then repeated an error that got them in trouble on Benghazi: They sent Susan Rice, the last person they should let appear on a Sunday television show, back on television. She and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel claimed that the Obama Administration did not negotiate with terrorists, but with the government of Qatar as an intermediary. That claim is a legal fiction: Obama negotiated with terrorists.

To make matters worse, the negotiation was a surrender: The Taliban set its demands, and Obama met them. The people who sheltered al-Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11 got five of their killers back.



READ ALSO: Was the Bergdahl terrorist swap just hasty, or impeachable?


On top of all that, the deal described as five terrorists for one American hero may be much less than that: Revelations by members of Bergdahl’s platoon suggest that the young hero may be a traitor. The evidence suggests that Bergdahl is at least a deserter, possibly a collaborator.

A military inquiry will look at whether Bergdahl broke the law. Did his Commander-in-Chief also break the law?

Obama signed a law requiring a president to notify Congress 30 days before releasing or transferring detainees from Guantanamo. Congress was not notified about the Bergdahl deal, an apparently clear violation of the law.

The administration position is that the law contains exemptions to the rule, as many laws do. Obama has claimed that Bergdahl’s health was rapidly declining, and that the deal was necessary to save his life.

This puts Obama and Republicans in a bind. Obama may be the president who repeatedly cries wolf, but in this situation the wolves may have been real. Republicans know that Obama lies often and easily, but they also believe in a strong presidential prerogative in such situations. Handicapping a future Republican president from taking decisive action in a situation like this one is not a politically conservative position.

The Obama Administration is adept at hiding behind a wall of silence. Getting to the truth about four dead Americans in Beghazi has proven difficult since the administration has kept the survivors on lockdown and unavailable for answering questions. This time the United States military ordered secrecy from the members of Bergdahl’s platoon. Some of those soldiers are now claiming that Bergdahl deserted his post, and that for five years they were ordered not to publicly say so.

Who gave that order? Obama is the Commander-in-Chief. Did he give this order, or did a military subordinate? If it was a subordinate, then was Obama, as seems so often the case, kept in the dark? Did he only learn about it, as has become the cliche, “in the morning newspaper”? Obama must demand answers and, to use his other favorite cliche, hold somebody accountable.

If Obama did not know Bergdahl left his post voluntarily, or did not know why, how did he not know? The Attorney General apparently keeps his boss in the dark; have his uniformed generals taken to doing the same? if Obama did know, how could he in good conscience make such a vile deal? How could he risk future terrorist attacks by releasing Jihadists?

If ever a scandal deserved hearings, this is it. Obama negotiated with terrorists, turning Americans everywhere, military and civilian, into potential bargaining chips. Americans need to know why.

This scandal will not go away. If ever the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” could be applied, negotiating with terrorists — behind the back of Congress and over the objections of the intelligence community, no less — would qualify. Doing so in possible violation of a law Obama himself signed deserves a criminal inquiry. This should be handled by an impartial prosecutor, not left with Attorney General Eric Holder, who enforces laws selectively and quashes legitimate investigations.

This is not “nothing.” This is not a “partisan witch hunt.” This is, to quote Vice President Joe Biden, a “big f-in deal.” If ever a White House scandal demanded answers to clear-eyed, non-partisan questions, this is it. Questions of law, secrecy, national security, and the powers of a commander-in-chief are all bound together in a way that should concern every American, liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat.

The only requirement is to keep an open mind and demand the truth.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.

  • Teletwang101

    Yes. Obama broke the law. If breaking laws makes you a criminal, he is abundantly criminal to the point of treason, IMHO. We can’t respect the presidency if we let the president destroy it. Real people are going to die unless this country gains control again. Someday is now.

  • Tami Durling

    Yes when I had posted on Facebook -what I meant was Obama broke the Constitution of the USA and has committed a band wagon of false rhetorical directives towards our diplomacy and moral of America. Him and his Administration is clearly sacrificing our safety. What he is not breaking however is the law that he believes in which is the KORAN. (is what my short post meant)…Which
    Islam only means Freedom of Religion to the USA -> these beliefs should hold no decision making properties in America. When these 5 talibans re-uptake hate for America and the East and continue destruction of peoples domestic lives. Then you know Mr. Obama will turn cold shoulder saying “what” “I dunno”…..? What kind of leader helps to set up the slaughter of his own people?
    (did the 5 Taliban sincerely state that they wouldn’t participate in morally destructive activities? (I think not)- !

    • His law is not the Koran. He is not a Muslim. He’s a Liberal/Socialist/Marxist which have nothing in common with Islam.
      Islam does not embrace gay marriage, abortion and many other Liberal issues.
      They do not eat pork, drink alcohol or let their wives be seen as their equal, or in Obamas case, “their master”.
      His humility and apologist mantra to Muslims is a tactic he thinks will defeat terrorism while also appeasing the Liberal electorate and his constituency.

  • allthenamesareused

    It’s not the first time he broke the law, and probably wont be the last

  • Kaori8

    Yes he broke the law. How many more laws will he break before something is done. He is destroying our country. My son is in the Army. Just returned from Afghanistan. This scares me to death!

  • Msdedi

    Will we ever become a nation who puts common sense and the well being of our country’s Bill of Rights before political party line and need to win at any cost? So tired of the spin. He broke the law again.

  • jr

    Short answer. No it didn’t. Read a book you hippies.

    • If you’re going to call people hippies for asking a question the least you could do is not act like the 60s rejects in our administration and pawn the answer off to a suggestion of some educational shortcoming.
      When high ranking members of the left come forward to question the legality of such a decision its not a frivolous or partisan question anymore.
      So spare us the snobbery for asking why such a move could be illegal when it goes against everything any sane leader at war would do.

  • Peacemann

    Obama and his cronies do just the OPPOSITE of what is in the best interest of this country. Standing down in Benghazi (lack of action); Yet just the opposite, agressive action in Bergdahl’s case (even violating HIS OWN LAW, not Bush’s). With all the other “so called scandals” (NSA, IRS, FAST-N-FURIOUS, etc. etc), WHO DOES NOT SEE THE PATTERN HERE? He is against America. Cut and dry. Any of the above are impeachable offenses, yet OUR/YOUR elected officials choose to play politics. VOTE THEM ALL OUT! WE THE PEOPLE HAVE THIS POWER! If the Senate was GOP controlled after the mid-terms, you think impeachment would be their first action? You still think mid-term elections are not a big deal?? There’s still time to save this country.