In my dealings with Muslims, especially the more fundamentalist kind, I have noticed something that President Obama does not seem to have noticed so far. Muslims do not want fair trades. They want more, and more, and more. If you give them one finger, they'll take your entire hand - and your arm if they can. Rather than being a symbol of reconciliation, the Taliban - and the sizeable share of the world's Muslim population that supports it - views this as an act of submission, not an act of compassion.
Obama is now known as a dhimmi, a servile non-believer. In that respect, he follows David Cameron, who called for more tolerance of Muslims after Muslims murdered an unarmed British soldier in Britain, and Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament who apologised for freedom of speech after Muslims rioted over a film made by an Egyptian-American.
Remember: you can't give in to Muslims, not even in small matters, or they will view you as weak and try to do even more to you.
From http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/did_obama_break_the_law_in_freeing_gitmo_taliban.html.......The law requires the defense secretary to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, .....
Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent.
A senior administration official, .....Acknowledged that the law was not followed.
I was just talking about this with my husband this morning. I do believe he did break the law. I know he was supposed to get permission. I forgot from who, but yes he did it illegally. I am not really sure why, maybe there is more than meets the eye. We will just have to wait and see.
The GOP wants to say that Obama had to notify them. Really? Below is an excerpt from the definition of Executive Privilege:
The right of the president of the United States to withhold information from Congress or the courts."
Now, consider that Presidents have been invoking this privilege since the 1700's. Bush 43 invoked it 6 times, in 8 years. To date, Obama has only invoked it once. So, if he classifies this decision as Executive Privilege, you can't even argue that he is abusing the use of it!
While there is a law on the books requiring the President to give Congress 30-days advance notice before releasing any combatant held at the Gitmo complex. However the same law gives the President the authority to release prisoners from Gitmo without the advice or approval of Congress. The matter of notice is a courtesy.
No law was broken by President Obama or the State Department in the exchange of the five Taliban prisoners. Though there may be restrictions placed on negotiating with terror groups and those who hold American prisoners of war and vice-versa, no direct negotiations were made and thus there were no infringements. Additionally, it may be of certain issue that there are currently several international laws being broken by holding prisoners in Guantanamo Bay.
While the question of whether these men deserve freedom is not clear cut, the larger war with the Taliban is drawing to a close. Releasing five possibly men for the sake of an innocent man is justified at this stage. The argument really should be, "should one innocent man suffer for the sake of an already won war", and the obvious answer is No.
The president has the right to pardon criminals, and for all intents and purposes, that is what has happened here. The five Taliban prisoners were essentially pardoned as part of a negotiated trade: 5 Taliban for 1 US. Which makes me wonder, why would the US be willing to stoop to such low terms? In addition, why bother negotiating at all? Why not free the American by force? Just wondering.