John McCain and other staunchly warhawkish Republicans are up in arms. In fact, they’ve been having fits since Saturday when it was announced that the administration had brokered a deal to have the only remaining American hostage in Afghanistan released in exchange for 5 supposedly “high-level” Taliban detainees. Some are even taking their battle with the White House further, questioning the legality of the transfer given the law requiring a 30 day notice to Congress in the event of a transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay.

 

Is this angst legitimate, or have all these men put politics above the life of an American citizen?

 

McCain, who himself was a prisoner of war during Vietnam, would be the one who people could expect to possibly stay out of this fray. After all, it would stand to reason that a person who suffered under captivity would retain the memory of such a unique experience and sentiment felt by the POW and his/her family. But one who would expect such a thing of Mr. McCain obviously expects too much. 

The life of Bowe Bergdahl was not worth the risk of releasing the so-called “the hardest of the hardcore.” Accordingly, McCain finds it “disturbing that these individuals would have the ability to re-enter the fight, [as] they are big, high-level people, possibly responsible for the deaths of thousands[.]” 

 

But McCain isn’t the only mainstream Republican miffed by Obama’s unilateral prowess. 

 

His usual partner in crime, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), in a letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, called this “a great week for the Taliban” as Obama “[in] effect [released] the ‘Taliban Dream Team.’”

 

Presidential hopeful Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), never one to miss out on the partisan action, is also disturbed with the repercussions of such a move. He told ABC’s “This Week” that the actions of the administration show terrorists that “if you capture a U.S. soldier, you can trade that soldier for five terrorists."

 

Similarly, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that “if you negotiate here, you’ve sent a message to every Al Qaeda group in the world — by the way, some who are holding U.S. hostages today — that there is some value now in that hostage in a way that they didn’t have before,” and that “that is very dangerous.” In a later statement Rogers went on to say that “[t]his fundamental shift in US policy…. will threaten the lives of American soldiers for years to come.”

 

And to put the cherry atop the sundae, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, “Buck” McKeon (R-CA), and ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, James Inhofe (R-OK) released a joint statement challenging the legality of the transfer.

 

Sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Bergdahl, but apparently the life of your son just isn’t that important.

 

The neocons managed to put forth three different reasons to politicize the returning of an American citizen to his family in just under 48 hours. All are seemingly good reasons when taken at face value, however all are devoid of any true substance upon examination. As astutely noted by Jason Ditz over at Antiwar.com:

            

                “Mysteriously, this line of thinking doesn’t flow both ways, as officials assume trades increase Taliban incentive to capture US

                troops, but don’t imagine that they simultaneously might increase the US incentive to capture trade-bait Taliban. Ultimately, the

                view is that Taliban “hostage-taking” is a mercenary endeavor, but US military detentions have no ulterior motives.

                The most insulting aspect of the hostility toward Bergdahl’s release is that President Obama was already openly talking about

                releasing the five “traded” Taliban detainees unilaterally in March 2012 as a “confidence-building measure.” At the time, it was

                considered comparatively non-controversial.

                It was only in 2013, when the Taliban suggested they release Bergdahl in a “swap,” that the release of the five suddenly started

                seeing any real opposition, suggesting that from the hawkish viewpoint, getting Bergdahl [sic] as a bonus in the releases

                somehow made them worse, and that nearly 13 years into a US occupation of Afghanistan, Beghdahl’s release is the first real

                incentive the Taliban have for trying to capture foreign occupation forces.”

 

So what exactly is the problem with this prisoner swap?

 

To be sure, the circumstances absolutely violate the law governing the transfer of detainees from Guantanamo Bay and the administration has hardly tried to deny it (although the constitutionality of such a law can indeed be questioned). Far be it from me to pardon the would-be king in the Oval Office from his tyrannical grabs of power, however let’s not play games with the life of an American citizen who was put into harm’s way for the tremendous error known as Afghanistan. And make no mistake, games are exactly what this charade has been over.

 

One only has to read Human Events, National Review, or any of the bloviated speeches by campaigning Republicans to see what this is about. They see this as just another instance of lawlessness by the imperial presidency to be piled on top of the IRS, Benghazi, NSA, and now Directive 3025.18 scandals solely for 2014 and 2016 purposes. Now, I am unabashedly all for the excoriation of usurpers, but in the case of Sgt. Bergdahl, I’m with Martin Luther King Jr in his sentiment regarding not following bad laws. Bowe’s life is not a chip in the game.

 

And if the argument becomes about Bergdahl’s supposed intent, or possible desertion, I’m with the unnamed White House official from a couple years ago when he said: “Frankly, we don’t give a s—t why he left. He’s an American soldier. We want to bring him home.”

 

Amen.

 

- Chris Lewis  06/03/14 03:00 PM CT