Show of HandsShow of Hands

DerekWills June 10th, 2014 5:53pm

Pub.L. 113-6 Sec 8110 is the law pertaining to the transfer of Guantanamo detainees that some claim President Obama broke with the Bowe Bergdahl exchange. It is found on page 127 of the pdf. Did President Obama violate this law as claimed?

9 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 7:29 pm

Just to be clear,I know all of the prisoners are going to be released,traded,returned,executed, disposed of. Everyone does. They will not be kept or held by the U.S.There is no wrong doing so no charges for breaking any laws.If someone asked for info

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 8:37 am

Still not in accordance with the law.

Diogenes FreeMeBe
06/11/14 9:10 am

HIS law!

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 12:04 pm

How can anyone,that read the link, say yes? There couldn't be in anyway wrong doing.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 12:10 pm

How do you figure?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 12:34 pm

There is nothing in the section of the link that I read that Obama, his administration, or anyone involved, didn't do or failed to do.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 12:40 pm

They did not notify Congress of the transfer until it happened. The law says that no one can appropriate funds for the transfer of detainees (which isn't free) without the SecDef (with concurrence of SecState and Director of National Intelligence)

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 12:43 pm

Notifying the appropriate Congressional committees at least 30 days prior to the transfer. The exceptions outlined were not followed as per the law and did not meet the criteria. So tell me how they followed the law.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 12:47 pm

Anyone,anyone at all who has knowledge of the prisoners has been given notice. I personally have know for well over 6 years of the closing & release of prisoners. Obama campaigned on this b4 1st term & has been a long term goal of his.who didn't ?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 12:52 pm

So? He campaigned on it in 2008. He never closed Gitmo. This law was signed BY HIM on 3/26/14 and he willfully broke it. He did not follow the procedures as per this law nor did Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, or Gen. James Clapper.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 12:59 pm

No he has been working towards the closing in an ongoing attempt the entire time in office. This has not been done with any attempt to go unnoticed. It's a bs at best lame attempt at nothing. The distraction being made from the fact that we knew for

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 1:00 pm

5 years this guy was aiding the enemy & we took this long to pull him out.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 1:01 pm

Signing the bill was in fact notice.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 1:04 pm

Do you even hear yourself? You're basically saying it's okay for him to break a law because it wasn't illegal back in 2008, but was illegal when he actually did it...

MrMilkdud
06/10/14 1:36 pm

Kspells, I think you're saying that he didn't fail to specifically inform congress of this particular prisoner exchange because he made non-specific pronouncements that he would, as POTUS, seek to liberate any captured US soldier. Right?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 1:51 pm

No,what I'm saying is anyone in congress who says they wer'nt informed is lying & makes them look like they have an agenda.Do you think these charge can't reasonably be defended? You can't close b4 releasing & yes it will cost $.Who didn't know?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 1:53 pm

I'm sorry there are no charges. Never mind it's a non-issue

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 1:54 pm

That doesn't matter. The law says they must follow this procedure before releasing Gitmo detainees. They did not do that. Therefore, they broke the law. There is a formal notification that must be submitted to Congress that didn't happen.

MrMilkdud
06/10/14 1:56 pm

Kspells- when and how was congress informed?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/10/14 1:57 pm

Milk, it's obvious! He notified congress in 2008!! During his campaign!

MrMilkdud
06/10/14 1:59 pm

Seriously, kspells- I'd like to hear how congress was informed 30 days in advance of this particular and specific prisoner exchange?

MrMilkdud
06/10/14 2:00 pm

Do you have a copy of that notice?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 7:32 pm

They already funded the closing of this prison. Not all and future captive prisoners.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 8:26 pm

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42143.pdf
35 of 47 the 35th page is page #32. Underneath the third paragraph on page 32

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 9:01 pm

Mrmilkdud: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42143.pdf
35 of 47 the 35th page is page #32. Underneath the third paragraph on page 32

MrMilkdud
06/10/14 9:09 pm

Kspells: a declaration from Obama stating that he intends to break a law he signed doesn't exonerate him. Presidents don't have the authority to simply interpret laws as they see fit to justify their actions.
Would you have tolerated Bush doing that?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 9:50 pm

You asked for a copy of the notice given. I'm sorry if this doesn't meet the notice standard but he repeated his stance many times. How dense do you have to be to say you were never informed?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 9:52 pm

Besides its not his intention to break the law that he is signing. He is stating the conditions why he will sign and not Veto

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/10/14 10:06 pm

MrMilkdud: please explain why non -existent issue is so attractive. It isn't a reality that needs to be solved. How come the one thing I think is real; that is we let this guy help the enemy for 5 years & no one thinks that might be an actual breech

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:12 am

Kspells, this is very simple:

The law clearly states that he must notify congress 30 days in advance of any prisoner exchange.

Simply announcing his intention to break that law as he sees fit does not satisfy that requirement.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:16 am

Presidents don't have the power or authority to ignore laws they don't like.

You're just excusing his behavior because you agree with his liberal agenda.

If a conservative was caught breaking a law so blatantly, you would not be so forgiving.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:03 am

The only reason he signed it into being a law was because of the conditions he added.It didn't have to become law he could veto but no he signed with conditions added.The part you missed is that everyone always knew.Because he gave plenty of notice

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:07 am

Now if he hadn't made it explicitly clear what his intentions were. You might have a point. Yes he can interpret these condition differently than the wording because he added it into the bill way before he signed it into law.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:08 am

Or do you really believe time and time again he added these conditions without anyone noticing?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:11 am

Didn't ever happen in reality. There are solid reasons that he won't be charged with breaking any laws here. No matter how hard you make believe.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 4:43 am

Kspells, that's not how our system works.
The president doesn't get to rewrite bills or add conditions before signing them.
He gets to sign them, as they are, or veto them.
That's it.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 4:44 am

So it doesn't matter if he or you think he set conditions before signing a law.

He doesn't have the authority to set conditions like that.

Therefore, when he signed the law, he signed it as it was, without altering it.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 4:46 am

So now we're back to the beginning.

The president doesn't have the right or ability to pick and choose what laws he follows.

If he didn't notify congress 30 days in advance, he broke the law.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 4:48 am

If Congress passed a law that said "Eating dogs is hereby illegal unless 30 days notice is given to Congress" and he signed that law, would it be okay for him to eat dog without notice because he told us he was going to in his book?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 5:35 am

Spells, I read your "notice." This is not sufficient notice as per the legislation. First of all, that report is dated 1/27/14, two months BEFORE the law in question was law. Secondly, the sentence prior to that paragraph says "In a statement made

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 5:38 am

upon signing the 2012 NDAA into law..." The 2012 NDAA was signed into law 12/31/11, two years and three months BEFORE the law in question was law. And finally, as per the law, no appropriations will be made available for transferring Gitmo detainees

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 5:40 am

"unless the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 before the transfer of the individual..." The aforementioned subsection says that the certification is a "written certification made

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 5:42 am

By the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, that..." then it lists everything that must be in said certification... And it's a lot. Therefore, the SecDef

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 5:44 am

did not submit said certification to Congress as per the "notice" you provided. This means that President Obama authorized the transfer of a Guantánamo detainee in direct violation of Public Law 113-6 § 8110(a)(1).

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 7:47 am

I must make a correction. The law was signed in 2013, not 2014. That January report you cited was published in 2014, ten months after the law. That said, it still does not meet the criteria laid out by the law, nor does it specifically mention any

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 7:47 am

intents to transfer these 5 specific detainees.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 7:51 am

Derek- it doesn't matter when he wrote that. It wouldn't matter if he scribbled it on the actual bill he signed and had all the Supreme Court justices sign it.

The POTUS doesn't have the power to change a law.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 8:03 am

I know Milk. That's why I said that it still doesn't meet the criteria as per the legislation.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 8:28 am

I know you get it. I wasn't correcting anything you said, just adding that to
keep kspells from derailing the real issue and switching the focus to fit her agenda.
I think kspells just has a blind spot for Obama.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 8:30 am

I doubt she'd approve of Bush openly ignoring particular laws as he saw fit.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 8:38 am

I hope not. I'd like to see her explain how Obama is within his rights here.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 8:43 am

Simple! He's Obama! Congress is in gridlock, so he must act without them.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 10:46 am

I'm sorry I didn't mean to quit replying.I can't explain how Obama had any right to do what he did when he traded the specific 5 detainees.Im sure the laws apply to all detainees & not just the ones after 2012. I'm sure it will make an interesting

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 10:49 am

Trial. The charges against Obama although imanginary should be hard to defend. And most likely be his impeachable downfall. Or not

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 10:54 am

So are you agreeing that it isn't within the purview of the president to simply ignore laws he doesn't like?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 11:25 am

"The charges against Obama although imanginary should be hard to defend." What does this even mean? Any imaginary charge should be a cakewalk to defend.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:08 pm

Obama made his intentional interpretatation

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:11 pm

Kspells starts talking more obscurely as her position unravels.
I've seen this before.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:11 pm

Of his intent over and over again. With all of these times over the years did you not object then? If not you then your REP had opportunity to inject but didn't find any reason to. So if after so long of no objections then it must mean approval

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:14 pm

If congress new this is not how our system works & that the intentions of Obama were in violation why didn't they oppose? They have no problem opposing everything else he does.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:16 pm

No. Because 1) people did object and have objected on other occasions when he's tried to sidestep the law like this.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:17 pm

2) when we have objected (and there have been polls about this- I think you and I have actually discussed it before) the liberal response has been "stop freaking out. He hasn't actually done anything yet. It isn't illegal to just talk about it."

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:17 pm

My position is the same as when I stated it. No reasonable person could possibly think Obama broke any laws by trading the detainees. Or has he been charged?

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:18 pm

3. Even if he was given a pass on previous occasions, it doesn't make it any less illegal on those or future incidences. If a cop catches you spending but lets you off with a warning, that's not a precedent to get out of future tickets.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:19 pm

4. You can't really believe the points you're making. Can you please just admit that you are a diehard apologist for your team?

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:21 pm

Kspells- Obama broke the law. A law he signed.
It doesn't matter that he said he was going to do it.
It doesn't matter that he's broken this or other laws before.
It doesn't matter than he hasn't been called out for this before.

He broke the law.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:22 pm

No side stepping. Very clearly his administration will remain flexible when it comes to national security doing war time and dealing with our enemies. Only compiling when time is not a factor.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:22 pm

Presidents can't get a pass for breaking the law.
Even if they say they should.
Even if they write a book about it.
Even if the people who elected them want to give him a pass.
Even if they've been given a pass in the part.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:23 pm

We are a nation ruled by laws. Not by men.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 12:23 pm

Spells, did Obama or Chuck Hagel submit to Congress a written certification of transferring these 5 detainees? Yes or no.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:23 pm

Mrmilkdud: it doesn't matter just because you think it should.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:24 pm

I'm sorry I meant because you wish it would matter.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:26 pm

Kspells, now you're taking a condescending tone.
That is something else you do when you know you're defending a losing position.
We'll add that to your first defense mechanism- making obscure comments (which we've already pointed out).

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:28 pm

Derek the thought never even entered their mind to inform anybody of their thoughts,actions, or timeline when this was going down. Just exactly the way he said he was going to act on this issue since 2009. How much clearer does it have to be?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:34 pm

To win your ( losing ) position he'd have to be charged. So let's see who position will stand as correct.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 12:38 pm

What's hilarious about this is Chuck Hagel got grilled today and didn't use anything that you're offering as a defense because it's absurd. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Answer my question, did they or did they not submit a written

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 12:38 pm

Certification to congress 30 days prior to transferring these 5 detainees?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 12:44 pm

If you didn't get a chance to read my last comments. Your answer is, No, they didn't & knew they didn't & never had any intention of doing so. Knew what the laws intent was & believed it didn't apply to them & knowingly acted any way.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:47 pm

That sounds about as close to an admission as I think we're going to get, Derek.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 12:50 pm

And I'd like to add that our government must be extremely incompetent if our president's fans are defending him on the premise that he didn't actually understand a law that he signed.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 12:51 pm

Spells...... I have no words for how dumbfounded I am with your blind and ridiculous defense of this incident. I'm sure Obama could eat a puppy on live TV and you'd say "he made the world safer for cats."

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 1:52 pm

Okay now that everyone has had a good cry.Are you feeling any better?There is nothing to defend.You might be angry but not because of wrong doing by this administration.There is nothing congress can do because nothing illegal took place. Hagel even

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 1:55 pm

Let congress vent. But he was not accused if asked he was prepared to explain to the uniformed. But everyone realizes that they may be angry but there are no grounds. So is my position still unravelling?

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 1:56 pm

Arguing with you is so weird.
It's almost like you almost start seeing our side of it and then you reflexively snap back to some random talking point.

Are you even aware that we've already discussed and dealt with that point?

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 1:59 pm

I can't talk to you anymore. You are probably the biggest Obama toe sucker I've ever met. I don't know if you really are this far out in Lala Land or if you're just trolling.... Although you seem far more like the former than the latter.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:01 pm

Mrmilkdud: how more of an admission is possible. If admission degrees vary. I'll try again.O knew the law & it's intent. He did not comply.He did nothing to cover his refusal to comply.Knowing it was openly done without any regard to congress w/a

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:03 pm

F**** that attitude went & acted in just the opposite of want the laws' intent (and congress )was blatantly. Any better?

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 2:03 pm

That statement is in direct contradiction to several other comments you've made.
You just said he didn't do anything illegal a few comments ago.

Get your stories straight.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 2:06 pm

How does that fit with you saying the admin did nothing wrong, that there isn't anything to accuse him of, etc?

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:07 pm

Hey a sore loser is just misinformed. Watch or read Chuck Hagel's Q and A. Maybe you can convince him of seeing your point

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:09 pm

You are correct I stand by my statement of Nothing illegal was done by our president or his administration. The law your speaking on behalf of here does not apply.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 2:09 pm

I watched the hearing live on C-Span.... He got destroyed.

DerekWills Lone Star Gun Rights
06/11/14 2:10 pm

Jesus Christ... I'm done....

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 2:11 pm

So you believe that 1. Obama did not comply with the law and 2. Obama did not break the law.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 2:13 pm

Yeah, I'm done too.
Kspells, you're contradicting yourself left and right now.

You're either flat out nuts or you're a troll. Or both.
I don't really care.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 2:42 pm

Look guys I am not controlling the reality of this situation. I may see it more clearly as it is actually happening. But nothing you have said changes it either. As it stands and will no charges can or will be brought. Not because of what I think.

MrMilkdud
06/11/14 2:44 pm

You may want to avoid making any statements about reality. I don't think you spend much time in it.

kspells TheOtherOtherside
06/11/14 3:21 pm

Derek I know your done and I do regret my part in irritating you but if you would,please, answer: Will charges be brought against Chuck?