Sordid clambake
https://mail.theoneboard.com/board/
Like any other deal, you have to look at what we got and what we gave up to get it. What we got was a deserter and traitor. What we gave up was five very dangerous individuals who go back to work doing their best to kill more American troops. Kind of a lose/lose from any sane perspective.Roach wrote:Making deals with terrorists. What could go wrong with that?
a good bet would be a gender change operation.88 wrote:Has the urgent medical condition that required this action been disclosed, as yet?
What part violated the law? Was it the chocolate cake he included in the deal or was it the 1000 TOW missiles?mvscal wrote:So...our brainless, polesmoking picaninny in chief decided it would be a swell idea to swap five high ranking Taliban operatives for a US Army deserter and blatantly violated the law.
Questions?JAY CARNEY: What I can tell you is that the main dialogue that we support is the dialogue between Afghans -- between the Taliban and the Afghan government. However, there are some issues that we would like to discuss with the Taliban directly, and this includes the safe return of Sergeant Bergdahl, who has been gone for far too long.
We continue to call for and work toward his safe and immediate release. We cannot discuss all the details of our efforts, but there should be no doubt that on a daily basis we are continuing to pursue -- using our military, intelligence and diplomatic tools -- the effort to return him home safely. And our hearts are with the Bergdahl family.
With regard to the transfer of Taliban detainees from Guantanamo Bay, we have made -- the United States has not made the decision to do that, though we do expect the Taliban to raise this issue in our discussion, if and when those discussions happen.
As we have long said, however, we would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.
Do you really want to go down that path?Moving Sale wrote: the 1000 TOW missiles?
Boo fucking Hoo. Congress may have not gotten notice. Go ahead and try and enforce an unconstitutional law.mvscal wrote:The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.
fucking pansy.You are the one bitching about shitty hostage deals. We get it. You are a racist shitstain and the POTUS is black. Go crawl back under your white sheet potato peeler.mvscal wrote:Do you really want to go down that path?Moving Sale wrote: the 1000 TOW missiles?
And you're the one bitching about utterly brilliant hostage deals. I get it. You're a fucking idiot.Moving Sale wrote:You are the one bitching about shitty hostage deals.mvscal wrote:Do you really want to go down that path?Moving Sale wrote: the 1000 TOW missiles?
Ah, no. We fucked them over too by giving satellite intel on their troop movements to the Iraqis. The Boland Amendment was of little consequence and was quietly repealed without comment.Moving Sale wrote:So you like the Iranians...
The law? Unclutch your pearls, for fuck's sake. DoD and the White House bend Congress over on a regular basis when it comes to "the law" (especially in procurement), it's only when Congress can actually make something of it when it really matters. See: James Clapper, drone warfare, Keith Alexander and the NSA, revolving door arrangements, Et fucking Al.mvscal wrote:The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.
Yes, the law. You know...the thing the Executive branch is sworn to uphold and enforce? Ringing any bells...?Screw_Michigan wrote:The law?mvscal wrote:The part where Oshitskin is required to give 30 days notice to Congress before moving detainees from Gitmo. That is the law.
It served our purpose. We didn't want either side to win so we played them off against each other, bled them white and got the outcome we desired. It's not about oxes being gored. It's about wins for the country.Moving Sale wrote:As for the Iranians you can say you are not sucking their dicks but giving them TOWs was the best BJ they got that whole damn decade.
Yes, you idiot. I'm not saying your wrong. I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.mvscal wrote:Yes, the law. You know...the thing the Executive branch is sworn to uphold and enforce? Ringing any bells...?
mvscal wrote:We didn't want either side to win so we played them off against each other...
Oh, I am. If the Chief Executive of the nation is going to break the law, there had better be a goddamn good reason for doing so. Maybe you can walk me through the 'win' for the country here. And, no, knocking the VA scandal out of the news for a cycle or two doesn't count.Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.
Probably because Iraq was a Soviet client during that era. Or is there something about Iraq being equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet APCs, Soviet artillery, Soviet small arms, Soviet fixed wing aircraft and Soviet rotary wing aircraft that is still confusing you?Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?
mvscal wrote:Probably because Iraq was a Soviet client during that era. Or is there something about Iraq being equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet APCs, Soviet artillery, Soviet small arms, Soviet fixed wing aircraft and Soviet rotary wing aircraft that is still confusing you?Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?
The F-4 was an out of date POS...and Iran was flying F-4 Phantoms
He didn't break the law you stupid asshat. Hr4310sec1027 is clear that they have to be released to us soil to trigger the 30 day notice. Go fuck a porcupine.mvscal wrote:Oh, I am. If the Chief Executive of the nation is going to break the law, there had better be a goddamn good reason for doing so. Maybe you can walk me through the 'win' for the country here. And, no, knocking the VA scandal out of the news for a cycle or two doesn't count.Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.
Once again, the fraud in the WH has chosen an option which hurts the nation he is supposed to be leading and uplifting.mvscal wrote:Like any other deal, you have to look at what we got and what we gave up to get it. What we got was a deserter and traitor. What we gave up was five very dangerous individuals who go back to work doing their best to kill more American troops. Kind of a lose/lose from any sane perspective.
There is no section 1027, dumbfuck. Are you sure you're a lawyer? In any event, section 1037 reads as follows:Moving Sale wrote:He didn't break the law you stupid asshat. Hr4310sec1027 is clear that they have to be released to us soil to trigger the 30 day notice. Go fuck a porcupine.mvscal wrote:Oh, I am. If the Chief Executive of the nation is going to break the law, there had better be a goddamn good reason for doing so. Maybe you can walk me through the 'win' for the country here. And, no, knocking the VA scandal out of the news for a cycle or two doesn't count.Screw_Michigan wrote:I'm a realist. Thought you would be as well.
SEC. 1037. REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTIFICATIONS RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF DETAINEES AT UNITED STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES AND OTHER FOREIGN ENTITIES.
(a) CERTIFICATION REQUIRED PRIOR TO TRANSFER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) and subsection (d), the Secretary of Defense may not use any amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2013 to transfer any individual detained at Guantanamo to the custody or control of the individual’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity unless the Secretary submits to Congress the certification described in subsection (b) not later than 30 days before the transfer of the individual.
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cf ... fc9e75488a
OK, thanks for the full version.Moving Sale wrote:You are an idiot and so is Buck McKeon.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 310enr.pdf
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off ... nt-hr-4310
Note that section 1027 makes no mention whatsoever of reporting requirements to Congress. Probably because those requirements are found in section 1037 which I posted previously.SEC. 1027. PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR THE TRANSFER
OR RELEASE OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED
STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
None of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act
for fiscal year 2013 may be used to transfer, release, or assist
in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories,
or possessions of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or any other
detainee who—
(1) is not a United States citizen or a member of the
Armed Forces of the United States; and
(2) is or was held on or after January 20, 2009, at United
States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Department
of Defense.
Because Iran, under the Shah, was a "regional partner" during that era so we equipped him with American weapon systems.Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:mvscal wrote:Probably because Iraq was a Soviet client during that era. Or is there something about Iraq being equipped with Soviet tanks, Soviet APCs, Soviet artillery, Soviet small arms, Soviet fixed wing aircraft and Soviet rotary wing aircraft that is still confusing you?Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:Why is it so difficult for you to admit that Iraq was a "regional partner" during that era?
...and Iran was flying F-4 Phantoms.
You kept supplying Phantom parts to Iran throughout the 80's, also various weapons systems through Israel.mvscal wrote:
Because Iran, under the Shah, was a "regional partner" during that era so we equipped him with American weapon systems.
Are you really this dumb?
Is it half black?Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:I got one in the chamber...
Sirfindafold wrote:Is it half black?Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:I got one in the chamber...