Barack Obama Broke Laws To Swap Five Taliban Leaders For Bowe Bergdahl

[easyt65]

Your opinion is incorrect. The president, in times of war, is cloaked with immense power. The only limit Congress has on the pres is overriding a veto and impeachment and withholding funds.

I am sure you will have no problem giving me a link, pointing to the direct spot in the Constitution where is spells out the President's ability to ignore the Constitution that covers the lying to Americans and releasing the top 5 worse terrorists being held in US custody, by-passing Congress to do so.

I am sure you will have no problem spelling out exactly where in the Constitution it also states that Obama can violate the War Powers Act, which he did, in regards to taking the country to war to help Libya take over their own country.

The FACT is Obama KNEW there was no way in hell Congress would give him the authority to take the country to war to help Al Qaeida - the perpetrators of 9/11/01. There was no immediate threat that would force his hand, to make the decision on his own. He KNEW he would never be able to sell the idea...so he did it.

The FACT is Obama KNEW there was no way in hell Congress was going to agree to let the worst terrorists in Gitmo, the top 5 Taliban commanders, out of Gitmo...just to keep his dumbass promise to empty Gitmo, a promise only Liberal extremists wanted to see fulfilled. KNOWING this he intentionally violated the Separation of Powers.

You can defend him all you want, but deep down I think even YOU realize this is the case.

 

[Freewill]

... because there is no evidence that the Commander in Chief is limited by Congress in authorizing prisoner trades. He runs the war; Congress merely funds it.

As pointed out in the article, the WH - OBAMA - was required by law to notify Congress of the swap 30 days prior to the event (which AGAIN was NOT a 'swap'). Also, again in the article, the GAO pointed out that funds were used ILLEGALLY.

Simply saying, 'I disagree with you and say I did not break the law', which is what Obama did, does not negate the law.

So what. The CiC in times of war has powers that are not limited by Congressional action. You can say he broke the law, and so what.

What declared war are we in jake?

 

[JakeStarkey]

... because there is no evidence that the Commander in Chief is limited by Congress in authorizing prisoner trades. He runs the war; Congress merely funds it.

As pointed out in the article, the WH - OBAMA - was required by law to notify Congress of the swap 30 days prior to the event (which AGAIN was NOT a 'swap'). Also, again in the article, the GAO pointed out that funds were used ILLEGALLY.

Simply saying, 'I disagree with you and say I did not break the law', which is what Obama did, does not negate the law.

So what. The CiC in times of war has powers that are not limited by Congressional action. You can say he broke the law, and so what.

What declared war are we in jake?

If your argument is that a president does not have war powers under an Authorization of Force Resolution, make it and then ask your question. Since the OP is that the pres broke the law, the affirmation is your duty to make.

 

[easyt65]

If your argument is that a president does not have war powers under an Authorization of Force Resolution, make it and then ask your question. Since the OP is that the pres broke the law, the affirmation is your duty to make.

It sounded like you said that 'in times of war' a President can do pretty much whatever the hell he wants and Congress can not limit his powers to do so. I just pointed out that it is the Constitution that defines a President's limits. I also pointed out that Obama violated the constitution / Law, as spelled out in the article, by releasing 5 US Enemy Combatants / Terrorists without notifying Congress as he was required to do and mis-used funds to do so.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If your argument is that a president does not have war powers under an Authorization of Force Resolution, make it and then ask your question. Since the OP is that the pres broke the law, the affirmation is your duty to make.

It sounded like you said that 'in times of war' a President can do pretty much whatever the hell he wants and Congress can not limit his powers to do so. I just pointed out that it is the Constitution that defines a President's limits. I also pointed out that Obama violated the constitution / Law, as spelled out in the article, by releasing 5 US Enemy Combatants / Terrorists without notifying Congress as he was required to do and mis-used funds to do so.

Obama did not violate the law or the Constitution. During time of war, he is the Commander in Chief, and he is cloaked with immense power. So he makes the decisions. Congress can pass all the laws and resolutions it wants but so what,.

 

[easyt65]

Obama did not violate the law or the Constitution. During time of war, he is the Commander in Chief, and he is cloaked with immense power. So he makes the decisions. Congress can pass all the laws and resolutions it wants but so what,.

You keep saying that - declaring your opinion to be the law...but it's NOT.

Not only have you NOT pointed out in the Constitution the exact passage that allows the President to release Enemy Combatants / Terrorists and by-passing Congress by violating the law that required him to notify Congress or pointed out in the Constitution the exact passage that allows the President to mis-use DoD funds to affect that release, the GAO has already provided / explained in the law how he CAN NOT do so!

So forgive me if I put my trust into a bi-partisan existing office within the Federal Government whose job it is to KNOW the Constitution and Law over your opinion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama did not violate the law or the Constitution. During time of war, he is the Commander in Chief, and he is cloaked with immense power. So he makes the decisions. Congress can pass all the laws and resolutions it wants but so what,.

You keep saying that - declaring your opinion to be the law...but it's NOT.

Not only have you NOT pointed out in the Constitution the exact passage that allows the President to release Enemy Combatants / Terrorists and by-passing Congress by violating the law that required him to notify Congress or pointed out in the Constitution the exact passage that allows the President to mis-use DoD funds to affect that release, the GAO has already provided / explained in the law how he CAN NOT do so!

So forgive me if I put my trust into a bi-partisan existing office within the Federal Government whose job it is to KNOW the Constitution and Law over your opinion.

I don't have to rebut your opinion. The GOP House dominated committee made that determination according to Breitbart. Nothing bi-partisan about it. Congress does not rule on what is constitutional.

 

[easyt65]

Congress does not rule on what is constitutional.

No the Constitution says what the Constitution says....neither Congress 's or your opinion matters.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Congress does not rule on what is constitutional.

No the Constitution says what the Constitution says....neither Congress 's or your opinion matters.

On the Constitution, only SCOTUS matters, not your opinion.

 

[easyt65]

On the Constitution, only SCOTUS matters, not your opinion.

So far the SCOTUS has not weighed in on this, but the GAO - whose business it is - has pointed out that OBAMA BROKE THE LAW.

 

[Uncensored2008]

 

[JakeStarkey]

On the Constitution, only SCOTUS matters, not your opinion.

So far the SCOTUS has not weighed in on this, but the GAO - whose business it is - has pointed out that OBAMA BROKE THE LAW.

It is your opinion that is what the GAO actually said. I disagree with you.

 

[easyt65]

It is your opinion that is what the GAO actually said. I disagree with you.

NO, dumbass, it is NOT my opinion that the GAO said that. It is the stated FACT that the GAO said that, as reported in the article whose link I posted earlier. It is your decision NOT to accept the fact that the GAO pointed this out.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It is your opinion that is what the GAO actually said. I disagree with you.

NO, dumbass, it is NOT my opinion that the GAO said that. It is the stated FACT that the GAO said that, as reported in the article whose link I posted earlier. It is your decision NOT to accept the fact that the GAO pointed this out.

No, it is your opinion that is what the GAO meant when the report was released, but in fact it was not.

 

[Timmy]

The law doesn't say he can't swap prisoners . The law is specific about moving people from GITMO. That's what needs to be told to congress .

 

[Freewill]

... because there is no evidence that the Commander in Chief is limited by Congress in authorizing prisoner trades. He runs the war; Congress merely funds it.

As pointed out in the article, the WH - OBAMA - was required by law to notify Congress of the swap 30 days prior to the event (which AGAIN was NOT a 'swap'). Also, again in the article, the GAO pointed out that funds were used ILLEGALLY.

Simply saying, 'I disagree with you and say I did not break the law', which is what Obama did, does not negate the law.

So what. The CiC in times of war has powers that are not limited by Congressional action. You can say he broke the law, and so what.

What declared war are we in jake?

If your argument is that a president does not have war powers under an Authorization of Force Resolution, make it and then ask your question. Since the OP is that the pres broke the law, the affirmation is your duty to make.

Nope, jake you said in time of war, define time of war and when it was declared.

 

[JakeStarkey]

... because there is no evidence that the Commander in Chief is limited by Congress in authorizing prisoner trades. He runs the war; Congress merely funds it.

As pointed out in the article, the WH - OBAMA - was required by law to notify Congress of the swap 30 days prior to the event (which AGAIN was NOT a 'swap'). Also, again in the article, the GAO pointed out that funds were used ILLEGALLY.

Simply saying, 'I disagree with you and say I did not break the law', which is what Obama did, does not negate the law.

So what. The CiC in times of war has powers that are not limited by Congressional action. You can say he broke the law, and so what.

What declared war are we in jake?

If your argument is that a president does not have war powers under an Authorization of Force Resolution, make it and then ask your question. Since the OP is that the pres broke the law, the affirmation is your duty to make.

Nope, jake you said in time of war, define time of war and when it was declared.

So you believe we are not at war and that Congress has not issued an Authorization of Force Status? Yeah, you have to answer your own question if you want to have any integrity in this thread.

 

[ogibillm]

We don't leave Americans overseas nitwit.

Tell that to the five American hostages in Iran Obama is letting rot in dungeons.

There are no hostages in iran. This is an idiotic talking point

 

[Weatherman2020]

We don't leave Americans overseas nitwit.

Tell that to the five American hostages in Iran Obama is letting rot in dungeons.

There are no hostages in iran. This is an idiotic talking point

Clueless Islamoapologist.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't leave Americans overseas nitwit.

Tell that to the five American hostages in Iran Obama is letting rot in dungeons.

There are no hostages in iran. This is an idiotic talking point

Clueless Islamoapologist.

You fool, there are no American hostages in Iran.