Bergdahl-Taliban Swap Resurrects Charges of 'Imperial Presidency' for President Obama

“What’s emerging is an imperial presidency, an uber presidency as I’ve called it, where the president can act unilaterally. This is only the latest example of that… Barack Obama is really the president Richard Nixon always wanted to be.“

That’s constitutional expert and law professor Jonathan Turley responding to the shocking news that President Obama – without so much as a whisper to Congress of his intentions – unilaterally decided to swap five Guantanamo Bay Taliban terrorists for a soldier who deserted his post and may have cost the lives of some of his brothers-in-arms when they went searching for him.

To Turley’s point, when Barack Obama wanted to circumvent Congress and impose illegal alien amnesty via executive fiat, he simply started releasing illegal alien criminals onto the streets under the moniker of “prioritized deportation.”

The same principle applies here. Obama has signaled time and time again his intent to close Guantanamo Bay, in defiance of Congress and military leadership who warn of the repercussions of allowing terrorists to roam free. So what does the president do? He arranges for the release of five leading terrorists, including at least one mass murderer, with more releases reportedly in the offing.

While the ultimate fate of Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl – who was the last remaining Taliban captive – is murky at best at this moment, the fate of the five Taliban terrorists is certain. They are now free to return to the battlefield and wreak havoc on Afghan citizens and U.S. soldiers remaining in the country. (You can read more about these five Taliban characters here.)

And who is Bowe Bergdahl, the “prize” awarded to the president in exchange for the terrorists’ release?

In perhaps Susan Rice’s most tone-deaf statement to date – and remember, this is a woman who lied and blamed Benghazi on an “unfortunately vigorous movie review,” as conservative columnist George Will called it – the nation’s National Security Advisor said in a statement accompanying Bergdahl’s release that he had served with “honor and distinction.”

Bergdahl’s fellow soldiers disagree.

While the details are still developing regarding Bergdahl’s disappearance and reappearance, his fellow soldiers have not been shy about expressing their opinions. They describe a quiet soldier who “kept things close to the vest” – that one guy “who wanted to disappear.”

One fellow soldier described a disturbing conversation with Bergdahl, who asked the soldier how much of a cash advance he could get and how to mail his possessions back home. He asked what would happen if his weapon were to disappear. Days later he was gone, leaving his weapon behind.

In addition to the transgression of deserting his post – an unforgivable sin in military circles – there is also the disturbing issue of just how many soldiers were killed in the effort to try to find and retrieve Bergdahl.

Per The New York Times:

Did the search for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl cost the lives of American soldiers?

Since last weekend’s prisoner exchange in which Afghan insurgents turned over Sergeant Bergdahl after five years of captivity, a number of the men who served with him have called him a deserter. Some have gone further, blaming him for the deaths of six to eight soldiers.

All of this explains why, at the time of this writing, President Obama has so few allies who back this decision.

The President’s former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, criticized the swap: “I don’t fault the administration for wanting to get him back. I do question whether the conditions are in place to make sure these terrorists don’t go back into battle,” he told a gas industry gathering in Pittsburgh just after the swap. Panetta opposed releasing terrorists when he served under the president because he saw it as a threat to the security of the United States.

Afghan villagers, who were subjected to a “scorched earth offensive” fifteen years ago that destroyed their homes and lands – an offensive orchestrated by one of the detainees – reacted with “fear and dismay” to the news. Our Taliban enemies are ecstatic, telling Time, “this is a historic moment for us. Today our enemy for the first time officially recognized our status.”

And the President’s second in command, Vice President Biden? The best he could muster was an expression of “neutrality.”

Members of Congress, meanwhile, are furious. Senator Lindsey Graham suggested “impeachment” if the president tries to release additional Gitmo terrorists. Per The Hill:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned Wednesday that Republican lawmakers would call for President Obama’s impeachment if he released more prisoners from Guantanamo Bay without congressional approval.

Republicans worry Obama may try to shut down the prison camp unilaterally after congressional opposition has repeatedly stymied efforts to pass legislation to close it.

“It’s going to be impossible for them to flow prisoners out of Gitmo now without a huge backlash,” Graham said. “There will be people on our side calling for his impeachment if he did that.”

Senator Graham might want to get those articles in order.

As reported by Fox News, the release of yet another Gitmo terrorist is under discussion: “The Obama administration is considering springing yet another prisoner from Guantanamo Bay.”

His name is Fouzi Khalid Abdullah al-Awda, and he has been held prisoner for twelve years. Fox News reports:  According to Defense Department officials and his official Guantanamo detainee profile, he traveled from his home in Kuwait to Afghanistan just before the 9/11 attacks to train in terrorist camps and ‘possibly’ fight alongside the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”

It should go without saying that the Obama administration should place a freeze on the release of any and all terrorists from Gitmo until the full details of the Bergdahl swap are known. Given this administration’s track record, that could take a while.

What to make of this still developing story?

Obama is on the ropes with Benghazi, the IRS, Obamacare, and the VA scandals. Seeking a positive narrative (and an unimpeded abandonment of Afghanistan), he was desperate to free the one remaining US prisoner from the Afghan conflict. If it meant violating the law, so be it. If it meant negotiating with terrorists and our enemies, so be it. If it meant releasing five dangerous terrorists over the objections of key national security advisers, so be it. When criticized, if it means lying, that’s okay, too.

We have a President who will put the law, the Constitution, the security of our troops, the truth, and the nation’s security all aside to score a political or ideological point. What to do? I suspect Congress will fulminate but will do little in the end. Congress won’t impeach anyone, cut off funding, nor take other significant steps that might protect the nation from this rogue president.