• 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!

Bowe Bergdahl, U.S. soldier held in Afghanistan, freed in swap

Perhaps it was just a courtesy...aka...greasing a squeaky wheel. lol

:) Sure, Moot.

The President broke the law. To be fair, it probably wasn't on purpose.
 
Sorry, but no one buys the " signing statement " mitigation.

Obama just "apologized" to top ranking Committee members for not informing them.

I'm curious as to why he felt they needed a apology.

He didn't do anything wrong, did he ?

Apparently, signing statements have a long standing precedent in US history and so it probably doesn't matter if 'you' buy it or not.
 
BpOgK_MIEAA9M3A.jpg:large



:lol:
 
Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?
 
Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?

That may have something to do with it.........not sure........maybe they hate us for our freedoms.......and our women are better looking........LOL
 
Have the Taliban ever attacked the US or it's interests outside of Afghanistan? Is it possible that the only reason they are fighting the US is because we're in their country?
Is it possible that the only reason we're in their country in the first place is because they gave Al Qaeda a place to set up their base of operation and then refused to turn them over after 9-11?
 
:) Sure, Moot.

The President broke the law. To be fair, it probably wasn't on purpose.

Why are you ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in INS v. Chadha (1983) that said it was unconstitutional for congress to put conditions on the executive branch without a bicameralism and presentment from both houses of congress? Legislating that the president must give a congressional committee a 30 day notice and then wait to get their approval before he can execute a law was ruled unconstitutional and violation of the separation of power in 1983. Therefore, the president did not break the law...congress did by passing an unconstitutional law.


"In INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983), the Supreme Court struck down
Congress’s use of the “legislative veto,” a device used for half a century to control
certain activities in the executive branch. Congress had delegated power to executive
officials on the condition that Congress could control their decisions without having to
pass another law. These legislative controls, short of a public law, included one-house
vetoes, two-house vetoes, and committee vetoes. Congress no longer relies on onehouse
or two-house vetoes, but committee and subcommittee vetoes continue to be a
part of executive-legislative accommodations. This report will be updated as events
warrant......read..."
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...vYLIAg&usg=AFQjCNF7JFlEvfzA388MjKLtScPzrigXQQ


INS v. Chadha (1983)
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where the House takes actions that have the purpose and effect of altering legal rights, duties, or relations of persons outside of the legislative branch, bicameralism and presentment are required.
INS v. Chadha | Casebriefs

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...-afghanistan-freed-swap-8.html#post1063357286


A congressional committee ....I.E. Senate Intelligence Committee does not represent both houses of congress and has no constitutional authority to over ride or veto the president's constitutional authority to execute the laws.
 
Why are you ignoring the SCOTUS ruling in INS v. Chadha (1983) that said it was unconstitutional for congress to put conditions on the executive branch without a bicameralism and presentment from both houses of congress? Legislating that the president must give a congressional committee a 30 day notice and then wait to get their approval before he can execute a law was ruled unconstitutional and violation of the separation of power in 1983. Therefore, the president did not break the law...congress did by passing an unconstitutional law.

On the contrary. A law passed by Congress and signed by the President is the law of the land until the Judiciary finds it unconstitutional. The Judiciary, not an internet poster named Moot.

Which is why the White House already admitted that they were wrong and apologized. :) But you keep right on with the inanity.
 
Is it possible that the only reason we're in their country in the first place is because they gave Al Qaeda a place to set up their base of operation and then refused to turn them over after 9-11?
But Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan now and they too have refused to turn the terrorists over. And yet, we aren't fighting the Pakistanis so why are we still fighting the Taliban?
 
On the contrary. A law passed by Congress and signed by the President is the law of the land until the Judiciary finds it unconstitutional. The Judiciary, not an internet poster named Moot.

Which is why the White House already admitted that they were wrong and apologized. :) But you keep right on with the inanity.

You can lead to horse to water but you can't make it drink. So here's some more water for you to ignore......


The judiciary has ruled that the executive branch has the same constitutional authority to interpret a law as the other two branches of government and judicial review isn't necessary or needed for every law passed by congress. I.E.: checks and balances, three branches of government, separation of power, etc...

"....A President that places the statutory law over the constitutional law in this instance would fail in his duty faithfully to execute the laws. The principle is equally sound where the Supreme Court has yet to rule on an issue, but the President has determined that a statutory law violates the Constitution.

To say that the principle is not equally sound in this context is to deny the President's independent responsibility to interpret and uphold the Constitution. It is to leave the defense of the Constitution only to two, not three, of the branches of our government. See United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 274 (1990) (“The Members of the Executive and Legislative Branches are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and they presumably desire to follow its commands.”); Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592, 613 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do . . . .”).
http://www.justice.gov/olc/opiniondocs/presidential-signing-stmt.pdf


"In sum, it is simply untenable that there must be a judicial remedy for every constitutional violation. Members of Congress and the supervising officers of the Executive Branch take the same oath to uphold the Constitution that we do, and sometimes they are left to perform that oath unreviewed, as we always are." - Anthony Scalia
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
 
I was listening to a radio commentary while driving a couple of hours ago and the talk show host--I didn't catch his name--said the jury was out on whether Bergdahl had deserted and we should be very careful not to impune the name of a uniformed member of the armed services without knowing about that for sure.

But some 50 of our soldiers were killed when out looking for Bergdahl--the level of violence escalated greatly in the months following his capture. His father mentioned he was more comfortable talking in Pashto than in English, but that could be lack of contact with any English speakers for the past five years. The five guys traded for his release were top Taliban leaders and had been classified extremely dangerous.

And yes, that certainly would appear to be encouragement for Islamic terrorists to look for more people to kidnap and hold for ransom.

And I can't shake the feeling too that Obama was almost desperate for something--ANYTHING--to get the VA and Benghazi scandals off the front pages. He had tried almost everything in his arsenal without success. But Bergdahl's release accomplished that.

Another poster a little loose and fancy free with facts.... hey, why let a few facts get in the way of a good argument....

The number is 6, not 50 and even that claim is dubious...

Pentagon to review claims US soldiers killed during search for Bergdahl | Fox News

I do agree that Obama would like to do a head fake away from the one legitimate scandal of his administration. On the other hand, no point in head faking away from the Republican circus of creating scandals and not letting go of them. The Cons are just shooting themselves in the foot with those practices... might as well let them have center stage as headliners at the comedy club.
 
But Al Qaeda is hiding in Pakistan now and they too have refused to turn the terrorists over. And yet, we aren't fighting the Pakistanis so why are we still fighting the Taliban?

The Taliban are an easier enemy.... but, they are, as you said, a political entity rather than a terrorist group.
 
Another poster a little loose and fancy free with facts.... hey, why let a few facts get in the way of a good argument....

The number is 6, not 50 and even that claim is dubious...

Pentagon to review claims US soldiers killed during search for Bergdahl | Fox News

I do agree that Obama would like to do a head fake away from the one legitimate scandal of his administration. On the other hand, no point in head faking away from the Republican circus of creating scandals and not letting go of them. The Cons are just shooting themselves in the foot with those practices... might as well let them have center stage as headliners at the comedy club.

If you had continued to read the thread you would see that I concurred with the six number. You would also see that I was reporting what I heard on the radio and was not playing "loose and fancy free" with the facts. The facts remain that we don't know what Bergdahl's status was or is as I also subsequently posted. Nor did I make it a partisan issue as your post does. It seems just as many Democrats are asking the same questions as the Republicans are on this one. But don't let facts get in the way of making something partisan that shouldn't be.
 
I was listening to a radio commentary while driving a couple of hours ago and the talk show host--I didn't catch his name--said the jury was out on whether Bergdahl had deserted and we should be very careful not to impune the name of a uniformed member of the armed services without knowing about that for sure.

But some 50 of our soldiers were killed when out looking for Bergdahl--
the level of violence escalated greatly in the months following his capture. His father mentioned he was more comfortable talking in Pashto than in English, but that could be lack of contact with any English speakers for the past five years. The five guys traded for his release were top Taliban leaders and had been classified extremely dangerous.







And yes, that certainly would appear to be encouragement for Islamic terrorists to look for more people to kidnap and hold for ransom.

And I can't shake the feeling too that Obama was almost desperate for something--ANYTHING--to get the VA and Benghazi scandals off the front pages. He had tried almost everything in his arsenal without success. But Bergdahl's release accomplished that.




Until you post a link to something that supports this statement I'm going to ignore it.
 
On a side-note, the soldiers in Bergdahl's platoon sound like a bunch of unprofessional right-wing jerks. Maybe that's why they're collaborating with Republican strategists to tar and feather Bergdahl before his feet touch American soil.

I wonder what really went on in that platoon. I hear there was a breakdown in the chain of command.
 
On a side-note, the soldiers in Bergdahl's platoon sound like a bunch of unprofessional right-wing jerks. Maybe that's why they're collaborating with Republican strategists to tar and feather Bergdahl before his feet touch American soil.

I wonder what really went on in that platoon. I hear there was a breakdown in the chain of command.

"Unprofessional right-wing jerks"?

They're collaborating with Republican strategists? Of course you have a link to back that up.
 

former George W Bush administration official and Fox News commentator Richard Grenell.

Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray and Kate Nocera discovered that one of the soldiers quoted by the Times and others, Cody Full, had taken to Twitter to thank Mr Grenell yesterday for "helping get our platoon's story out" in a tweet.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote
Mr Grenell can be relied on to take the view that anything that might hurt President Barack Obama is good enough for him”
End Quote
Laura Clawson

Daily Kos
They called Mr Grenell's public relations agency, Capitol Media Partners, where his partner, Brad Chase, confirmed his involvement:

"Obviously Ric is a well-known Republican and these guys found him on Twitter and reached out asking for help in getting their story out," Chase said. "Ric obviously saw that this is something that needed to be told and came to me and others in our firm, and I and some of the others determined that this was a story that we wanted to work on."

Mr Chase said they offered their services free of charge and the New York Times characterisation of them as "Republican strategists" was "100% factually inaccurate", as Mr Chase was not a Republican.


OMG. How desperate are you?
 
Whether or not he's officially a Republican, he is in the employ of the Republicans. Ergo, a Republican strategist.
 
Whether or not he's officially a Republican, he is in the employ of the Republicans. Ergo, a Republican strategist.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this partisanship.

You apparently didn't even read the article.
 
Sure it was. It's the Republicans behind it. You said so yourself.

No, I said that his platoon reached out to a Republican strategist. Or rather, that is what has been reported.
 
Back
Top Bottom