The Left and Right Are Both Wrong About Obama’s Bergdahl Prison Swap

The surprise release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl this past weekend has become the dominant story of this week’s news cycle, but while there is significant disagreement about the merits of the prisoner swap that led to Bergdahl’s release, everyone seems to agree on one thing: this is a great opportunity to attack President Obama over signing statements. Republicans fret that the President violated the law by failing to give Congress 30 days notice for the transfer of Gitmo detainees, while liberals wonder why Obama doesn’t just ignore the law and release the rest of the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

The Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange  is genuinely a complicated issue to hash out, on a number of levels. That complexity has led to the weird spectacle of administration opponents expressing gratitude at Sgt. Bergdahl’s return, while in the next breath explaining why he should have been left to die. It has also led to the weird spectacle of critics accusing the President of negotiating with terrorists, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel insisting that because the government of Qatar acted as intermediary, there was no negotiation. The politically unsaleable truth is that we did negotiate with the Taliban, but that, for purposes of that negotiation, they weren’t really terrorists. They were an enemy force holding a U.S. prisoner of war.

There is also  legitimate angst about the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s capture, versus the cost to return him home. There is intense debate over allegations that Bergdahl was captured while AWOL, or even deserting, and bitterness about the lives lost trying to recover him. The White House, with the exception of National Security Advisor Susan Rice, has been cautious about glorifying Bergdahl’s service. During Saturday’s announcement of Bergdahl’s release, President Obama conspicuously praised everyone but Bowe Bergdahl for their courage and sacrifice, but Rice, in an appearance on ABC’s This Week, said that Bergdahl “served with honor and distinction.”

At Monday’s White House daily briefing, outgoing Press Secretary Jay Carney was asked, repeatedly, if the White House stood by Rice’s assessment, and Carney essentially responded “Squirrel!”

YouTube Preview Image

As Carney said, though, the circumstances surrounding Bergdahl’s capture are irrelevant to evaluating this exchange. He is entitled to presumption of innocence and due process, and if there is any music for him to face, he should face it here. The promise that we make to servicemembers never to leave them behind isn’t, and shouldn’t, be superseded by this sort of value judgment. What sort of precedent would we set if we could break that promise, provided we could come up with a sufficient rationale for writing them off?

Then, there’s the matter of the five Gitmo detainees who were traded for Bergdahl, and whom critics are convinced will reenter the fight. It’s one thing to release terrorists back to the battlefield in exchange for nothing, but quite another to be a black president. Reoublicans say the President violated the National Defense Authorization Act by failing to give Congress 30 days notice of the prisoner transfer, while the administration says that under these circumstances, that law violated the U.S. Constitution’s separation of powers, as the President noted in a signing statement:

Section 1035 does not, however, eliminate all of the unwarranted limitations on foreign transfers and, in certain circumstances, would violate constitutional separation of powers principles. The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers.

… In the event that the restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo detainees in sections 1034 and 1035 operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my Administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.

At Monday’s briefing, CNN’s Joe Johns asked Carney to square that signing statement with President Obama’s general resistance to signing statements as a candidate for president, when he criticized then-President George W. Bush’s overuse of them. That criticism of Bush has become a favorite target for right-wing accusations of hypocrisy, but Carney took the opportunity to set the record straight. He pointed out that “it’s often misreported that he somehow took a position against all signing statements,”and that then-Senator Obama “made clear that there were times when it would be appropriate, but that the authority to issue signing statements should not be overused or abused,” such as when there are “constitutional issues involved in a particular legislation.”

YouTube Preview Image

In statements as a candidate, and in a memorandum about signing statements when he first took office, President Obama has always been clear about the circumstances under which he would use signing statements, and his right-wing critics have failed to explain where he gets them wrong, or how he has deviated from them.

But the Bergdahl release has resurrected an attack from the anti-Gitmo left, the notion that, if the President can use a signing statement to justify the release of these five prisoners, then he can do so for all of the Gitmo detainees. If the President can “ignore the law” in this case, then why not do the same for the rest of the detainees? MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked that very question, on behalf of anti-Gitmo activists, on his All In program Monday night, but the premise of that question relies on the same fundamental misunderstanding about signing statements that the right relies on. They’re both asserting that the President is using the signing statement to ignore the law. Here is what President Obama said about using signing statements in 2007, at a Montana town hall campaign event:

YouTube Preview Image

When Hayes played that clip last night, he cut it off when Obama said “we’re not going to use signing statements,” but the rest of that sentence is “as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

The President’s NDAA signing statement doesn’t do that, it seeks to preserve the will of Congress, with a very narrow, well-defined exception. The test of that exception isn’t settled by the signing statement, it is settled by the U.S. Constitution, and if it is challenged, by the Supreme Court. No one has said that the Bergdahl swap would not withstand such a challenge, but a wholesale release of Gitmo detainees likely would not.

By contrast, for example, then-President George W. Bush’s signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 was significantly more broad than President Obama’s:

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks.

If there is a problem with President Obama’s and Bush’s signing statements, it’s that they helped to make sure that they were never put to the test. You can bet good money, though, that if President Obama tried to stretch his signing statement into a full closure of Gitmo, Republicans and many Democrats would not return that favor.

Like Us On Facebook!

More on the Banter:

Thanks Obama! Now Fox Thinks The Interview Flap Is The White House's Fault

Thanks Obama! Now Fox Thinks The Interview Flap Is The White House's Fault

It must be completely exhausting to work at Fox News, where literally every effing thing is Obama's [Read more...]
America, Fuck No: Paramount Now Surrenders on "Team America" Because We Suck
The Best Of the Banter: Banter Begins, Bush's Gaffes, Kim Jong-un's Death, and Lots More

The Best Of the Banter: Banter Begins, Bush's Gaffes, Kim Jong-un's Death, and Lots More

We bring you the week that was in the world of Banter.[Read more...]
President Obama Talks About Racism And That Time He Was Mistaken For A Waiter

President Obama Talks About Racism And That Time He Was Mistaken For A Waiter

The President and First Lady open up to People magazine about their own experiences with racism. Peo[Read more...]
Another Republican Is Talking About 'Legitimate Rape' and I Have a Question

Another Republican Is Talking About 'Legitimate Rape' and I Have a Question

Republican State Representative Rick Brattin is introducing a bill in his home state of Missouri tha[Read more...]
  • Rev_Rock

    Since Bergdahl appears to be a “deserter” (how you can desert from an unconstitutional ‘war’, I don’t know), why would he be worth 5 supposed Taliban ‘leaders’? Not to say that he should’ve been left in Afghanistan, but why would you find it some sort of ‘emergency’ to trade 5 top ‘leaders’ for one lowly, deserting, sergeant? Seems there’s something else going on here besides a simple prisoner swap.

  • missliberties

    Lordy! This IS complicated. !!

  • ursulas

    This was one of the worst written opinion pieces I’ve ever read.

  • D. Alexander

    It looks like the position of Republicans is that we should leave some military members behind and the media appears to agree with them. Rachel Maddow did a segment on the Jessica Lynch debacle by the Bush administration and by the media; it was embarrassing for both. She noted that one article about Lynch has disappeared from the online archives of the WaPo.

    • BodieF

      Let us not forget how the Bush spun the death of Pat Tillman. It took years for his family to get the military to do on record and admit Tillman had been killed by friendly fire. The Bush era war criminals used his death as propaganda just as they used Jessica Lynch. Tillman, like Bergdahl, quickly became disillusioned and believed that the war was illegal and unjust. .

      • conundrum

        Yeah, the issue is not whether Bergdahl just wandered down the wrong alley or deserted, the issue is 1) Don’t let the black President get credit for a good deed, and 2) Don’t make too many comments that might be useful the sane part of the population if the Republicans deceide that they can trump up an impeachment out of this.

  • http://www.osborneink.com/ OsborneInk

    “Land of the free and the home of the brave” — unless the word ‘jihadi’ is used, because that word makes the wingnuts shit themselves in terror and demand checkpoints nationwide to check the papers of suspicious men with beards.

  • Rollo Tamasi

    When Hayes played that clip last night, he cut it off when Obama said “we’re not going to use signing statements,” but the rest of that sentence is “as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

    So, Mr. Hayes committed a journalistic unethical act?

    • Kim Jones

      I am not sure of that, but what I do know is that if you would have taken two minutes to read the comments you would see this issue has already been brought up.

    • Peter James

      Wouldn’t be the first time where he’s concerned….

  • Barbara Striden

    Has the constitutionality of signing statements ever been tested?

  • BanditBasheert

    Didn’t Ronnie St. Raygun trade arms to Iran for hostages?
    Oh wait …

    And how did John McCain get out of the Hanoi Hilton? Did “someone” negotiate for his release”, even though he had provided aid to the enemy?

    • swift_4

      I do not recall…

  • Sabyen91

    ‘When Hayes played that clip last night, he cut it off when Obama said “we’re not going to use signing statements,” but the rest of that sentence is “as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”’

    Wow, that is Fox Newsish.

  • cablejunkie

    one of the gitmo guys bush sent home is thought to be a major player in the benghazi attack.

    • bhil

      Yeah Bush did that and where was the Faux outrage then? They all did something to get someone back consider Reagan and “arms for hostages” deal that deal got him the Presidency, no outrage then.

  • formerlywhatithink

    The administration wasn’t negotiating, through Qatar, with terrorists (the Taliban). They were negotiating with the government that had been in place, and was the declared enemy, in Afghanistan (the Taliban) when we invaded. It’s a fine distinction, but it’s there.

    As for Bergdahl, and the backlash he’s getting from some of his former fellow soldiers (as well as a bunch of arm chair Rambos who have no god damn idea what they are talking about):

    1. Bring the guy home.
    2. Investigate what happened at the time of his capture and what lead up to it.
    3. If he violated an article(s) of the UCMJ, find him guilty.
    4. Sentence him to time served.

    • BanditBasheert

      Well said.

  • Shandy

    So the critics would like to send him back to Afghanistan? If not, then STFU and move on.

    Some of the (little) thoughtful analysis I’ve read on this points out that as soon as leave Afghanistan in the next year or two, it will change the status of “POWs” we picked up there. We won’t have an open conflict with the Taliban, so under international law we’ll have to be releasing the “POWs” one way or another anyway.

  • Sabreen60

    The 5 detainees are no longer young men. Since when did Tpublicans become such cowards. They actually think 5 individuals will have a huge effect on terrorism? Actually they could care less about the 5 detainees and they certainly don’t care about Bowe. They put him on trial before charges are leveled. Tpublicans only card they have is “we hate President Obama and don’t care what he does, how he does it or why he does”. Period. Full. Stop.

    • cablejunkie

      perfectly put

    • Matthew J

      “Since when did Tpublicans become such cowards?”

      They’ve always been so — cowardice is the core of conservative philosophy. All of their words and actions stem from that source.

    • JozefAL

      Those detainees are still contemporaries (in terms of age) of many of the GOP’s “rising stars” and a number of Teabagger favorites.

    • D. Alexander

      Remember the Bush administration released over 500 prisoners from Gitmo, how many of them went back to their old ways?

  • http://usrimfireshooters.wordpress.com/ RimfireShooter

    My take is simple. If the evidence had been there to prosecute the detainees we would’ve done so already. So no matter how dangerous we allege them to be, they should have gotten released without the evidence to hold them.

    At least we got someone for something we should have already done

    • Sayit1

      There is evidence.. where have you been ? Do a little research on these guys instead of being ignorant.

      • http://usrimfireshooters.wordpress.com/ RimfireShooter

        Not enough evidence to prosecute though.

  • repugnicant

    I certainly applaud Obama for going the extra mile to get Bergdahl back. There are now 5 more recognizable faces trotting around extremist territories, broadening the target range.

    • Rollo Tamasi

      Aren’t they in a prison in Qatar for 1 year? Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • repugnicant

        Travel restrictions only, from what I’ve read

        • Robustoman

          Double-secret probation.

    • bbiemeret

      Stephen Colbert pointed this out on last night Report. Something about, and I’m paraphrasing, “being released into a treeless expanse of desert, constantly patrolled by Predator drones… Enjoy that freedom, fellas.”

      • repugnicant

        Sounds like something he’d say.. and spot on.

      • D. Alexander

        I am not against using drones on folks like this if need be.

    • swift_4

      They are under house arrest in Qatar. They could conceivably escape and return to the battlefield. But they haven’t just been dropped back into the middle of Taliban camps.

      • cj

        I wonder if they have texting or tweeting privileges?