Which would bring us back to negotiating with terrorists and/or not notifying Congress 30 days prior?

 

The use of the middleman seems to have always been a way around the dreaded "negotiating with terrorists" cliche. That didn't change here.

 

It could have an impact on the 30-day issue. Not sure. Seems like there are some Constitutional powers the President has that would trump the 30-day notice in certain types of cases.

Town cancels celebration of Bowe's return.

 

Bergdahl's hometown cancels celebration of release | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Interesting comments from NYT 2012 article on this:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/14/us/bowe-bergdahls-unlikely-journey-to-life-as-a-taliban-prisoner.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

 

Last week his anguished family broke a yearlong silence and announced that their son had become the centerpiece in secret but stalled negotiations between the Obama administration and the Taliban over a proposed prisoner exchange. The deal, which would trade five Taliban prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay for Sergeant Bergdahl, is considered a crucial first step toward striking a broader political settlement with the Taliban to bring the decade-long war to an end.

 

Here is the byline:

 

[h=6]By ELISABETH BUMILLER

[/h] [h=6]Published: May 13, 2012 [/h]

This deal was in the works for over 2 years. The specifics were in place.

 

Now in 2013 Carney was questioned about this. Note Carney's comment at 1:07 in the clip below - 'though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issues in those discussions if and when those discussions happen...'. And at 1:15 mark - '...we would not make any decisions on transfer of detainees without consulting Congress...'.

 

Town cancels celebration of Bowe's return. Bergdahl's hometown cancels celebration of release | Navy Times | navytimes.com

 

Because of security/crowd concerns.

The use of the middleman seems to have always been a way around the dreaded "negotiating with terrorists" cliche. That didn't change here.

 

It could have an impact on the 30-day issue. Not sure. Seems like there are some Constitutional powers the President has that would trump the 30-day notice in certain types of cases.

 

I may be missing something but how many times have presidents made these type of deals public. We have always passed some deals go on behind the scenes we never know what for sure so the executive office stays out of any deal. I may be missing something and I'll admit it I am. This just seems different. Like they made aspects of this deal public that if it had happened in past deals were kept silent. If I'm correct smells like fishing for praise during this VA scandal.

 

I may be missing something but how many times have presidents made these type of deals public. We have always passed some deals go on behind the scenes we never know what for sure so the executive office stays out of any deal. I may be missing something and I'll admit it I am. This just seems different. Like they made aspects of this deal public that if it had happened in past deals were kept silent. If I'm correct smells like fishing for praise during this VA scandal.

 

You wanted transparency...

Some talk that this was done b/c Obama wants to close Gitmo before he leaves office and this was step 1.

I may be missing something but how many times have presidents made these type of deals public. We have always passed some deals go on behind the scenes we never know what for sure so the executive office stays out of any deal. I may be missing something and I'll admit it I am. This just seems different. Like they made aspects of this deal public that if it had happened in past deals were kept silent. If I'm correct smells like fishing for praise during this VA scandal.

 

I can't answer that in regards to past presidents. I do not remember.

 

No question the administration thought they would get more kudos for this one than they did.

Some talk that this was done b/c Obama wants to close Gitmo before he leaves office and this was step 1.

 

Many on the far left are saying this now opens the door for the President to empty Gitmo. There is now more pressure from the far left on the President to get it done.

Shoot, even the Cub's trading Lou Brock for Ernie Broglio was a better deal.

Daily Mail story supports those that believe this was done in an effort to facilitate shutting down Gitmo.

 

Obama ignored two chances to rescue Bergdahl 'because he WANTED terror trade' | Mail Online

Daily Mail story supports those that believe this was done in an effort to facilitate shutting down Gitmo.

 

Obama ignored two chances to rescue Bergdahl 'because he WANTED terror trade' | Mail Online

:no:

Daily Mail story supports those that believe this was done in an effort to facilitate shutting down Gitmo.

 

Obama ignored two chances to rescue Bergdahl 'because he WANTED terror trade' | Mail Online

 

He will empty GITMO right before he is out of office. Especially it a Republican is voted into the Presidency. If he emptied GITMO too early, he would be impeached.

Many on the far left are saying this now opens the door for the President to empty Gitmo. There is now more pressure from the far left on the President to get it done.

I haven't read anything about the "far left" -- whoever these people might be -- pressuring the president. No need to. The president vowed to close Guantanamo when he campaigned in '08 and renewed this vow in his most recent State of the Union address. So why should anyone be surprised by events of the past week? Link below to a decent explainer of some of the issues involved.

 

http://americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2014/01/31/83328/what-has-to-happen-to-close-guantanamo-bay-this-year/