Read and listened to a lot of discussion on the 30-day notice issue. It's not universal that this particular type of situation, ie a prisoner exchange, requires the 30-day notice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

You're always good for a laugh. You mean like Bush-Cheney conviently ignoring the military torture ban? New York Times said Bush 43 ignored/disobeyed about 750 laws on the books.

So, you approved of Bush's alleged crimes, or do you have a double standard?

So, you approved of Bush's alleged crimes, or do you have a double standard?

Here's the link to the NYT piece. Good stuff in here. I enjoyed reading about the role Alito played in all this.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

Read and listened to a lot of discussion on the 30-day notice issue. It's not universal that this particular type of situation, ie a prisoner exchange, requires the 30-day notice. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

People in Obama's own administration, including Chuck Hagel have admitted that the law was not followed. Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's legal commentator - certainly no conservative, is also on record saying that Obama broke the law. There does not seem to be much dispute that Obama broke the law.

 

Have you not seen Obama's administration manage enough scandals to know how this one will play out?

 

What will be interesting is whether Obama will try to make this Soldier who went AWOL (or maybe even deserted) into a hero. Under normal circumstances, a Soldier who leaves his post without permission in a war zone would most likely be Court-Martialed, and sentenced to confinement if found guilty. That would be embarrassing for Obama, so I am predicting that there will be no action taken in this case.

Here's the link to the NYT piece. Good stuff in here. I enjoyed reading about the role Alito played in all this.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/world/americas/30iht-web.0430bush.html?pagewanted=all

You never answered the question. If you approve of Obama breaking the law, then was it okay for Bush to ignore the law, and will it be okay with you if the next Republican president breaks federal laws? Or will you join me in condemning any U.S. president for violating his oath of office and breaking federal laws? These are pretty simple questions.

You never answered the question. If you approve of Obama breaking the law, then was it okay for Bush to ignore the law, and will it be okay with you if the next Republican president breaks federal laws? Or will you join me in condemning any U.S. president for violating his oath of office and breaking federal laws? These are pretty simple questions.

This is politics, not some silly Pollyanna exercise in rhetoric. Sometimes playing the executive privilege card works for presidents (waterboarding); sometimes it doesn't (Nixon tapes).

 

The outside factor no one's mentioned yet is the role international law plays in the prisoner exchange factoring in Gitmo and the suspension of hostilities in Afghanistan at the end of the present year.

This is politics, not some silly Pollyanna exercise in rhetoric. Sometimes playing the executive privilege card works for presidents (waterboarding); sometimes it doesn't (Nixon tapes).

 

The outside factor no one's mentioned yet is the role international law plays in the prisoner exchange factoring in Gitmo and the suspension of hostilities in Afghanistan at the end of the present year.

Still no answer. Nice dance though. :lol2:

Some want facts before rushing to judgement.

 

How do we know what the truth is. Obama and his gang will put out stuff that CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC will say is true, when it's not.

But we have soldiers disputing the facts.

 

Who do I believe! We'll it ain't Obama. He has lied too many times.

Here are the 5 released and their bios.

'Taliban Dream Team': Who are the 5 prisoners traded for Bergdahl's freedom? | Fox News

 

Like they won't be on the warpath to kill Americans now.

Still no answer. Nice dance though. :lol2:

I don't engage in Socratic Q and A's. As you know, what we're talking about here -- and with the 750 Bush examples -- is a tug-of-war involving the executive and legislative branches of government. This is often a gray area. If the GOP wins control of the Senate in November, then we might indeed see impeachment proceedings against our first Hawaiian president. Until then, Issa and Inhofe can continue to hit the cable TV squawk shows.

So we should have let the young soldier be strung up, like Col. William Higgins in Lebanon 25 years ago? Here's a novel idea: Why don't we let the facts emerge before proceeding with this ludicrous impeachment talk. You won't catch as many "likes" from the right-wing base, but it might be the prudent thing to do.

 

Ttp, I don't make posts to get likes from the right wing base or any one else for that matter.

 

I need no more facts than 5 very, very dangerous terrorists were set free in exchange for one soldier. Sounds cold I know, but if the young soldier ended up "strung up", that is simply a cost of the war. His life is worth no more than any other American military member who was placed in harm's way to capture those 5 terrorists so they could be stopped from carrying out their activities.

I don't engage in Socratic Q and A's. As you know, what we're talking about here -- and with the 750 Bush examples -- is a tug-of-war involving the executive and legislative branches of government. This is often a gray area. If the GOP wins control of the Senate in November, then we might indeed see impeachment proceedings against our first Hawaiian president. Until then, Issa and Inhofe can continue to hit the cable TV squawk shows.

You are half right, you don't provide any answers. Either you did not read the article to which you linked or you read it an did not understand it. The "750 Bush examples" to which you refer included "rules and regulations" - which I assume were promulgated under previous presidents. The Executive branch (that means agencies under control of the President) writes regulations that are supposed to follow laws written by Congress, and the Executive branch has the authority to modify regulations as long as the modifications do not violate the laws Congress passed.

 

Also included among the "750 Bush examples" are signing statements by which Bush expressed his opinion that certain parts of laws that he signed into law himself were unconstitutional because they infringed upon the constitutional powers of the presidency. Candidate correctly condemned Bush for creating many signing statements. I condemn this as well. Presidents have the authority to sign bills into law but if they believe that any part of those bills are unconstitutional, then they should veto them and explain their vetoes.

 

President Obama immediately changed his opinion about signing statements upon taking office in 2009. Not only has Obama issued signing statements, just as Bush did, he has blatantly refused to enforce certain laws in areas like immigration and failing to provide the required 30-day notification to Congress before releasing prisoners from Gitmo. He has also instructed federal agencies to write regulations where no law existed. Having the EPA declare CO2 a pollutant in a regulation because he was unable or too lazy to get a cap-and-trade bill through Congress is an example.

 

Signing statements are wrong, IMO, but they do not constitute a failure of a president's refusal to enforce the law. I condemn both but I understand the difference. Apparently, you don't.

 

I will ask you one last time and if your response is "Bush did it too" again, then I will call off the dogs. Do you have any problem with Obama violating and failing to enforce laws with which he personally disagrees? If your answer is no, you are comfortable with Obama's selective adherence to and enforcement of federal laws, then will you take the same position if a future Republican president behaves in an identical manner?

Ttp, I don't make posts to get likes from the right wing base or any one else for that matter.

 

I need no more facts than 5 very, very dangerous terrorists were set free in exchange for one soldier. Sounds cold I know, but if the young soldier ended up "strung up", that is simply a cost of the war. His life is worth no more than any other American military member who was placed in harm's way to capture those 5 terrorists so they could be stopped from carrying out their activities.

If the allegations of the soldier who wrote the column below are true, then at least six Soldiers died while searching for a deserter. I hope that if the column is accurate the Army prefers a court-martial against Bowe Bergdahl. I fear that President Obama will pin a medal on his chest and continue to selectively follow U.S. law.

 

We Lost Soldiers in the Hunt for Bergdahl, a Guy Who Walked Off in the Dead of Night

There are soldiers in this guys unit as well as soldiers who searched for him, who I have met at various functions and am members of a gun board with, and nothing they say is good......

Some want facts before rushing to judgement.

 

How do we know what the truth is. Obama and his gang will put out stuff that CBS, ABC, CNN, NBC will say is true, when it's not.

But we have soldiers disputing the facts.

 

Who do I believe! We'll it ain't Obama. He has lied too many times.

 

I believe that is called Perception Management and I wholeheartedly agree.