DescentBB

The Feds have determined that Obama and the DoD broke the law when they released 5 gitmo prisoners for Bergdahl:

President Obama violated a “clear and unambiguous” law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.
The Department of Defense violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer,” the GAO report said. “In addition, because DOD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DOD violated the Antideficiency Act
The GAO rejected the idea that the action was legal and sidestepped the Obama team’s suggestion that the law is unconstitutional.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/38 ... oel-gehrke

So now will Obama, Like Gov. Perry, face up to the charges?

Prez hasn't been charged with any thing

You better stop all this racist talk.

Oh what the hell, they call me racist all the time regardless, so I'll add to the content that must be racist because I'm criticizing a black man.

Why is it ok to trade for Bergdahl but not Foley? Obama cited the imminent danger to Bergdahls life as the justification. Seems like there is a similarity...er...was....
Is it because ISIS is still just a JV team?

Wonder if the loyal press will notice the dichotomy.

So who's to blame? The DOD or Obama?

tunnelcat wrote:So who's to blame? The DOD or Obama?

For which offense?
And...
Is there a separation between the Commander in Chief and his DOD now that the Commander isn't Bush?

tunnelcat wrote:So who's to blame? The DOD or Obama?

DOD, as stated in the GOA opinion. The story doesn't end here though. There is a matter of the constitutionality of section 1035 of the FY 2014 NDAA, which is outside the scope of the GOA and, if ruled unconstitutional (it is currently in appeals), makes this opinion moot. Also, the GOA provided a contradictory opinion to this same situation in 1976.

So whatever. The article is just click-bait for people like woodchip and crew who love to get riled up about Obama.

Who believes the DOD would engage in a trade like this without discussing/receiving orders from Obama?

Who believes that, after trying to get a Congress to approve the trade previously and bring told by Dems and Repubs alike 'absolutely no!', that the DOD decided to do it without Congress or Obama knowing about it?

Who believes, having honestly considered those two questions, that Obama doesn't own the responsibility for the act regardless of whether his Justice Department refuses to pursue it?

If you answered in the affirmative for those three questions you are a qualified toady for the administration.

Will Robinson wrote:Who believes the DOD would engage in a trade like this without discussing/receiving orders from Obama?

"Discussing" is probably the key word. Obama is too busy giving speeches and playing golf to make every decision attributed to him. That's why all these other departments exist. How would you like it if you owned a business and none of your employees were incapable of making a decision? You will still be responsible for hiring them though.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Who believes the DOD would engage in a trade like this without discussing/receiving orders from Obama?

"Discussing" is probably the key word. Obama is too busy giving speeches and playing golf to make every decision attributed to him. That's why all these other departments exist. How would you like it if you owned a business and none of your employees were incapable of making a decision? You will still be responsible for hiring them though.

Do you really think the Department of Defense is tasked with making those kind of decisions?

To follow your analogy and put it in the proper context: My employees don't go out and buy a new service truck with the credit card they have for buying parts/supplies. And if I told them to go get a new truck and blamed them later for doing it I'd be a lousy boss...ditto if I let some other person blame them for it.

Hell, in 2012 when the Obama administration was rebuked for suggesting it, the DOD was part of the consensus of Congress, Intelligence services and Pentagon that said no to the concept of trading those 5 guys for anything!

None of us have the information they do so this conversation is kind of useless until that information is declassified and the appeals have gone through the court systems. Your guess is as good as anyone else's, even mine!

Good luck vision. These are the same guys that blamed Obama for the ACA website not working properly at the beginning. Yeah, as if he was sitting with a java manual and wordpad and building it. We got a soldier back for five guys we can bomb/kill at a later date...sounds like a good deal. Who cares what any of the spineless Republicans say about this? It's cowardly and shameful for anyone to admit they'd leave a US soldier in captivity when given the chance to get him/her back. Hey, I guess you can say what you want about the President, but he's not the gutless coward that so many are on this board.

Didn't you hear zuruck? Obama was responsible for the weird looking sun we had this morning. He was also responsible for the upshot of accidents around here recently aswell.

He was also responsible for denying Canada's drone fleet purchase.

Funny how the knee jerkers enter the discussion and suddenly "It's Bushes Fault" gets changed to "It's Obama's fault". What some seem to forget is that Hagel and the DoD would never attempt a trade of this political magnitude without the commander in chief authorizing it. Somewhere Hagel has a written authorization signed by Obama that orders him to proceed.

Every time I look at Barack Obama's speech, I do not see in his eyes cowardice or indecision. I see in his eyes, only fatigue and frustration. It is obvious that his force to speak complete nonsense, as an actor in the theater of the absurd. I see in the eyes of Barack Obama's undisguised envy and disappointment that Vladimir Putin can change the world for the better, and he - no.

Vision, Ferno, z, you guys are such shameless deniers grasping at any straw that could let you believe Obama didn't make this decision that you look absolutely clueless or ridiculously partisan. Your choice...

We DO have the info on it because......wait for it....
Obama TOLD us it was his decision:

“We have consulted with Congress for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Bergdahl,” Obama said on a trip to Poland to discuss Eastern European security. “We saw an opportunity, and we were concerned about Bergdahl’s health. We had the cooperation of the Qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity.” He added that “the process was truncated because we wanted to make sure we would not miss that window.”

Of course when he refers to 'consulting with Congress' he is dishonestly implying that they were in agreement with his desire to make the trade. We know that isn't the case because he had asked and they said 'Hell no'
But that's the way he rolls.

So continue your head in the sand dance if you like but that sound of amusement your conscious is letting slip through is not us laughing with you...

Will Robinson wrote:...you believe Obama didn't make this decision that you look absolutely clueless or ridiculously partisan.

No no, you are not reading what I said. I was responding to your statement "Who believes the DOD would engage in a trade like this without discussing/receiving orders from Obama?" I said the probably acted out of a discussion rather than "receiving orders." Remember, every decision like this involves teams of people, dozens, sometimes hundreds, who look at actions from every angle and do cost/benefit analysis. The president probably sat in on one or more of these discussions (or none). In the end, it was probably decided by committee that this trade would happen and the president's scriptwriters were notified about what he would say. You see, I don't believe the president does anything more than give speeches. That's his job: to put a reassuring face on the things our leaders decide (note: I don't mean leaders in a stupid Illuminati type way). So when it comes to who is guilty of misappropriation of funds, well, that's simply a matter of accounting. But this whole thing isn't about accounting, or even accountability, it is about slandering the president any way possible -- and you know this because you are part of it.

Notice the plurality in the quote you posted:

“We have consulted with Congress for quite some time about the possibility that we might need to execute a prisoner exchange in order to recover Bergdahl,” Obama said on a trip to Poland to discuss Eastern European security. “We saw an opportunity, and we were concerned about Bergdahl’s health. We had the cooperation of the Qataris to execute an exchange, and we seized that opportunity.” He added that “the process was truncated because we wanted to make sure we would not miss that window.”

It is all right there in front of you. He doesn't do anything. I'm not defending the actions of the president because I don't think he actually does anything, haha. He's a spokesman.

Is he the only insignificant person you so dogmatically defend against any kind of criticism? Lol.

This is cute: " I said the probably acted out of a discussion rather than "receiving orders.""

You just stand the hierarchy of authority on its head to insulate him from a decision he freely admits was his to make.

The plurality is in reference to his National Security team...his...he is the leader..they advise. They serve at his discretion...they were appointed by him...

Shortly after Obama spoke in Warsaw, the National Security Council officially released an explanation of why the administration considered it lawful to transfer the Guantanamo detainees without notifying Congress. The administration determined that the notification requirement didn't apply in this "unique set of circumstances," because providing notice "as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier's life," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said...

"The Administration" is him. He is responsible for its actions, even if he was playing golf most of the time that they acted.

When Reagans team did bad things it went down in history as 'Reagan doing bad things'.
The Media and the Dem's and Hollywood have made sure of that.
And now those same factions are making sure Obama isn't held to the same standard.
You have freely chosen which side of the truth you want to be on in that game so man up and own your decision instead of playing silly semantic games like Clinton caught with his cigar in an intern.

Will Robinson wrote:"The Administration" is him. He is responsible for its actions, even if he was playing golf most of the time that they acted.

Cool. I'm going to sign all my personal emails as coming from "The Administration" because, you know, it's the same thing.

Will Robinson wrote:When Reagans team did bad things it went down in history as 'Reagan doing bad things'.

For the record I don't agree with attaching a person's name to the actions of a governing body, especially presidents, because as I said before I believe they are just spokespersons. Yes, they appoint people, but even these appointments are decided by committee. I thought Bush jr was terrible even though I voted for him. I think he was a terrible spokesperson. I don't for a minute think he was solely responsible for any of the nonsense that went on throughout his term. Regan sure a ★■◆● didn't make any decisions, he was a goddamn actor propped up by his party. That became abundantly clear during Iran-Contra. Remember that? Jesus, Regan was suffering from early Alzheimer's disease at that time. They were just trying to keep him focused on "keeping up appearances."

The administration determined that the notification requirement didn't apply in this "unique set of circumstances," because providing notice "as specified in the statute could endanger the soldier's life," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said...

Sometimes laws contradict each other. They aren't perfect. That's why we have a branch of government dedicated to it. Whether you think the action was personally right or wrong has no bearing on whether it was legal or not, and currently that question has not been answered. And if we are going to prosecute our current president for misbehaving, let's arrest all of the previous ones too because they are all guilty of something.

Vision: just ignore will (moe). I do. and it makes things so much nicer around here.

Ferno wrote:Vision: just ignore will (moe). I do. and it makes things so much nicer around here.

It would be so much nicer if you stopped making ignorant replies that contribute nothing. At least vision is attempting to make his point of view coherent. You? You just make troll replies and complain when your thread goes awry.

vision wrote:
No no, you are not reading what I said. I was responding to your statement "Who believes the DOD would engage in a trade like this without discussing/receiving orders from Obama?" I said the probably acted out of a discussion rather than "receiving orders." Remember, every decision like this involves teams of people, dozens, sometimes hundreds, who look at actions from every angle and do cost/benefit analysis. The president probably sat in on one or more of these discussions (or none). In the end, it was probably decided by committee that this trade would happen and the president's scriptwriters were notified about what he would say. You see, I don't believe the president does anything more than give speeches. That's his job: to put a reassuring face on the things our leaders decide (note: I don't mean leaders in a stupid Illuminati type way). So when it comes to who is guilty of misappropriation of funds, well, that's simply a matter of accounting. But this whole thing isn't about accounting, or even accountability, it is about slandering the president any way possible -- and you know this because you are part of it.

Vision,with all due respect, I think you are smarter than the rambling discourse you are attempting here. This boils down to two people. Chuck Hagel and Obama. Obama wants Hagels DoD to do the trade. Hagel, being the experienced politician, wants to cover his ass. To do so Hagel would want to have a written order that covers his ass on down the road. As Commander in Chief (at least where the military is concerned) Obama is more than a speech giver. He has to give a clear order with decisions of this magnitude, especially when both sides of the aisle in congress are against it. The idea that saying Obama is being slandered because he has to do things in a certain manner that no amount of lost emails will cover, is kinda lame.

woodchip wrote:This boils down to two people. Chuck Hagel and Obama.

LOL. Conspiracy art. That's a fine piece of detective work there, Chief!

Ferno wrote:Vision: just ignore will (moe). I do. and it makes things so much nicer around here.

Proving that "Ignorance is bliss".

Ferno wrote:Vision: just ignore will (moe). I do. and it makes things so much nicer around here.

So I guess that makes slick Curly.

Last of the three…

no, that's sergeant thorne.

I don't care who what why or when. A captured US soldier was brought home instead of having his head cut off and shown on TV. Done deal. Would be saying the same thing about any US President right now regardless of party if they did this. Yeah, you guys are really pro-military aren't you? Disgusting hypocrites.

Z.. wrote:I don't care who what why or when. A captured US soldier was brought home instead of having his head cut off and shown on TV. Done deal. Would be saying the same thing about any US President right now regardless of party if they did this. Yeah, you guys are really pro-military aren't you? Disgusting hypocrites.

No, not pro or con military as a general rule. Different tools for different jobs. But I am consistently anti deserter and it seems most of the troops feel the same way...and the Pentagon and the CIA and the Democrats and Repubs in Congress...and most of my fellow americans.

Some of them are sychophantic Obama butt licks though so they try to wrap Bergdahl in the flag for Obama's sake.

sigma wrote:Every time I look at Barack Obama's speech, I do not see in his eyes cowardice or indecision. I see in his eyes, only fatigue and frustration. It is obvious that his force to speak complete nonsense, as an actor in the theater of the absurd. I see in the eyes of Barack Obama's undisguised envy and disappointment that Vladimir Putin can change the world for the better, and he - no.

I wish I could pay you to make these post.

Will Robinson wrote:No, not pro or con military as a general rule. Different tools for different jobs. But I am consistently anti deserter and it seems most of the troops feel the same way...and the Pentagon and the CIA and the Democrats and Repubs in Congress...and most of my fellow americans.

Some of them are sychophantic Obama butt licks though so they try to wrap Bergdahl in the flag for Obama's sake.

You guys just read into this stuff too much. If military justice decides to charge him then fine, but up until that point he's still presumed innocent and a US soldier. Take a few deep breaths and be happy that an American family got their son back alive instead of a folded flag. Stop acting like you're being personally traumatized by these events.

I seem to remember a former president saying
"the buck stops here"

Obama is responsible. His call or not. He is in charge. And with a decision of that magnitude he should have known. And if he didn't then he is incompetent as a leader. But any way you cut it he takes the blame because......... He is in charge.

CUDA wrote:And with a decision of that magnitude he should have known.

Magnitude.

vision wrote:

CUDA wrote:And with a decision of that magnitude he should have known.

Magnitude.

are you seriously that naive???? Or just that young that you dont understand?????

however I noticed you ignored the rest of the post

CUDA wrote:I seem to remember a former president saying
"the buck stops here"

Obama is responsible. His call or not. He is in charge. And with a decision of that magnitude he should have known. And if he didn't then he is incompetent as a leader. But any way you cut it he takes the blame because......... He is in charge.

Obama can't win with you conservatives, can he? Either he doesn't do enough and is called ineffective, or he does too much and is called a law-breaking socialist dictator. Take your pick.

Not true TC, he isn't a socialist or a dictator.

tunnelcat wrote:

CUDA wrote:I seem to remember a former president saying
"the buck stops here"

Obama is responsible. His call or not. He is in charge. And with a decision of that magnitude he should have known. And if he didn't then he is incompetent as a leader. But any way you cut it he takes the blame because......... He is in charge.

Obama can't win with you conservatives, can he? Either he doesn't do enough and is called ineffective, or he does too much and is called a law-breaking socialist dictator. Take your pick.

I see you missed the point too. It has to do with RESPONSIBILITY something he consistently shirked since he's taken office. Go ahead deny it.

it might not be his fault. But it is his responsibility. Thats the burden of leadership

You're right, he is responsible. He is Commander in Chief. He, and the DOD, made the decision to get back one of our soldiers from terrorists by making a trade and not giving notice to Congress within 30 days. But as to violating the law, that depends on who you talk to and how you parse the NDAA law, doesn't it? It also doesn't rise to the level of treason either.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/politics/ ... index.html

No it doesn't. The GAO says it was a violation of the law.

CUDA wrote:No it doesn't. The GAO says it was a violation of the law.

There are conflicting opinions of this law from the GOA and it is still being determined if the law is constitutional.