+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap (/thread-699388.html)
Pages: 1 2
Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Kaplony - 08-21-2014 05:28 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/08/21/pentagon-violated-law-with-bergdahl-prisoner-swap-government-watchdog-says/
Quote:A nonpartisan government watchdog agency said Thursday that the Pentagon broke the law when it swapped five Taliban leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl earlier this year.
The Government Accountability Office, in a legal opinion issued at the request of congressional lawmakers, said the Defense Department violated the law by failing to notify key Capitol Hill committees at least 30 days in advance.
Further, the report said the Pentagon broke another law by using funds that were not technically available.
Quote:The GAO said the law in this case is "clear and unambiguous." The agency said that while the Defense Department defended the legality of the controversial swap, "in our view, DOD has dismissed the significance of the express language" in the law.
Quote:At issue were recent laws passed by Congress. The latest Defense spending bill states that no money can be used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to another country "except in accordance" with a separate, related Defense law. That law requires the secretary of Defense to notify key congressional committees at least 30 days before such a transfer.
The swap occurred May 31 of this year. However, the GAO report said those committees were only notified between May 31 and June 2.
"When DOD failed to notify specified congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of its transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to Qatar, DOD used appropriated funds in violation of section 8111," the report said.
It also said DOD violated the Antideficiency Act, which bars spending by agencies above the amount of money that Congress has obligated. In this case, the report said the Defense Department spent nearly $1 million more than it had.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - UofMstateU - 08-21-2014 05:31 PM
For an administration that's led by a constitutional scholar, they sure suck at understanding it.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - usmbacker - 08-21-2014 05:36 PM
Obama break the law? No f'n way.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - THE NC Herd Fan - 08-21-2014 05:38 PM
Let's get to the source of the problem, OBAMA broke the law.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - EagleX - 08-21-2014 08:52 PM
wow. the DoD was ordered to break the law by the president.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - gdunn - 08-22-2014 08:41 AM
Gets better. The day Holder arrived in Missouri, the GAO ruled that the DOJ must turn over all documents referring to Fast and Furious.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - DFWMINER - 08-22-2014 08:57 AM
So when does the drunk conservative prosecuter indict Obama?
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Redwingtom - 08-22-2014 11:00 AM
Not so fast my friends.
Quote:The core issue, they argued, is constitutional, rather than the statutory issues raised by the GAO. And the GAO report explicitly doesn't weigh in on those constitutional issues. "We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
So the GAO report will likely be a big deal politically, but without addressing that constitutional piece, does not settle things legally. The Bergdahl question comes down to where the president's constitutional authority as commander-in-chief ends and Congress's jurisdiction begins. And it's not a question we're likely to get a definitive answer to anytime soon: given the way that the relevant law works in this area, the Supreme Court will never hear a case about it.
A new report says Obama's Bowe Berghdahl prisoner swap was illegal. Here's what it missed.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2014 11:04 AM
So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - GrayBeard - 08-22-2014 11:05 AM
This still pisses me off. We broke the law to get back a deserter Jihadist sympathizer.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Redwingtom - 08-22-2014 11:09 AM
(08-22-2014 11:05 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: This still pisses me off. We broke the law to get back a deserter Jihadist sympathizer.
Was he still an American?
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Redwingtom - 08-22-2014 11:10 AM
(08-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
No skippy...the GOA report. Try to keep up.
Quote:"We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - GrayBeard - 08-22-2014 11:11 AM
(08-22-2014 11:09 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:05 AM)GrayBeard Wrote: This still pisses me off. We broke the law to get back a deserter Jihadist sympathizer.
Was he still an American?
I don't know, I've been too busy on the golf course to find out what is going on in the world.
By the way, nevermind that American's that don't sympathize with the jihadists are losing their heads right now. Oh well, I gotta go, it's time to tee off.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - GrayBeard - 08-22-2014 11:15 AM
And no...if the m*****f***er deserted, he is no American in my book.
We used to execute those jackasses.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2014 11:15 AM
(08-22-2014 11:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
No skippy...the GOA report. Try to keep up.
Quote:"We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
Do you not speak English? English words have meanings. Do you not comprehend what those meanings are?
The quoted statement is entirely consistent with my comment. And the point about the blogger is that you make the same misinterpretation as the blogger does--that the constitutional issue somehow invalidates the factual issue.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - GrayBeard - 08-22-2014 11:16 AM
(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
No skippy...the GOA report. Try to keep up.
Quote:"We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
Do you not speak English? English words have meanings. Do you not comprehend what those meanings are?
The quoted statement is entirely consistent with my comment.
He only understands talking points generated to help the liberal cause.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Redwingtom - 08-22-2014 11:17 AM
(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
No skippy...the GOA report. Try to keep up.
Quote:"We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
Do you not speak English? English words have meanings. Do you not comprehend what those meanings are?
The quoted statement is entirely consistent with my comment.
I was only answering your last question. Sorry if that was confusing.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - HeartOfDixie - 08-22-2014 11:18 AM
Don't get Tom talking about anything to do with the legal world.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Redwingtom - 08-22-2014 11:19 AM
(08-22-2014 11:16 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
No skippy...the GOA report. Try to keep up.
Quote:"We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
Do you not speak English? English words have meanings. Do you not comprehend what those meanings are?
The quoted statement is entirely consistent with my comment.
He only understands talking points generated to help the liberal cause.
Right...and you only understand things spoon fed to you by Fox 'news'.
RE: Pentagon broke law with Bergdahl prisoner swap - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-22-2014 11:20 AM
(08-22-2014 11:17 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:10 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:(08-22-2014 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So there's no question that Obama broke the law, the question is whether the law he broke is constitutional? And your source is a blogger?
No skippy...the GOA report. Try to keep up.
Quote:"We do not offer any opinion on the constitutionality of section 1035," the report says. "It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes."
Do you not speak English? English words have meanings. Do you not comprehend what those meanings are?
The quoted statement is entirely consistent with my comment.
I was only answering your last question. Sorry if that was confusing.
Realized that after rereading and edited my comment to respond.