• 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!

White House to okay negotiating with terror groups holding U.S. hostages

Anomalism

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 2, 2013
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
2,159
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
Thoughts?

Obama to okay negotiating with terrorists over hostages - CNNPolitics.com

The White House will release on Wednesday a presidential directive and an executive order that will allow the government to communicate and negotiate with terrorist groups holding Americans hostage, a source briefed on the matter told CNN. While the government will maintain its policy of not making "substantive concessions" to captors or paying ransoms, the White House will announce that officials will no longer threaten with criminal prosecution the families of American hostages who do pay ransoms to their relatives' captors, according to a senior administration official. Family members of former hostages were meeting at the White House on Tuesday to learn of the administration's decisions after a months-long review of U.S. policies in dealing with American citizens held captive. The families were set to meet with President Barack Obama on Wednesday.
 
Wait, we'd actually consider sending someone to jail for being desperate enough to pony up money to a terrorist group who has their family member!? Why the flying **** was that the policy before!?
 
Wait, we'd actually consider sending someone to jail for being desperate enough to pony up money to a terrorist group who has their family member!? Why the flying **** was that the policy before!?

If terrorists find that holding hostages is a successful way to get money, they're going to use their power to take more hostages and get more money because they know that families will give in. As wrong as it feels to prohibit this sort of thing, allowing it to continue encourages terrorism.
 
Thoughts?

Obama to okay negotiating with terrorists over hostages - CNNPolitics.com

The White House will release on Wednesday a presidential directive and an executive order that will allow the government to communicate and negotiate with terrorist groups holding Americans hostage, a source briefed on the matter told CNN. While the government will maintain its policy of not making "substantive concessions" to captors or paying ransoms, the White House will announce that officials will no longer threaten with criminal prosecution the families of American hostages who do pay ransoms to their relatives' captors, according to a senior administration official. Family members of former hostages were meeting at the White House on Tuesday to learn of the administration's decisions after a months-long review of U.S. policies in dealing with American citizens held captive. The families were set to meet with President Barack Obama on Wednesday.
This suggests more terrorists will be released from Gitmo.
 
Wait, we'd actually consider sending someone to jail for being desperate enough to pony up money to a terrorist group who has their family member!? Why the flying **** was that the policy before!?

Governments get to set policy for its citizens for the good of the many. When they disagree, they can renounce their citizenship and pay an "exit fee." Would have thought you would appreciate that.
 
Governments get to set policy for its citizens for the good of the many. When they disagree, they can renounce their citizenship and pay an "exit fee." Would have thought you would appreciate that.

Same question I asked in the other thread:

A person has a loved one kidnapped. They try to pay a ransom, get caught, and arrested. Loved one gets beheaded by ISIS. How many years in prison do you want to give them?
 
If terrorists find that holding hostages is a successful way to get money, they're going to use their power to take more hostages and get more money because they know that families will give in. As wrong as it feels to prohibit this sort of thing, allowing it to continue encourages terrorism.

They then execute Us hostages in a very public manner, meanwhile other countries, including Canada make arrangements to pay a ransom.
Now consider carefully- a relative working with an aid agency, kidnapped, threatened with execution, and you know they will. Would you sit back and what else would you do?
 
Same question I asked in the other thread:

A person has a loved one kidnapped. They try to pay a ransom, get caught, and arrested. Loved one gets beheaded by ISIS. How many years in prison do you want to give them?

Whatever the law prescribes.
 
Wow, whoever decided to make this decision is an absolute buffoon. Terrible.
 
Wait, we'd actually consider sending someone to jail for being desperate enough to pony up money to a terrorist group who has their family member!? Why the flying **** was that the policy before!?
:

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:

:agree: Excellent questions! :thumbs: Why shouldn't the families handle this on their own?How would it work? Would it be handled like a regular kidnapping with a ransom request? Would our government be involved in any way?
 
:

Greetings, Deuce. :2wave:

:agree: Excellent questions! :thumbs: Why shouldn't the families handle this on their own?How would it work? Would it be handled like a regular kidnapping with a ransom request? Would our government be involved in any way?

Evening my friend *hug*

Ransom is quite a business in certain parts of the world from what I've heard, but you never hear about it here. Maybe it's best to leave it up to the government, I mean, who has better overall law enforcement than us?
 
Evening my friend *hug*

Ransom is quite a business in certain parts of the world from what I've heard, but you never hear about it here. Maybe it's best to leave it up to the government, I mean, who has better overall law enforcement than us?

Greetings, JC. :2wave:

How would it be handled by the government? Would BHO or one of his people meet with the family to determine who is making the demand and how much money they want; and are they willing and able to pay it; then he would contact the terrorists to iron out the details if the family could not meet the demands and offer to negotiate a smaller amount if possible; and if the terrorists say "NO DEAL," could he say to the family "sorry, I did the best I could?" If the terrorists should agree to a lesser amount, does he then go back to the family and make the arrangements to get the money sent? I would sure as H*** hope that BHO has enough other problems to handle to get involved in that mess! :thumbdown: If the prisoner is a member of our military, then we do have laws to handle things like this, as you point out, but if not, the family should be able to do it on their own, which calls for a lot of trust in the terrorists, and good luck with that!
 
Terrorist earning potential just skyrocketed. Thanks Barack "Friend to terrorists, murderers, and brutal dictators" Obama.
 
Greetings, JC. :2wave:

How would it be handled by the government? Would BHO or one of his people meet with the family to determine who is making the demand and how much money they want; and are they willing and able to pay it; then he would contact the terrorists to iron out the details if the family could not meet the demands and offer to negotiate a smaller amount if possible; and if the terrorists say "NO DEAL," could he say to the family "sorry, I did the best I could?" If the terrorists should agree to a lesser amount, does he then go back to the family and make the arrangements to get the money sent? I would sure as H*** hope that BHO has enough other problems to handle to get involved in that mess! :thumbdown: If the prisoner is a member of our military, then we do have laws to handle things like this, as you point out, but if not, the family should be able to do it on their own, which calls for a lot of trust in the terrorists, and good luck with that!

I don't know, it could get dicey. :confused: :( I'm for leaving it strictly up to law enforcement, including our military. :gunner:
 
A cop out. Shocking.

Not at all, you like government when it agrees with you but government is a fickle lover. When government sets policy, it presumably does it for the greater good. Like vaccines, sometimes a small group has to suffer for the greater good--yes, under pain of penalty.

Negotiating with terrorists is one such long help prohibitions. Since the days of the Barbary Pirates, I believe. No answer that isn't zero would satisfy you so you are left with satisfying yourself.
 
I don't know, it could get dicey. :confused: :( I'm for leaving it strictly up to law enforcement, including our military. :gunner:

I wonder how many hostages were never taken because they knew that we would not negotiate or pay them anything? I'm thinking a great deal of our citizens have been saved because of that.
 
They then execute Us hostages in a very public manner, meanwhile other countries, including Canada make arrangements to pay a ransom.

And these other countries are encouraging terrorism as a result by giving terrorists the power to take more hostages and demand cash payouts because they know it will work, which only exacerbates the problem.

Now consider carefully- a relative working with an aid agency, kidnapped, threatened with execution, and you know they will. Would you sit back and what else would you do?

That's a very difficult decision for anyone who is unfortunately put in that position obviously. Human nature makes us want to rescue the hostage, but this is not a question of what you would do in that position. People who write this policy need to consider the actual consequences of allowing for the paying of terrorists in exchange for hostages, because legalizing doing so is only going to put more people in that position.
 
And these other countries are encouraging terrorism as a result by giving terrorists the power to take more hostages and demand cash payouts because they know it will work, which only exacerbates the problem.



That's a very difficult decision for anyone who is unfortunately put in that position obviously. Human nature makes us want to rescue the hostage, but this is not a question of what you would do in that position. People who write this policy need to consider the actual consequences of allowing for the paying of terrorists in exchange for hostages, because legalizing doing so is only going to put more people in that position.

So the issue is some countries do pay ransom – it may be thru the host Govt paying and favor for favor changes hands. To the Italian and others that also pay.
To Canada who used the first example to free one of our Diplomats.
Then the US traded the GITMO 5 for the US Soldier.

Paying is not the big problem, it is people in areas where most should not be.
 
So the issue is some countries do pay ransom – it may be thru the host Govt paying and favor for favor changes hands. To the Italian and others that also pay.
To Canada who used the first example to free one of our Diplomats.
Then the US traded the GITMO 5 for the US Soldier.

Paying is not the big problem, it is people in areas where most should not be.
Your reference to Canada here is unclear. Canada did help free Americans from the Iranian Embassy but there was no money involved. Canada to the Rescue | TIME.com
 
Your reference to Canada here is unclear. Canada did help free Americans from the Iranian Embassy but there was no money involved. Canada to the Rescue | TIME.com


Robert Fowler
Robert Fowler, Canadian diplomat, was freed on $1M, al-Qaeda reveals | National Post
An al-Qaeda letter obtained by The Associated Press suggests about $1-million was paid for the release of Canadian diplomat Robert Fowler in Niger four years ago.

Fowler, the highest-ranking UN official in Niger, and his colleague Louis Guay, were kidnapped and held for four months before being released in April 2009.
Ransom paid for Canadian diplomats, leaked cable suggests - The Globe and Mail
The Globe and Mail's Geoffrey York later reported that several AQIM prisoners had been released from African prisons as part of the deal and that "several million dollars in cash was given to the kidnappers."

Mr. Harper had told reporters that "the government of Canada does not pay ransom or money." Then he added that "what efforts or initiatives may have been undertaken by other governments are questions you'll have to put to those governments."
 
"The Associated Press report does not indicate who paid the ransom for Fowler and Guay".
There is no evidence here either.
I know we tend to mistrust our governments these days and ransoms may well have been paid. But I'm also very reluctant to trust terrorist groups, or any Mid East agencies.
 
So the issue is some countries do pay ransom – it may be thru the host Govt paying and favor for favor changes hands. To the Italian and others that also pay.
To Canada who used the first example to free one of our Diplomats.
Then the US traded the GITMO 5 for the US Soldier.

Paying is not the big problem, it is people in areas where most should not be.

Well obviously we should try to prevent hostage situations in the first place, but the entire point of this discussion is what to do when they occur.
 
Thoughts?

Obama to okay negotiating with terrorists over hostages - CNNPolitics.com

The White House will release on Wednesday a presidential directive and an executive order that will allow the government to communicate and negotiate with terrorist groups holding Americans hostage, a source briefed on the matter told CNN. While the government will maintain its policy of not making "substantive concessions" to captors or paying ransoms, the White House will announce that officials will no longer threaten with criminal prosecution the families of American hostages who do pay ransoms to their relatives' captors, according to a senior administration official. Family members of former hostages were meeting at the White House on Tuesday to learn of the administration's decisions after a months-long review of U.S. policies in dealing with American citizens held captive. The families were set to meet with President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

The article should be titled "Obama to okay Americans buying weapons and paying for other people to be taken hostage and killed". Because that is what you are ****ing doing when you pay a ransom to a terrorist.The terrorists are not donating the money to goodwill or to the Red cross/crescent.They re are not building homes with that money for the poor or paying for schools.They are using that money for weapons and to pay other terrorists to go out and kill more people and take hostages.
 
Wait, we'd actually consider sending someone to jail for being desperate enough to pony up money to a terrorist group who has their family member!? Why the flying **** was that the policy before!?

What do you think terrorists do with that money? Donate it to goodwill? Build homes for the poor? Pay for medical expenses of the poor? Donate to feed the children? Or do you think they are going to use that money to taken more hostages, buy weapons and murder more innocent people and anything else that helps their operations?
 
Back
Top Bottom