Opinion Editorial

Freeing Sgt. Bergdahl: Why it was a good deal for all Americans

Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl is free; does the rest matter?
The U.S. has made deals before to free prisoners; remember the Iran hostage crisis?

The release of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, a captive of Islamist extremists for almost five years, is good news not only for his family but for all Americans. But the price the Obama administration paid for the 28-year-old soldier's repatriation was freedom for five detainees at Guantanamo Bay who are hardened Taliban commanders.

Critics of the administration say that price was too high, and they make three other arguments: that the exchange violated a long-standing U.S. policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists; that this country shouldn't negotiate with the Taliban because it might legitimize the group in Afghanistan; and finally, that the swift release of the detainees violated U.S. law. Most of these arguments are invalid or overstated.

Undoubtedly there is a risk in releasing the detainees. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) isn't alone in worrying that they "would have the ability to reenter the fight." But under the agreement brokered by Qatar, the five men will be prevented from leaving that Persian Gulf emirate for a year and will be subject to monitoring of their activities during that time. Were they to return to Afghanistan later, it's likely that their movements there also would be followed closely. Finally, unless the U.S. were to assert the right to hold the detainees forever without trial, they would have been released at some point. Why not do it now when it helps to secure the release of an American?

What about the other objections?

The policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists has been honored as much in the breach as in the observance; a notable example is the 1981 agreement with Iran that secured the release of 52 Americans who had been held hostage after the Iranian revolution. As for negotiations with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies long have been open to the possibility of an agreement between the Afghan government and elements of the Taliban that would be willing to participate in the political process. In the meantime, the Taliban and the U.S. are in a state of war, and sometimes enemies exchange prisoners.

Critics are on sounder ground in arguing that the deal conflicts with a law requiring the secretary of Defense to give Congress 30 days' notice before transferring prisoners from Guantanamo to another country. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has contended that the law is trumped by the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief.

Obama made a similar argument last year when he signed the National Defense Authorization Act that contains the notice requirement and other restrictions on the movement of prisoners from Guantanamo. But if Obama believed, as he said then, that abiding by the law "would violate constitutional separation of powers principles," he should have vetoed it. As we have argued before, it's bad practice for a president to sign a law and then question its constitutionality in a signing statement.

Congress is free to press the administration about details of the arrangement that won Bergdahl's freedom. But the president must be equally free to respond to a diplomatic opening that could mean the difference between freedom and captivity for an American soldier.

Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Should non-citizens in the U.S. vote?
    Should non-citizens in the U.S. vote?

    As of Jan. 1, 2012, an estimated 13.3 million lawful permanent residents lived in the United States, and 8.8 million of them were eligible to apply for U.S. citizenship but had not done so. In California, 2.48 million out of 3.4 million green-card holders were eligible to apply but chose not...

  • Obama's fourth-quarter foreign policy surprises
    Obama's fourth-quarter foreign policy surprises

    Six months ago, President Obama's foreign policy looked stymied. Negotiations with Israel and the Palestinians were at a dead end. Russia was gaining ground in eastern Ukraine. U.S. efforts to end the war in Syria were ineffective. A new extremist army, Islamic State, was marching into Iraq.

  • Ukraine should put Russia to the test
    Ukraine should put Russia to the test

    Ukraine is now strong enough to seize the initiative to create a lasting cease-fire in its Donbas Rust Belt, currently occupied by Russia and its proxies. And Russia may be weak enough to be receptive. It is in Kiev's interest to do so. A state of permanent war with Russia would damage...

  • The great fear of the great outdoors
    The great fear of the great outdoors

    Americans find ourselves in a period — arguably, the first in our nation's history — when our unease about being in nature is coming to outweigh our desire for it. We have a growing intolerance for inconvenience, a feeling well captured by the suburban fifth-grader who memorably...

  • Animals and humans sometimes kill their young -- the question is why
    Animals and humans sometimes kill their young -- the question is why

    Among the endless stream of bad news in the media, every now and then something occurs that it is so horrendous that it stops us in our tracks. That has happened once again with Tuesday's massacre at a school in Peshawar, Pakistan. Among the victims: 132 children who died — many of them...

  • The snackification of everything
    The snackification of everything

    Symbols matter, which is why it's important to acknowledge that our truest national emblem isn't an eagle or a dollar sign or even a handgun, though each will have its proponents.