The law that Obama broke

page: 1
62
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+48 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The relevant section(s) start on page 216
Link

PDF of NDAA 2014

Many threads on different aspects of the Bergdahl trade.

The important point is this. .

Link 2


What the law requires:

Section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 requires the following before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee:

• The Secretary of Defense must determine that the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated and that the transfer is in the national security interests of the United States.

• The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee.

• The Secretary of Defense must provide detailed information regarding the circumstances of the transfer or release along with the notification, including how the risk posed by the detainee will be substantially mitigated, the security arrangements in the receiving country, and an assessment of the capacity, willingness, and past practices of the receiving country.


Now people can argue over the definitions of POW's.
They can fight over Bergdahl's state of mind.
People can even question the reason we're in Afghanistan.

None of that matters as much as Obama, breaking the law.

• The Secretary of Defense must notify the appropriate committees of Congress at least 30 days before the transfer or release of a Guantanamo detainee.



Discuss, ignore, reply, build jetpacks for iguanas. It's up to you all. But in the next few days/weeks this might be a good thread to bookmark.

beez



+12 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.


+11 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.


So, did Obama fire him yet?


+44 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.



So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden?

Oh my goodness!


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.


So, did Obama fire him yet?


Not yet...he may, who knows.

Have any charges been made against him by Congress yet?

The bottom line is that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense, not Obama. The whole thread, and all the manufactured outrage towards Obama is misplaced in this case.


+2 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer


So are you saying that the Secretary of Defense went rogue, did the swap, MADE Obama do a press release in the Rose Garden? Oh my goodness!


No.

I'm saying that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense. Obama is not the Secretary of Defense and so he can't break a law that is applied to the Secretary of Defense.

If you want to talk about how the Sec Def broke a law...be my guest. But Obama didn't break any of the laws you highlighted in your thread...in fact Obama can't break any of those laws because he is not the Sec Def.


+21 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Who does the Secretary of Defense take his orders from?

Who?


+10 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Thank you Mr. Bunny. You have done an excellent job of pointing out which black letter law was violated. That helps a great deal in using that basis as a point to discuss without getting into wild tangents of law as defined by whom, and which law?

Now we know, and indeed, it is clear as crystal.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

Who does the Secretary of Defense take his orders from?

Who?



Doesn't matter. The law applies to the Sec Def, not the President.

Now you can call Obama incompetent or a horrible boss or bad leader or anything you want. But you can't say that Obama broke these laws...because it is impossible for him to do so.


+24 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

You make dancing an art form!

Chuck Hagel (Sec of Defense) takes his orders from Obama.

You clearly don't believe Hagel went rogue, yet you refuse to assign blame to Obama (Hagel's boss).

The White House is taking credit for the "swap". they are not denying it.

Yet you are.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

How can he know what the sec of def did? He probably heard about it on the news....................


+22 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: kruphix
a reply to: beezzer

Doesn't sound like Obama broke any laws at all.

Sounds like the Secretary of Defense did.


So, did Obama fire him yet?



Not yet...he may, who knows.

Have any charges been made against him by Congress yet?

The bottom line is that the law applies to the Secretary of Defense, not Obama. The whole thread, and all the manufactured outrage towards Obama is misplaced in this case.



IF what you are saying is truth and fact...

Then tell me why Obama is lying his ass off covering for the Secretary of Defense. Tell me why he's dragged the parents of Bergdahl to the rose garden to celebrate the Secretary of Defense breaking the law.

Your argument is so thin, it wouldn't cover a pinhole. Your desperation to absolve your king, is pathetic....at best.

Des
edit on 9-6-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)


+1 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

You make dancing an art form!

Chuck Hagel (Sec of Defense) takes his orders from Obama.

You clearly don't believe Hagel went rogue, yet you refuse to assign blame to Obama (Hagel's boss).

The White House is taking credit for the "swap". they are not denying it.

Yet you are.


Go ahead, blame Obama...you just can't charge him with breaking the law.

Unless you can show a part of the NDAA that shows that the PRESIDENT has some responsibility to Congress in regards to this, then Obama hasn't broke any law.

The law everyone keeps talking about is the 30 day notice, that law applies to the Sec Def.

I don't know if I can say it any more simple. The law applies to the Sec Def, Obama is not the Sec Def, thus Obama can't break that law.


+18 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: kruphix

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

Who does the Secretary of Defense take his orders from?

Who?



Doesn't matter. The law applies to the Sec Def, not the President.

Now you can call Obama incompetent or a horrible boss or bad leader or anything you want. But you can't say that Obama broke these laws...because it is impossible for him to do so.


You do understand that the POTUS is the one who directs the Secretary of Defense, yes? POTUS is who gives the Secretary of Defense their marching orders.

Telling someone to do something that breaks the law, is not a defense for helping break said law.

Just try it and see what happens. Tell someone to go rob a bank.

Then, when they are caught, let us see how long it is before LEO are knocking at your door.

Of course you could always claim you were not serious or joking about it....unless of course you sent they guy an email, letter, or memo........

At the very least what you are admitting is that POTUS doesn't have good control of his Secretary of Defense, and is not enforcing the laws like he is suppose to.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: eriktheawful

The only thing I am stating is that Obama didn't break the laws in the OP.

Obama is not the Sec Def, he can not break laws that only apply to the Sec Def. No more than the Secretary of State be accused of breaking these laws.

You can make any other claim about how Obama handled the situation. But you can't say that Obama himself broke these laws.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

You all are missing the point here.

the real question is---Is a Sitting President Subject to Compulsory Criminal Process?

and the answer is a resounding no.


Following is the full text of a hearing of the Constitution, Federalism and Property Right Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee held Wednesday, September 9. The hearing was chaired by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo.) Speakers on the first panel were Jonathan Turley, George Washington Law School, Susuan Low Bloch, Georgetown University Law School, Eric Freedman, Hofstra University School of Law and Akhil Amar, Yale Law School. The second panel consisted of Peter Rient, Gainer Rient & Hottis, Frank Teurkheimer of Madison, Wisconsin, and Douglas Cox of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Click here to read the results of that hearing

As always S&F Beez
edit on 9-6-2014 by HardCorps because: (no reason given)


+4 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Destinyone


IF what you are saying is truth and fact... Then tell me why Obama is lying his ass off covering for the Secretary of Defense. Tell me why he's dragged the parents of Bergdahl to the rose garden to celebrate the Secretary of Defense breaking the law. Your argument is so thin, it wouldn't cover a pinhole. Your desperation to absolve your king, is pathetic....at best. Des


Well, that is a lot of nonsense.

But, I will tell you this.

Congress will never act on this and actually charge anyone of breaking the law. Why? Because Chuck Hagel, the Secretary of Defense, is a Republican. And the House is not going to make a spectacle of eating one of their own.

But they will lie their own asses off claiming that Obama broke this law to get you and others outraged at another manufactured outrage.

Answer me this...if Obama truly did break this law...why isn't the Republican controlled house doing anything about it?


+18 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

In Article 2, Section 3 of the US Constitution it states. . .


Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.


www.law.cornell.edu...

he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed

So not only did he break the law, he violated the US Constitution.


+3 more 
posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Again, he can't break a law that doesn't apply to him.

And you are really stretching now just fishing for something since your original argument is now flat on it's face.

The President can't break a law that applies to the Secretary of Defense...period.



posted on Jun, 9 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: HardCorps

In that case then. We have to find the smoking gun of Obama, as Commander and Chief, ordering the Secretary of Defense to NOT inform Congress, and slap his kingly ass with collusion to break the law.

We all know, Obama is the top of the mountain when it comes to decisions of this nature. As they say...crap rolls downhill.

Des





new topics
top topics
 
62
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join