• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GAO: Pentagon violated law with Bergdahl swap

DA60

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
'WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon broke the law when it swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner in Afghanistan for five years, for five Taliban leaders, congressional investigators said Thursday.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department failed to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange — a clear violation of the law — and used $988,400 of a wartime account to make the transfer. The GAO also said the Pentagon's use of funds that hadn't been expressly appropriated violated the Antideficiency Act.
"In our view, the meaning of the (law) is clear and unambiguous," the GAO wrote to nine Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and various committees. "Section 8111 prohibits the use of 'funds appropriated or otherwise made available' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay to the custody or control of a foreign entity' except in accordance" with the law.
The GAO said the relevant committees received phone calls from May 31 — the day of the transfer — to June 1, with written notification coming on June 2.'

https://news.yahoo.com/gao-pentagon...5102--politics.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


So, not only was it, imo, a stupid move (negotiating with terrorists), but it also appears to indeed be illegal.
 
DA60 said:
'WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon broke the law when it swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner in Afghanistan for five years, for five Taliban leaders, congressional investigators said Thursday.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department failed to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange — a clear violation of the law — and used $988,400 of a wartime account to make the transfer. The GAO also said the Pentagon's use of funds that hadn't been expressly appropriated violated the Antideficiency Act.
"In our view, the meaning of the (law) is clear and unambiguous," the GAO wrote to nine Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and various committees. "Section 8111 prohibits the use of 'funds appropriated or otherwise made available' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay to the custody or control of a foreign entity' except in accordance" with the law.
The GAO said the relevant committees received phone calls from May 31 — the day of the transfer — to June 1, with written notification coming on June 2.'

https://news.yahoo.com/gao-pentagon...5102--politics.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


So, not only was it, imo, a stupid move (negotiating with terrorists), but it also appears to indeed be illegal.
Click to expand...


Wow, good find DA.
 
Hmmm.. two threads, one saying that they found Obama violated the law, the other that the Pentagon did.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Hmmm.. two threads, one saying that they found Obama violated the law, the other that the Pentagon did.
Click to expand...

Heya DH. :2wave: Well we already know Feinstein came out and stated BO didn't contact her committee with the allotted. time. Which if you recall team BO then lied and tried to say they said something about it last year.
 
When youre in government, breaking the law is a natural thing to do because barely anyone has been punished for it.
 
PoS said:
When youre in government, breaking the law is a natural thing to do because barely anyone has been punished for it.
Click to expand...

Exactly, look how Bush and the CIA got away with water boarding and detaining people in the USA without due process, they can't do anything wrong.
 
DA60 said:
'WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon broke the law when it swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner in Afghanistan for five years, for five Taliban leaders, congressional investigators said Thursday.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department failed to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange — a clear violation of the law — and used $988,400 of a wartime account to make the transfer. The GAO also said the Pentagon's use of funds that hadn't been expressly appropriated violated the Antideficiency Act.
"In our view, the meaning of the (law) is clear and unambiguous," the GAO wrote to nine Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and various committees. "Section 8111 prohibits the use of 'funds appropriated or otherwise made available' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay to the custody or control of a foreign entity' except in accordance" with the law.
The GAO said the relevant committees received phone calls from May 31 — the day of the transfer — to June 1, with written notification coming on June 2.'

https://news.yahoo.com/gao-pentagon...5102--politics.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


So, not only was it, imo, a stupid move (negotiating with terrorists), but it also appears to indeed be illegal.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you'all are letting Obama off the hook on this one, heh?
 
AJiveMan said:
Exactly, look how Bush and the CIA got away with water boarding and detaining people in the USA without due process, they can't do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

As long as you continue to bring up the issue in stray threads, can Bush and the CIA ever really get away with anything?
 
DA60 said:
'WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon broke the law when it swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner in Afghanistan for five years, for five Taliban leaders, congressional investigators said Thursday.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department failed to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange — a clear violation of the law — and used $988,400 of a wartime account to make the transfer. The GAO also said the Pentagon's use of funds that hadn't been expressly appropriated violated the Antideficiency Act.
"In our view, the meaning of the (law) is clear and unambiguous," the GAO wrote to nine Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and various committees. "Section 8111 prohibits the use of 'funds appropriated or otherwise made available' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay to the custody or control of a foreign entity' except in accordance" with the law.
The GAO said the relevant committees received phone calls from May 31 — the day of the transfer — to June 1, with written notification coming on June 2.'

https://news.yahoo.com/gao-pentagon...5102--politics.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


So, not only was it, imo, a stupid move (negotiating with terrorists), but it also appears to indeed be illegal.
Click to expand...

Obama doesn't give a **** about this. Remember their motto, "By any means necessary." He's the President, he thinks he can do any ****ing thing he wants, didn't he even say so?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Hmmm.. two threads, one saying that they found Obama violated the law, the other that the Pentagon did.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon works for Obama, what's your point?
 
DA60 said:
'WASHINGTON (AP) — The Pentagon broke the law when it swapped Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a prisoner in Afghanistan for five years, for five Taliban leaders, congressional investigators said Thursday.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office said the Defense Department failed to notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the exchange — a clear violation of the law — and used $988,400 of a wartime account to make the transfer. The GAO also said the Pentagon's use of funds that hadn't been expressly appropriated violated the Antideficiency Act.
"In our view, the meaning of the (law) is clear and unambiguous," the GAO wrote to nine Republican senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and various committees. "Section 8111 prohibits the use of 'funds appropriated or otherwise made available' in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2014, to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo Bay to the custody or control of a foreign entity' except in accordance" with the law.
The GAO said the relevant committees received phone calls from May 31 — the day of the transfer — to June 1, with written notification coming on June 2.'

https://news.yahoo.com/gao-pentagon...5102--politics.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory


So, not only was it, imo, a stupid move (negotiating with terrorists), but it also appears to indeed be illegal.
Click to expand...

Im sure no one will be held accountable. Remember Obama laughed when congress initiated a lawsuit. Then if they pass a law saying 'seriously dont break the law' hell just break that law.
 
American said:
Obama doesn't give a **** about this. Remember their motto, "By any means necessary." He's the President, he thinks he can do any ****ing thing he wants, didn't he even say so?
Click to expand...

In this case he was absoultely correct. You do not leave a U.S. serviceman's life in the hands of terorrists. Even McCain said Obama did the right thing getting him back.
 
TheNextEra said:
In this case he was absoultely correct. You do not leave a U.S. serviceman's life in the hands of terorrists.
Click to expand...

The US left a US citizen and news reporter in the hands of terrorists and we saw him get his head cut off on youtube. :shrug:
 
Ockham said:
The US left a US citizen and news reporter in the hands of terrorists and we saw him get his head cut off on youtube. :shrug:
Click to expand...

They weren't just "left" a rescue was tried as well. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean we don't try. Yet again, you ignore the reality.
 
TheNextEra said:
They weren't just "left" a rescue was tried as well. Just because it didn't work doesn't mean we don't try. Yet again, you ignore the reality.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant whether a rescue was tried or not... why didn't this administration trade 5 more prisoners for the US citizen?
 
Last edited:
jonny5 said:
Im sure no one will be held accountable. Remember Obama laughed when congress initiated a lawsuit. Then if they pass a law saying 'seriously dont break the law' hell just break that law.
Click to expand...

You are probably right.
 
Ockham said:
Irrelevant whether a rescue was tried or not... why didn't this administration trade 5 more prisoners for the US citizen?
Click to expand...

It is relevant because you said they were just "left" there. Sorry but that is factually incorrect.

Because they wanted money. Are you saying we should have given ISIS 135 million dollars?
 
TheNextEra said:
It is relevant because you said they were just "left" there. Sorry but that is factually incorrect.

Because they wanted money. Are you saying we should have given ISIS 135 million dollars?
Click to expand...

He was left there. He was not rescued, a ransom was not paid - that's a fact. So why is Bergdahl worth 5 taliban, and this reporter not worth money - money which I might add is printed by our government at a whim?

What you seem to be avoiding is Obama's administration set a precedent - that was to negotiate a prisoner exchange, e.g., ransom, for a low level US military member who may or may not have abandoned his post and went AWOL or deserted. That has been lauded by many as the "right" thing to do. So, now we have a US citizen who was held for ransom and a deal was not made. Why was that the "right" thing to do and it is directly contrary to the former precedent. Are US military MORE valuable than US Citizens and if so - why?

To answer your question - since the Obama administration paid a ransom of 5 taliban leaders for Bergdahl - he should have had no problem with a paltry 135 million dollars for a US citizen and news reporter.... I fail to see the clear difference here. Explain it to me.
 
TheNextEra said:
In this case he was absoultely correct. You do not leave a U.S. serviceman's life in the hands of terorrists. Even McCain said Obama did the right thing getting him back.
Click to expand...

Even as trades go it was foolish and a lousy deal. McCain has no personal axe to grind when it comes to prisoners of war does he?. :roll: Really?
 
Ockham said:
He was left there. He was not rescued, a ransom was not paid - that's a fact. So why is Bergdahl worth 5 taliban, and this reporter not worth money - money which I might add is printed by our government at a whim?
Click to expand...

A rescue was attempted, he wasn't simply left. You are now just flat out posting lies at this point.

What you seem to be avoiding is Obama's administration set a precedent - that was to negotiate a prisoner exchange, e.g., randsom, for a low level US military member who may or may not have abandoned his post and went AWOL or deserted. That has been lauded by many as the "right" thing to do. So, now we have a US citizen who was held for ransom and a deal was not made. Why was that the "right" thing to do and it is directly contrary to the former precedent. Are US military MORE valuable than US Citizens and if so - why?

To answer your question - since the Obama administration paid a ransom of 5 taliban leaders for Bergdahl - he should have had no problem with a paltry 135 million dollars for a US citizen and news reporter.... I fail to see the clear difference here. Explain it to me.
Click to expand...

Ah ok so releasing 5 cleared poeple from Guantanemo under the Bush adminisntration is the same as paying 135 to an ACTIVE terrorists organization.

Your comments are beyond pathetic and show a clear agenda to be Anti-Obama no matter what. I've criticized him over and over again but even I see that leaving a service member in the hands of terorrists is wrong.

But hey, that doesn't matter because you are for burning America as long as a Dem is president.
 
American said:
Even as trades go it was foolish and a lousy deal. McCain has no personal axe to grind when it comes to prisoners of war does he?. :roll: Really?
Click to expand...
No it wasn't foolish, but then we see you want American servicemembers left to the enemy.
 
AJiveMan said:
I'm guessing you'all are letting Obama off the hook on this one, heh?
Click to expand...

It's funny because just one post earlier you were blaming Bush for something that he didn't do personally....
 
TheNextEra said:
A rescue was attempted, he wasn't simply left. You are now just flat out posting lies at this point.
Click to expand...
Still irrelevant.

TheNextEra said:
Ah ok so releasing 5 cleared poeple from Guantanemo under the Bush adminisntration is the same as paying 135 to an ACTIVE terrorists organization.
Click to expand...
The Bush Administration is irrelevant - we're talking about the current administrations deal. You seem to be tap dancing to avoid answering a direct question. Why?

TheNextEra said:
Your comments are beyond pathetic and show a clear agenda to be Anti-Obama no matter what. I've criticized him over and over again but even I see that leaving a service member in the hands of terorrists is wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm asking the question because this administration saw fit to pay a ransom of 5 taliban for Bergdahl and not to pay 135 million, a paltry sum, for a US citizen who had his head chopped off on youtube for everyone to see. Why?

You don't want to answer the direct question.

TheNextEra said:
But hey, that doesn't matter because you are for burning America as long as a Dem is president.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Answer the question and have a little courage, or continue to sling ad hominems in a futile attempt to distract with "Bush" and claims of rubbish about agendas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom