GAO saying Obama Administration, Pentagon, violated law by not informing Congress of prisoner swap

[cal04]

The Obama administration broke the law when it failed to inform Congress of plans to swap five Guantanamo Bay detainees for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office has concluded.

In a seven-page letter to senior congressional Republicans, the GAO said the prisoner swap violated two separate laws. One law prohibits use of Defense Department funds “to transfer any individuals detained at Guantanamo Bay unless the Secretary of Defense notifies certain congressional committees at least 30 days before the transfer.”

The other law that was violated, the Antideficiency Act, is a more general statute prohibiting the spending of funds beyond those available through appropriations.

(snip)
Section 8111 of the 2014 Defense Department’s appropriations act is “clear and unambiguous,” the GAO said.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/08/21/237271/gao-obama-violated-law-by-not.html#storylink=cpy

GAO: Pentagon violated law with Bergdahl swap
http://www.twincities.com/nation/ci_26379673/gao-pentagon-violated-law-bergdahl-swap?source=rss

(snip)
The Joint Chiefs of Staff has unanimously supported the exchange, insisting that the United States has a sacred commitment to men and women who serve that it will never leave anyone behind on the battlefield. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said the swap in May was "likely our last, best opportunity" to free Bergdahl.

[napi21]

1. I thought there was an exception in that law that permitted action if

the situation was an emergency, and from what I recall the agreement was made WITH the proviso that it would be completed immediately and in secret!

[Lurks Often]

2. Then the law was poorly written

It's absurd to think that in the event of a prisoner swap, there is always going to be a 30 day window in the negotiations for the swap.

[still_one]

3. Ironic no mention of the violations of international law being mentioned

[Enrique]

4. does this mean we have to send him back to the Taliban? n/t