GitmoFive

Treason: Obama’s ‘Gitmo Five’

avatar
Print Friendly and PDF

You were already thinking it.

Treason.

For Richard Nixon, it was a cover-up surrounding illegal wiretapping. For Bill Clinton, it was lying under oath about sex with an intern. Obama thinks he’s untouchable. He believes he’s above the law.

Evidently, he’s right.

What will it take for our spineless U.S. Congress to impeach this tyrant? This is way beyond partisan politics. This is about justice. This is about the safety of the American people. Barack Hussein Obama is America’s biggest threat to national security. He is “an enemy within.”

It’s official. America is no longer a constitutional republic. Under this “progressive” nut, we’ve become a banana republic.

The president’s latest act of lawlessness is beyond the pale. There is no question whatsoever that by freeing, to kill again, five known, mass-murdering, high-level Muslim terrorists in exchange for accused Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl, Obama broke the law.

Not only did he unilaterally and arbitrarily trash the U.S. government’s long-standing policy never to negotiate with terrorists, he intentionally and overtly violated a 2013 national defense bill that unambiguously requires he give Congress 30-days notice before releasing any Guantanamo Bay prisoners, much less five of its most deadly.

As ABC News reports: “‘Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Berghdal’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,’ said House Armed Services Chairman Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon, R-Calif., and Senate Armed Services Ranking Member James Inhofe, R-Okla., in a joint statement.”

Bingo.

Let the American kidnapping spree begin. The Muslim world is celebrating this as a huge victory in its anti-American jihad.

The Muslim world is right.

As McKeon and Inhofe predicted, the Taliban has already announced that Obama’s unilateral surrender has “encouraged” them to kidnap more Americans to trade for terrorists.

Is anyone surprised?

Is Obama?

No way.

Even many in the liberal media are flummoxed by this one, with, for example, MSNBC producer Steven Bennen reluctantly admitting that Obama was likely “acting outside the confines of the law.”

Let me help you with that, Steve. By “acting outside the confines of the law,” you mean to say that Obama “broke the law.”

We have a word for people who break the law: They’re called criminals.

This one is so over-the-top that, in a rare moment of lucidity, even ultra-liberal Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has temporarily emerged from her sycophantic shell to publicly condemn Obama, the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, saying that she was “very disappointed” he failed to comply with the law. This “White House is pretty unilateral about what they want to do when they want to do it,” she fumed.

Understatement of the decade.

Merriam-Webster defines “treason” as, “the crime of trying to overthrow your country’s government or of helping your country’s enemies during war.”

Whether Obama is intentionally trying to overthrow his own government is open for debate. But that he has “helped his country’s enemies during war” is a slam dunk.

The amazing thing? This arrogant clown admits to it: “Is there a possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us?” Obama asked rhetorically of the five terrorists he just cut loose. “Absolutely,” he answered.

Possibility? It’s a guarantee. There is no doubt that Americans will die as a direct result of Obama’s demonstrably illegal actions here – no doubt whatsoever. With most of these monsters in their 40s, they’ve got decades to kill as many Americans as they can get their blood-soaked hands on.

According to ABC News, the U.S. Defense Department has classified at least three of the five as a “‘HIGH’ threat to U.S. security interests if released.” Moreover, at least two are even now “wanted by the United Nations for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims.” Fox News reported that in one instance, the men lined up hundreds of Shiites and slit their throats in front of their wives and children.

All have ties to al-Qaida.

This defies logic. It defies reason. It defies morality. It defies law. It’s either criminally stupid or criminally sinister.

I believe the latter.

What Obama has done here is worse than if he had personally released five rabid pit bulldogs into a playground full of children. If a person owns a dog known to be violent and that dog attacks another, the dog owner is held legally liable.

When these dogs kill again, Obama is liable – legally and morally liable. He has just loosed five psychopathic serial-killers. No trial. No reasonable explanation. Just poof! Home they go with a suitcase full of souvenirs from Club Gitmo and a fresh new outlook on life.

And we get Bowe Bergdahl?

This stinks to high heaven.

Still, don’t be distracted. That the evidence overwhelmingly indicates Bergdahl is both a deserter and traitor is relatively insignificant. That he appears personally responsible for the deaths of at least six honorable soldiers deployed to search for him after his desertion is largely irrelevant to the scandal. It’s both a tragedy and a grave injustice, but it’s immaterial.

It wouldn’t matter if Bergdahl were Mother Teresa. This scandal isn’t about Bowe Bergdahl. It’s about a sitting United States president intentionally, overtly and criminally violating the National Defense Act to release five of the world’s most dangerous Muslim terrorists – dubbed the jihadist “Dream Team” – thereby directly placing American lives in jeopardy.

Obama swore an oath to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” not to protect all enemies, foreign and domestic, from America.

What will it take? When one or more of these “Gitmo Five” commit (or even take credit for) some future act of terrorism, will Congress do something then?

How many have to die? Do they have to be Americans or will foreign innocents do?

What will it take for our spineless U.S. Congress to overcome this deathly fear of being called “racist” and file articles of impeachment against Barack Hussein Obama?

If he’s allowed to get away with this, he’ll be allowed to get away with anything.

And don’t think he doesn’t know it.

Print Friendly and PDF



Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read More

comments

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Every president, or nearly every president, claims that we do not negotiate with terrorists. Yet every president, or nearly every president, has done so. And many have made far worse deals than this one by President Obama. Some examples:

    George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson authorized payments to the Barbary pirates, and the treaty that was finally reached authorized the US to continue providing naval supplies to them.

    LBJ apologized for spying on North Korea as a negotiated settlement to get the crew of the U.S.S. Pueblo returned.

    Nixon pressured Switzerland, West Germany, and Britain to release Palestinian prisoners after two airlines were hijacked by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

    Jimmy Carter agreed to unfreeze $8 billion in frozen Iranian assets during the Iran hostage crisis.

    After 7 Americans were captured in Beirut, Ronald Reagan sold more than 1500 missiles to Iran in order to obtain their release.

    Bill Clinton negotiated with Hamas to try to obtain a solution to the Israel/Palestinian issue, and also negotiated with the Taliban, unsuccessfully, to get Osama bin Laden turned over to the US.

    All of these facts, and more, are found in the book “Negotiating with Evil,” by Mitchell Reiss, who worked in the State Department under George W. Bush, and provided national security advice to Mitt Romney.

    I would argue that the provision of over 1500 missiles to Iran may have been the worst of these negotiations with terrorists, a negotiation that happened in the administration of Saint Reagan the Divine.

    • Logan russ1122 Adams

      Very poor comparison, if your attempt is to make Barry look normal. Plus you have quite a few of your facts wrong.

      • Phillip Lightweis-Goff

        You have neither explain why the comparison is poor, nor provided any ‘correction’ of the facts.

      • The Skeptical Chymist

        You comment has no credibility unless you offer rebuttals to my facts.

    • rmw

      Of course you would consider it worst, an absolute ridiculous assertion. You left out some critical details … not the least of which what the missiles were for. There is zero to no chance it would EVER come back to bite us … not simply because Iran was not going to f* with President Reagan (cuz they already knew not to f* with him and turned loose the hostages the DAY he was inaugurated), but also because THEY WERE AT WAR WITH IRAQ … kinda an important detail, don’t ya think? Besides … if you think THIS was so evil … then apparently you are all wound up with yer undies bundled over Ba-crock feeding AL-QUEDA TERRORISTS all kinds of weapons in Syria, right? Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.

      You are focused on the “negotiating with terrorists” line … although obviously you are throwing countries in the mix. In this case your position is so weak, you have nothing better to try to divert to The focus here is not as much on the negotiating as the FACT that nobody except the traitors conclude these war criminals will immediately act to kill us.

  • Pingback: Treason: Obama’s ‘Gitmo Five’ | Socialism is not the Answer

  • Pingback: Chewing Up America | Be Sure You're RIGHT, Then Go Ahead

  • notislam

    Where are the purse strings —THE HOUSE- but they are afraid to close them to the money changers that spend too freely— As an ISLAMOPHOBE , I am indeed in favor of closing the purse to –starting NOW.

  • rmw

    You missed one other point … as FURTHER insult to the American people, Ba-crock drummed out Susan “Benghazi video” Rice to once again hit the airwaves with lies and disinformation. Is there a more discredited scoundrel than Rice? Tell me it is not viable that these criminals got around the table and brainstormed what they could do to *really* piss patriotic Americans off … and thought of the most vile and despicable person in America … literally an insult to our intelligence … to rub our noses in this huge manure pile. This crap about the backlash catching them off-guard is hogwash … if they were “worried”, the LAST person on earth they would have ran out there is Rice.

    I am sorry, but these traitors are DARING Boner and McCronyl to do something … DOUBLE DOG DARE!

    The line for the French Revolution was “Let them eat cake!” … the line for this regime is “They can eat our s**t!!”

  • Pingback: Anyway You Cut It, It's Treason: Obama’s ‘Gitmo Five’

  • Pingback: Why are administration allies calling Bergdahl's comrades liars?

EmailTitle2

Sign up for BarbWire alerts!