- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: George W. Bush released 520 prisoners from Guantanamo bay
Posted on 6/6/14 at 1:13 am to Choctaw
Posted on 6/6/14 at 1:13 am to Choctaw
quote:What F'n "point"??? You asked about the 30 day notification.
my point still stands.
and its not like Obama is the first President to ever have to deal with this. but now, all of sudden, 30 days to notify Congress is just unreasonable.
What other President had a 30 day requirement?!?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 2:08 am to mmcgrath
quote:Or Obama could have told Congress at any time we are negotiating for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, and we are considering exchanging one, or more, detainees for him at any time in the last 3 years they were negotiating with the Taliban. If the opportunity arises to get Sgt. Bergdahl back, we will likely jump on it, but we may not be able to wait 30 days from an agreement to complete the exchange.
So after 3 years of negotiating for a prisoner's release, the Taliban finally agree to terms. Then we have to say "OK, but hold on for 30 days, OK? We have to send notice to Congress. In the meantime I guess we will have to hope that no one leaks this trade in the meantime..."
There was more than one way to comply with the law if Obama had any respect for the spirit of the law, and I doubt Congress would have objected if the possible exigent circumstances were disclosed.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:12 am to mmcgrath
quote:
What other President had a 30 day requirement?!?
Did they just pass this law recently?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:28 am to Poodlebrain
quote:
I doubt Congress would have objected if the possible exigent circumstances were disclosed.
According to several senators on both sides of the aisle, they probably would have objected because of WHO the Taliban wanted released. They said those names have come up before and been categorically denied release.
It isn't often that you get solidarity on any issue on Capitol Hill these days. The fact that they all say they would have denied release for those guys ought to tell you something.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 7:32 am to Poodlebrain
quote:I believe that it has been well known that we have been negotiating for his release. Whether detainees came up, I do not know.
Or Obama could have told Congress at any time we are negotiating for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, and we are considering exchanging one, or more, detainees for him at any time in the last 3 years they were negotiating with the Taliban. If the opportunity arises to get Sgt. Bergdahl back, we will likely jump on it, but we may not be able to wait 30 days from an agreement to complete the exchange.
There was more than one way to comply with the law if Obama had any respect for the spirit of the law, and I doubt Congress would have objected if the possible exigent circumstances were disclosed.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 10:01 am to Poodlebrain
quote:Thanks to LSUGrrrl we have this link: LINK
Or Obama could have told Congress at any time we are negotiating for the release of Sgt. Bergdahl, and we are considering exchanging one, or more, detainees for him at any time in the last 3 years they were negotiating with the Taliban. If the opportunity arises to get Sgt. Bergdahl back, we will likely jump on it, but we may not be able to wait 30 days from an agreement to complete the exchange.
There was more than one way to comply with the law if Obama had any respect for the spirit of the law, and I doubt Congress would have objected if the possible exigent circumstances were disclosed.
quote:
“I don’t know what he means by consulted Congress for some time,” Rogers said in response to Obama’s comments. “In 2011, they did come up and present a plan that included a prisoner transfer that was, in a bipartisan way, pushed back. We hadn’t heard anything since on any details of any prisoner exchange.”
Wouldn't that be notice? I don't know if approval is a part of the law.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 10:03 am to mmcgrath
quote:Are you referring to the legislation Odrama signed?
What other President had a 30 day requirement?!?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 10:12 am to Jbird
quote:Yes and that Choctaw had referred to other presidents dealing with the same conditions. I know that the law is only a year or so old. But I decided to stop feeding the troll.
Are you referring to the legislation Odrama signed?
Posted on 6/6/14 at 10:19 am to mmcgrath
i apologize...i did not realize that law had been recently passed. i can admit when i'm wrong.
although i do find it funny that Obama signed off on it and then quickly bypassed it.
although i do find it funny that Obama signed off on it and then quickly bypassed it.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 10:28 am to Choctaw
quote:Accepted then. I thought that was widely known. He did write a signing statement on it that said it was unconstitutional. I am guessing that it was part of a larger bill for him to sign it at all. Or maybe he has to sign it in order to add the signing statement as opposed to having a veto overridden.
i apologize...i did not realize that law had been recently passed. i can admit when i'm wrong.
although i do find it funny that Obama signed off on it and then quickly bypassed it.
I find the whole signing statement thing to be kinduv strange.
Posted on 6/6/14 at 10:37 am to mmcgrath
quote:
I find the whole signing statement thing to be kinduv strange.
I do too. Apart from the shitty deal being made, the way it was made is strange. But what is Congress gonna do about it? Not a damn thing.
If the republicans are smart, they focus on the deal itself and not the process.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News