When
Richard Nixon was out of office and dealing with the aftermath of Watergate, he
was interviewed by British talk-show host, David Frost. The Englishman pressed Mr. Nixon on the
issues and legalities pertaining to the scandal. In a particularly tense moment, the
president, out of frustration said, “When the president does it, it means it is
not illegal.” I was reminded of this
quote when listening to Obama administration officials and other supporters of
the president’s swap of a soldier for five terrorists. President Obama’s actions seem either the
personification of President Nixon’s hubris or naïveté.
This
is not a rejection of Bowe Bergdahl’s parents or even his home town. They have one of their own back after five
years and their happiness needs no explanation or excuse. My concerns are with the administration,
which at present is under attack by Republicans, Democrats and foreign heads of
state over this trade. I’m taken aback
by the fact the administration seems surprised at the response. This suggests one of two approaches to this
trade. Either the administration never
fully thought it out and its consequences, assuming that rescuing a soldier
five years in the enemy’s hands would be a no-brainer for public support or
they did think it through and did not feel objections or the law were important. So, we have either an incompetent government
(suggested by many) or a corrupt one (also, suggested by many).
First,
there are legal and security concerns. To
my knowledge, there are no military or security experts suggesting this trade
is without some possibly dangerous repercussions. We have done what we have always said we would
not do – negotiate with terrorists. In
the past, the trading of prisoners is done after the war, after a victor is
declared and the defeated is cowed. We
have ended the war but the Taliban and their allies have not. We are still targets and still the face on
their wall with darts protruding from it.
This coterie of terrorists taken from Guantanamo have not given up the
struggle and as soon as they can, will be back in the field with increased
knowledge of the U.S. and increased anger.
Additionally
and according to the law, the Congress was to be informed of such dealings a
month before it took place. The
administration said there was not enough time to inform the Congress. If the Congress allows this violation to go
unanswered, it is not just an institution that loses prestige, power and a voice. It is us as citizens who lose prestige, power
and a voice. The Congress is our voice
as the most representative body in the government. A rejection of Congressional oversight and
authority is a rejection of the public’s.
This is one reason why there is such bipartisan congressional anger against
the deal.
On
the other hand, there is the question of Sergeant Bergdahl himself. This man is not the bastion of fealty and
honor that the administration has portrayed him to be. According to his fellow soldiers, this man quit
on his platoon, placed them in danger and is responsible for the men who died
searching for him. There is little
sympathy for Sgt. Bergdahl. While some
say he should be court-martialed and perhaps jailed, I think he has suffered
enough for his actions assuming he was just a prisoner and not a collaborator. However, that will be of little comfort to
the families of those who died. I do not
begrudge the Bergdahl family’s joy but that joy came at a cost. Are we, as a country, willing to pay that?
President
Obama cannot be as toned deaf as he appears to be with these various scandals
that have rocked his administration but with which he claims little connection,
knowledge or culpability. However, we
have history and it teaches us what happens to people who claim to be above the
law. Some in Congress have uttered the
“impeachment” word but that is ridiculous.
He is only doing what his supporters and allies in Congress are allowing
him to do. Yet, the consequences of
these actions could be an emasculated legislature and endangered Americans
overseas.
No comments:
Post a Comment