Author Topic: Law Professor Jonathan Turley: ‘I Don’t Think There’s Much Debate’ That Obama Broke Law With Prisoner Swap  (Read 136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 242,447

Law Professor Jonathan Turley: ‘I Don’t Think There’s Much Debate’ That Obama Broke Law With Prisoner Swap
Posted By Brendan Bordelon On 2:52 PM 06/02/2014

George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said Monday that he doesn’t believe there’s much debate over whether the White House broke the law by releasing five high-ranking Taliban prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without congressional notification — noting that not even the White House is seriously arguing that it is not violating federal law.

Turley spoke with CNN anchor Carol Costello on Monday about the weekend prisoner swap, which saw Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl released from Taliban custody in exchange for five top-ranking Taliban officials held at Gitmo. Republicans in Congress have already accused the White House of ignoring a law requiring a 30-day notification before any prisoners are transferred from the high-security Caribbean prison, and have promised to hold hearings on the issue.

“Did the White House violate federal law?” Costello asked Turley.

“They did,” the professor replied matter-of-factly. “I don’t think that the White House is seriously arguing that they’re not violating federal law. And to make matters worse, this is a long series of violations of federal law that the president’s been accused of. … This is going to add to that pile. I don’t think there’s much debate that they’re in violation of the law.”

Turley explained that President Obama “is essentially arguing the very same principle as George Bush, that when it comes to Gitmo, he has almost absolute power, that it’s his prerogative, his inherent authority, to be able to make these decisions as he sees fit.”

“Well, does it matter?” Costello asked. “Because the administration says that the Department of Defense consulted with the Justice Department, and that was enough. Does that matter?”

“Well, unfortunately the Justice Department has been involved in many of these controversies, and they tend to support federal power,” Turley replied. “The federal law seems quite clear.”

“And the fact that you have negotiations that have gone on for years really undermines the argument that this was a matter where time was of the essence,” he added, attacking the White House line that Bergdahl’s health was at stake. “Clearly you have committees with classified proceedings, people who have been cleared for this information that could have been consulted. And this really is the reason they enacted the law.”

Support the USO
#NeverHillary  Not#NeverTrump

Offline Oceander

  • Technical
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 40,996
  • SMOD 2016
yeah, but they got a US serviceman home.  does anyone in their right mind think that republicans are going to get anything but derision if they take the position that this guy shouldn't have been rescued because it was illegal to do it the way it was done?

That's a nonstarter.

The emphasis needs to be on what the five who were released are going to do.  they released 5 biggies - really bad dudes who were classified at the highest risk level of returning to terrorism; surely they still have a bunch of less risky people still being held, couldn't they have exchanged a few of them instead?

That's what needs to be hammered on:  that once again the Obama (mal)administration has proven just how dangerously incompetent it is because not only did it swap 5 for 1, it swapped 5 of the most dangerous for 1; that's the same sort of incompetent negotiating that we're seeing with the Iran nuclear "talks".

By attacking Obama for dangerous incompetence on this because they let 5 really bad guys go when there were some less dangerous guys they could have swapped instead, the focus is on Obama's incompetence, not on the fact that we got a US serviceman back because of the swap.

Optics matter, folks, and unfortunately the republicans seem to be terminally myopic.
I won't vote for Clinton, but I cannot vote for Trump.  How could I explain to my daughter why I supported a man who sees her as nothing more than a piece of meat, a piece of a$$ for him to grope for his own private pleasure.

"Trump supporter" - the very definition of an SFI

Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo