ShareThis Page
Lawless Obama: The Bergdahl swap |

Lawless Obama: The Bergdahl swap

| Tuesday, December 15, 2015 9:00 p.m

Now that five high-ranking Taliban thugs are long gone from Guantanamo Bay, exchanged for an alleged Army deserter, a yearlong House investigation documents the obvious: The Obama administration broke the law in the swap.

Don’t hold your breath for any penalty following findings by the House Armed Services Committee. Team Obama says it simply did its duty to ensure that no U.S. service member would be left behind.

But empty posturing aside, the law is clear: The administration is required to give Congress 30 days’ notice of any detainee transfers from Gitmo, The Hill newspaper reported. Congress was notified just hours before the May 2014 transfer for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. He left his base in Afghanistan in 2009, was captured and now faces a court-martial and a possible life sentence for desertion.

The freed Taliban Five were listed as ineligible for transfer. Defense officials who handle such transfers were kept out of the loop. The Obama administration insists it saw a “unique opportunity” and seized it.

“It is irresponsible to put these terrorists that much closer to the battlefield to settle a campaign promise (to empty Gitmo),” says committee chairman Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas.

So, the same apologists who defend the release of the worst radical Islamists are now going to crush ISIS? And the Tooth Fairy shimmies down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.