It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The law that Obama broke

page: 13
63
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Wow people are really trying to pin this on Hagel ?

Well that wasn't Hagel doing a 'victory' lap in the White House rose garden.

That was our 'commander' in chief.




posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Wow people are really trying to pin this on Hagel ?

Well that wasn't Hagel doing a 'victory' lap in the White House rose garden.

That was our 'commander' in chief.


Yep Neo. This administration is spinning faster than a spider on meth.

That's now the spin of the day, on all the MSM. Hagel made the judgement call to do the swap....Obama only backed him up.

Geeze...I'm dizzy from the daily spinning....


Des



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Big desperation by the Administration.

They really mis-judged this one.

They thought it would be oh-so-easy....but

Dialed another wrong number... [ loud beeps and tones with lots of static and noisy hissing and clicking ]

Hit another dead end embankment on a one way street.

Tried to chop down a tree with the blunt end of an axe.




posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kruphix

Who does the Secretary of Defense take his orders from?

Who?



Right...and with that logic a President can be charged with any wrongdoing committed by any of the thousands that ultimately report to his administration?

Because I imagine the law specified the "Secretary of Defense" for a reason?

This certainly warrants investigation...though I imagine it will be more of a partisan circus than the inquiry it deserves.

Right now, the GOP is likely trying hard to figure out how to blame Hillary Clinton for this


My bottom line is...No man left Behind...I don't give a crap about his state of mind etc. He was there under our flag, he is ours..warts and all..and if we have a chance to bring one of ours home, we do. End of story.

On the trade...for effs sake...The right refuses to allow the President to close Guantanamo, then screams about how it is still open, then throws a fit when a few guys are released. Make up your mind. Scary charges were trumped up by CIA Black Ops on these guys to justify their indefinite detention. These guys are not "Dr. Evil"...they are backwoods Muslims who have spent years in a box for doing something very stupid and likely have tracking chips stuffed up their nether regions right now. The world is no more a dangerous place with them released. If they manage to avoid being "disappeared" or droned in the next 12 months, I imagine they will be eager to return to a low profile, simple existence.

And again...I don't care if Bergdahl was chanting Allahu Akbar and waiving an AK-47 when Spec Ops picked him up. War is insanity, we sent him there...we bring him home. Bottom line.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
Wow people are really trying to pin this on Hagel ?

Well that wasn't Hagel doing a 'victory' lap in the White House rose garden.

That was our 'commander' in chief.


And rightly so...

The past few years have seen the right wing abandon almost every principle they claimed to stand for.

From "No man left behind"...to eff em, who cares.

If this was a GOP potus, the right wing would be cheering Bergdahl's return and chanting shame to anyone that questioned the virtue of the trade.

The USA places a greater value on the life of our Military than the rest of the world.

Hell, Israel traded 1,000 Palestinian militants for ONE Israeli soldier in 2011.

I really don't care about the manufactured outrage on the right. Our government did the right thing. No man left behind.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




The past few years have seen the right wing abandon almost every principle they claimed to stand for.


That was GD hilarious really!

The same can be said for their opposite's.

But then again neither LEFT or RIGHT is the topic here.

Obama broke the law, enter some people who don't really want to discuss it.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: neo96
Wow people are really trying to pin this on Hagel ?

Well that wasn't Hagel doing a 'victory' lap in the White House rose garden.

That was our 'commander' in chief.


And rightly so...

The past few years have seen the right wing abandon almost every principle they claimed to stand for.

From "No man left behind"...to eff em, who cares.

If this was a GOP potus, the right wing would be cheering Bergdahl's return and chanting shame to anyone that questioned the virtue of the trade.

The USA places a greater value on the life of our Military than the rest of the world.

Hell, Israel traded 1,000 Palestinian militants for ONE Israeli soldier in 2011.

I really don't care about the manufactured outrage on the right. Our government did the right thing. No man left behind.


You are really "Effing" hilarious.

"No man left behind." assumes that he didn't want to be where he was......that he was captured while performing his duties like other military personnel.

When you walk from your post, commit desertion, and actively seek out the very people you are suppose to be engaging, and instead, start helping them?

THAT is NOT "leave no man behind".

Do you "Effing" understand THAT?

This is also NOT a "right wing" thing.

Take a look at the members of the "left wing" that are just as pissed off about this as the "right wing"

But go ahead, trying to make this into something that it isn't.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

Obama broke the law, enter some people who don't really want to discuss it.


I missed that part...would you like to explain? Or has Obama hate once again effected reading comprehension?


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.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   
As with most things in the United States of America, the powers, authority and origins for both are very clearly and very carefully spelled out in law which anyone can read. It opens with these first two parts.


(a) There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.

(b) The Secretary is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject to the direction of the President and to this title and section 2 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401), [1] he has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.
Source: Cornell Law - Secretary Of Defense



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: eriktheawful

"No man left behind." assumes that he didn't want to be where he was......that he was captured while performing his duties like other military personnel.

When you walk from your post, commit desertion, and actively seek out the very people you are suppose to be engaging, and instead, start helping them?


Oh...I wasn't aware that the Military has finished it's investigation? Please send me the link where that report was issued. Until then you are talking crap about a returning prisoner of war....Classy..
edit on 10-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
What's that saying??? "Laws were made to be broken"? What president hasn't broken the law? What president hasn't had it's share of impeachments? Anyone remember what Pelosi said, regarding Bush's "impeachment"? Come on.

*******Make note********
The next POTUS will make the same promises.
The next POTUS will do worse than his predecessor.
The next POTUS will have the people screaming: "impeach".

Same game. Different players.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Yes rabbit...No one is disputing that the Secretary of Defense (A position one of my recent ancestors once held BTW) is appointed by the President with the Senates consent and reports to the President.

The question is, if the Secretary of Defense has a fling with his assistant, is the President guilty of infidelity?

The law is clear and precisely worded. It does not require the President to notify congress, it requires secretary Hagel to. Any inquiry, investigation, deliberations on whether the law was violated and what should be done about it, should logically begin with the person that is legally responsible. Only in the partisan bubble would that translate to "Obama broke the law"...It's a leap motivated by partisanship and not unusual in this climate of where if anyone in the Whitehouse passes gas...Obama is guilty of using Nerve gas!!!

I am not saying questions should not be asked...but as always shouting the "answers" you want, before asking the question just seems desperate and the usual nonsense.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Indigo...You would compare releasing 5 enemy combatants commanders to get back a deserter with the Secretary of Defense having an office fling??

What the law states is that the SecDef (as with all Cabinet members) operate under and BY the direct authority of the President. They operate IN his name, being chosen directly by him and reporting directly TO him. He is their DIRECT boss and they are HIS direct subordinates in the unified chain of command which President Obama heads by statute.

It means the buck slaps Hagel in the face on the way past, but it stops on the big desk in the Oval Office. Period. Full Stop and by the very law itself. This one, only ONE man owns. One man alone.

If he didn't know everything about it, then I absolutely want him investigated for impeachment on pure dereliction of duty and there is no nicer way of touching it to even begin to think it was done without Obama's FULL knowledge and direct involvement. It's his JOB.

The Presidency isn't a symbolic position. It's a *WORKING* Office, despite how often some spend out giving speeches and taking airtime on news broadcasts. This is the work the President is expected to do, and he screwed the pooch real badly on this one.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

LOL I love it.

So one day the Sec Def decided to trade 5 terrorists for 1 deserter.

All by his lonesome!

THAT IS WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO SAY.

And they are EPICALLY failing.

ETA:

Obama Makes No Apologies for Bergdahl Release
edit on 10-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Alas Rabbit...This thread skipped Hagel all-together in the rush to "Impeach Obama"..

No doubt there is a little "the boy who cried wolf" going on. My advice to those genuinely concerned about this is to treat it as if there is no (D) or (R) involved. Start with Hagel, ask intelligent and rational questions, and don't politicize it. Screaming "Obama broke the law"...well the right wing has made that a tired headline.

What we will get though is Issa and his infamous "hearings".

All that said...I am 99% certain I know how this went down. The trade discussions were ongoing, Hagel and the Pres. and everyone involved knew if they notified Congress, it would be a month of GOP on CNN playing it up as Pres. Obama soft on terrorists etc. Bergdahl likely would have his head chopped off and the video posted on the internet.

So they made the call knowing full well that this would hit the fan. See...at the end of the day, if it was my son being held captive I would want someone to bring him home and the POTUS, Hagel et al. had the chance to do that...the only thing stopping them was political fallout and risking their butts legally....and they STILL went ahead and did it. It's actually a small miracle to see career politicians not prioritizing themselves, their careers, over the life of an American soldier.

They took the risk when they made the call. Whatever the law..It was the right thing to do...and that's pretty rare in DC.

Anyone wants to try and take down an American President for bringing a POW home...well that is a losing tactic IMO, but go ahead and have at it.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Announced on the news today. Hagel will go before a special committee tomorrow, to answer IF he was the sole reason for the trade.

It will be interesting to see him testify from under the bus...




The House Committee on Armed Services on Wednesday will question Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on why the Obama administration failed to obey a new law requiring the White House to notify Congress 30 days before releasing any Guantanamo Bay terrorists.

The hearing is expected to be contentious in examining last weekend’s swap of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban leaders held at the prison.

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...



Des

edit on 10-6-2014 by Destinyone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




All that said...I am 99% certain I know how this went down. The trade discussions were ongoing, Hagel and the Pres. and everyone involved knew if they notified Congress, it would be a month of GOP on CNN playing it up as Pres. Obama soft on terrorists etc. Bergdahl likely would have his head chopped off and the video posted on the internet.


Right about one thing.

The release was POLITICAL.

And it had EXACTLY jacksnip to do with the 'freedom' or 'well being' of Bergdhal.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   
WHAT A SHAM!



Congress not among top 90 to learn of Bergdahl trade Read more at www.wnd.com...




Members of Congress on Monday learned they were not among the top 90 people to be told of the deal President Obama cut with terrorists for the release of five top Taliban commanders at Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a U.S. soldier. Read more at www.wnd.com...


The 'rationale' behind not telling congress is they would so call 'leak' it.

But hell tell 90 in his 'YES MEN' administration ! ! !

THE REASON OBAMA didn't tell congress is because they would have said, 'OH HELL NO YOU DON'T'.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Destinyone
a reply to: Indigo5

Announced on the news today. Hagel will go before a special committee tomorrow, to answer IF he was the sole reason for the trade.

It will be interesting to see him testify from under the bus...




Difficult to predict...

Congress was notified that negotiations were taking place involving Guantanamo prisoners, but not notified of the actual decision to release...will Hagel try and split those hairs?

Second, Hagel is stand-up...that means in his moral compass he has two competing motivations (1) to tell the truth (2) to not pass the buck to the POTUS. He might end up refusing to answer some questions. We will see where this leads.

Hagel served as a GOP Senator for over a decade, is also a Viet Nam vet with two purple hearts. Nobody in DC has any interest in hanging Hagle for this. He has fans on both sides of the aisle. But if they want to get to Pres. Obama they need to go through him...so the hearing can go either way...softball questions for the cameras...or all out attack, depending on what is going on behind the scenes right now.



posted on Jun, 10 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
WHAT A SHAM!




You crack me up
Yes, of course Congress can be trusted not to leak it! They wouldn't play politics with an American Soldiers life on the line? Would they?



new topics

top topics



 
63
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join