Skip to main content

Was the deal to free Bowe Bergdahl justified?

By Douglass Cassel
June 3, 2014 -- Updated 2005 GMT (0405 HKT)
These are photos obtained by WikiLeaks that match the names of the detainees released by the Department of Defense. Their release was in exchange for the release of <a href='http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/19/us/bowe-bergdahl-fast-facts/index.html' target='_blank'>Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl</a> who was being held by the Taliban. The Department of Defense would neither confirm nor deny their accuracy.<strong> Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa </strong>was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban's rule. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities. These are photos obtained by WikiLeaks that match the names of the detainees released by the Department of Defense. Their release was in exchange for the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl who was being held by the Taliban. The Department of Defense would neither confirm nor deny their accuracy. Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa was an early member of the Taliban in 1994 and was interior minister during the Taliban's rule. He was arrested in Pakistan and was transferred to Guantanamo in May 2002. During questioning, Khairkhwa denied all knowledge of extremist activities.
HIDE CAPTION
Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bergdahl
Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bergdahl
Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bergdahl
Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bergdahl
Guantanamo detainees swapped for Bergdahl
<<
<
1
2
3
4
5
>
>>
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Douglass Cassel: The objections to the Bergdahl deal raise serious issues
  • He says negotiating with the Taliban, which was holding Bergdahl, made sense
  • Cassel: Administration was justified in not complying with requirement to notify Congress
  • He says Guantanamo remains a gaping wound in U.S. credibility internationally

Editor's note: Douglass Cassel is a Notre Dame presidential fellow and professor of law at the University of Notre Dame. He has filed briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the rights of prisoners at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and accountability for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Claims Act. He served for three years as a lieutenant in the Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely his.

(CNN) -- Last weekend's release and the now imminent homecoming of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, held prisoner by the Taliban or its allies for nearly five years, are cause for celebration.

Bergdahl was the only U.S. soldier being held in the Afghan war. The U.S. military does not abandon its own.

Bergdahl's release is nonetheless controversial because of the price paid for it: our release of five former Taliban leaders from Guantanamo to Qatar, where, we are told, they will be monitored and barred from leaving that small Gulf Emirate for one year.

There is no denying that the release of Taliban murderers was a stiff price to pay. Letting them go (albeit after a dozen years of incarceration at Guantanamo) was necessary, the administration says, because otherwise Sgt. Bergdahl's life was in danger. If Washington, knowing of an imminent threat to his life, had chosen simply to let one of our soldiers die, how would the American public react?

Douglass Cassel
Douglass Cassel

Granted, the objections to this prisoner swap are not trivial. On balance, though, the administration made the right call.

One objection is that the released Taliban prisoners, who have killed before, are likely to kill again, once they return to Afghanistan in one year (assuming they do not slip away from Qatar even sooner).

That is possible -- but not a certainty. Both the Afghan and U.S. governments have been trying to encourage peace negotiations with the Taliban. Admittedly, a peace deal faces long odds. Still, there is a degree of speculation as to whether the Taliban prisoners -- after long years in Guantanamo away from their comrades -- will necessarily return to their old ways.

In contrast, we are told -- on what classified basis we do not yet know -- that Bergdahl's life was in imminent danger, if the White House and Pentagon had refused to make the swap.

Released Guantanamo detainees in Qatar
Bergdahl's hometown prepares for arrival
Soldiers question Bergdahl's valor

And even if Bergdahl had survived, how many more years of incommunicado imprisonment would he have had to endure? With U.S. forces in Afghanistan set to wind down to only 10,000 by the end of 2014, and to leave the country altogether by the end of 2016, U.S. leverage to secure his release was steadily diminishing.

Another objection is that the U.S., as a matter of policy, should never negotiate with terrorists. In general that is a sound policy. But the Taliban are not garden variety terrorists. They are an armed force with which the U.S. has been engaged in armed conflict for over a decade.

Bergdahl was not a hostage held by ordinary terrorists. He was a soldier captured in war. The U.S. can make deals to secure the return of prisoners without relinquishing our general policy of not negotiating with terrorists.

A further objection is that this deal will encourage the Taliban to capture more American soldiers. But the Taliban need no incentives to try to capture U.S. service members. Any chance they get, they will take -- regardless of how the U.S. dealt with the Bergdahl release.

Finally, some Republicans in Congress object that the deal was illegal, because the administration is required by statute to give Congress 30 days notice before transferring prisoners from Guantanamo, but failed to do so.

The administration counters that there was no time for delay without risking Bergdahl's life, and that in these circumstances, the President's constitutional powers as commander in chief entitled him to override the statute. Although the point is debatable as a matter of law, in my view the administration wins the argument.

Aside from the prisoner swap for Bergdahl, there remains a larger question: Is the continued detention of 149 prisoners at Guantanamo (following the release of the five Taliban) in the national security interest of the United States? Sixty or so are Yemenis who have long been cleared for release, because they are deemed not to pose a threat to the U.S. The administration keeps them in Guantanamo only because of unrest in Yemen. Other prisoners are detained indefinitely, with no prospect for trial or release. Still other prisoners, who face criminal charges, are or will be tried by military commissions that fall short of minimum international standards of fair trial.

Both as symbol and in substance, Guantanamo thus remains a gaping wound in U.S. credibility. When we criticize Russia or China for violating international law, each has a ready retort: The U.S. violates international law at Guantanamo. Even our allies see us as hypocrites. At a time when our "hard power" is in decline, in both absolute terms (a shrinking military) and relative terms (versus mounting Chinese power), Guantanamo undermines American "soft power" -- when we need it more than ever.

Guantanamo has too long been treated as a domestic political football. It is past time to recognize that the price of continuing this game into overtime is too high.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
December 27, 2014 -- Updated 0127 GMT (0927 HKT)
The ability to manipulate media and technology has increasingly become a critical strategic resource, says Jeff Yang.
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1617 GMT (0017 HKT)
Today's politicians should follow Ronald Reagan's advice and invest in science, research and development, Fareed Zakaria says.
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1319 GMT (2119 HKT)
Artificial intelligence does not need to be malevolent to be catastrophically dangerous to humanity, writes Greg Scoblete.
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1505 GMT (2305 HKT)
Historian Douglas Brinkley says a showing of Sony's film in Austin helped keep the city weird -- and spotlighted the heroes who stood up for free expression
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1303 GMT (2103 HKT)
Tanya Odom that by calling only on women at his press conference, the President made clear why women and people of color should be more visible in boardrooms and conferences
December 26, 2014 -- Updated 1312 GMT (2112 HKT)
When oil spills happen, researchers are faced with the difficult choice of whether to use chemical dispersants, authors say
December 25, 2014 -- Updated 0633 GMT (1433 HKT)
Danny Cevallos says the legislature didn't have to get involved in regulating how people greet each other
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2312 GMT (0712 HKT)
Marc Harrold suggests a way to move forward after the deaths of NYPD officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1336 GMT (2136 HKT)
Simon Moya-Smith says Mah-hi-vist Goodblanket, who was killed by law enforcement officers, deserves justice.
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 1914 GMT (0314 HKT)
Val Lauder says that for 1,700 years, people have been debating when, and how, to celebrate Christmas
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2027 GMT (0427 HKT)
Raphael Sperry says architects should change their ethics code to ban involvement in designing torture chambers
December 24, 2014 -- Updated 0335 GMT (1135 HKT)
Paul Callan says Sony is right to call for blocking the tweeting of private emails stolen by hackers
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1257 GMT (2057 HKT)
As Christmas arrives, eyes turn naturally toward Bethlehem. But have we got our history of Christmas right? Jay Parini explores.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 0429 GMT (1229 HKT)
The late Joe Cocker somehow found himself among the rock 'n' roll aristocracy who showed up in Woodstock to help administer a collective blessing upon a generation.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 2115 GMT (0515 HKT)
History may not judge Obama kindly on Syria or even Iraq. But for a lame duck president, he seems to have quacking left to do, says Aaron Miller.
December 23, 2014 -- Updated 1811 GMT (0211 HKT)
Terrorism and WMD -- it's easy to understand why these consistently make the headlines. But small arms can be devastating too, says Rachel Stohl.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 1808 GMT (0208 HKT)
Ever since "Bridge-gate" threatened to derail Chris Christie's chances for 2016, Jeb Bush has been hinting he might run. Julian Zelizer looks at why he could win.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 1853 GMT (0253 HKT)
New York's decision to ban hydraulic fracturing was more about politics than good environmental policy, argues Jeremy Carl.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 2019 GMT (0419 HKT)
On perhaps this year's most compelling drama, the credits have yet to roll. But we still need to learn some cyber lessons to protect America, suggest John McCain.
December 22, 2014 -- Updated 2239 GMT (0639 HKT)
Conservatives know easing the trade embargo with Cuba is good for America. They should just admit it, says Fareed Zakaria.
December 20, 2014 -- Updated 0112 GMT (0912 HKT)
We're a world away from Pakistan in geography, but not in sentiment, writes Donna Brazile.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT)
How about a world where we have murderers but no murders? The police still chase down criminals who commit murder, we have trials and justice is handed out...but no one dies.
December 18, 2014 -- Updated 2345 GMT (0745 HKT)
The U.S. must respond to North Korea's alleged hacking of Sony, says Christian Whiton. Failing to do so will only embolden it.
December 19, 2014 -- Updated 2134 GMT (0534 HKT)
President Obama has been flexing his executive muscles lately despite Democrat's losses, writes Gloria Borger
ADVERTISEMENT