• 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
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 hear ya, but truly, I'd like to hear the families that have had personal experience with this answer this poll.
 
I hear ya, but truly, I'd like to hear the families that have had personal experience with this answer this poll.

Personal experience with this? Good luck with that, Montecresto.
 
Personal experience with this? Good luck with that, Montecresto.

Lol, well I hope you know what I mean, I do realise I'm not going to hear from any here at DP. But maybe one day I'll here a family interviewed that has had a family member held for this. I suspect that they would answer this poll question differently than most 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

If my daughter was being held I would kindly say **** you to anybody with that mindset, travel overseas and do whatever the **** I wanted to do...
 
Lol, well I hope you know what I mean, I do realise I'm not going to hear from any here at DP. But maybe one day I'll here a family interviewed that has had a family member held for this. I suspect that they would answer this poll question differently than most people.

Montecresto, think. What would you expect a family member to say? If it were a member of my family, I would do anything to see they were released safely. Could I let my child die if there were any small, itsy bitsy chance I could buy their release? Of course not. That's why we don't let those involved in emotional issues such as this be involved in making policy.
 
If anybody, even my kids, were stupid enough to go to an area like that and got kidnapped by ISIS I would be sad but I would also think that they were ****ing idiots for doing so and that it is there own damn problem now.
 
Yes. What are you going to do, charge them with aiding and abetting terrorism, after the fact? That's just unspeakably cruel.

Now, our governments should certainly never pay ransoms, and they should discourage paying ransoms as a matter of policy. But trying to stop people from doing anything possible to get their loved ones home safely is unconscionable.
 
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.

Yes and Sadaam ordered others to do his dirty work also. A single person in power and in command of thousands is more dangerous than a single person with a gun and a bomb strapped to his/her chest.

Weren't the Bergdahl Five released to house arrest in Qatar?

1: Do you actually trust a government that actively supports Hamas? An organization that is considered as a Terrorist Organization.

2: :lamo ....House arrest.... :lamo All that a house arrest means, assuming its even actually enforced, is that he has to stay in his house. He still has access to phones, internet, can have visitors, etc etc.
 
Montecresto, think. What would you expect a family member to say? If it were a member of my family, I would do anything to see they were released safely. Could I let my child die if there were any small, itsy bitsy chance I could buy their release? Of course not. That's why we don't let those involved in emotional issues such as this be involved in making policy.

Oh, I don't think any Americans get to set any US policy do they. But in answer to this question, as I stated in my first post in this thread, the state department won't be determining the fate of my family member in that situation. As we know, the Islamic state is communicating directly with family members of kidnapped people.
 
I honestly don't know. It's a damn good question.

Thing is, paying ransom does more than fund terrorist activities; it guarantees that kidnapping will become a constant revenue source, and families who can't come up with the money will see their loved ones die... loved ones who might not have been taken captive in the first place if others had not shown ransom to be lucrative.
 
If anybody, even my kids, were stupid enough to go to an area like that and got kidnapped by ISIS I would be sad but I would also think that they were ****ing idiots for doing so and that it is there own damn problem now.

God damn it dad!
 
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

This, definitely. It's not just about that one instance of kidnapping. If kidnapping gets you the money, there will be more kidnapping. Not negotiating with terrorists and kidnappers helps prevent future terrorism and kidnapping.
 
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 do not believe ransom paid to foreign terrorists is an itemized deduction. Feel free to make your payment and collect your loved one, however.
 
I do not believe ransom paid to foreign terrorists is an itemized deduction. Feel free to make your payment and collect your loved one, however.

It is question 19 on form C...
 
This, definitely. It's not just about that one instance of kidnapping. If kidnapping gets you the money, there will be more kidnapping. Not negotiating with terrorists and kidnappers helps prevent future terrorism and kidnapping.

How about these well meaining idiots stop going to these hell holes?
 
I do not believe ransom paid to foreign terrorists is an itemized deduction. Feel free to make your payment and collect your loved one, however.

I'm self employed, I have no withholdings.
 
I'm self employed, I have no withholdings.

It isn't a schedule C deduction either..... Its an after-tax expense, though an aggressive accountant would make the argument that it was a casualty loss.
 
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...

good poll- this is a very tough question. I see both sides of this as having merit.

another interesting subtopic would be allowing private citizens to employ "contractors" to get their loved ones back like Ross Perot did with hostages who worked for him
 
No, the government has the responsibility to obtain the hostages by force or by POW exchange
 
No, paying such a ransom to terrorists means directly funding and suportting the killing of other people and encourages the kidnapping of other people.
 
How about these well meaining idiots stop going to these hell holes?

The activists that go there know the risks--they simply go there to help because that's what they do.
 
The US gummint will pay the ransoms for individuals who are well-connected and influential within the corporate elite. It doesn't matter what the public thinks--the people have no say.
 
It isn't a schedule C deduction either..... Its an after-tax expense, though an aggressive accountant would make the argument that it was a casualty loss.

Lol, funny. At any rate, I'm sure you recognise the satire of it all.
 
Back
Top Bottom