In addition to Obama breaking a federal law, he is guilty of a much bigger crime: Providing material support to a terrorist organization, punishable by up to 15 years in prison [or any term of years to life if the death of any person results]
by Larry Simons
June 7, 2014
As if things could not get worse for the scandal-a-day Commander-In-Chief in the midst of the re-opening of the Benghazi attack and more recently the Veterans Administration fiasco, they have, and in the biggest way. Last Saturday, President Obama illegally authorized the release of five high-ranking terrorist detainees and exchanged them in a prisoner swap for U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a so-called "prisoner of war", when in reality he has been labeled a deserter by his former comrades.
This time it's not a mere scandal for Obama. It is a violation of a federal law that not only carries with it the possibility of impeachment, but is punishable by a long prison term, not to mention the fact that releasing five top terror suspects [who will most likely end up back in their home country and their terror organization] will put all Americans in potential danger.
The law that Obama violated is the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2014, which Obama signed just six months ago, which requires the Defense Secretary, Chuck Hagel, to notify Congress within 30 days of the release of any detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
According to Section 1035 of the NDAA, upon notifying Congress of the release of prisoners, the Defense Secretary is required to also include in the notification the following:
(1) A detailed statement of the basis for the transfer or
(2) An explanation of why the transfer or release is in
the national security interests of the United States.
(3) A description of any actions taken to mitigate the risks
of reengagement by the individual to be transferred or released,
including any actions taken to address factors relevant to a
prior case of re-engagement described in subsection (c)(3).
(4) A copy of any Periodic Review Board findings relating
to the individual.
(5) A description of the evaluation conducted pursuant
to subsection (c), including a summary of the assessment
required by paragraph (6) of such subsection.
None of the above were handed over to Congress. Therefore illegal.
Also not carried out was the notification to Congress for the usage of federal funds [taxpayer dollars] that were spent for the actual transferring of prisoners to Qatar, and for returning Bergdahl. None of the notifications outlined in the NDAA were given. None of the conditions of the law were met. Nothing. The entire process was as illegal as you can get. In fact, it has been reported that the Obama administration never informed Capital Hill of the transfer until after Bergdahl was in American custody and the five Taliban prisoners were ready to leave.
Obama supporters will claim that Obama may have signed the law last year, but was opposed to the 30 day notice provision. Tough shit. In that circumstance Obama has a choice, to sign the law or veto it. He is not allowed to pick and choose which provisions he likes or dislikes, so he is left with the choice to sign it or veto it. He signed it, period. That means as President, according to the Constitution, and per his oath to uphold the Constitution, he must faithfully execute laws whether he agrees with them or not.
Obama violated the very law he signed, and for that he must be removed from office and charged with high treason for providing material support to terrorists. Others have actually been successfully charged and convicted for this very crime.
The following are the individuals who have been charged or convicted for providing material support for terrorism under this law:
- John Walker Lindh, who was captured fighting for the Taliban during the Battle of Qala-i-Jangi, one of the first battles in the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan. He was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison on various charges
- David Hicks, a former Guantanamo detainee who pled guilty in 2007 and served a sentence of less than one year in Australia.
- Lynne Stewart, a 70 year old veteran civil rights lawyer who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for releasing information from her imprisoned client Omar Abdel-Rahman
- Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a former Guantanamo detainee who was Osama bin Laden's former driver. He was convicted in 2008 and served a sentence of less than one year in Yemen
- Mohammed Abdullah Warsame, who attended the al Farouq training camp in 2000
- David Headley, for his role in the 2008 Mumbai attacks
This law, 18 U.S. Code § 2339A and § 2339B, a provision of the USA PATRIOT Act, states anyone [and this includes the President] who provides material support for terrorists can be fined and imprisoned for no more than 15 years, but if a death occurs [as a result of the material support], could be sentenced to any term of years or for life. Specifically in § 2339B, the law states:
"Whoever knowingly provides material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life".
The statute states that in order to violate this paragraph:
1. a person must have knowledge that the organization is a designated terrorist organization (as defined in subsection (g)(6))
Check. Obama knows this.
2. that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorist activity (as defined in section 212(a)(3)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act)
Check. Obama knows this.
3. or that the organization has engaged or engages in terrorism (as defined in section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989).
Check. Obama knows this.
"Material support or resources" is defined in § 2339A as the following:
"any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials"
Under statute § 2339B, it states:
"No person may be prosecuted under this section in connection with the term “personnel” unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization".
Obama clearly knows that he has provided a terrorist organization with five more personnel. Obama supporters will argue that the five Taliban prisoners are not back in their terrorist organization, but are in Qatar for one year and Obama has promised that "we will be keeping eyes on them". Obama admitted this past Tuesday during a press conference in Poland that the Taliban terrorists could return to battle and harm Americans.
Obama stated, "Is there the possibility of some of them trying to return to activities that are detrimental to us? Absolutely". How is this NOT admitting guilt of 18 U.S. Code § 2339B as stated above that reads, "unless that person has knowingly provided, attempted to provide, or conspired to provide a foreign terrorist organization with 1 or more individuals (who may be or include himself) to work under that terrorist organization’s direction or control or to organize, manage, supervise, or otherwise direct the operation of that organization"? How is he not being charged with a crime??
Obama supporters cannot argue that he can simply use an executive order and "do what he wants" when it concerns prisoners of war. This is false in this case, because as Judge Napolitano pointed out to Shepard Smith yesterday, the President under no circumstance can violate a US statute even to get a prisoner of war returned. He also cannot spend money that has not been authorized by Congress, nor can he aid a terrorist organization.
Napolitano also adds that if the President had sent the 5 Taliban prisoners to Qatar to go to jail, that would be a completely different scenario and there would be no crime. But Obama admitted that these men could very well end up back with their terrorist group. That turns it into a crime.
On top of committing a federal crime, Obama then stands before cameras and states he has "no apologies" for the prisoner swap. Liberal talk show hosts like Bill Maher downplay it likes it's no big deal, only mentioning "how dangerous could five bearded assholes be?", while completely ignoring the legal aspect of Obama's actions. And when colossal fucknut Harry Reid was asked by a reporter if the White House could have done a better job in making sure the law was obeyed that required Congress to receive a 30 day notice, Reid replied, "What difference does it make?"
There you have it folks. When the President breaks a law [that puts millions of Americans in danger], Reid's response is, "What difference does it make?", but when Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who made the news a few months ago, breaks the law and refuses to pay federal taxes for his land [which harms NO ONE except the coffers of the Federal government], Reid calls Bundy's supporters "domestic terrorists".
So, to Harry Reid, actual American citizens are "terrorists" because they stand up to the Federal government, but when he is confronted by a reporter who asks why the law was not followed concerning five ACTUAL terrorists who Obama admitted will go right back to Afghanistan and rejoin their terrorist organization, Reid says it simply doesn't matter.
Since President Obama actually releases terrorists who will most likely be back in their home country to rejoin their terrorist pals who will be hell-bent on attacking America [maybe as soon as a year], and Harry Reid supports these actions and claims it "doesn't matter", isn't it safe to say that these two are the REAL terrorists?