2015 House Committee Report on Obama Administration Release of Five Taliban GITMO Detainees for the Release of Captive U.S. Army Soldier Robert "Bowe" Bergdahl: Contention That Law Was Broken
Nonfiction, History, Military, Social & Cultural Studies, Political Science
| Author: | Progressive Management | ISBN: | 9781310966750 |
| Publisher: | Progressive Management | Publication: | December 10, 2015 |
| Imprint: | Smashwords Edition | Language: | English |
| Author: | Progressive Management |
| ISBN: | 9781310966750 |
| Publisher: | Progressive Management |
| Publication: | December 10, 2015 |
| Imprint: | Smashwords Edition |
| Language: | English |
Professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction, this House Armed Services Committee report, issued in December 2015, presents the results of an inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 transfer of five Taliban detainees to Qatar from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility which was undertaken to secure the recovery of U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.
The committee Chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), stated:
Since this transfer, the House Armed Services Committee has been conducting an investigation into the actions of Secretary Hagel and senior DOD officials involved in the transfer, including the legality of their conduct. Our report finds that the Administration clearly broke the law in not notifying Congress of the transfer. Leading up to the transfer, DOD officials misled Congress as to the status of negotiations. Pentagon officials best positioned to assess the national security risks were left out of the process, which increases the chances of dangerous consequences from the transfer. It is irresponsible to put these terrorists that much closer to the battlefield to settle a campaign promise and unconscionable to mislead Congress in the process.
Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) had the following dissent:
This report is an unbalanced, partisan, and needless attempt to justify a predetermined position regarding the transfer of five Guantanamo detainees in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from enemy captivity. The report struggles to prove its assertions, yet it excoriates the Administration over the means by which Sergeant Bergdahl's release was secured. In our view, the report is more advocative and speculative than determinative, and we disagree with a preponderance of its assertions.
Professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction, this House Armed Services Committee report, issued in December 2015, presents the results of an inquiry into the Department of Defense's May 2014 transfer of five Taliban detainees to Qatar from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility which was undertaken to secure the recovery of U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl.
The committee Chairman, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), stated:
Since this transfer, the House Armed Services Committee has been conducting an investigation into the actions of Secretary Hagel and senior DOD officials involved in the transfer, including the legality of their conduct. Our report finds that the Administration clearly broke the law in not notifying Congress of the transfer. Leading up to the transfer, DOD officials misled Congress as to the status of negotiations. Pentagon officials best positioned to assess the national security risks were left out of the process, which increases the chances of dangerous consequences from the transfer. It is irresponsible to put these terrorists that much closer to the battlefield to settle a campaign promise and unconscionable to mislead Congress in the process.
Ranking Member Adam Smith (D-WA) had the following dissent:
This report is an unbalanced, partisan, and needless attempt to justify a predetermined position regarding the transfer of five Guantanamo detainees in exchange for the release of Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl from enemy captivity. The report struggles to prove its assertions, yet it excoriates the Administration over the means by which Sergeant Bergdahl's release was secured. In our view, the report is more advocative and speculative than determinative, and we disagree with a preponderance of its assertions.
