I heard Simon Conway interviewing a former JAG official about this yesterday. Sounds like a pretty slam dunk CM case now, with BB likely facing life in prison.
Not defending the decision, but we never had a, "we don't negotiate with terrorists" mantra. That was only a mantra in Hollywood creations. Our long standing policy has been to always negotiate with terrorists. That's what the terrorist used to their advantage during 911. They knew that policy would dictate that the crew give them command of the plane hoping to negotiate for the hostages.
This is contrary to the testimony of soldier witnesses.
Wrong. The military negotiates with the enemy all the time to retrieve POWs.
I'm just looking for some consistency here. The military had no problem sending entire units out for BB even knowing that he had likely deserted. So how did Obama do anything different by also not leaving him behind? The fact is that POWs are negotiated for all the time, both after and during wars. You can complain that Obama got the short end of the stick trading a Pinto for a group of BMWs, which he did, but at the end of the day, he followed policy and retrieved one of our soldiers when he had the opportunity.
Perhaps you are correct but the Rose Garden ceremony to celebrate does not lead to view this as Obama upholding the military policy of man left behind. His message that BB served with honor and distinction showed a total lack of understanding of the situation.
Too bad for John then. It's not his call to make. The US military has a long history of risking a lot to make sure they don't leave anyone behind. If you don't like the policy, complain about the policy. But don't complain when Obama follows it.
Now by some, do you mean the GOP? Because that is what the article says. I'm sorry, but the GOP no longer has any credibility left. After Benghazi totally fell through, Boehner's lawsuit going nowhere, and Planned Parenthood following suit, the GOP's word that Obama did something illegal carries zero weight anymore. And this is just another example of this. How do I know? Because Obama was never found guilty of doing anything illegal with this swap.
There's a big difference between the GOP claiming Obama did something illegal, which he didn't, and Feinstein saying she is disappointed by the move, while conceding that he the authority to make it.
See my above post, jackass. Feinstein clearly suggests that Obama had the authority to make the move, which is in no way the same as the Republicans claiming that Obama broke federal law.
You're aware that this law is superseded by the Constitution itself which requires that the President protect the lives of Americans abroad and the soldiers themselves, right? The two were in conflict of each other. Obama chose to follow the Constitution.
Does that include the lives of civilians being held by Iran? Why does Obama not make a deal and bring those people home? Seems like the deal he make with the them would have been an opportunity to bring them home.
