# Stupid liberal idea of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 20, 2011, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086 "2011-04-20T15:35:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 89
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1761 "2014-06-05T16:04:35Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > So, **Clothahump** …you’re advocating for leaving POWs behind? This is the straw that’s going to break the GOP camel’s back. Please, please, PLEASE write your congressman and senators begging them to impeach Obama for returning a POW! PLEASE! It’ll be the end of this current insane nest of vipers that calls itself a political party. The issue is that Obama broke the law in doing this. The fact that he did it for a deserter who may very well turn out to be a collaborator makes it even more disgusting. Nice attempt at deflection, though. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1762 "2014-06-05T16:06:17Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > A law signed into effect by Obama just this year requires the President to give Congress 30 days notice before releasing a prisoner from Guantanamo, and Obama didn’t do this. > > Now, there are a couple of related issues. When Obama signed the law, he included a signing statement reserving the right to release prisoners like he has done with Bergdahl. I assume the signing statement was 1)issued more than 30 days ago and 2)known to Congress. Can you refute one of these assumptions? ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1763 "2014-06-05T16:06:18Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > And **C;othahump** fits right in with the disingenuous bleating. Really? In what way does pointing out that Obama broke the law constitute bleating? I’m really curious to hear this explanation. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1764 "2014-06-05T16:08:23Z")
Well, you certainly would know disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1765 "2014-06-05T16:29:45Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Well, since none of the liberals on this board will mention it… …except in the threads about in Great Debates and IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1766 "2014-06-05T16:30:00Z")
Thanks, **mhendo** ; In my own rather pathetic defense I hadn’t had a chance to read the full article at the time I posted. > [@mhendo](#): > > There are dozens and dozens of low-value and no-value prisoners in Guantanamo, people who were scooped up based on bad information or personal vendettas, and who had little or nothing to do with terrorist activity. Obama said, during his first election campaign, that he was going to do something about this, but has done jack-shit. He’s continued to force-feed hunger strikers, and has basically given up on any effort to close the camp or to do the things he promised. Right. This, for me, is a major issue, and a major disappointment of the Obama administration. I have to say, however, that I don’t hear many conservatives bringing up this particular issue, despite what would seem like some rather low-hanging fruit. I’ll leave it at that; I wasn’'t going to vote for Obama in the next election anyway. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1767 "2014-06-05T16:51:02Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > I assume the signing statement was 1)issued more than 30 days ago and 2)known to Congress. Can you refute one of these assumptions? I don’t need to. The law requires that he inform Congress when he’s going to release anyone from Guantanamo, and that he specifically inform Congress of who is going to be released, and assure Congress that those being released will not pose a future threat to the United States. If his signing statement had named those five prisoners explicitly, provided information about the reasons behind their release, and offered information explaining why they were unlikely to pose a future threat to the US, you might have a point. But it doesn’t, so you don’t. The [signing statement](http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=104530) contains no such information. It is a general statement about the problems that Obama has with the law, and a statement that he essentially intends to ignore the law in cases where he feels that it conflicts with the constitutional duties of the President. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1768 "2014-06-05T16:57:22Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The fact that he did it for a deserter who may very well turn out to be a collaborator makes it even more disgusting. As both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and General McChrystal have said, any allegations against Bergdahl have nothing to do with how we value US servicemembers who have been captured by the enemy. And I’m thankful for this. As a veteran, I’m very thankful that guys like General Dempsey are in charge, and not guys with your attitude. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1769 "2014-06-05T17:17:13Z")
Desertion has been proven? News to me, don’t they have to conduct some sort of trial for that? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1770 "2014-06-05T17:21:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Desertion has been proven? News to me, don’t they have to conduct some sort of trial for that? Exactly. What we have are allegations that may or may not turn out to be true. In the meantime, what we KNOW is that we had member of the US military held captive by the enemy, and that man is now home. If he did something wrong, then that will come out, and he will suffer the appropriate penalties, but the fact that there are some allegations against him does not negate the fact that he was an American soldier held captive. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1771 "2014-06-05T17:24:46Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > There’s also the question of whether the law itself is Constitutional. Some believe that a law like this, which restricts the Commander-in-Chief’s power to negotiate for returned soldiers, doesn’t pass Constitutional muster. But even if it is found unconstitutional by a court, that has happened yet, and Obama did violate the letter of the law. A law which is unconstitutional on its face is void _ab initio_. It doesn’t matter if a court has found it unconstitutional before the fact (though of course it matters if a court finds it constitutional at some point.) ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1772 "2014-06-05T17:24:53Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Desertion has been proven? News to me, don’t they have to conduct some sort of trial for that? It’s already been tried in the court of Re **public** an **opinion**. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1773 "2014-06-05T17:42:30Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > A law which is unconstitutional on its face is void _ab initio_. It doesn’t matter if a court has found it unconstitutional before the fact (though of course it matters if a court finds it constitutional at some point.) But there is a difference between a law that is unconstitutional on its face, and one that is later found to be unconstitutional. That is, there are plenty of laws that are obeyed over a considerable period of time, under the assumption that they are constitutional, but are later found by the courts to be unconstitutional. Is this law unconstitutional on its face? The legal discussions in numerous media outlets suggest considerable disagreement over whether it’s unconstitutional at all. I would think a law that generates such heated discussion and disagreement among legal experts is unlikely to be unconstitutional on its face. To be honest, the whole “unconstitutional on its face” issue has always struck me as an odd legal fiction anyway. No law is constitutional or unconstitutional except that someone’s interpretation makes it so. The way that lawyers use the term “unconstitutional on its face” implies that some laws are, or are not, unconstitutional without even the intervening step of human interpretation and analysis. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1774 "2014-06-05T18:26:44Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The issue is that Obama broke the law in doing this. The fact that he did it for a deserter who may very well turn out to be a collaborator makes it even more disgusting. > > Nice attempt at deflection, though. Try [this](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/05/1304556/-The-GOP-is-Heading-for-a-World-iof-Hurt-on-Bergdahl-here-s-why), moran. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1775 "2014-06-05T18:32:43Z")
[Read. Think.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-threatened-to-kill-bowe-bergdahl-if-swap-deal-leaked-officials/) > [@](#): > > The Obama administration has told senators it didn’t notify Congress about the pending swap of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban officials because the Taliban had threatened to kill him if the deal was made public, three congressional officials have told The Associated Press. > > The threat, - not just concerns that Bergdahl’s health might be failing - drove the Obama administration to quickly make the deal to rescue him, the officials said Thursday. The threat was transmitted by Qatari officials at the height of the negotiations, they said. ---
**Author:** ![Folacin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/folacin/32/3195_2.png) [@Folacin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Folacin)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1776 "2014-06-05T19:10:18Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > The fact that he did it for a deserter who may very well turn out to be a collaborator makes it even more disgusting. Heard on the news this morning that Bergdahl had done a walk-about similar to his last one on at least two other occasions, once in Washington state, one other time in Afghanistan. He’d wander off for a couple of hours, and then reappear. If he was repeating that dumb-ass pattern, he possibly just got unlucky this time and ran into some hostiles who captured him. Easy enough to since he hadn’t brought his weapon with him (because of guidance from his CO, apparently). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1777 "2014-06-05T19:37:27Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > [Read. Think.](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-threatened-to-kill-bowe-bergdahl-if-swap-deal-leaked-officials/) If that is true, i understand why they did it. The fact that there was a defensible reason for breaking the law, however, does not mean that the law wasn’t broken. Of course, if they had notified Congress, and Bergdahl was killed as a result, i’m pretty sure i know what the reaction from morons like **Clothahump** would have been. “Presidential incompetence leads to murder of heroic soldier.” ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1778 "2014-06-05T20:16:20Z")
I hate to sound stupid, but can someone fill me on the specific law he broke? Maybe a link? I promise to read it. I do not promise to understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1779 "2014-06-05T21:14:01Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > I hate to sound stupid, but can someone fill me on the specific law he broke? Maybe a link? > > I promise to read it. I do not promise to understand it. From [here.](http://beta.congress.gov/113/plaws/publ66/PLAW-113publ66.htm) It’s in section 1035. > [@](#): > > Notification.–The Secretary of Defense > shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress of a determination > of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b) not later than 30 days > before the transfer or release of the individual under such subsection. > Each notification shall include, at a minimum, the following: > (1) A detailed statement of the basis for the transfer or > release. > (2) An explanation of why the transfer or release is in the > national security interests of the United States. > (3) A description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks > of reengagement by the individual to be transferred or released, > including any actions taken to address factors relevant to a > prior case of reengagement described in subsection (c)(3). > (4) A copy of any Periodic Review Board findings relating to > the individual. > (5) A description of the evaluation conducted pursuant to > subsection (c), including a summary of the assessment required > by paragraph (6) of such subsection. It’s the 30 day requirement that has people in a tizzy. A stupid tizzy but a tizzy nonetheless. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2014, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086/1780 "2014-06-05T22:30:56Z")
It’s not a stupid tizzy, but it’s fair to judge that the President either acted appropriately given the circumstances, or is not bound by the law since it infringes on his executive powers. The Senate will ask for explanations, as it has the right to do, and his relations with the Senate will be affected by his level of cooperation with their oversight. Even if they may not have the power to make him give 30 days notice, they certainly have the right to know what went on and why, and if the administration stonewalls them, that will cause problems with both parties. Already the administration has been caught in dissembling, claiming that they’ve been briefing Congress. Jay rockefeller said that the last time they were briefed was 2011. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=88) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stupid-liberal-idea-of-the-day/579086.md?page=90)