Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,900 posts)
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 08:54 AM Jun 2014

AP got story wrong-Obama NOT required to notify Congress-That's Sec Of Defense Job & Here It Is:

Obama is not required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any 'terrorist' are transferred from the US facility

... rather

Sec of State is required to do that. In this case Sec of State Hagel. Hagel released this statement:

Hagel released this statement:

Release No: NR-281-14
May 31, 2014

Statement from Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel on the return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl

A few hours ago, the family of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was informed by President Obama that their long wait for his return will soon be over. Sgt. Bergdahl is now under the care of the U.S. military after being handed over by his captors in Afghanistan. We will give him all the support he needs to help him recover from this ordeal, and we are grateful that he will soon be reunited with his family.

Also today, I informed Congress of the decision to transfer five detainees from Guantánamo Bay to Qatar. The United States has coordinated closely with Qatar to ensure that security measures are in place and the national security of the United States will not be compromised. I appreciate the efforts of the Emir of Qatar to put these measures in place, and I want to thank him for his instrumental role in facilitating the return of Sgt. Bergdahl.

Sgt. Bergdahl's return is a powerful reminder of the enduring, sacred commitment our nation makes to all those who serve in uniform. The United States government never forgot Sgt. Bergdahl, nor did we stop working to bring him back. I am grateful to all the military and civilian professionals ­ from DOD and our interagency partners ­ who helped make this moment possible, and to all those Americans who stood vigil with the Bergdahl family.


http://www.defense.gov/Releases/Release.aspx?ReleaseID=16737
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
AP got story wrong-Obama NOT required to notify Congress-That's Sec Of Defense Job & Here It Is: (Original Post) kpete Jun 2014 OP
If the SoS is required to notify Congress... DonViejo Jun 2014 #1
our media is a non-funny joke spanone Jun 2014 #2
^^^^THIS^^^^ Enthusiast Jun 2014 #11
maybe so, but it is the OP, not AP, that has the wrong information here. onenote Jun 2014 #12
?questions? GusBob Jun 2014 #3
MORE: kpete Jun 2014 #17
John Kerry is SOS. GeorgeGist Jun 2014 #4
Yes. This OP was a little ill-conceived Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #5
Congress wouldn't know national security if it walked up and slapped them silly Autumn Jun 2014 #10
And another thing... Jeff In Milwaukee Jun 2014 #16
There are separate requirements for the President and the SoD onenote Jun 2014 #6
if it's determined to be an emergency or under exigent circumstances, he can notify them later bigtree Jun 2014 #13
Is there statutory language to that effect somewhere? onenote Jun 2014 #15
this is how the administration is interpreting the law bigtree Jun 2014 #20
thank you bigtree kpete Jun 2014 #19
meh Leme Jun 2014 #7
I like it. Igel Jun 2014 #8
you're comparing bring home a soldier to Bush's anti-constitutional push to war bigtree Jun 2014 #14
When was Hagel appointed Secretary of State? former9thward Jun 2014 #9
You ought to fix your post. scarletwoman Jun 2014 #18
yep kpete Jun 2014 #21
Thank YOU for fixing it! (nt) scarletwoman Jun 2014 #22

GusBob

(7,286 posts)
3. ?questions?
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 09:10 AM
Jun 2014

1.SoS or SoD?
2. When did he notify? Statement says"today" Is law 30 days?
3. The AP just reported what the 2 congressmen claimed. Are they not the ones in error?

Not trying to be obtuse just looking for clarity. I think the larger issues are the soldiers health and the need for secrecy

kpete

(71,900 posts)
17. MORE:
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 01:26 PM
Jun 2014

The account details how federal officials have paved the way for a prisoner exchange by changing wording in the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Specifically, Congress removed the requirement that the Defense Secretary certify that Guantanamo prisoners pose no threat to the US. Now, the DoD need only notify Congress of any Guantanamo prisoner release, or in this case, a prisoner exchange.

http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/2014/q1/ray-of-hope-in-effort-to-bring-lone-us-pow-bowe-bergdahl-home/

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
5. Yes. This OP was a little ill-conceived
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 09:29 AM
Jun 2014

From the New York Times:

Among other complications, there was a potential legal obstacle: Congress has imposed statutory restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay. The statutes say the secretary of defense must determine that a transfer is in the interest of national security, that steps have been taken to substantially mitigate a future threat by a released detainee, and that the secretary notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of his determination.


So it was Hagel who had to make the notification, but he did so outside the thirty-day window. However, in signing the most recent legislation on the subject, Obama included a signing statement to the effect that we would fully use his discretion in the handling of Guantanamo Bay prisoners. So while the Republicans will pitch a collective hissy fit (and we're getting pretty used to those by now), they really don't have any basis (but, of course, they never do).

Autumn

(44,762 posts)
10. Congress wouldn't know national security if it walked up and slapped them silly
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:05 AM
Jun 2014

that requirement was just to tie Obamas hands on Gitmo. Fuck them let them whine all they want to. I'm proud and satisfied that Obama did this.

Jeff In Milwaukee

(13,992 posts)
16. And another thing...
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 01:23 PM
Jun 2014

If Darryl Issa has proven nothing over the past couple of years, it's that we can't trusts the GOP with classified information. In a negotiation that requires absolute secrecy, the President has to know that some dipshit (i.e., Issa) isn't going to run off to Fox News to scream about what dumbass thing he's going to scream about this time. The only alternative is to keep them in the dark until it's too late for them to do anything about it.

onenote

(42,377 posts)
6. There are separate requirements for the President and the SoD
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 09:35 AM
Jun 2014

It is misleading to say that the AP got the story wrong. By law, the President is expressly required to give 30 days advance notice of a Guantanamo detainee transfer:

SEC. 308. NOTIFICATION OF TRANSFER OF A DETAINEE HELD AT
UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY,
CUBA.

(a) Requirement for Notification.--The President shall
submit to Congress, in classified form, at least 30 days
prior to the transfer or release of an individual detained at
Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as of June 24, 2009, to
the country of such individual's nationality or last habitual
residence or to any other foreign country or to a freely
associated State the following information:
(1) The name of the individual to be transferred or
released.
(2) The country or the freely associated State to which
such individual is to be transferred or released.
(3) The terms of any agreement with the country or the
freely associated State for the acceptance of such
individual, including the amount of any financial assistance
related to such agreement.
(4) The agencies or departments of the United States
responsible for ensuring that the agreement described in
paragraph (3) is carried out.
(b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``freely
associated States'' means the Federated States of Micronesia,
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Republic of
Palau.
(c) Construction With Other Requirements.--Nothing in this
section shall be construed to supersede or otherwise affect
the following provisions of law:
(1) Section 1028 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2012.
(2) Section 8120 of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2012.

The two provisions cited at the end of this section (1028 of the NDA and 8120 of the DoD Approps Act) impose a separate 30 day "certification" requirement on the Sec. of Defense before a detainee is transferred.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
13. if it's determined to be an emergency or under exigent circumstances, he can notify them later
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 12:11 PM
Jun 2014

. . . which SoD Hagel has done.

onenote

(42,377 posts)
15. Is there statutory language to that effect somewhere?
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 12:26 PM
Jun 2014

I agree that the President did the right thing and I agree with the President's issuance of a signing statement when he signed the legislation containing the advance notice and certification requirements taking the position that those requirements unconstitutionally limited the President's authority as head of the Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief.

So, to be clear, I have no problem with defending the President's actions.

However, I think its wrong to resort to mischaracterizations of the statutory law in an effort to defend the President's actions as was the case in the OP.

And unless someone can show me the exception you are referring to, I think it is wrong to suggest that one exists. The exception that exists is merely that the President has stated from the get-go that he will not be bound by a certification requirement that he believes is unconstitutional.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
20. this is how the administration is interpreting the law
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 01:34 PM
Jun 2014

"White House officials said that they had not had time to fulfill that obligation, because a sudden opportunity had arisen to recover Bergdahl. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement” under the law, officials said."

update: more . . .

The decision by President Barack Obama to order the exchange was made “essentially to save his life,” Hagel said. It was deemed that the president had the authority to order the operation under Article 2 of the Constitution.

update: more . . .

A senior administration official appear to concede to the Washington Post that the 30-day notification law was not followed, but pointed out that when Obama signed the legislation last year, he issued a statement saying that being required to tell congress was “an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief,” and that he could supersede it.


. . . to be fair, we'll have to wait and see how the specific finding will read, but this is a matter of the administration's interpretation of the law. I don't think we have any more information available about that finding yet..

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
7. meh
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 09:43 AM
Jun 2014

if it should have been SOS, I am sure we will hear about it. I will wait for that time.
-
edit: thanks for the heads up : )

Igel

(35,197 posts)
8. I like it.
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 10:52 AM
Jun 2014

If the executive branch is supposed to be doing something, especially when it's accompanied by White-House hoopla, there's an iron rule: The buck stops elsewhere.

It's depressing to see how one (D) was proud to say that responsibility lay with him--if something goes wrong, it's a failure of leadership, of implementation, of oversight. A longish generation later, the response is different: The responsibility lay with others--if something goes wrong, it's a failure of others.

The basic idea is that need overrides the law, and one man's judgment overrides the code of laws and courts and legislature. If something is deemed necessary, the Legislature is ignored. It's not doing its proper job, so to uphold the Constitution it's injunctions are set aside. We do it with laws, why not with the ultimate law of the land? It's a horrible precedent. We despised it when Bush did it formally. We adore it when Obama does it in an off-the-cuff manner.

bigtree

(85,917 posts)
14. you're comparing bring home a soldier to Bush's anti-constitutional push to war
Sun Jun 1, 2014, 12:13 PM
Jun 2014

. . .silliness.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»AP got story wrong-Obama ...