Bergdahl Affair Wanders Into Constitutional Attrocity

One can rightly share the limitless joy for Bowe Bergdahl and his family over his release from the Taliban captors but at the same time be terrified by what the circumstances around his freedom dramatically show about how far into a totalitarian state this nation has descended at the hands of Barack Obama.

Of course it is a concern that the freedom for Sgt. Bergdahl was gained at the cost of the release of 5 of what the NY Times acknowledged were among the most dangerous terrorists from Guantanamo. The precedent this sets increases the danger to Americans whether military or civilian around the world. It demonstrates that the administration is willing to surrender to ransom for virtually any price. It may sound cynical but is it plausible that, in his mind, President Obama can keep his pledge to close Guantanamo if enough Americans are captured or kidnapped around the world that he can empty and close the prison simply by trading for as many Americans as it takes.

But this, it seems to me, is not even the most ominous and chilling aspect of this event. In my opinion, the worst possibility for the future of this nation is now not possibility…it is reality, and it is here, now!

The excerpt below from the NY Times story says it all. President Barack Obama has no regard whatsoever for either Congress or the Constitution. In this case he boldly proclaims that legal restrictions duly legislated by Congress are unconstitutional in his opinion and he simply ignored them.

This is naked totalitarian rule and every American, including the most committed liberals should loudly protest this and demand that this President stop deciding what he alone considers unconstitutional and obey the laws as they have been properly enacted…whether it is related to immigration, environment, healthcare, labor relations or anything else… or they should demand Barack Obama’s removal from office.

“Among other complications, there was a potential legal obstacle: Congress has imposed statutory restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay. The statutes say the secretary of defense must determine that a transfer is in the interest of national security, that steps have been taken to substantially mitigate a future threat by a released detainee, and that the secretary notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of his determination.

“In this case, the secretary, Chuck Hagel, acknowledged in a statement that he did not notify Congress ahead of time. When Mr. Obama signed a bill containing the latest version of the transfer restrictions into law, he issued a signing statement claiming that he could lawfully override them under his executive powers.

“The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” he wrote in the signing statement, adding that if the restrictions “operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.”

Got the talking points…they will, of course, be refined a bit as the day and week goes on but MSNBC and CNN  have gotten them out early this AM for the guys at QC Times and the Register, KC Star, et al who don’t want to spend all of their Sunday waiting for a “more nuanced” position they should take in once more propping up the a) abject fool,  b) anti-America Marxist,   c) Islamist/Taliban sympathizer,   or d) all of above and worse, who now resides in Hollywood and occasionally stops by the White House.

TP (talking point) 1.   Jerome Nadler (D, NY): No big deal here. This is how prisoner exchanges work. Nadler explained that, sure, these guys were very dangerous, top terrorist leaders who were freed, and, yes they may return to the battlefield, but that’s what happens. Just as Sgt Bergdahl could return to the fight. In effect, for Jerry, “There’s nothing to see here…just another ‘phony scandal’.

TP 2.    President Obama was carrying out the time honored tradition of our military (you know what a ‘fanatic admirer of the US military Obama is) of leaving no soldier behind on the battlefield. As we “responsibly” leave Afghanistan, from where “we should have left years ago” (that’s Nadler again ), the president wanted to make sure we do not abandon one of ours (note: for us right wing nutcases, that view recalls for us how we kinda didn’t observe that “time honored tradition” in Benghazi, or a least certainly not the spirit of it.) Incidentally, being 105 years old or so, seems I recall that that are POW’s, MIA’s left behind after other wars (Korea, Vietnam, etc; and while it must be acknowledged that most simply could not be found despite  America’s best efforts, who can say that the price for the return of some was considered far too high…eg, full scale invasion, trades for the perpetrators of the most heinous war crimes, etc.

TP 3:   Obama did not break the law by not notifying Congress of his intent 30 days in advance and provide justification as required. This is a CNN contribution. Paraphrasing: “In signing this bill into law, Mr. Obama made it clear in a signing statement that he considered it an unconstitutional restriction on his executive authority.” (So there! Our Dear Leader signs a bill into law which he announces in advance he does not intend to uphold and unilaterally and unconstitutionally, decides that it is not constitutional. In OBAMAWORLD, both the legislature and the Constitution are simply unnecessary restraints on whatever he wants to do and he’s just going to ignore them.)

Lt Col. (ret) Allen West’s blog has some insightful posts and one of the comments purports to provide the truth (unverified) about Bergdahl’s capture .  The comment indicates Bergdahl deserted.  Six soldiers were killed as a result of the search to find him.  Read through the comment section to find the post from Jeff Howard alleged to be from a a source associated with Bergdahl’s unit.  That information was first  forwarded to us by Lt. Col (ret) Hugh Pries a Special Forces O.I.F veteran.   The New York Post provides related reports about the circumstances of Bergdahl’s ending up in Taliban hands  The bizarre tale of America’s last known POW  .  Many military oriented blogs are focusing on the story and its various implications.

DLH

0

0