Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Greenwald uses Bergdahl to hit Obama, Democrats [View all]frazzled
(18,402 posts)74. Greenwald does not understand the law
(which is perhaps why he's no longer practicing it).
Obama has not had access to the ability to transfer prisoners until very recently, when the new National Defense Authorization Act passed late last year (so it's only 6 months old) gave him the ability to do so.
Under the National Defense Authorization Act signed into law by Obama late last year, the administration gained some added flexibility in transferring detainees from Guantanamo Bay, but was required to notify Congress 30 days in advance. However, legislators had no power to block such a transfer.
Writing about the law last year, Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution said it put the administration "in a position to move detainees out of Guantanamo as long as it is willing to be politically accountable for the problems they create and as long as they don't bring them to the United States."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/politics/bergdahl-swap-legality/
Writing about the law last year, Benjamin Wittes of the Brookings Institution said it put the administration "in a position to move detainees out of Guantanamo as long as it is willing to be politically accountable for the problems they create and as long as they don't bring them to the United States."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/03/politics/bergdahl-swap-legality/
So here's the deal: NO, Glenn, Obama could not have done this during the first 5 years of his presidency. Now he has the ability to transfer prisoners out of Guantanamo to a foreign country, AT HIS OWN DISCRETION, and Congress can't stop him from doing so. All the law requires is that he write them a letter and tell them he's going to do it 30 days in advance. Oops, he didn't do that last part. What he was able to do this week he would NOT have been able to do for all these past years.
There is no conflict, no conundrum, and no hypocrisy involved in the pre-Bergdahl and post-Bergdahl positions. The law was changed.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
161 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The Greenwaldistas think Berghdal's release is a "distraction" from NSA. The flipside of that
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2014
#9
These Greenwald threads confuse me, I assume if you are pro Greenwald you have to be
randys1
Jun 2014
#151
The majority of that data does not specify whether it's domestic or foreign surveillance.
randome
Jun 2014
#37
So? Why are you so upset by criticism of Greenwald that you're hijacking this thread? n/t
ProSense
Jun 2014
#43
they can't stand anything being exposed about their "heroes". All they have is Whine Whine Whine..
Cha
Jun 2014
#121
They take calling GG a jerk as supporting the NSA cause they want people to leave GG ALONE!!!
uponit7771
Jun 2014
#6
They could bring a legitimate charge against him. It looks like he may have broken the letter
msanthrope
Jun 2014
#77
I agree. I'm a bit concerned because I also think those saying he may have broken the law
Number23
Jun 2014
#117
I will hazard a guess and say this is what Pappa Fuck Ron Paul is saying too. n/t
Whisp
Jun 2014
#25
I'm gonna say that's extremely likely. CATO approved talking points are so quaint, aren't they?
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2014
#90
I disagree with Greenwald on this issue, this wasn't a "transfer" or "release"
Uncle Joe
Jun 2014
#36
I wish people would have gotten this upset every time Dubya broke the law in his two terms.
Rex
Jun 2014
#56
Greenwald: April 2006 Media finally starting to report the President's systematic lawbreaking
Luminous Animal
Jun 2014
#65
No And why does that matter.Greenwald has been nothing but consistent. He wrote 3 books slamming
Luminous Animal
Jun 2014
#122
Not talking about Glen, I am talking about people here and in the national spotlight
Rex
Jun 2014
#123
Sure...if we can find countries to take them. That's the number one reason even the cleared
msanthrope
Jun 2014
#84
GG was probably too busy signing mega book & movie deals to notice the new "law".
Tarheel_Dem
Jun 2014
#93
Granting, that which I consider flimsy the statement isn't exactly true as there were no restriction
TheKentuckian
Jun 2014
#150
No word games, I picked two quotes from your post, one from Greenwald and one from you.
A Simple Game
Jun 2014
#92
"...utter nonsense." So those two quotes weren't from your OP. Interesting.
A Simple Game
Jun 2014
#98
Greenwald keeps showing us what he's about. He's all about hating on Obama.
stevenleser
Jun 2014
#85