Two Republican lawmakers on Saturday accused President Barack Obama of breaking the law by approving the release of five Afghan detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in exchange for a U.S. soldier believed held by Islamist insurgents for five years.
The White House agreed that actions were taken in spite of legal requirements and cited “unique and exigent circumstances” as justification.
Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, 28, of Hailey, Idaho, was handed over to U.S. special operations forces by the Taliban. In return, five Afghans who were held at a U.S. detention facility in Cuba were released to the custody of the government of Qatar, which served as a go-between in negotiations for the trade.
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon of California and Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma said in a statement that Obama is required by law to notify Congress 30 days before any terrorists are transferred from the U.S. facility. They said Obama also is required to explain how the threat posed by such terrorists has been substantially mitigated.
McKeon is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Inhofe is the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
In response, the White House said it moved as quickly as possible given the opportunity that arose to secure Bergdahl’s release. Citing “these unique and exigent circumstances,” the White House said a decision was made to go ahead with the transfer despite the legal requirement of 30 days advance notice to Congress.
While saying they celebrate Bergdahl’s release, McKeon and Inhofe warned that the exchange “may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans.”
“Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” they said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in a statement that “the safe return of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is an answer to the prayers of the Bergdahl family and a powerful reinforcement of our nation’s commitment to leave no service member behind.”
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
9 Responses
The law is certainly unconstitutional. The President can pardon anyone at any time for any reason.
Furthermore, prisoner exchanges have taken place in US wars for centuries. Do these Republicans really think that the US should abandon an American serviceman to the Taliban?
Not the first and some how I don’t think it will be the last illegal move by this administration
STOP THE PRESSES!! Obama broke a law?
Mah nishtana ha’lyla hazeh mikol halaylos?
PROSECUTE HIM!
1. If they are prisoners of war, then the President as Commander in Chief has authority to exchange prisoners. Its in the constitution and has been done by all armies since antiquity. It’s inherent in the power of being the military commander to be able to exchange prisoners.
2. If they are criminals, then the President has a constitutional power to issue pardons and release prisoners. Since it is in the constitution, it isn’t subject to a statute.
This man has endured hell for 6 years. Do these 2 Republicans want him kept infinitely longer while they make their political fortunes?
Let them change places with this brave hero for just 1 day and see what their attitude is.
So now they know what it was like for Israel to release all those terrorists for one soldier.
Charlie Hall,
It is not for you or the President to decide if a law in unconstitutional or not. That is a decision for the courts to make. Until the courts make such a decision the act is illegal and wrong.
#7- If the enemy soldiers object, they were free to ask for an injunction ordering Obama to keep them in Cuba. Similarly, the American prisoners’ family could have asked their local district court to order the US to keep him in prison.
The President is under a constituitonal obligation to command the armed forces, and exchanging prisoners has always been a tactical decision. He could be impeached for failing to execute the duties of commander in chief, as that would clearly constitute a “high crime or misdemeanor”.
“He could be impeached for failing to execute the duties of commander in chief”
I can’t think of a more important role for a commander-in-chief than to try to save every American soldier from a terrorist enemy. I also can’t understand why the Republicans don’t understand that.