or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama's Unravelling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's Unravelling - Page 12

post #166 of 560
Apparently the apple doesn't fall far from the tree:



http://allenbwest.com/2014/06/bergdahls-fathers-deleted-tweet-smoking-gun/#8qiUef7AU6p1lfCZ.99

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/06/02/the-curious-case-of-bob-bergdahls-apparent-tweet-to-the-taliban/?tid=pm_pop
post #167 of 560
If Obama had a son.....
post #168 of 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

So Obama illegally traded five high-level Taliban for an American deserter.
.

Setting aside the question of the wisdom of making the trade, what is supposedly illegal about doing it?
post #169 of 560
For starters, there's the law that requires the president to give 30 days' notice when he's releasing someone from Gitmo. The one Obama signed...

I don't know whether that law is even constitutional (I tend to think it's not), but Obama's position apparently is that it is, except in "exigent circumstances." And the exigent circumstances here seem to be bullshit.

As far as releasing five war criminals for one deserter, I think he could be and should be impeached for it. But that'll never happen, unfortunately.
post #170 of 560
I heard some more about this on the way home today. Even Feinstein is calling him out for it.

Congress won't actually do anything, of course. Limitations on President power seem to be out of vogue in my lifetime.

Quote:
As far as releasing five war criminals for one deserter, I think he could be and should be impeached for it. But that'll never happen, unfortunately.

Outside of the issue of that particular law, the President is allowed to make stupid wartime ("wartime") decisions, yes? It's a POW swap, albeit a heavily weighted one. Seems like the kind of thing the President gets leeway over and outside the scope of "high crimes and misdemeanors." I think we can assume that he's not conspiring with the Taliban against the interests of the US.



Well, all of us except meister could assume that.
post #171 of 560
Tough trade to justify.



Who is the GM at the White House?
post #172 of 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

I heard some more about this on the way home today. Even Feinstein is calling him out for it.

Congress won't actually do anything, of course. Limitations on President power seem to be out of vogue in my lifetime.
Outside of the issue of that particular law, the President is allowed to make stupid wartime ("wartime") decisions, yes? It's a POW swap, albeit a heavily weighted one. Seems like the kind of thing the President gets leeway over and outside the scope of "high crimes and misdemeanors." I think we can assume that he's not conspiring with the Taliban against the interests of the US.

Impeachment is what courts call a "political question," meaning that Congress can do whatever it wants. Clinton was obviously guilty of perjury and he wasn't thrown out because Democrats just decided they weren't going to do it. It's not far from that to decide Obama's guilty of "criminal stupidity" and vote him off the island, or preferably to an island...

And I say that setting aside the quasi-law-enforcement nature of our adventure in Afghanistan. I doubt it would be hard to frame releasing war criminals as a crime itself.
post #173 of 560
post #174 of 560
I lol'd.
post #175 of 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Tough trade to justify.



Who is the GM at the White House?


rotflmao.gif
post #176 of 560
Doesn't this whole event legitimize the Taliban as an army of sorts? Does this now place certain CIA type tactics as even more questionable than before?

I understood that the Taliban had a embassy in Qatar(I think it was there) but I was under the belief that it was symbolic at best. It's funny that Cuba seems to have a worse relationship with the US than the Taliban, Bama FTW?
post #177 of 560
Didn't Obama solve all questions concerning the law by writing what he thought it should say in his signing statement? Are not the contents of signing statements now an automatic accretion of power to the executive branch?
post #178 of 560
I don't believe one can use reductio ad absurdum against the Obama administration.

What comes after absurdity?
post #179 of 560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

I don't believe one can use reductio ad absurdum against the Obama administration.

What comes after absurdity?

You can't fool me, it's tortoises all the way down.
post #180 of 560
AP Exclusive: Western couple held in Afghanistan

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-western-couple-held-afghanistan-171124057--politics.html

Wonder what the White House response will be now that this comes to light again...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Obama's Unravelling