Swapping prisoners is something we and other nations have done since before any of us were born.
And here's something else to think about, guy - if we as a nation said, "We're not going to do whatever it takes to bring you home alive", what would that do to the morale of our soldiers in the field, if they knew that America might decide that they weren't worth whatever it took to bring them home alive?
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn
"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump
A few things...
First in terms of the "put them on trial thing". When speaking about people we picked up on foreign soil due to their aiding of those seeking to attack this country....for what exactly? We're not accusing them of violating U.S. law within the U.S. How exactly? Are we supposed to be sending FBI or US Marshall personnel into a foreign country, just hope that foreign country doesn't mind it, and begin to actually launch an official investigation to gather "evidence" for a criminal trial? So essentially, when it comes to the nitty gritty, you don't want us keeping POWs because "trying" them is an unrealistic and ludicrous endevour. So congrats, what your basically saying is "if we capture someone just kill them". That's really pretty much it. You'll hem and haw about how that's not what you're advocating for. You'll keep parroting the same illogical, unrealistic, idiotic notion that only works because you're a keyboard jocky on the internet mewling on and on over something you'll never have to deal with in a realistic way, so why would anyone expect you to do anything but keep posting a cop out so you can lie to yourself that you're so much smarter and better. So congrats...we can't hold them so we kill them, thus still "ruining a life" but providing no actionable benefit to us at the same time. Wow, go you!
Second, I'm happy for the family that they have their son back. With that said, I don't judge foreign and defense policy actions based on rainbows and lollipop emotions. I'm waiting till we have more information about this, but on the surface trading away 5 prisoners who have actively worked against the U.S. before in exchange for one american soldier, regardless of all the extra curriculors people are going back and forth about, immedietely makes me scratch my head a bit. I'm ABSOLUTELY for the family and have no issue with anyone else being happy with the family. Those criticizing people for being happy about that are being ridiculous. Those criticizing people for actually looking a foreign policy action from a policy perspective rather than whether or not it gives them a ooey gooey warm feeling in their stomachs ALSO are being ridiculous.
Third, it does look like the Administration violated the law here on my initial review of this. You can't sign a law and at the same time sign a signing statement claiming you don't agree with the law so you're just going to ignore it, and then expect people just to accept that. This seems like the law was absolutely violated here, and the congress has a duty to it's constituents to at least take SOME kind of action. Even if that's simply getting this up to the SCOTUS to rule whether or not Obama's suggestion that the law is unconstitutional is correct, I'm fine with that. But you can't have a President sign a law, immedietely declare he will not follow said law, and then when a chance provides itself actively engages in ignoring said law...and then just shrug it off and move on. You want to claim people are being partisan for attacking the Obama Administration? Tell me how an administration wantonly and brazenly breaking a law, and suggesting people shouldn't speak negatively about that, is somehow anything other than partisan?
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.