Skip to comments.CONFIRMED: Obama Broke US Law by Making Concessions, Paying Ransom for Prisoner Release
Posted on 06/06/2014 8:26:46 PM PDT by lbryce
Obama should have read this before he started negotiating with the Taliban. The US will make no concessions to terrorists. It will not pay ransoms, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism.
U.S. Policy and Response to Terrorists
Since no country is immune to terrorism, it is imperative that governments have the appropriate policies, intelligence and flexible response options to deal effectively with terrorist acts. Trained personnel and programs must be in place before, during and after each crisis, both to respond to the problem and to answer inevitable criticism in the event of failure. Long-term policies to achieve these objectives are costly, complicated and difficult, yet essential as a defense against the importation of terrorism from overseas.
The U.S. position on terrorism is unequivocal: firm opposition to terrorism in all its forms and wherever it takes place. Several National Security Decision Directives as well as statements by the President and senior officials confirm this policy:
The U.S. Government is opposed to domestic and international terrorism and is prepared to act in concert with other nations or unilaterally when necessary to prevent or respond to terrorist acts. The U.S. Government considers the practice of terrorism by any person or group a potential threat to its national security and will resist the use of terrorism by all legal means available. States that practice terrorism or actively support it will not do so without consequence. If there is evidence that a state is mounting or intends to conduct an act of terrorism against this country, the United States will take measures to protect its citizens, property and interests.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
ok. so.. arrest him
before he does something even stupider
My guess is that somewhere along the way we paid some cash to the Haqqani’s. I am waiting for that shoe to drop. Then Barry will as Gordon Ramsey always says be “in the chit”
And besides, you're racist!
No doubt money changed hands after all what’s in it for the Haqqani?
I’m sure there are multiple layers of exchange. Just like winning big in cattle futures don’t ya know.
What if obama really doesn’t want to be the dear leader anymore and he’s just pushing to see what it would take for the citizens to say “enough” and fire him.
What is the Gateway Pundit talking about? I wouldn't be surprised, but I have read no accounts stating that Obama paid a ransom for Bergdahl's release.
Is the Gateway Pundit just guessing here? Or are they equating a prisoner swap with a ransom? Either way, it makes the Gateway Pundit look a bit shrill and over the top.
The labels “practical” and “political” meet somewhere. The president has pardon power. Congress has impeachment power. That’s the controlling legal authority.
BIG grain of salt time:
Stockman to Obama: Did you pay terrorists?
White House responds to Stockman: No ransom for Bergdahl
Don’t you realize by now that laws just don’t apply to connected Democrats anymore?
Just ask anyone at CBS/ABC/CNN/MSNBC/NBC/E!/NPR/AP/TheView/TheDailyShow/OWN/BET/TMZ/WashPost/NYTIMES about this.
He cites this 1999 Army poster stating US policy, not US law.
AR 525-13 (11 Sep 2008)
I'd like to know the specific law Gateway Pundit is citing.
Of course, even if there is a law banning prisoner swaps, it still takes a majority of the House and two thirds of Dingy Harry's Senate to enforce it.
That makes four laws 0bama broke with this swap. Treason - aid and comfort to the enemy. The 30 day Congressional notification NDAA H.R. 1960 Statute - taxpayer dollars were spent to remove these prisoners from Guantanamo Bay. Then there is giving material assistance (human assets) to a non-state terrorist organization and now this one.
And I'd like to know what "ransom" Gateway Pundit is talking about. Did Obama pay money here? Gateway Pundit is implying that, but offers no details whatsoever.
“Bammy Flanagan”, and his wife, “Wookie Fairchild”...
Don't know where Gateway Pundit got his information, but Ollie North claims to have a source who says $5-6 million changed hands.
Oh yes, I will be shocked if we don’t find a funnel of cash in this creepy upside down trade
deal, sooner or later. Have been expecting that shoe to drop any moment.
Where is the report of spending money. Where is that?
Everyone is thinking, if he’s lying about this, then that’s it!
So we’ll find out there was in fact a fat ransom payout, that Obama was lying,
and by then we’ll be immersed in yet another scandal and everyone will say, OK, if he’s lying this time, that’s it,
Where is the report of spending money. Where is that?
Reportedly, the Taliban initially wanted ransom but were more than happy to accept the prisoner exchange deal Obama offered. Besides, Zero figured it gave him an excuse finally to get going on shutting down Camp Gitmo, something his base has long been expecting.
Prisoner exchanges are legal, if not always advisable, and have a history. E.g., KGB Colonel Rudolf Ivanovich Abel for Francis Gary Powers and US student Frederic Prior in 1961.
Paying ransom is legal, too, if even less advisable. Paying ransom to the Taliban would have evoked wonderful comparisons with Thomas Jefferson, who got the US in its first foreign war with Mooselimb pirates over failure to pay ransom.
Interesting. Breitbart has Ollie making that claim on Steve Malzberg's show:
"Someone paid a ransom," North said. "Whether the Qataries paid it, or some big oil sheik, or somebody used our petrodollars, but there was a ransom paid in cash for each one of them, my guess somewhere in the round numbers of $5 or 6 million to get Bergdahl freed. I know that the offer that was on the table before was close to a million."
So, in other words, a ransom might have been paid, but you won't find it in the USG's check register.
I don’t know. I am seeing a definite back off, away from this Obama guy, even now among his own sycophantic media.
I don’t know why, unless they are transitioning to Hillary and the way to hold her head above the water line is to show contrast between her and Obama. To do that, Barachus has to sink under quite a bit,....because their is no difference.
But, something is up and the worms are turning.
You got that right. Obama: the turd that won’t flush down.
and what is the feckless Congress going to do?????
All About Obama.
He does not care about the law, he denunces the law as being a meany thing of the past that does not give his candy fame.
The guy is a raving lunatic.
Ok, so he broke the law...
What are we going to do about it?
So he’ll break it again and again and again...
And no one will do anything....
What does that sound like?
Reportedly, the Haqqanis don't do anything that doesn't result in a wad of cash coming their way. That's probably the basis of North's claim.
The cash probably did come from Qatar...in return for, shall we say, "future considerations".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.