Stooping to new lows...

Well, I always thought that the U.S. didn't negotiate for prisoners. Apparently, we do. I suppose just releasing all the dangerous prisoners we are still holding at Guantanamo Bay is one way for the President to keep his 2009 campaign promise. But one has to question whether releasing dangerous prisoners back into the population without trial is any worse than holding them indefinitely off US soil to prevent bringing them to trial.

Granted, the only reason I can think of that we would not want to try them is because we do not think we are strong enough to deal with any backlash. In which case, we have no business stirring up trouble in any part of the world. 

Please explain when we decided negotiating for prisoners was a good idea? Also, I would like to know how five of their top agents of destruction is a fair exchange for only one of ours especially when that one agent potentially abandoned his post. Finally, if we could find and kill Osama bin Ladan, why couldn't we find and save this one POW?

One final thought - if Congress passed a law (when Democrats had control of it) stating that the president could not transfer prisoners out of Guantanamo Bay without approval, how is it that the President is once again breaking laws passed by Congress? He does this all the time, even with laws he helped pass. Consider how many times he has fudged the ACA. If I had bought insurance under the ACA in a timely manner (before the cutoff date written in the actual law - Dec 15 2013) I would be suing the government for my policy since it allowed people to continue signing up until March and none of these people will have to pay a tax even though the law as written demands that they do. You should at least get 3 months worth of premiums out of them that you wouldn't have had to pay if you waited until the last minute like many others.