A Taliban Threat May’ve Kept Congress in the Dark on the Bergdahl Swap

A new report suggests that the Taliban said it would kill the sergeant if news of the swap leaked.

National Journal
Elahe Izadi Matt Berman
See more stories about...
Elahe Izadi Matt Berman
June 5, 2014, 9:31 a.m.

Here’s a new reas­on the White House is giv­ing for why the United States ac­ted quickly and quietly to con­duct a pris­on­er trade to pull Sgt. Bowe Ber­g­dahl out of Afgh­anistan: cit­ing un­named con­gres­sion­al of­fi­cials, the As­so­ci­ated Press re­ports that White House of­fi­cials told law­makers that the Taliban threatened to kill its cap­tive if news of the pris­on­er swap, which res­ul­ted in five mem­bers of the Taliban be­ing re­leased to Qatar, leaked be­fore the trade happened.

Fear of such a leak, these of­fi­cials sug­gest, is one reas­on the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion didn’t give Con­gress a sig­ni­fic­ant heads-up be­fore the trade.

This re­port comes after a clas­si­fied brief­ing on the Hill Wed­nes­day dur­ing which White House of­fi­cials showed sen­at­ors a “proof of life” video, al­legedly filmed in Decem­ber, that pur­por­ted to show Ber­g­dahl in fail­ing health.

Earli­er on Thursday, Pres­id­ent Obama brought up Ber­g­dahl’s health, not a spe­cif­ic threat to his life, as a driv­ing force for mak­ing a deal. “We had a pris­on­er of war whose health had de­teri­or­ated, and we were deeply con­cerned about, and we saw an op­por­tun­ity, and we seized it,” he said at a press con­fer­ence in Brus­sels. “I make no apo­lo­gies for that.” The con­gres­sion­al of­fi­cials told the AP on Thursday that the threat to Ber­g­dahl’s life, more than just con­cerns over his health, factored in­to the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion pulling the trig­ger on the deal.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5008) }}

Some sen­at­ors at Wed­nes­day night’s clas­si­fied brief­ing were not con­vinced of the White House’s ra­tionale, and it’s a sure bet that crit­ics of the trade won’t be put at ease by the sug­ges­tion that the Taliban helped pres­sure the White House in­to keep­ing Con­gress in the dark.

Earli­er in the week, Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Chair­wo­man Di­anne Fein­stein con­ceded that con­gres­sion­al op­pos­i­tion to the swap may have been one reas­on the ad­min­is­tra­tion did not no­ti­fy Con­gress 30 days in ad­vance. “But the White House is pretty uni­lat­er­al about what they want to do, when they want to do it.”

Some law­makers cited leaks earli­er in the week as one pos­sible reas­on they wer­en’t looped in soon­er. Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices Chair­man Carl Lev­in said Tues­day he “wouldn’t be sur­prised” if a con­cern over leaks was why Con­gress didn’t re­ceive the 30-day no­tice.

Many law­makers, mostly Re­pub­lic­ans, were clearly up­set at the swap and not hav­ing been no­ti­fied of it in ad­vance. It’s tough to say what they would have done had they re­ceived that no­ti­fic­a­tion, but sev­er­al said they would have done what they could to stop the trade.

What would mem­bers have done with that no­tice? Sen­ate Armed Ser­vices rank­ing mem­ber James In­hofe also said Tues­day that had Con­gress re­ceived the 30-day no­tice, plus de­tailed plans and ra­tionale for the swap, “we could have prob­ably en­gendered enough pub­lic opin­ion that that would not have happened.”

When pressed on wheth­er he would have been will­ing to ex­pose the pro­pos­al if the White House had no­ti­fied Con­gress in ad­vance, In­hofe re­spon­ded, “I would do any­thing that I could do to stop the White House from re­leas­ing these dan­ger­ous people on so­ci­ety.”

Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee Rank­ing Mem­ber Saxby Cham­b­liss said if Con­gress re­ceived 30-day no­ti­fic­a­tion that these five Taliban pris­on­ers were to be re­leased from Guantanamo Bay, “I would have raised holy hell.” When asked if he would have gone pub­lic with his “holy hell,” he said, “Ab­so­lutely. I did last time and I would again.”

In a state­ment later, Cham­b­liss said he was re­fer­ring spe­cific­ally to the trans­fer of Taliban of­fi­cials “when they were re­leased or the deal was an­nounced, just like I did last time when it was made pub­lic. I would not have done any­thing that in­volved re­leas­ing clas­si­fied in­form­a­tion or that would have en­dangered the life of Ser­geant Ber­g­dahl.”

When the pos­sib­il­ity of re­leas­ing five Taliban lead­ers from Guantanamo Bay as part of peace talks with the Taliban was made pub­lic in 2012, Cham­b­liss said pub­licly that he and Fein­stein wrote twice to the ad­min­is­tra­tion voicing “strong ob­jec­tions” to the pro­posed move.

Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Lind­sey Gra­ham of South Car­o­lina, who has been very vo­cal against the deal, said earli­er in the week, “I would have vehe­mently ob­jec­ted” if Con­gress had been no­ti­fied. “It would have giv­en us a chance to put our ob­jec­tions on re­cord and said don’t do this.”

When asked if he would have gone pub­lic, Gra­ham at first said yes, but then qual­i­fied it: He wouldn’t have put those in­volved at risk.

“But I would have, in an ap­pro­pri­ate fash­ion, said, ‘Please don’t do this. The risks out­weigh the be­ne­fits.’ Wheth­er or not I would have talked about it pub­licly would have been based on our na­tion­al se­cur­ity, the people in the op­er­a­tion,” Gra­ham said. “I would not have com­prom­ised the op­er­a­tion if that was what was on­go­ing.”

For Re­pub­lic­an Sen. Tom Coburn, the lack of no­tice “is not the im­port­ant thing,” al­though he does say it un­der­mines the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s re­la­tion­ship with Con­gress.

“It’s un­for­tu­nate that they don’t trust Con­gress enough to tell at at least the ma­jor­ity lead­er, the minor­ity lead­er of both houses and the heads of the in­tel and de­fense com­mit­tees,” Coburn said Thursday. “That says something more than any­thing.”

Not­ably, Idaho Re­pub­lic­an Sen. James Risch — who up un­til this point has re­frained from com­ment­ing on the Ber­g­dahl swap aside from say­ing his con­stitu­ents are happy Idaho nat­ive Ber­g­dahl’s out of Taliban cus­tody — blas­ted the ad­min­is­tra­tion Thursday for what he calls “a pivot” of reas­on­ing for the pris­on­er swap.

Risch said he couldn’t talk about the spe­cif­ics of what was dis­cussed, in­clud­ing the pur­por­ted death threat over leaks, dur­ing Wed­nes­day’s clas­si­fied brief­ing. “However, hav­ing said that, first of all, I want to see the ac­tu­al fac­tu­al basis of that,” he said. “Right now thats just an al­leg­a­tion. But secondly, I’m very sus­pi­cious since they star­ted out say­ing this was a health is­sue and when it was proven that was false, they’re now pivot­ing to a dif­fer­ent reas­on.”

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 5004) }}

This post was up­dated at 4:26 p.m. with com­ment from ad­di­tion­al sen­at­ors.

What We're Following See More »
LEGACY PLAY
Sanders and Clinton Spar Over … President Obama
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama became a surprise topic of contention toward the end of the Democratic debate, as Hillary Clinton reminded viewers that Sanders had challenged the progressive bona fides of President Obama in 2011 and suggested that someone might challenge him from the left. “The kind of criticism that we’ve heard from Senator Sanders about our president I expect from Republicans, I do not expect from someone running for the Democratic nomination to succeed President Obama,” she said. “Madame Secretary, that is a low blow,” replied Sanders, before getting in another dig during his closing statement: “One of us ran against Barack Obama. I was not that candidate.”

THE 1%
Sanders’s Appeals to Minorities Still Filtered Through Wall Street Talk
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s all about the 1% and Wall Street versus everyone else for Bernie Sanders—even when he’s talking about race relations. Like Hillary Clinton, he needs to appeal to African-American and Hispanic voters in coming states, but he insists on doing so through his lens of class warfare. When he got a question from the moderators about the plight of black America, he noted that during the great recession, African Americans “lost half their wealth,” and “instead of tax breaks for billionaires,” a Sanders presidency would deliver jobs for kids. On the very next question, he downplayed the role of race in inequality, saying, “It’s a racial issue, but it’s also a general economic issue.”

DIRECT APPEAL TO MINORITIES, WOMEN
Clinton Already Pivoting Her Messaging
7 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

It’s been said in just about every news story since New Hampshire: the primaries are headed to states where Hillary Clinton will do well among minority voters. Leaving nothing to chance, she underscored that point in her opening statement in the Milwaukee debate tonight, saying more needs to be done to help “African Americans who face discrimination in the job market” and immigrant families. She also made an explicit reference to “equal pay for women’s work.” Those boxes she’s checking are no coincidence: if she wins women, blacks and Hispanics, she wins the nomination.

THE QUESTION
How Many Jobs Would Be Lost Under Bernie Sanders’s Single-Payer System?
15 hours ago
THE ANSWER

More than 11 million, according to Manhattan Institute fellow Yevgeniy Feyman, writing in RealClearPolicy.

Source:
WEEKEND DATA DUMP
State to Release 550 More Clinton Emails on Saturday
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

Under pressure from a judge, the State Department will release about 550 of Hillary Clinton’s emails—“roughly 14 percent of the 3,700 remaining Clinton emails—on Saturday, in the middle of the Presidents Day holiday weekend.” All of the emails were supposed to have been released last month. Related: State subpoenaed the Clinton Foundation last year, which brings the total number of current Clinton investigations to four, says the Daily Caller.

Source:
×