This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/world/asia/hagel-prepares-to-defend-bergdahl-trade.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Hagel Defends Bergdahl Trade as Part of ‘Dirty Business’ of War Hagel Defends Bergdahl Trade as a Part of Waging War
(about 7 hours later)
WASHINGTON — A defiant Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday defended the prisoner exchange that brought the release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl after years of captivity with the Taliban, telling skeptical lawmakers that the operation had needed to be kept secret from Congress to ensure that the soldier was not killed by his captors in the days leading up to the swap. WASHINGTON — A defiant Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Wednesday defended the prisoner exchange that freed Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl after years of captivity with the Taliban, telling skeptical lawmakers that the decision had been kept secret from Congress because leaks could have scuttled the deal or increased risks to the soldier before the swap.
In the first public testimony before Congress by a senior member of the Obama administration since Sergeant Bergdahl’s release, Mr. Hagel described the exchange as a “military operation” that was in doubt until the very end. He called prisoner swaps part of the “dirty business” of war. In the first public testimony before Congress by a senior member of the Obama administration since Sergeant Bergdahl’s release, Mr. Hagel described the exchange of five Taliban detainees from the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as a “military operation” that had been in doubt until the end. He called prisoner swaps part of the “dirty business” of war.
“War, every part of war like prisoner exchanges, is not some abstraction or theoretical exercise,” he told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “All of these decisions are part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war.” “War — every part of war, like prisoner exchanges — is not some abstraction or theoretical exercise,” he told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “All these decisions are part of the brutal, imperfect realities we all deal with in war.”
Mr. Hagel showed brief flashes of contrition, acknowledging the complaints of lawmakers’ “great frustration” that they were kept in the dark about the operation and admitting that the Obama administration “could have done a better job” keeping lawmakers informed. A statute signed by President Obama requires that the administration give Congress 30 days notice before it transfers a Guantánamo detainee. Mr. Obama issued a signing statement asserting that he could lawfully bypass the notice requirement under certain circumstances. Mr. Hagel showed flashes of contrition, acknowledging lawmakers’ “legitimate questions and concern” over why they were kept in the dark about the operation, and admitting that the Obama administration “could have done a better job” of keeping lawmakers informed.
But Mr. Hagel did not give ground about the necessity of the prisoner swap, in which Sergeant Bergdahl was exchanged for five senior Taliban detainees being held at the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The Obama administration bypassed a statute requiring Mr. Hagel to give Congress 30 days’ notice before transferring a Guantánamo detainee, based on a signing statement issued by Mr. Obama asserting that he could lawfully sidestep the requirement under certain circumstances.
Republican critics of the deal have compared it to “negotiating with terrorists,” an accusation echoed on Wednesday by Representative Howard McKeon, the California Republican who is the committee’s chairman. Mr. McKeon also said the deal would “incentivize” militants to capture more American troops. But Mr. Hagel did not give ground about the necessity of the prisoner swap. “We had to stay focused on what the objective was, and that was getting an American P.O.W. back with the reassurances that we needed to be able to say it would substantially mitigate the risk and it was in the interest of our country,” he said.
Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has asserted that the five former detainees — now being held in Qatar for a year under the terms of the prisoner swap — have “American blood on their hands.” “That was the objective, and that’s what we tried to do,” he continued. “And I know there are differences, and I know there are questions. I get it. But we did get him back, and we don’t have any more P.O.W.s.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Hagel said they did not.” They have not been implicated in any attacks against the United States, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission,” he said. Republican critics of the deal have compared it to “negotiating with terrorists,” an accusation echoed on Wednesday by Representative Howard (Buck) McKeon, the California Republican who is the committee’s chairman. Mr. McKeon also said the deal would “incentivize” militants to capture more American troops.
Later, however, under questioning by Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, Mr. Hagel conceded that even though there was no evidence of “direct involvement” in attacks on American troops, the detainees had nevertheless been “combatants” because as mid- to high-ranking members of the Taliban government, they were involved in “planning” Taliban operations after the United States went to war in Afghanistan. Some Republicans, including Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, have also asserted that the five former detainees — now being held in Qatar for a year under the terms of the prisoner swap — have “American blood on their hands.”
On Wednesday, Mr. Hagel disputed that claim. He said that the former detainees “have not been implicated in any attacks against the United States, and we had no basis to prosecute them in a federal court or military commission.”
Later, however, under questioning by Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, Mr. Hagel conceded that even though there was no evidence of “direct involvement” in attacks on American troops, the detainees had nevertheless been “combatants” in the armed conflict because, as mid- to high-ranking members of the Taliban government, they were involved in “planning” Taliban operations.
Mr. McKeon said, “Bin Laden didn’t pull the trigger, but we went after him because he caused 9/11.”Mr. McKeon said, “Bin Laden didn’t pull the trigger, but we went after him because he caused 9/11.”
Sergeant Bergdahl was being held in Pakistan by the Haqqani network, a group aligned with the Taliban that the State Department has listed as a foreign terrorist organization. On Wednesday, several Republican lawmakers asked Mr. Hagel to explain why the prisoner swap did not violate America’s longtime policy of not negotiating with terrorists. Sergeant Bergdahl was held in Pakistan by the Haqqani network, a group aligned with the Taliban that the State Department has listed as a foreign terrorist organization. On Wednesday, several Republican lawmakers asked Mr. Hagel to explain why the prisoner swap did not violate the United States’ longtime policy of not negotiating with terrorists.
Mr. Hagel said that the Obama administration had dealt directly with Qatari officials, not militants, and that it was operatives of the Taliban – the insurgents who formerly controlled the government of Afghanistan but have not been designated as members of a terrorist organization – and not the Haqqanis who were on the other end of the negotiations. Mr. Hagel said that the Obama administration was not negotiating with terrorists because it had dealt directly with Qatari officials, not militants, and that the Qataris were talking to the Afghan Taliban, who have not been designated as members of a terrorist organization.
Several lawmakers were not satisfied.Several lawmakers were not satisfied.
“These responses are very, very tortuous,” said Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota.“These responses are very, very tortuous,” said Representative John Kline, Republican of Minnesota.
Lawmakers and Mr. Hagel avoided delving into the still-murky circumstances surrounding how Sergeant Bergdahl came to be captured in late June 2009. A still-classified military investigation concluded that he voluntarily slipped away from his base, but stopped short of concluding that there was solid evidence that he intended to desert permanently, according to officials who have read the report. Lawmakers and Mr. Hagel largely avoided delving into still-open questions about how Sergeant Bergdahl was captured in late June 2009. A classified military investigation concluded that he voluntarily slipped away from his base, but it stopped short of concluding that he intended to desert permanently, according to officials who have read the report.
Some former members of Sergeant Bergdahl’s unit have contended that he was a deserter and even that he was deliberately seeking out the Taliban. But Mr. Hagel noted that the military categorized him as “missing-captured” and that he had not been charged with desertion. Still, Mr. Hagel said he had seen no evidence to support claims by some former members of his unit that six to eight soldiers were killed because of the hunt for him, an accusation that has been frequently echoed in the news media but has proved murky.
Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the committee, said there “simply is no proof, no evidence; I think the way Mr. Bergdahl has been slandered has been scandalous.” Mr. Smith said people should wait until for due process to take place to figure out what happened. “I’ve personally gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army,” he said. “In all of our reports, I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl.”
Some former members of his unit have also claimed that six to eight members of the military were killed because of the hunt for the missing soldier. Mr. Hagel said that he had asked whether any soldier had died in Afghanistan as a result of the search and that so far, he had seen no evidence to support those claims. Mr. McKeon said the failure to comply with the statute requiring congressional notice was “one of the things that has bothered me the most about this.”
“I personally have gone back and asked that question inside the Pentagon, in the Army, and some of our reports,” he said. “I have seen no evidence that directly links any American combat death to the rescue or finding or search of Sergeant Bergdahl.” Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the committee, who otherwise largely defended the deal, also criticized the lack of notice, saying that “the law is the law,” and he rejected Mr. Obama’s use of a signing statement to reserve a right to bypass it.
Mr. McKeon said the failure to comply with the statute requiring Congressional notice was “one of the things that has bothered me the most about this.” He said, “There is no compelling reason why the department could not provide a notification to Congress 30 days before the transfer, especially when it has complied with a notification requirement for all previous Gitmo detainee transfers since enactment of the law.”
Mr. Thornberry also hammered on that theme, saying that notice requirements were central to legislative oversight of military and intelligence agencies generally, and that the failure to comply with the statute had undermined the broader relationship between the executive branch and Congressional overseers.
Mr. Smith, who otherwise largely defended the deal, also criticized the lack of notice, saying “the law is the law” and rejecting Mr. Obama’s use of a signing statement to reserve a right to bypass it.
“When President Bush was in the White House,” he said, “he had, gosh, hundreds of signing statements, and there was, I believe, a correct amount of outrage amongst many that those signing statements were put out there as a way to simply avoid the law. If it wasn’t right for President Bush to do it, it’s not right for President Obama to do it.”“When President Bush was in the White House,” he said, “he had, gosh, hundreds of signing statements, and there was, I believe, a correct amount of outrage amongst many that those signing statements were put out there as a way to simply avoid the law. If it wasn’t right for President Bush to do it, it’s not right for President Obama to do it.”