• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should The US Allow Families of Kidnap Victims Pay Ransom To Terrorists?

Should The US Allow Families of Kidnap Victims Pay Ransom To Terrorists?


  • Total voters
    25

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,903
Reaction score
60,356
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.

Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...
 
I honestly don't know. I mean, I can understand why they would want to pay the ransom as to get their loved one back but at the exact same time it's going to reinforce the behavior of the terrorists who, seeing that they were able to get money off of one hostage, will continue to do so and possibly in even greater numbers and higher ransoms.
 
No, they shouldn't allow it. But it's not about the money, it's about our country's resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. PERIOD
 
You can't spend your money on many things already. This is in keeping with that.
 
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.

Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...

I'd leave the country and make the payment, collect my loved one and deduct it from my taxes, sense the whole fact that the Islamic state and other groups are running freely about the ME wreaking havoc because of the power vacuums created by US policy in the region.
 
I'd leave the country and make the payment, collect my loved one and deduct it from my taxes, sense the whole fact that the Islamic state and other groups are running freely about the ME wreaking havoc because of the power vacuums created by US policy in the region.
You have large sums of money available to fund terrorist organizations?
 
I see both sides of the issue. If I am the POTUS and commander in chief, I can't tolerate any Americans funding terrorists, under any circumstances. That puts more troops in danger. This is evident in that European countries often "don't pay ransom" but allow money to be funneled to ISIS via third parties - which gives ISIS incentive to go after other citizens of those countries.

If it is my kid? I'd move hell or highwater to pay the ransom.
 
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.

Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...


No they should not be allowed to pay ransoms to terrorists.Because every dollar they give to terrorists goes towards kidnapping and killing more innocent people.
 
No, they shouldn't allow it. But it's not about the money, it's about our country's resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. PERIOD

And yet Obama gave into a ransom of, iirc, 5 known terrorists for what many people believe to be a traitor. I may be wrong but I don't recall ANY other President doing such an idiotic exchange.
 
If the family wants to pay - they should be allowed to pay. I get both sides of the issue as well as the undermining of the government which could happen as well as encourage more kidnappings in the future as a money making. I'd just hope my government would strongly restrict travel to these countries regardless if it's a humanitarian or not. It's a tough issue, that's for sure.
 
And yet Obama gave into a ransom of, iirc, 5 known terrorists for what many people believe to be a traitor. I may be wrong but I don't recall ANY other President doing such an idiotic exchange.
President Bush let people go as well. The war is over this was a prisoner exchange.
 
I don't know that you can even stop it. As a nation, we do not negotiate with terrorists, but individual citizens are not representatives of the nation and ought to be able to do what they want to do with their own money.
 
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.

Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...

95% of the ransom demands quoted in the mainstream media of these groups in the ME don't make any sense, and so they're probably not authentic.

According to these reports, the captors ask for more $$ than the families could possibly afford and/or borrow/raise, which renders the demand meaningless. Hello?!

In the fog of war where propoganda is slung around everywhere by all sides (yes, including by the US gummint), it's impossible to know who's kidnapping who and who's asking for what.

That being said, paying any money to someone claiming to promise to release a hostage in return is an incredibly stupid idea since there's no way to conclusively verify the identities of the recipients.
 
President Bush let people go as well. The war is over this was a prisoner exchange.

The war is over? Since when? Last I knew the War on Terror was still an on going issue.

ABC News ~ War on Terror

And only an idiot would trade what is considered 5 of the most dangerous terrorists for one soldier that is/was suspected of being a traitor. I know Bush was an idiot but I don't recall him ever making such a ****'d up exchange do you?
 
No, they shouldn't allow it. But it's not about the money, it's about our country's resolve not to negotiate with terrorists. PERIOD

But we negotiate with terrorists all the time, and have for a long time.
 
95% of the ransom demands quoted in the mainstream media of these groups in the ME don't make any sense, and so they're probably not authentic.

According to these reports, the captors ask for more $$ than the families could possibly afford and/or borrow/raise, which renders the demand meaningless. Hello?!

In the fog of war where propoganda is slung around everywhere by all sides (yes, including by the US gummint), it's impossible to know who's kidnapping who and who's asking for what.

That being said, paying any money to someone claiming to promise to release a hostage in return is an incredibly stupid idea since there's no way to conclusively verify the identities of the recipients.

Don't need to verify them. All that you need to do is make a swap. Don't have the kidnapped loved one in front of ya? Don't do the swap.
 
The war is over? Since when? Last I knew the War on Terror was still an on going issue.

ABC News ~ War on Terror

And only an idiot would trade what is considered 5 of the most dangerous terrorists for one soldier that is/was suspected of being a traitor. I know Bush was an idiot but I don't recall him ever making such a ****'d up exchange do you?

From what I've read, classifying the Bergdahl Five as some of the most dangerous terrorists is a bit of an overstatement.
 
From what I've read, classifying the Bergdahl Five as some of the most dangerous terrorists is a bit of an overstatement.

I don't know, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, a man who is wanted for war crimes by the UN for murdering thousands of Shiites seem pretty darn dangerous to me.

New York Times ~ Mullah Mohammad Fazl
 
I just happened to see something about this cruising news channels before hockey game tonight, and I went back and forth on this question. Right now, it is US policy to not allow family members of people held captive by terrorists to pay a ransom to those terrorists for the release of that family member. This kinda makes sense in that the money would go to fund terrorists. However, that is telling people that they cannot spend their money as they choose, to save the life of a loved one, and that kinda strikes me as wrong too. SO what do you think, should the US continue the policy of not allowing people to ransom family members from terrorists, or should we allow it.

Poll incoming in a minute, be aware I type slow...

I voted "No," though not for the reason that it funds terrorism. I don't think it should be allowed because it encourages kidnapping.
 
I don't know, Mullah Mohammad Fazl, a man who is wanted for war crimes by the UN for murdering thousands of Shiites seem pretty darn dangerous to me.

New York Times ~ Mullah Mohammad Fazl

From the sounds of it, given his position, he likely ordered such a move, rather than killing those people himself. A dirtbag, to be sure.

Weren't the Bergdahl Five released to house arrest in Qatar?
 
But we negotiate with terrorists all the time, and have for a long time.

No, Obama is the only president to have ever done this.

2002: The George W. Bush administration pays a $300,000 ransom to Abu Sayyaf, an Islamist extremist group in the southern Philippines, to secure the return of two American missionaries, Martin and Gracia Burnham. Efforts by the Philippine military to rescue the missionaries results in Martin’s death, and Gracia’s return to the United States. Whether Abu Sayyaf had even received the ransom money, was never confirmed.
 
Back
Top Bottom