He allegedly left a note. A note was found.
Maybe he did. But “news stories report that soldiers said that he left a note” is not the same thing as “he left a note”.
So you seriously believe it’s possible someone else wrote that note?
Allegedly.
It’s possible the note doesn’t exist, wasn’t written by him, wasn’t meant to say what it’s now read to say, or wasn’t written while he was compos mentis. Until it is actually presented as evidence and Bergdahl has a chance to explain it, it is “alleged.”
When a deal happens and you have to decide right now, you do it right now. Is there any evidence that Congress wasn’t told that negotiations were happening? Is it sensible that a deal made should be sat on for 30 days so Congress can blather about whatever it is they blather about, only to have it happen anyway, or worse, missing the opportunity? How is it that there can be reports putting it out in the open yet Congress remained clueless?
Because Congress can’t constrain the President with that requirement, since the Constitution gives to the President alone the role of Commander-in-Chief, and the decision about releasing or trading prisoners of war is a decision for the Cooamnder-in-Chief.
[quote=“doorhinge, post:140, topic:689840”]
C) Did the Obama administration violate the law stating that the WH must notify Congress 30 days in advance before moving GITMO prisoners? (YES.)
©(1) Was that law constitutional?
(NO)
Not to mention, is it even possible to have secret negotiations that involve Congressional notification?
I have no idea how Congress can remain clueless. It’s possible that the Senate Intelligence Committee doesn’t believe what they read in the media?
*By Elahe Izadi
June 3, 2014
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein took at shot at the Obama administration on Tuesday for failing to give lawmakers 30 days’ notice about a deal to release five Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the only POW from America’s war in Afghanistan.
“It’s very disappointing that there was not a level of trust sufficient to justify alerting us,” Feinstein told reporters in the Capitol.
…Feinstein said that National Deputy Security Adviser Tony Blinken called her Monday night “apologizing” for failing to notify lawmakers sooner. “He apologized for it and said it was an oversight,” Feinstein said. When asked whether he used the word “oversight,” Feinstein clarified: “In so many words, I can’t say. That was my impression.”*
*Hill leaders didn’t know of Bergdahl deal
By BURGESS EVERETT and JOHN BRESNAHAN | 6/3/14 12:04 PM EDT Updated: 6/3/14 7:35 PM EDT
Three top leaders of the House and Senate were not informed by the White House ahead of time of the deal to release Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban officials detained at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) was the only congressional leader told in advance of the Obama administration’s controversial plans. He was informed on Friday, before Bergdahl’s release became public, he told reporters on Tuesday.
Both House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said they were not told in advance by the Obama administration. A House GOP aide said the last time such an exchange was discussed with the speaker was in January 2012.
Like her GOP counterparts, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was not told the exchange was happening until Saturday, an aide said*.
A similar deal was discussed over three months ago. It wasn’t acceptable to the terrorists then. I wonder what was added to the pot to make the terrorists accept the exchange?
The linked NYTimes article got its information about the note from a “senior military officer briefed on the investigation into the private’s disappearance.” IOW, as you’d expect, this matter has been looked into carefully.
[quote=“Bricker, post:147, topic:689840”]
Have “they” finally decided that these ex-GITMO terrorists were legally defined as POW’s? I thought they were attempting to try them in some NYC criminal court?
And your opinion on the matter relates to the law…how again, exactly?
[/QUOTE]
No, you have an anonymous source who tells you this matter has been looked into carefully. We KNOW that it has been investigated carefully only to the extent we trust this anonymous “senior military officer.” Maybe he’s telling the truth, maybe he’s got his own axe to grind, maybe he’s accurately relaying this secret briefing, maybe he’s not. What makes you trust him absolutely?
The swap has apparently been under discussion since at least 2011. Some officials are saying that the timing of the deal came about because of recent videos showing that Bergdahl’s health was declining recently. Sen. Feinstein has expressed skepticism over those statements. Of course, we on the outside have no way to judge the accuracy of either position.
Time is reporting that the military (and the intelligence community) consistently opposed a deal to release these five prisoners, but the administration is saying there was no internal objection to the trade, so it may have been that the timing came about because the military recently dropped its objections. It’s also possible that it dropped its objections due to the concerns noted above about Bergdahl’s health.
The White House is not disputing that Congress was not told. Sen. Feinstein says that Congress was briefed on the idea in 2011 and was “virtually unanimous against the trade” on both sides of the aisle. Boehner has suggested that the WH refrained from informing Congress because it knew it would encounter the same opposition, but again, there’s no way to know.
I don’t believe that this question has been sufficiently answered directly by anyone, and needs to be repeated.
Unless you have proof that the phones in the WH were all broken this is a spurious answer at the very least.
Not only did the President blow off Congress he ignored the process in place to vet the release of dangerous detainees.
This musical has one producer, director, actor, and musical accompaniment. It’s Obama. He owns every last bit of this and anything bad that happens as a result attaches directly to him. Period. Full stop.
He can apologize to Congress until hell freezes over. It’s all on him.
What would be gained by smearing Bowe Bergdahl? Welcoming home a heroic POW after 5 years captivity is a feel good story that both political parties could embrace. Normally politicians would be lining up to welcome this guy home, and put a medal around his neck. Maybe even throw a parade. Unfortunately it was already widely known that this guy disappeared under questionable circumstances. Questions about him are now legitimately being raised by people in both parties.
The issue about the prisoner swap is entirely separate. No one would dare smear a legitimate POW that was captured on the field of battle. That would bite anybody stupid enough to try on the butt.
I can recall questions about this guy three or four years ago. Even then the word deserter was being used by some. No one is swift boating Bergdahl.
Republican strategists set up the interviews with Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers that were very critical of him. Clearly, the Republicans see some sort of political value in showing Bergdahl in a bad light.
Every once in a while, someone writes the perfect blog post.
This guy hit the nail on the head so many times that he now qualifies to be called a master carpenter. They refuse to celebrate the safe return of a POW out of blind hatred for Obama. If Bush had done the exact same thing, they’d still be licking his balls.
…and the Today Show fell for it!? Gee, I thought they were better than that 
!