Greenwald uses Bergdahl to hit Obama, Democrats

[ProSense]

Greenwald:

<...>

The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?

<...>

Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/06/03/excuse-remains-obamas-failure-close-gitmo/

Greenwald's sole purpose for focusing on this event is to take a hit at President Obama and Democrats.

The question is why is he making the case that either Obama can release them all or he broke the law?

Notice he jumps on the BS about the Congressional notification?

It seems that Greenwald is implying that since the President hasn't released the others, then the current release is illegal.

He ignores that this has been an ongoing political battle, and that Obama has taken numerous steps to move closer to closing the prison and also releasing detainees where possible. It's not just Democrats who recognize that Congress has been an obstacle.

The ACLU is a good source.

ACLU Statement on President's Guantánamo Comments

NEW YORK – At a press briefing today, President Obama restated his belief that the prison at Guantánamo should be closed. Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, responded to the president's comments by detailing immediate actions the president could take.

"We welcome the president's continuing commitment to closing Guantánamo and putting an end to the indefinite detention regime there," Romero said. "There are two things the president should do. One is to appoint a senior point person so that the administration's Guantánamo closure policy is directed by the White House and not by Pentagon bureaucrats. The president can also order the secretary of defense to start certifying for transfer detainees who have been cleared, which is more than half the Guantánamo population."

"There's more to be done, but these are the two essential first steps the president can take now to break the Guantánamo logjam," Romero said. "We couldn't agree more with President Obama's statement that the 'idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried – that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.'"

http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform-human-rights-national-security-prisoners-rights/aclu-statement-presidents

ACLU Comment on Appointment of Envoy to Close Guantánamo

WASHINGTON – President Obama today appointed lawyer Clifford Sloan as the State Department's special envoy in charge of closing the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

"The appointment of a new envoy at the State Department for closing Guantánamo puts in place one of the last pieces of the puzzle for getting the prison closed," said Laura Murphy, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. "The president now has ordered the restart of transfers out of Guantánamo, lifted the moratorium on transfers to Yemen, and appointed top officials at the White House and State Department to get it done. Once President Obama makes the necessary appointment at the Pentagon to begin transferring detainees out of Guantánamo, he should immediately begin doing so. With more than half of the detainees already cleared for transfer or release, and dozens more being held without ever being charged or tried, it's time to start sending these men home."

http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-appointment-envoy-close-guantanamo

ACLU Comment on Appointment of Envoy to Close Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel today appointed Paul Lewis as the special envoy for closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. In his new position, Lewis will work with the State Department on transferring detainees out of the prison to other countries.

Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office, had this comment:

"The American Civil Liberties Union is pleased that Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has filled the important position of Defense Department envoy for closing the Guantanamo detention facility. We had been concerned about the lengthy delay in filling this critical job that the president ordered created as part of his National Defense University speech in May,” said Anders. “Paul Lewis has three decades of experience working on national security and rule of law issues at the highest levels of government. In his new position, he will play a critical role in carrying out the president’s commitment to close Guantanamo for good."

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-comment-appointment-envoy-close-guantanamo-bay-detention-facility

Senate Eases Transfer Restrictions for Guantánamo Detainees

WASHINGTON – The Senate late last night passed the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014, which will ease transfer restrictions for detainees currently held at the military detention camp at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, most of whom have been held without charge or trial for over a decade. The bill, which passed the House of Representatives last week, cleared the Senate by a vote of 84-15. The improved transfer provisions were sponsored by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin and were strongly supported by the White House and the Defense Department.

"This is a big step forward for meeting the goal of closing Guantánamo and ending indefinite detention. For the first time ever, Congress is making it easier, rather than harder, for the Defense Department to close Guantánamo – and this win only happened because the White House and Defense Secretary worked hand in hand with the leadership of the congressional committees," said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel at the ACLU’s Washington Legislative Office. "After years of a blame-game between Congress and the White House, both worked together to clear away obstacles to transferring out of Guantánamo the vast majority of detainees who have never been charged with a crime."

The current population at Guantánamo stands at 158 detainees, approximately half of whom were cleared for transfer to their home or third-party countries by U.S. national security officials four years ago. Also, periodic review boards have recently started reviews of detainees who have not been charged with a crime and had not been cleared in the earlier reviews. While the legislation eases the transfer restrictions for sending detainees to countries abroad, it continues to prohibit the transfer of detainees to the United States for any reason, including for trial or medical emergencies.

"There has been a sea change on the Guantánamo issue, both in Congress and at the White House. With the president’s renewed commitment to closing it, and the support of Congress, there now is reason to hope that the job of closing Guantánamo and ending indefinite detention can get done before the president leaves office," said Anders. "As big as this win is, there is more work left to be done. The Defense Department has to use the new transfer provisions to step up transfers out of Guantánamo, and Congress needs to remove the remaining ban on using federal criminal courts to try detainees."

President Obama is expected to sign the defense bill into law before the end of the year.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/senate-eases-transfer-restrictions-guantanamo-detainees

U.S. Moves Closer to Closing Guantanamo Bay

By Julian E. Barnes

WASHINGTON—The Pentagon said it has transferred the last three ethnic Uighur Chinese nationals from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Slovakia in what it called "a significant milestone in our effort to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay."

Pentagon press secretary Rear Adm. John Kirby said in a written statement that Yusef Abbas, Saidullah Khalik and Hajiakbar Abdul Ghuper are "voluntarily resettling in Slovakia," leaving 155 detainees at Guantanamo.

The three men were the last of 22 ethnic Uighurs captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and ordered released from Guantanamo under an Oct. 7, 2008, federal court ruling. The 22 men have ended up being resettled to six different countries, the Pentagon said.

Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel for advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said the transfer was an important moment. "The Uighurs had nothing to do with any conflict with the United States," she said. "It is a stark symbol of what was wrong with Guantanamo, with what was wrong with just sweeping people up and detaining them in an offshore facility."

- more -

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304361604579292270871879140

<...>

Fortunately and finally, at the end of 2013, the Uighurs--a persecuted religious minority from China--have left Guantanamo.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/free-uighurs

Uruguay agrees to U.S. request to take some Guantanamo inmates

MONTEVIDEO (Reuters) - Uruguay has agreed with the United States to accept some prisoners held in the much-criticized detention center at the U.S. military base of Guantanamo Bay, President Jose Mujica said on Thursday.

The Obama administration, which wants to close the center used to imprison people captured after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, has been talking to several countries about relocating inmates.

The South American country had accepted the request by Washington to take some prisoners and would consider them refugees, Mujica told journalists while attending an unrelated farming event.

"It's a request for human rights reasons," Mujica said.

Mujica said Obama "has asked a bunch of countries if they can take some and I told him yes."

Weekly newspaper Busqueda reported that Uruguay had accepted a U.S. proposal to take five detainees from the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba base for two years. The 78-year-old ex-guerrilla Mujica agreed after speaking to Cuban President Raul Castro and sending delegates to visit the detention center, the report said.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/20/us-uruguay-guantanamo-idUSBREA2J1Z220140320

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Adam Smith Amendment

The President applauds Ranking Member Adam Smith for his continued stalwart leadership in standing up for our values and national security by advancing the cause of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. By eliminating unwarranted and burdensome restrictions relating to the transfer of Guantanamo detainees, his amendment would further our efforts to move past this chapter in U.S. history. We urge the House to adopt the Smith Amendment and put an end to the ongoing harm to the nation’s security that results from the operation of the facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

This Administration has repeatedly objected to statutory restrictions that impede our ability to responsibly close the detention facility and pursue appropriate options for the detainees remaining there, including by determining when and where to prosecute detainees, based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our national security interests. In hundreds of terrorism-related cases – and as illustrated once again this week – our federal courts have proven themselves to be more than capable of administering justice.

Nearly a half billion dollars per year is an unacceptable price to pay for a facility that wastes our resources, creates friction with our allies, and undermines our standing in the world. This needs to be the year Congress lifts the remaining restrictions and enables the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We call on Members of both parties to work together to ensure the United States meets this goal. If this year's Defense Authorization bill continues unwarranted restrictions regarding Guantanamo detainees, the President will veto the bill.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/05/21/statement-press-secretary-adam-smith-amendment

[AgingAmerican]

1. Blanket NSA spying on US citizens STILL SUCKS!

nt

[DonViejo]

3. Can you give me a link to someone's comment saying

blanket NSA spying doesn't suck, please? Thanks in advance.

[Tarheel_Dem]

9. The Greenwaldistas think Berghdal's release is a "distraction" from NSA. The flipside of that

coin is the GOP's inevitable contention that the release is a "distraction" from Benghazi.

[Voice for Peace]

62. and Benghazi is a distraction from Obamacare.

And Obamacare is a distraction from love and hope,
which will always win in the end: sorry, suckas.

[Tarheel_Dem]

80. !!!

[randys1]

151. These Greenwald threads confuse me, I assume if you are pro Greenwald you have to be

Anti Obama?

I dont know, I dont care about personalities, only messages.

Not sure who is telling us the truth, certainly the US government doesnt do that but if I were to blame OBAMA for something that was built over 200 yrs by white criminals, I would be an idiot.

Not sure why I am responding to you, I liked what you wrote and I love your name.

[Voice for Peace]

158. thanks very much, I find them confusing as well.

When the debates between progressive liberals are way
over my head, and all sides here make a lot of sense,
such that I have no idea what the real facts are and
probably never will, I find it's best to stick to the pet
forum.

[AgingAmerican]

12. My condolences

...on Greenwald making you squirm and causing you so much anguish.

The whole Greenwald obsession is a desperate attempt at changing the subject AWAY from the NSA revelations. No matter how much people try to smear Greenwald, NSA domestic spying STILL sucks.

And there are those here who support it, yes: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025045357

[randome]

14. You have my condolences, too.

I'm sorry you are facing the reality that neither Snowden nor Greenwald have our best interests at heart. But rest easy. You still have Julian Assange's 'poison pill' banking documents to look forward to!

And yes, domestic spying does suck. It's too bad Snowden didn't reveal any of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

15. I care not about Snowden or Greenwald

That is your obsession. My concerns are for my privacy.

[randome]

16. And what did Snowden show about your privacy? Nothing.

Unless you count a legal warrant that we knew about since 2006.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

19. Snowden isn't my concern

Like I have said, that's YOUR obsession, not mine. NSA spying sucks no matter how many ways you obsess over the messenger.

[randome]

22. And what makes you think the NSA engages in blanket spying on U.S. citizens?

Because Snowden said that? No, he didn't. In fact, when pressed by Brian Williams, Snowden was unable to specify anything the NSA is doing that is illegal.

Take Snowden out of the equation, then. What makes you think the NSA engages in blanket spying on U.S. citizens?

[AgingAmerican]

24. Are you serious?

Timeline of NSA domestic spying

[randome]

37. The majority of that data does not specify whether it's domestic or foreign surveillance.

It's left to the fervid imagination to draw our own conclusions. The other stuff, like mapping social networks? It's all public data.

One is labeled 'PRISM Program Revealed'. Sinister sounding, eh? Again, without any mention of whether it's used with warrants. It's just...you know, something that didn't completely fit on the web page, I guess.

But everything is under the headline of 'Domestic Spying' so it must all be true! Every rumor and half-baked innuendo is there for all to see, tossed in with the legitimate concerns.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[AgingAmerican]

48. So you officially support NSA domestic blanket spying

nt

[randome]

55. Yes, it saves me the trouble of posting my selfies!

Geeze, listen to yourself. That EFF data does not distinguish between foreign and domestic spying. Do you agree that's true?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bobbie Jo]

72. Good Gawd

[jeff47]

46. The big flaw in that timeline

Is it fails to separate US persons.

You, like many other people, assume any spying program includes US persons. Unfortunately, that is not the case. If you look at what Snowden and others actually released, there is exactly 1 "spying" program on US persons. The phone metadata program. Every other program collected on non-US persons, or was a "jealous Ex" abusing their access - and the leaks indicated those were punished.

Spying on phone metadata became legal in 1979 with an overly-broad SCOTUS decision that made phone metadata a run-of-the-mill business record with no privacy protection, and made that business record belong to the phone company.

Wanna stop it? You need a new law making the data private. Demanding Obama stop doesn't really get you anything - some future version of W will happily start again. 'Course there's lots of folks who are quite happy you're directing your anger at the wrong branch of government.

But back to the original point. Why does "US persons" matter? Non-US persons have exactly zero constitutional rights. According to our Constitution, Angela Merkel has no right to privacy from the NSA as long as she is not in US territory or US custody. Wanna change that? Now you need a Constitutional amendment.

[ProSense]

17. Is that why you are trying to hijack this thread? n/t

[AgingAmerican]

21. Blanket NSA spying on US citizens STILL SUCKS!

nt

[Whisp]

30. so does cancer and some sports teams.

until cancer is cured and all teams win enough not to suck, we can't talk about anything else except the NSA and how Grate Greenwald is.

ok!

[AgingAmerican]

34. Apples and oranges much?

nt

[Whisp]

39. give it up, you are digging too deep

and hurting your cause.

[AgingAmerican]

42. NSA domestic spying

sucks!

[Whisp]

50. !!!!!!Bergdahlzi!!!!!

[ProSense]

20. Nothing at the link you posted makes your point.

You jumped into this thread with a defensive comment, and when called on it, you're claiming not to care about Greenwald.

Why did the OP cause you to become defensive?

[AgingAmerican]

23. Read post #90 from that thread

Thanks for playing!



NSA domestic spying sucks no matter how much you try to change the subject or smear the messenger.

[ProSense]

28. No thanks, and

"NSA domestic spying sucks no matter how much you try to change the subject or smear the messenger."

...your message is clear: Leave Greenwald alone.

I mean, you're using the NSA to deflect criticism on Greenwald for his comments on the Bergdahl release.

[AgingAmerican]

40. You start a new thread everytime Greenwald or Snowden say anything

Nothing new there, more of the same.

"...your message is clear: Leave Greenwald alone." - Well, that's a new gambit! lol

NSA domestic spying STILL SUCKS!

[ProSense]

43. So? Why are you so upset by criticism of Greenwald that you're hijacking this thread? n/t

[AgingAmerican]

45. NSA domestic spying

sucks no matter how much you fixate on Greenwald or Snowden, and you know it.

Perhaps you should shift your efforts to Manny's Part II thread. It's more along the lines of your message.

[Cha]

121. they can't stand anything being exposed about their "heroes". All they have is Whine Whine Whine..

and Cheeze.

[grasswire]

154. someone hijacking a thread?

Call in the Mounties!

Oh noes!

[Whisp]

32. be sure to make the rounds in all other topics: ex: Cooking and Baking:

Plonk this in there as well:
!!!NSA domestic spying sucks no matter how much you try to change the subject or smear the messenger!!!!

[JaneyVee]

33. But this article isn't about that.

[AgingAmerican]

102. Nor is it about what the OP claims it's about

nt

[DonViejo]

29. I don't know what you're expressing your condolences to me for...

I asked you for a link to a comment indicating a DU'er does not believe blanket spying doesn't suck. You provided a link but, I don't see 1SBM's comment as an indication he believes blanket spying doesn't suck.

BTW, GG doesn't make me squirm or cause me any anguish, neither does Snowden. Something that does make me squirm however, are folks that try to change the topic of a thread through their comments or, pretend to be a mind reader that knows exactly why someone (in this instance, me) might ask, "Can you give me a link to someone's comment saying blanket NSA spying doesn't suck, please?"

I've been following the discussions and screaming matches here on DU about Messrs Greenwald and Snowden, I have yet to see anyone say they support blanket spying. I thought I may have missed something and asked for your help. Obviously being polite and offering assistance when requested of you is not your forte'. I sincerely apologize for expecting better from you.

[Number23]

115. Nicely done

[Cali_Democrat]

51. How is that poster squirming?

Anguish? Give me a break.

It seemed like a simple and straightforward question, but your link provided no evidence of support for blanket NSA surveillance.

[leftynyc]

54. LOL squirm?

You must be kidding. All this does is show me that he's nothing but an anti-American slug who will use anyone and anything to get noticed. Just like he used Snowden.

[AgingAmerican]

103. He makes you squirm

nt

[leftynyc]

140. Keep dreaming

Ask 10 people on the streets who he is and you'll get a blank stare. Both you and he are inflating his importance beyond all measure. Just like all narcissists. Whatever keeps you warm at night makes no difference to me.

[Cha]

109. You can keep your fucking "condolences" to DonViejo. He's doing great. nm

Last edited Wed Jun 4, 2014, 11:49 PM - Edit history (1)

[AgingAmerican]

147. Condolences to you also

nt

[Cha]

159. thanks for Kicking the Thread!

[NCTraveler]

146. Your link doesn't show what you say it does.

[brush]

152. Ahhh . . . most here on DU . . .

Last edited Fri Jun 6, 2014, 12:59 AM - Edit history (2)

who have issues with Greenwald and Snowden support their revelations on DOMESTIC NSA spying (4th Amendment violations, et al).

Make no mistake, I support those disclosures, what I have a huge problem with is their disclosures of details of the INTERNATIONAL covert operations of their own country.

Many don't seem to want to deal with that dichotomy of the Greenwald/Snowden revelations. They just keep on with saying Greenwald/Snowden did the right thing. Well, if they had just stopped with the domestic spying revelations they would have almost blanket support.

Me personally, I can't support someone who has possibly blown covers of covert operatives and operations, a la Dick Cheney/Scooter Libby.

[Cali_Democrat]

26. DonViejo

You are one of our more level-headed posters here. I have made the mistake of getting bogged down in this kind of garbage. Don't make the same mistake.

You are correct...nobody on DU has said blanket NSA surveillance doesn't suck. It's like when people say Snowden was attacked for having boxes in his garage. What happened is that a reporter asked Snowden's neighbors everything they know about him. There was one sentence in the report in which a neighbor mentioned him having boxes floor-to ceiling in the garage. When the article was posted, somehow it turned into the notion that hoards of DUers attacked Snowden for having boxes in his garage.

Also, there are people who still think Evo Morales' plane was purposely grounded by Austrian authorities even though we have the cockpit voice recording where the pilot says he has to land because of fuel gauge issues. We also have pictures of Morales smiling with the Austrian president after they landed. Yet so many DUers still falsely believe the bullshit that we was grounded so they can look for Snowden.

It's hopeless. There are a number of DUers who will believe what they want to believe.

[JaneyVee]

7. This article isn't about that.

[uponit7771]

8. So does global warming

regards

[AgingAmerican]

13. True

But we don't have a cabal going around trying to stifle any and all discussion of that issue here....yet.

[Whisp]

38. I see you are so stifled...

[Cha]

106. Can you tell me wtf that has to do with the OP? TIA. nm

[pnwmom]

138. So why does Greenwald himself keep setting up distractions from that issue?

Instead of focusing on the illegal surveillance of US citizens, he turned to leaking about international spying, and now he's criticizing Obama for a completely unrelated issue.

More than ever, it seems that his real object is to hurt Obama.

[onehandle]

2. Greenwald is cashing in his 15 minutes. nt

[davidpdx]

124. Someone should tell him the check bounced

A long time ago.............

[MineralMan]

4. Color me unsurprised.

[JaneyVee]

5. "My book! Don't forget my book!"

[uponit7771]

6. They take calling GG a jerk as supporting the NSA cause they want people to leave GG ALONE!!!

[randome]

10. Asshole.

Let's see those names you promised us, Glenn! We're not interested in your 'fireworks show'.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Tarheel_Dem]

11. GG disagrees with this President? I'm SHOCKED! SHOCKED! I tell you!

[bigtree]

18. he's being deliberately obtuse

. . . Congress has passed progressively more restrictive laws tying his hands on his ability to transfer them out.

[Maedhros]

67. Yet he just did so without notifying Congress at all.

So: did Obama just break the law, or does he have the ability to unilaterally transfer prisoners out of Gitmo?

[gcomeau]

76. They were not "transferred"

They were released in a prisoner exchange.

That does not in any way solve the problem of what to do with the prisoners who need to stay prisoners and be put SOMEWHERE.

[msanthrope]

77. They could bring a legitimate charge against him. It looks like he may have broken the letter

of the law, if not the spirit. Then again, the law itself contains exception for emergency......so he may have an affirmative defense.

I would advise the President to secure criminal counsel.

[questionseverything]

97. wow this is huge if you think he broke the law

i have been very vocal critic of potus over nsa Constitutional violations but on this exchange i thought his role as cic gave him that authority

can you post the law being discussed please

[joshcryer]

116. H. R. 3304

SEC. 1035. d

(d) Notification- The Secretary of Defense shall notify the appropriate committees of Congress of a determination of the Secretary under subsection (a) or (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer or release of the individual under such subsection. Each notification shall include, at a minimum, the following:

(1) A detailed statement of the basis for the transfer or release.

(2) An explanation of why the transfer or release is in the national security interests of the United States.

(3) A description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks of reengagement by the individual to be transferred or released, including any actions taken to address factors relevant to a prior case of reengagement described in subsection (c)(3).

(4) A copy of any Periodic Review Board findings relating to the individual.

(5) A description of the evaluation conducted pursuant to subsection (c), including a summary of the assessment required by paragraph (6) of such subsection.

http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/press-releases?ContentRecord_id=88F3C469-E00D-40FA-90DE-675D1FFB7592

The law is inadequate because it doesn't reference emergency scenarios so the President would have to use other laws to defend his actions. So it probably is defendable in the courts, but probably illegal.

[joshcryer]

113. Yep, and if he released them all?

Impeachment and possible treason charges. Not joking, they would take it very far. Greenwald's suggestion is so out there it's just pathetic anyone agrees with it. It's pure, as I call it, click-bait journalism.

[TheKentuckian]

148. If they want they can try it now or any old time

Of course it has been my contention that the handcuffs Obama foolishly signed off on were unconstitutional because of separation of powers so I think Obama acted within his authority.

[Number23]

117. I agree. I'm a bit concerned because I also think those saying he may have broken the law

may be correct. Do you have some idea of what the penalties may be if that's what happened?

If I see him boarding a one-way flight to Russia by way of Hong Kong, I'm going to get real nervous.

[joshcryer]

120. SCOTUS would rule for the President.

To tie the hands of a President to act quickly over an emergency scenario would be unthinkable. The law lacks, as far as I can tell, an exception for an emergency scenario. So I think the ruling would say "there must be an exception for an emergency scenario."

The law was meant to tie the President's hands with regards to getting them out of gitmo, it wasn't intended to really do anything beyond that.

[Vattel]

126. Your general position here is very reasonable, but it is a very tricky issue.

Suppose Congress passes a law against trading arms for hostages; but the president says that because it is an emergency situation and the hostages will die without an exchange, he has the right to ignore the law. I don't think the president would have the right to make that call even if the hostages were American soldiers. You can argue that this example is disanalogous to the case at hand, and you might well be right. But I would need to be convinced here. The mere fact that an American soldier's life is at stake doesn't give the President the right to ignore Congress altogether. So what are the limits? I need to think more about this.

[joshcryer]

128. I think the issue stems from not notifying Congress.

The law doesn't prevent him from doing anything just that he notify congress 30 days before the transfer (with a lot of justification and analysis done for it). In this case they couldn't notify, submit piles of documents which couldn't possibly be read in time, and do the transfer. So rather than notify, have Congress throw a hissy fit jeopardizing the operation, then throw a fit after the exchange, the President simply went ahead with it.

The way the Constitution is set up is that the President is the Commander in Chief and has near dictatorial powers when it comes to using the military (the SCOTUS won't rule on the War Powers Resolution for that reason; if Congress thinks a President has overreached they may impeach).

[Vattel]

130. That is not the way the Constitution is set up.

The President does not have the power to put the nation in a state of war. He can respond defensively to war being waged against the USA without any Congressional act, but he has no authority to create war. Moreover, although the president, as CIC, controls strategy in war, the Congress can make laws regarding military conduct that can effectively restrict what he can command the troops to do. His powers as CIC are also limited by the bill of rights.

[joshcryer]

131. Foreign policy wise, you're wrong.

The limitations placed upon the Congress is to Declare War and Fund the Military. There are two ways to stop a President from causing WWIII, they either impeach, or defund the military.

U.S. Presidents have consistently taken the position that the War Powers Resolution is an unconstitutional infringement upon the power of the executive branch.

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/war-powers.php

While Obama pledged not to use his powers without Congressional approval he has only done so with respect to Syria (and even then he reserved the right to act unilaterally). In Libya and with the Drone Wars he did not require Congressional consent. This is one of Obama's failings and it's probably because his inner circle has said that if he gave up the power then it would set precedent for future Presidents. Obama has, to an extent, pulled back the rhetoric on this power, particularly in his SOTU speech where he basically laid out a non-interventionist policy (which DUers derided him over saying he was using a military guy as a prop). But I don't see him or any President saying they don't have that power. President's, unfortunately, don't give up power.

[Number23]

155. Thanks for your posts on this, josh

You and msanthrope are two of only about a handful of people here that I would trust to have a grasp of the issue. ANY issue.

[Vattel]

156. No, I am afraid you are incorrect.

It is amazing how popular John Yoo's views on the president's war powers have become, but they are incorrect. Recent presidents have consistently claimed more war powers than the constitution gives them, and they should be ashamed of themselves for that.

[joshcryer]

119. Which part contains the emergency exception?

[msanthrope]

149. I should have been clearer..sorry.

I have to read the statute again..... if there isn't an explicit section that authorizes emergency action, I think.the President can act under the doctrine of exigent circumstances.

[joshcryer]

161. "not later than 30 days before"

I hate that shitty wording. Is it "not later than 30 days" or "30 days before"? Everyone seems to interpret it as "30 days before" but "not later than 30 days" could mean "30 days minus 29 days 23 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds."

Apparently google searching for "not later than X days before" (or "not less than&quot is common language and it means "exactly X days before." Why the fuck did they word it that way? Stupid common law language, I guess.

[Whisp]

25. I will hazard a guess and say this is what Pappa Fuck Ron Paul is saying too. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

90. I'm gonna say that's extremely likely. CATO approved talking points are so quaint, aren't they?

[hobbit709]

27. OP 10,623 of the Greenwald Haters Club.

[ProSense]

31. Do you agree with Greenwald's comments in the OP? n/t

[hobbit709]

35. Not particularly but I do not have an obsessive hatred of him either.

[jeff47]

52. So are we supposed to read Greenwald or not?

The man wrote an article and posted it so that everyone can read it.

Are we supposed to ignore it, or are we supposed to read it?

Or do you change that decision based on the subject matter of the article?

IMO, it appears that Greenwald wants us to read what he writes.

[otohara]

57. If Only GG Didn't Have An Obsessive Hatred

of POTUS Obama.

He's a Bush man

[Cha]

139. Exactly, otohara.. but, I think he was a bush man and now he's

a Rand Paulite or for some kochroach's Billionaire.. Can't be a Dem though that messes with his "ratfucking"..

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5051673

[Tarheel_Dem]

91. !?!?!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

118. This ^ ^ ^

[Cha]

112. Another Lame distraction from the OP. Greenwald is his own worst enemy. nm

[Uncle Joe]

36. I disagree with Greenwald on this issue, this wasn't a "transfer" or "release"

it was a trade.

This would fall under President Obama's Commander in Chief Powers.

Thanks for the thread, ProSense.

[Maedhros]

68. Can you show where "trade" is defined as unique from "release" in the law?

I don't believe there is such a distinction.

[Uncle Joe]

96. The law doesn't make the distinction one way or other, that will be left up

to future legislation or judicial determination.

Having said that, there is a De Facto distinction, releasing for no reason is one thing getting a quid pro quo swap is another.

[SidDithers]

41. Greenwald. LOL...

What a fucking buffoon. Sad, tho, that he's got so many here fooled.

Sid

[liberal N proud]

44. Greenwald uses _________ to hit Obama, Democrats.

Insert reason in blank.

[Ikonoklast]

69. No, you got it exactly right.

No reason needed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

47. Here you go. On point and everything.

Greenwald is hitting the President and Democrats with this piece. He makes the point that the release was illegal because the congressional notification wasn't done. And it sounds like it was illegal, but I'm glad Obama did it anyway--I don't trust congressional Republicans in Congress, and I don't trust Feinstein. Anyway, Greenwald used that as the setup to make his main point: if the President is going to ignore Congress with regard to releasing these 5, why is he still following their wishes with respect to keeping Guantanamo open? And on this, I agree with Greenwald. That's not to say that the President isn't planning something along those lines; he may be. Greenwald's main point was that if Obama is going to ignore the will of Congress on the 5-prisoner release, he should also ignore their will with respect to keeping the place open, and on that, I agree with Greenwald.

[ProSense]

60. No,

"Greenwald is hitting the President and Democrats with this piece. He makes the point that the release was illegal because the congressional notification wasn't done. And it sounds like it was illegal, but I'm glad Obama did it anyway--I don't trust congressional Republicans in Congress, and I don't trust Feinstein. Anyway, Greenwald used that as the setup to make his main point: if the President is going to ignore Congress with regard to releasing these 5, why is he still following their wishes with respect to keeping Guantanamo open? And on this, I agree with Greenwald. That's not to say that the President isn't planning something along those lines; he may be. Greenwald's main point was that if Obama is going to ignore the will of Congress on the 5-prisoner release, he should also ignore their will with respect to keeping the place open, and on that, I agree with Greenwald."

...the two situations aren't analagous. One is a negotiated release in his role as CIC. I mean, Greenwald using the illegal claim is ridiculous if he actually believes that Obama has the power to simply release them.

By that logic, releasing the Uighurs or the other detainees to Uruguay is illegal because the others aren't released.

The argument is ridiculous because it's based on the premise that Obama can simply release them. It also ignores that in addition to Congressional obstruction, one of the other sticking points is ensuring that they will not be tortured by the country to which they're released.

[Luminous Animal]

88. Yep.

[Whisp]

49. ~~!!•BERGDAHLZI•!!~~

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[corkhead]

53. you must really be in love with Glenn Greenwald

you can't seem to stop writing or posting links about him.

[ProSense]

58. Yes,

"you must really be in love with Glenn Greenwald you can't seem to stop writing or posting links about him."

...it's my "love" for Greenwald that made him write that commentary.

Two questions:

Do you agree with his point?

Do you think that your comment is going to "writing or posting links about him"?

Actually, three: Do you want me to stop "writing or posting links about him"?

[Rex]

56. I wish people would have gotten this upset every time Dubya broke the law in his two terms.

Or Reagan for that matter! NO, it only matters to the M$M and the GOP when a Dem does it!

[Luminous Animal]

65. Greenwald: April 2006 Media finally starting to report the President's systematic lawbreaking

Media finally starting to report the President's systematic lawbreaking
(updated below)
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/04/media-finally-starting-to-report.html
On March 24, 2006, The Boston Globe published an article by Charlie Savage reporting that the President, after signing into law the bill which renewed the Patriot Act, issued a "signing statement" making clear that "he did not consider himself bound" to comply with various reporting provisions in the law and therefore reserved the right to violate them. The article was extraordinary because it noted that the Patriot Act signing statement was merely "the latest in a string of high-profile instances in which Bush has cited his constitutional authority to bypass a law" -- and the article tied that ideology of lawlessness to, among other things, the President's deliberate violations of FISA when ordering warrantless eavesdropping on Americans.

I discussed that Globe article in my book and described it as "an important milestone," because "it is one of the first truly comprehensive articles by an establishment media outlet to recognize the fact that the president has expressly seized the power to break the law, and is exercising that power enthusiastically and aggressively, in numerous ways." Once the reality of the president's claimed lawbreaking powers starts to be truly discussed in our national political dialogue, I believe there will finally be accountability for what this administration has done.

Greenwald: May 2007
http://bleiersblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/glenn-greenwald-bushs-signing-statement.html
Bush's signing statement authorized FBI's lawbreaking

Multiple media outlets are focusing on the unsurprising story that the FBI seems to have been abusing its powers under the Patriot Act to issue so-called "national security letters" (NSLs), whereby the FBI is empowered to obtain a whole array of privacy-infringing records without any sort of judicial oversight or subpoena process. In particular, the FBI has failed to comply with the legal obligations imposed by Congress, when it re-authorized the Patriot Act in early 2006, which required the FBI to report to Congress on the use of these letters.

That the FBI is abusing its NSL power is entirely unsurprising (more on that below), but the real story here -- and it is quite significant -- has not even been mentioned by any of these news reports. The only person (that I've seen) to have noted the most significant aspect of these revelations is Silent Patriot at Crooks & Liars, who very astutely recalls that the NSL reporting requirements imposed by Congress were precisely the provisions which President Bush expressly proclaimed he could ignore when he issued a "signing statement" as part of the enactment of the Patriot Act's renewal into law. Put another way, the law which the FBI has now been found to be violating is the very law which George Bush publicly declared he has the power to ignore.

Glenn Greenwald: June 2007

A Tragic Legacy
http://www.salon.com/2007/06/20/greenwald_2/

That paragraph summarizes the Bush movement. Because the threat posed by The Evil Terrorists is so grave, maximizing protections against it is the paramount, overriding goal. No other value competes with that objective, nor can any other value limit our efforts to protect ourselves against The Terrorists.

That is the essence of virtually every argument Bush supporters make regarding terrorism. No matter what objection is raised to the never-ending expansions of executive power, no matter what competing values are touted (due process, the rule of law, the principles our country embodies, how we are perceived around the world), the response will always be that The Terrorists are waging war against us and our overarching priority — one that overrides all others — is to protect ourselves, to triumph over Evil. By definition, then, there can never be any good reason to oppose vesting powers in the government to protect us from The Terrorists because that goal outweighs all others.

But our entire system of government, from its inception, has been based upon a very different calculus — that is, that many things matter besides merely protecting ourselves against threats, and consequently, we are willing to accept risks, even potentially fatal ones, in order to secure those other values. From its founding, America has rejected the worldview of prioritizing physical safety above all else, as such a mentality leads to an impoverished and empty civic life. The premise of America is and always has been that imposing limitations on government power is necessary to secure liberty and avoid tyranny even if it means accepting an increased risk of death as a result. That is the foundational American value.

It is this courageous demand for core liberties even if such liberties provide less than maximum protection from physical risks that has made America bold, brave, and free. Societies driven exclusively or primarily by a fear of avoiding Evil, minimizing risks, and seeking above all else that our government “protects” us are not free. That is a path that inevitably leads to authoritarianism — an increasingly strong and empowered leader in whom the citizens vest ever-increasing faith and power in exchange for promises of safety. That is most assuredly not the historical ethos of the United States.

....

All of this is independent of the fact that vesting ever-increasing and unchecked power in a political leader most assuredly does not make a country “safer.” Though it is beyond the ken of the discussion here, it is well-established that open governments with substantial checks and oversight operate far more efficiently than highly secretive, unchecked governments run by unaccountable political leaders. As the American founders well understood, transparent government is critical for detecting errors, uncovering corruption, and ensuring accountability, while political leaders who operate in the dark, wielding vast powers with little oversight, virtually always conceal their mistakes and act to maximize their own interests rather than the country’s.

For that reason, the most radical and controversial Bush policies — from warrantless eavesdropping to detentions, torture and rendition carried out in secret and with no oversight — have not made us remotely “safer.” But even if one assumes that they had, our core political values are profoundly betrayed by the notion that we should vest blind faith and tyrannical powers in the president in exchange for promises of “protection.” The central rhetorical premise of the Bush presidency, however, has been that eliminating all risk of the Evil Terrorist Threat is paramount. Hence, the whole array of authoritarian powers seized by this administration is justified because none of the principles and values that are destroyed in the process really matter when set next to the scary prospect that The Terrorists will kill us.

[deurbano]

86. Yes, Greenwald was one of those who DID care that Bush broke the law.

I agree that many currently "passionate" (and shrill) critics only "care" because a Democrat (and a black one at that) is president. That's the kind of inconsistency (and lack of core principles) Democrats should eschew.

[Rex]

114. Did the M$M report on any of these stories in detail?

Was this made into national news? For months on end?

[Luminous Animal]

122. No And why does that matter.Greenwald has been nothing but consistent. He wrote 3 books slamming

the Bush admin. 3.

[Rex]

123. Not talking about Glen, I am talking about people here and in the national spotlight

that use him for their own political gain. Or just to snark at him...where were they when W was in office? Funny, don't remember seeing them around these parts. It matters, because the M$M does not seem to care much about slamming the Bush administration. However the do love to slam Dems at all possible moments of the day.

We just need a real liberal mainstream media in this country, I don't believe the total bullshit that people won't watch liberal TV. Comcast says that shit and they are GOPukers to the core.

[Ecumenist]

145. THAT'S what I keep saying. Bush the CRACKHEAD was doing illegal things

left, right & center and you didn't get ANYTHING like this. I am so PISSED off. Especially considering that Obama was explicitly TOLD that if he negotiated the release of Bergdahl in an ELECTION YEAR, they would smear him. As a matter of fact, alot of the the same people screaming the loudest were tweeting PRAYERS FOR THE FAMILY AND CALLS TO BRING OUR BOY HOME. DAMN shame that SO MANY who are SUPPOSED TO BE PROGRESSIVE patriots of thisgreat land are falling for this Hook, line and sinker. SMDH DISGUSTING!

[bvar22]

59. The OP is a bit twisted.

Greenwald's piece wasn't about Bergdahl.
It WAS about the President's ability to release prisoners from Gitmo without Congressional Approval.

For 5 years, the President has insisted that he cannot release prisoners from GITMO without Congressional Approval.
NOW he has done so.

..and you don't see a problem?

Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

I see an "inconsistency" too.

[ProSense]

64. The OP

"Greenwald's piece wasn't about Bergdahl. It WAS about the President's ability to release prisoners from Gitmo without Congressional Approval.

For 5 years, the President has insisted that he cannot release prisoners from GITMO without Congressional Approval.
NOW he has done so."

...is correct in that he was using Bergdahl's release.

As I said above, the two situations aren't analagous. One is a negotiated release in his role as CIC. I mean, Greenwald using the illegal claim is ridiculous if he actually believes that Obama has the power to simply release them.

By that logic, releasing the Uighurs or the other detainees to Uruguay is illegal because the others aren't released.

The argument is ridiculous because it's based on the premise that Obama can simply release them. It also ignores that in addition to Congressional obstruction, one of the other sticking points is ensuring that they will not be tortured by the country to which they're released.

As for this comment by Greenwald:

Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

...again, his entire point is hitting out at Obama and "defenders."

He is basically setting this action up as illegal because the other detainees weren't released, which is ludicrous.

[Maedhros]

71. If Obama wanted the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, it would be.

Claiming Republican obstruction is just a semantic game. Congress forbade Obama from bombing Libya, yet he did it anyway.

[frazzled]

73. You're wrong: he needs to give them notification, doesn't need their approval

This is NEW law, passed last year. The president has the ability to transfer Guantanamo prisoners out of the country (though not internally in the US; he's still blocked from doing that). Congress can't stop him. But he IS supposed to inform them of his intentions to transfer a prisoner 30 days in advance. The WH said it was an emergency, and that they'd already discussed the possibility of such a swap previously--a sort of "notification" I guess:

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/

At any rate: don't confuse notification with approval. He didn't need Congress's approval to do this. They couldn't block it unless they wrote an entirely new law and got it passed.

[bvar22]

83. Then GITMO should be closed within a month.

YES. WE. CAN!!!

[msanthrope]

84. Sure...if we can find countries to take them. That's the number one reason even the cleared

prisoners languish...no state to take them.

[bvar22]

89. Well, that is the excuse they are using.

Noted.

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Promises or Excuses.

[frazzled]

99. It's not always a snap to find (responsible) countries to take them

In this case, Qatar, a country I guess we have a fair amount of confidence in, is promising to oversee the released prisoners for at least one year. We're not just sending people back to Afghanistan or Pakistan or wherever, unsupervised; and we're not sending people to countries where they would be treated worse than they were in Guantanamo.

That said, if they don't impeach Obama for this, I'm convinced he will have made great strides (if not completed) the closing he promised so long ago. It's not for lack of trying.

[G_j]

87. Thank You

for that clarification. It very much helps this conversation,

[SoapBox]

61. Ya gots no cred, Greenwad.

Fuck off...you've lost your fucking mind and are all about publicity and money.

[Tikki]

63. + 1,000

Tikki

[MohRokTah]

66. GG is a POS. eom

[Iliyah]

70. K & R

[frazzled]

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/

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.

[ProSense]

82. Yup, that's referenced (Senate eases) in the OP. n/t

[Tarheel_Dem]

93. GG was probably too busy signing mega book & movie deals to notice the new "law".

[TheKentuckian]

150. Granting, that which I consider flimsy the statement isn't exactly true as there were no restriction

at all until after he failed to get funding for his Gitmo North facility and actually signed his own unconstitutional handcuffs into law around May 20th, 2009.

[gcomeau]

75. Of course he did, it's his favorite pasttime. -eom

[Iliyah]

78. Thanks guys, Pres O did not break any laws

Bowe B is released and will be coming home. Corporate media have already convicted him as a deserter, and attacked his father for wearing a long beard. Corporate media is blasting that Pres O have to inform congress re 30 days, bullshit.

[A Simple Game]

79. Huh?

Why are you saying this: The question is why is he making the case that either Obama can release them all or he broke the law?

When the article you cite actually says: Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

Why did you change transfer to release? Are you trying to smear Greenwald or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Never mind, I think most of us already know the answer.

[ProSense]

81. What?

Why are you saying this: The question is why is he making the case that either Obama can release them all or he broke the law?

When the article you cite actually says: Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

Why did you change transfer to release? Are you trying to smear Greenwald or do you have a reading comprehension problem? Never mind, I think most of us already know the answer.

Why are you trying to play word games? Did you only read that one paragraph?

Greenwald, as cited in the OP:

The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists for this failure has been that Congress prevented him from closing the camp. But here, the Obama White House appears to be arguing that Congress lacks the authority to constrain the President’s power to release detainees when he wants. What other excuse is there for his clear violation of a law that requires 30-day notice to Congress before any detainees are released?

[A Simple Game]

92. No word games, I picked two quotes from your post, one from Greenwald and one from you.

If you pick an article with ambiguous quotes then picked the words you want to quote that's your option, but it's also my option to use the quotes I wish to use, again from the article(s) you posted, to make my point.

And I haven't even mentioned the articles below that talk about closure and transfer, one even had the word transfer in the title, with little mention about release except to third party countries. Perhaps you should peruse for more that the word count before you post articles.

I also find it bold of you to accuse someone else of being selective in what they wish to quote when the quotes are taken from the articles you link to in your posts.

Did I only read the one paragraph? No, but don't be foolish enough to think I give you enough credence to read everything, or even most of, what you post. I very rarely read your posts or even reply to any.

[ProSense]

95. What

No word games, I picked two quotes from your post, one from Greenwald and one from you.

<...>

Did I only read the one paragraph? No, but don't be foolish enough to think I give you enough credence to read everything, or even most of, what you post. I very rarely read your posts or even reply to any.

...utter nonsense. Yes, you're playing word games. The point of your current and previous comment is to deflect criticism of Greenwald.

If you weren't going to read the piece, and make it a point not to read my posts, why the hell even respond with this nonsense?

[A Simple Game]

98. "...utter nonsense." So those two quotes weren't from your OP. Interesting.

And the point of your post is to criticize Greenwald, what's the difference? Oh, the blue links, well I could find as many or more to support my point if I were to find it profitable to do so, sadly it isn't. Thus the length of my posts compared to... say yours.

We're done. No sense in debating with someone that has an agenda. Well that and I really don't like giving you a reason to add to your word count.

[ProSense]

101. Right

"And the point of your post is to criticize Greenwald, what's the difference? Oh, the blue links, well I could find as many or more to support my point if I were to find it profitable to do so, sadly it isn't. Thus the length of my posts compared to... say yours."

...I posted a Greenwald commentary, which I disagree with and point out why, and you enter the thread, declaring you don't read my posts. Now you're talking about "blue links."

"What's the difference?"

You're posting nonsense.

"We're done. No sense in debating with someone that has an agenda. Well that and I really don't like giving you a reason to add to your word count."

You shouldn't have started, and please do look in the mirror.

[Cha]

137. Well, it's not a "simple game" for nothing. smh nm

[A Simple Game]

141. Who?

[stevenleser]

85. Greenwald keeps showing us what he's about. He's all about hating on Obama.

None of what he writes about can be taken seriously because he will twist anything to make it look bad for Obama.

When someone keeps showing you what they are about, believe them.

[Tarheel_Dem]

94. Hate + Greed = tons of $$$$$$.

[Enrique]

100. he makes a good point

a point I haven't heard anyone else make.

[ProSense]

104. It's

"he makes a good point a point I haven't heard anyone else make.

...not a "good point, and the reason you like haven't heard it from anyone else is because it's absurd.

As I said above, the two situations aren't analagous. One is a negotiated release in his role as CIC. I mean, Greenwald using the illegal claim is ridiculous if he actually believes that Obama has the power to simply release them.

By that logic, releasing the Uighurs or the other detainees to Uruguay is illegal because the others aren't released.

The argument is ridiculous because it's based on the premise that Obama can simply release them. It also ignores that in addition to Congressional obstruction, one of the other sticking points is ensuring that they will not be tortured by the country to which they're released.

As for this comment by Greenwald:

Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself. Which is it?

...again, his entire point is hitting out at Obama and "defenders."

He is basically setting this action up as illegal because the other detainees weren't released, which is ludicrous.

[Vattel]

127. Seems like Greenwald has a reasonable position here, although I think the issue is complicated.

Obama certainly violated the letter of the law in transferring the 5 prisoners without the required 30 day notice. Greenwald's point is that if you say that the law in question is void on the grounds that Obama, as CIC, has the constitutional authority to transfer or release detainees captured in war, then you must concede that Obama has always been free to ignore Congressional legislation aimed at tying his hands in relation to transferring prisoners out of Guantanamo. A promising approach to attacking Greenwald's position is suggested by Joshcryer, who argues that Obama's right to ignore the letter of the law in this particular instance was due to the existence of an emergency situation. I don't think that's an easy case to make, but it might work.

[Cha]

133. GG must think his "defenders" will eat this up no matter what he says. nm

[Cha]

132. It's a stupid point.. just GG trying to act like he knows shit. nm

[grasswire]

105. the comments at the firstlook link are very readable

Here's one:

Brad Benson
04 Jun 2014 at 9:15 am

The men exchanged by Obama were not Prisoners of War (POW). A better description might be “hostages”, “torture victims” or maybe just plain “damned unlucky futhermuckers”.

The fact is that these so-called “POW’s” were picked up during an illegal war of aggression against Afghanistan, which was actually waged to construct and control an oil pipeline. Aggressive War is the most serious of all of the war crimes and there is no evidence that any of these guys were doing anything other than living their lives when our war interdicted their lives.

Moreover, if there was any evidence against any of them, they would have been charged and tried by the Military Kangaroo Kourt. They were not charged or tried because, to their credit, some of the military legal beagles were more honest than their Commander in Chief.

Finally, it is also completely illegal to define the scope of an aggressive war as the entire world and then claim anyone kidnapped within that scope is a prisoner in that war. We specifically have used the term “enemy combatant” to define these guys exactly to avoid a POW Designation. After all, we would never torture POW’s, but we can do as we please with “enemy combatants”.

Now, as to Obama always having had the authority to release these guys and even close down Gitmo, Glenn is absolutely right. This proves that he always had it and has chosen not to use it until now. It has nothing to do with POW’s going home after a war has ended.

[ucrdem]

107. So when does he get his own FOX show I wonder?

He's doing so well . . .

[MohRokTah]

111. Fox has to be considering an hour or two of Attacks from the Left.

Say they're being "Fair and Balanced" and do a couple of hours with Jane Hamsher doing one and Glenn Greenwald doing another.

[ucrdem]

135. He was all over FOX when his book came out.

They devoted entire 2-hour shows to 5 minute infomercial-style interviews with GG the great journalist.

[JNelson6563]

108. He's always hated Obama.

That is and always has been very evident. I notice those who love him the most here seem to share that view.

Julie

[joshcryer]

110. This is click-bait journalism at its finest.

Absolute finest. Bravo Greenwald. I am seriously impressed.

[Cha]

125. Greenwald's an ignorant ratfucker and here's why..

Libertarians are poisoning the left and trying to undermine it.

Libertarians are posing as liberals and trying to RATFUCK the left.Their primary goal is to undermine the Democratic Party and hand elections to Republicans.Their strategy consists of...
1) ingratiating themselves with the progressive media
2) Pushing the meme that Democrats are just as bad (or worse) then Republicans
3) Dismissing Racism as "identity politics"
4) Promoting far right wing politicians as "true progressives"
5 convincing disgruntled progressives to vote 3rd party or not vote at all
6) Attack traditional Democratic Voters & their issues

snips//

At a talk given the day after the 2010 election — one that was a disaster for Democrats — “progressive” writer and civil liberties lawyer Glenn Greenwald gave a talk at the University of Wisconsin, and expressed the hope that Democrats might suffer the same fate in 2012.

...the idea that taking money from the Koch brothers for a one-year drug-decriminalization project shouldn’t be disclosed each time Greenwald attacks progressives while defending the Kochs’/libertarians’ pet projects—as when Greenwald defended Citizens United, much to progressives’ confusion, or when Greenwald attacked our article in The Nation about the Koch-funded libertarians leading the anti-TSA union campaign—is plain wrong and ridiculous. Payoffs and influence-peddling usually come in more subtle forms than payments marked “BRIBE.”

dkos

Glenn Greenwald Unethically Taped Witnesses While Working for Matt Hale, White Supremacist.

snip..

"Mr. Hale, for his role in the shootings, was sued by a number of survivors. This included a case filed by two teenage Orthodox Jewish boys. And another case filed by a Black minister. These people were selected by Benjamin Smith because they looked like the religious/ethnic minorities they are.

And Glenn Greenwald called them 'odious and repugnant' for suing his client--"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211

Only it's Greenwald who is "odious and repugnant".. whatever he's posing as.. here he is now trying to keep himself relevant and suppressing the vote in 2012.. when he "expertly previewed the 2012 election"..

The GG fanclub is evidently ashamed of his libertarianism and are trying to rebrand him as anything but..

Greenwald: "The sole excuse now offered by Democratic loyalists.. "

Thank you the thread, ProSense

[spanone]

129. k&r...

[ucrdem]

134. The front page of The Intercept has "news" from last February

and the latest is from May 19:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/news/

That's really pathetic, even for hack RW trolls.

[DonCoquixote]

136. I will go with

"
Obama defenders seem to have two choices here: either the president broke the law in releasing these five detainees, or Congress cannot bind the commander-in-chief’s power to transfer detainees when he wants, thus leaving Obama free to make those decisions himself."

I will go with he broke the law in not telling congress, but that he had very good cause as he had a duty to save an American life, and that he knew tellig congess would ruin it. Let's not forget that it could be said he oberyed the UN law by getting these idiots out of gitmo in the first place.

[The Traveler]

142. I'm an engineer, not a lawyer

So ... I could be way wrong on this. On the surface, it appears to me that

a) Obama violated the law (maybe)
b) The law is possibly unconstitutional

Now, I am all for checks and balances and maintaining limits on Executive power, for history and Nixon and Reagan and Bush have shown us that executive over reach can be really hazardous to the nation's health. And I understand that Greenwald is very sensitive to that issue. But in this case, I think he serves his broader interests poorly.

The exchange was in my view an exchange of POWs, which is the sort of thing that happens as wars wind down. (And, as I understand applicable international law, required at some point.) Obama and crew did exactly the right thing, and discretion was essential to successfully negotiating this. The violation of law (if any ... because Congress WAS advised in 2011 that this was on the table) is technical at worst.

So while I understand Greenwald's point, I have to disagree with it in this case. Frankly, I think he is being pissy. My lord, Pro, we are in agreement!

Trav

[Scurrilous]

143. K & R

[Whisp]

144. Go count your ill gotten money, Mr. Greenbacks, and shut your pie hole. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

153. ProSense uses Greenwald to bore us all to death n/t

[Cha]

157. whatchamacallit makes inane comment about ProSense Again.

[butterfly77]

160. When is Greenwald going to be..

picked up for aiding and abetting Snowden?