You didn't answer Mitch's question. I, for one, would like to hear your answer.

If Republicans won more presidential elections, they wouldn't have to call for special prosecutors to investigate the "outrage of the month." The GOP calls for special prosecutors more often than I call out for pizza.

Then don't ask 'em.

I ask the questions to make a point. Most liberals are applying a double standard to Obama's handling of the Bergdahl release.

 

By refusing to acknowledge the similarities to Obama's actions and the actions of the Reagan administration that led to the Iran-Contra scandal, you are supporting my position through your silence.

 

One cannot logically condemn the Reagan administration's efforts to free American hostages and support Obama's efforts to free Bergdahl. Based on what is already known, there are too many similarities not to either support both presidents' actions or condemn them.

If Republicans won more presidential elections, they wouldn't have to call for special prosecutors to investigate the "outrage of the month." The GOP calls for special prosecutors more often than I call out for pizza.

How many independent special prosecutors have been appointed to investigate any of the Obama scandals?

If Republicans won more presidential elections, they wouldn't have to call for special prosecutors to investigate the "outrage of the month." The GOP calls for special prosecutors more often than I call out for pizza.

 

We'll lets see. Do you not think we as a public have the right to know things and without a special prosecutor we may not ever now. Obama and his administration would love for no one to ever know anything so they could run more amuck than what they already do.

I want to know about:

Bengazhi

IRS scandal

VA screwups

The release of 5 murderers

Fast and Furious

Obama Care

NSA spying on us

Investigation of the AP investigators

Solyndra

Violations of Constitution

There are many more.

How long has it been since President Barack Obama said he made no apologies for trading in five terrorists for a deserter? How long has it been since he said he had no regrets? Now it's all Chuck Hagel's fault..

 

Read more: Latest White House Excuse: The Bergdahl/Taliban Swap Is Chuck Hagel's Fault | The Daily Caller

How long has it been since President Barack Obama said he made no apologies for trading in five terrorists for a deserter? How long has it been since he said he had no regrets? Now it's all Chuck Hagel's fault..

 

Read more: Latest White House Excuse: The Bergdahl/Taliban Swap Is Chuck Hagel's Fault | The Daily Caller

 

 

Hagel, by his own admission and explanation, did not have the legal authority to make the decision.

 

From NY Times:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/04/world/prisoner-deal-puts-president-on-defensive.html

 

On Sunday, for example, when Mr. Hagel was asked about not obeying the notice law, he told reporters, “We believe that the president of the United States is commander in chief, has the power and authority to make the decision that he did under Article II of the Constitution.”

 

Note that those are Hagel's own words.

 

What does Article II say?

 

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; ...

 

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...

 

The exchange was a treaty. Hence the reference to Article II by Hagel himself.

 

The problem is that the Constitution gives the power of treaty to the office of President and only that office. It does NOT give it to the Secretary of War (as it was known then) nor does it allow the President to 'delegate' the power.

 

So, legally, it is not possible for Hagel to have made the final call.

Which cup is the pea under today ? Follow closely, here we go...

Thought this thread might be worth revisiting now that it has been announced that Sgt. Bergdahl has officially been charged with treason. So...five Taliban fighters released so the US can get back a captive soldier that willingly left his military post in order to court martial him on desertion charges.

 

Bowe Bergdahl's Attorney Says Bergdahl Has Been Charged With Desertion

Comments?

Worst case scenario, particularly if something happens involving any of the terrorists released.

The 5, who have been described as top people, are free to go where they want on May 01. The assumption is they return to the battlefield. Guess the rose garden ceremony for the parents is not looking so good right now.

Really glad we released 5 terrorists so a deserter could be returned. Well played Mr. President. :puke:

Don't we assume the government micro-chipped the 5 terrorist they let loose and we maintain 24 hour surveillance on them?

Don't we assume the government micro-chipped the 5 terrorist they let loose and we maintain 24 hour surveillance on them?

 

Hope? Yes. Assume? No.

Don't we assume the government micro-chipped the 5 terrorist they let loose and we maintain 24 hour surveillance on them?

 

Micro-chipped? I doubt it. Heavy surveillance via drones. Quite possible.

Micro-chipped? I doubt it. Heavy surveillance via drones. Quite possible.

 

I would say both are a distinct possibility.