So, I care more about ethics than the law. But I dont buy it. Obama is right. The NDAA notification requirement unconstitutionally usurps the presidents authority to free executive detainees in the war on terror. Statutes passed since 9/11 have expressed congressional authority over military tribunals, which I dont see where Congress has the authority to prevent the executive from releasing prisoners than the executive itself imprisoned. Turley is not guilty of the hypocrisy, but many conservatives arguing that Obama has to consult Congress to free detainees did not seem to think Bush had to consult Congress to create and populate prison camps in the first place, to say nothing of the hundreds the Bush administration freed from Guantanamo (or the many thousands more war captives freed in Iraq and elsewhere). Can Obama sign a bill and issue a signing statement that acts as a partial veto? Maybe not. But that whole law is arguably repugnant to the Constitution, and the notification requirement doesnt seem to enjoy much constitutional basis. But all that aside, yeah, presidents have done prisoner swaps before. As for the general argument that presidents shouldnt negotiate with terrorists or wicked regimes like the Taliban, that ship sailed long ago. See Ronald Reagan. And if someone thinks prisoner swaps are somehow inherently evil, they should at least recognize Obama stands as part of a long tradition of war captive exchanges going back to at least the War of 1812.
Posted on: Mon, 02 Jun 2014 23:16:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015