Boehner: Leaders told 2 years ago of possible swap
Source: SALON (AP)
WASHINGTON (AP) House Speaker John Boehner (BAY-nur) says top members of Congress were briefed more than two years ago about the possibility of exchanging an American soldier held captive by the Taliban for five terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In a statement, Boehner said lawmakers raised serious concerns that were never satisfactorily answered about the potential swap involving Bowe Bergdahl (boh BURG-dahl). Congress wasnt informed until word came this past Saturday of the exchange.
Boehner welcomed Bergdahls release but said one of the greatest protections for Americans fighting overseas as well as diplomats is that the U.S. does not negotiate with terrorists. In this case, however, he said that protection has been compromised.
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/boehner_leaders_told_2_years_ago_of_possible_swap/
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)I think this notification was sufficient.
GOPers should go pound sand.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)They just jump, doesn't matter if in the right direction or not, just jump up and say something.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)onenote
(42,585 posts)McCain, along with nearly 300 other prisoners were released by the North Vietnamese (not the Viet Cong) as part of the terms of a negotiated cease fire that effectively ended the active US military engagement in South and North Vietnam. (Although both the South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese violated the cease fire at times during the next two years, US combat troops were no longer in the country after 1973).
McCain was never a prisoner of the Viet Cong (who operated in South Vietnam)-- he was shot down in, and held prisoner in, North Vietnam by the North Vietnamese army. He was not "traded" for other prisoners -- he was one of many prisoners released as part of th terms of a negotiated cessastion of hostilities.
By contrast, of course, Bergdahl's release was a traditional prisoner swap, indistiginguisable in most respects to the types of prisoner trades the Israelis have conducted for years. We are leaving Afghanistan, which is about time. But not as part of a negotiated cessation of hostilities with the Taliban. There is no agreement between them, us, and/or the Afghan government in that regard.
So its a bad example. The better one is the conduct of the Israelis, who seem to manage to release thousands of prisoners in exchange for a de mininimis number of their people, including bodies, without the wrath of their own nation coming down on their head. Why? Because the risk is considered worth the price -- namely bringing home the people who served your country without regard to how well they served.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Bickle
(109 posts)Start with all the illegal, similar things done before, whose perpetrators are now mostly dead.
And it's boner. He even admitted it himself. No umlaut, it's Boner. If he's too stupid to know how to pronounce his own name, then it's even more apt.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)negotiated using Qatar intermediaries, Congress agreed on some exchange two years ago in regard to this specific prisoner, the whole discussion is off to another farcical start based on being stupid.
Obama is the hero for choosing humanity over politics.
madokie
(51,076 posts)Obama is the hero for choosing humanity over politics
Aristus
(66,286 posts)Suck it , repukes!
abakan
(1,815 posts)Yes we were told, but he didn't say "pretty please", so it doesn't count..The we don't negotiate with terrorist bs is only valid if the one doing the negotiating happens to be a black Kenyan who somehow became president.
tofuandbeer
(1,314 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)for the previous 5 1/2 years since Obama took office. Must be nice to live in "Bonerland" where everything is orange and the alcohol just keeps on coming.
aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)Congress was informed but they weren't informed.
onenote
(42,585 posts)If all the required was notification, one might argue that the discussions that took place with the Hill regarding the possible swap of Taliban detainees for Bergdahl satisfied that requirement. Yet, even the administration doesn't take that position. So are they that clueless or is there more to it? The answer is that there is more to it.
There are multiple provisions of law at issue. One requires the President to inform the Hill. Arguably that provision was satisfied. But the other requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the the Secretary of State and the national intelligence director, to "certify" as to certain matters regarding the detainee and the transfer.
Since the administration acknowledges that it didn't go through with the transfer after the initial discussions, it seems likely that there is and has been an issue about whether the administration was willing to make the required certifications. If they had, then I would imagine we'd have heard about it.
So, I think we're back where we started -- Congress passed a law that put restrictions on the executive branch's ability to conduct war/foreign policy; the President signed the law but issued a concurrent signing statement that indicated that if push came to shove, he wasn't going to be bound by it because it exceeded Congress' constitutional authority.
Fine by me.