Congress twice rejected release of Taliban from Gitmo in trade for Bergdahl
Lawmakers from both parties fume over prisoner swap, demand answers
President Obama’s aides met with unanimous opposition from
Congress when they first raised the possibility of releasing five
Taliban
guerrillas from Guantanamo Bay in 2011 and 2012, and administration
officials publicly and repeatedly vowed to return to Capitol Hill before
making any final moves.
But with what they now say was a closing window to secure the release of
ArmySgt. Bowe Bergdahl, Mr. Obama made the call to bypass
Congress and make a deal swapping the five
Taliban fighters in exchange for
Sgt. Bergdahl — and sparking a major constitutional battle with
Congress.
With anger boiling
over, the administration dispatched officials to deliver a closed-door
briefing to senators late Wednesday, but many lawmakers emerged to say
they still have too many unanswered questions about the legality of Mr.
Obama’s move, the details of
Sgt. Bergdahl’s capture and the likelihood that the five
Taliban will return to the fold.
“I
think there’s still an awful lot that has to be looked into. There’s a
lot of information that came out of this, but this is something that is
extremely disturbing. It’s something that needs to be looked into, and I
came out of there with more questions than I got answers,” said Sen.
Joe Manchin III, West Virginia Democrat.
Lawmakers were shown a short video that the
Taliban-aligned group holding
Sgt. Bergdahl
provided as “proof of life,” and several lawmakers said the soldier did
appear to be unwell in the video — countering speculation from some
corners that his health situation was not as desperate as the
administration had suggested.
But the administration made little headway in convincing senators that it was a good decision to release the five
Taliban members, who have been sent to Qatar, where they are supposed to be monitored for a year but seem to be living openly.
“I promise you, in a year from now, if not before, they will be back in
Afghanistan and in the fight,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican.
In
an earlier closed-door briefing, officials even confirmed there was a
great likelihood some of them will return to war-fighting, a possibility
Mr. Obama himself had acknowledged earlier this week.
“I think the
White House was looking for a twofer, to announce in one week that we were going to withdraw from
Afghanistan,
ending the longest war in U.S. history and, oh, by the way, as
commander in chief I secured the last captive — the only captive — of
that war. That was in their mind a pretty good political story for that
week. It blew up in their face,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, South
Carolina Republican.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss,
Georgia Republican and vice chairman of the intelligence committee,
called on Mr. Obama to declassify the prisoner review files kept on each
of the five
Taliban.
He
said Americans will see from the files that the men had been deemed too
dangerous to release — if Mr. Obama approves declassifying the
documents.
“Every prisoner at Guantanamo has a file. That file is
updated every so often. What we’re asking for is that file on those five
prisoners, with the recommendations of the review committee spelled out
as to their opinion of what should happen with these guys. And their
opinion — it’s already been stated publicly — is these five guys should
have been held indefinitely,” the Georgian said.
In another sign
of the growing skepticism about the prisoner swap, Sgt. Berdahl’s
hometown of Hailey, Idaho, announced Wednesday that it had canceled
plans for a welcome-home celebration. The town of 8,000 said it was not
sure it could handle the expected crowds and pro- and anti-
Bergdahl demonstrations at the planned June 28 event.
The
split was reflected in two public opinion polls released Wednesday. A
Fox News survey had 47 percent of Americans disapproving of the swap,
while 45 percent approves. And a Rasmussen poll showed a similar split,
with 40 percent agreeing with the government’s decision and 43 percent
disagreeing.
But both surveys had error margins larger than those
gaps that favor the “disapprove” answer, meaning those edges are
statistically insignificant and the public is essentially evenly split.
Sgt. Bergdahl
disappeared from night guard duty at a remote outpost roughly two hours
south of the Afghan city of Sharana on June 30, 2009. Comrades said
they found his gear — save for his compass — neatly stacked, which they
took to be a signal that he had left of his own accord.
Some of those comrades say American lives were lost in the ensuing search for someone they termed a “deserter.”
A Pentagon official, who spoke under condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, said that
Sgt. Bergdahl
maintained a status of “Missing-Captured” but was not considered to be a
deserter during the time he was being held by the Islamist militia.
Sgt. Bergdahl could, if the
Army deems appropriate, receive a promotion to staff sergeant “in accordance with
Army policy for captured personnel,” the official said.
Debate over whether to make the exchange has raged — within the administration and between it and
Congress — since 2011.
Mr. Chambliss said that when the possibility of releasing the five
Taliban fighters was raised, there was unanimous opposition from those in
Congress who were briefed on it.
In the years since, both State Department and
White House officials went on record saying that any final decision would be made in consultation with
Congress and in accordance with the law, which requires Mr. Obama to give
Congress 30 days’ notice before releasing detainees from Guantanamo.
The
White House has argued that the short window of time to seal the deal for
Sgt. Bergdahl’s release created extenuating circumstances — though they also argue that the previous secret briefings with
Congress in 2011 and 2012 constituted consultation.
With questions about the legal situation mounting this week, a
White House
official said the Defense Department “consulted” with the Justice
Department but declined to say whether a formal legal opinion was
produced justifying the decision to bypass
Congress.
“We’re not going to get into the details of our internal legal deliberations,” the official said.
The Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment from The Washington Times.
After
initial reports of dissent, the administration presented a unified
front Wednesday, including pushing back on press reports that Director
of National Intelligence James R. Clapper had initially rejected the
release of the five
Taliban fighters.
“Like
others, DNI Clapper expressed concern in 2012 about the prospect of
releasing these five detainees. However, the circumstances have changed
dramatically,” Shawn Turner, the chief spokesman for the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, said in a statement.
Mr. Turner said Mr. Clapper was swayed by
Sgt. Bergdahl’s
deteriorating health, the assurances of the Qatari government that the
five will be monitored and the ongoing drawdown of U.S. troops from
Afghanistan, which Mr. Clapper argued would make recovery efforts for
Sgt. Bergdahl tougher.
Several Democratic leaders in the Senate also defended the administration’s moves.
“It
was a very complex negotiation. It was a last-minute negotiation, and
as we heard more and more detail and circumstances, I think it was a lot
different than we’ve seen in the press,” Senate Majority Whip Richard
J. Durbin said as he emerged from the evening briefing.
“I think
it was a very hard decision. If I’d been challenged to make it myself, I
might have come to the same conclusion under the pressure of the
moment,” the Illinois Democrat said. “But now that you can step back and
reflect on it, it’s easy to pick it apart and criticize it.”
Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democrats’ leader in the chamber, said GOP critics were trying to harm Mr. Obama politically.
“It’s
clear they’re worried his release could be seen as a victory for
President Obama. Let me put that notion to rest — it’s not a victory for
President Obama. It’s a victory for our soldiers, their families and
the United States of America,” he said. “No member of the armed forces
should be left behind, and President Obama saw to that.”
“The
threat to the U.S. from global jihadist groups has escalated in the
past three years, with the number of groups increasing by more than 50%
and the estimated number of militants doubling.” The past three years,
eh? Could that have anything to do with Barack Obama’s weak, feckless,
and often outright sympathetic response to Islamic supremacism?
