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

[spurraider21]

what in the actual fuck?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/23/politics/hostage-policy-review-changes-white-house/index.html

[boutons_deux]

yep, my reaction, too. Controversy about this is intense.

Figure a lot more Americans will be taken hostage now.

[admiralsnackbar]

Did you guys actually bother reading? The US policy hasn't changed, they just are saying they will cease prosecuting families of hostages for raising money to pay --and/or paying -- ransoms. In other words, private individuals can try to pay ransoms without fear of legal reprisals, but the government will maintain its no-negotiation position. International kidnappings will continue to be an issue as they've always been, but US foreign policy has never legislatively limited or controlled it. Kidnappings for political gain to force the US to capitulate via trades or public concessions will continue to be ignored. So what's the big fucking deal?

[boutons_deux]

Did you guys actually bother reading? The US policy hasn't changed, they just are saying they will cease prosecuting families of hostages for raising money to pay --and/or paying -- ransoms. In other words, private individuals can try to pay ransoms without fear of legal reprisals, but the government will maintain its no-negotiation position. International kidnappings will continue to be an issue as they've always been, but US foreign policy has never legislatively limited or controlled it. Kidnappings for political gain to force the US to capitulate via trades or public concessions will continue to be ignored. So what's the big fucking deal?

I heard it all on NPR.

Now w/o the US threat to prosecute US ransom payers, a big obstacle will be removed, so kidnappers are encouraged to kidnap Americans, the richer the better, and demand ransom without US govt intervention. There is much controversy in US circles about the change, about US's policy threat to prosecute vs not prosecute.

[admiralsnackbar]

I heard it all on NPR. Now w/o the US threat to prosecute US ransom payers, a big obstacle will be removed, so kidnappers are encouraged to kidnap Americans, the richer the better, and demand ransom without US govt intervention. There is much controversy in US circles about the change, about US's policy threat to prosecute vs not prosecute. Kidnapping (especially along the US/MX border) is already a problem -- and it has been. However, families haven't been reprimanded for trying to appease such kidnappers. The US policy, on the other hand, was drafted to discourage kidnappers who seek public, political restitutions from the government (see United flight 847). That policy hasn't changed. So again: what's the big deal? If a terrorist seeks political leverage through kidnapping, they still get jack shit. If they're only getting private money, these terrorists demote their efforts to criminal actions, thus they lose any claim to ideological superiority... or even news-worthiness, for that matter.

[admiralsnackbar]

As far as the "controversy," it is just the result of journalists writing click-bait. The body of all their articles has to contain the boring truth, which is that this all sounds more dramatic than it actually is.

[CosmicCowboy]

Bergdahl says Hi!

[admiralsnackbar]

Bergdahl says Hi! Agreed (somewhat), but his exchange was a deviation from policy, not a formal change. Given neither of us are cleared to know what was gained by the exchange, I'm not convinced pulling the gotcha hypocrisy card is merited. How many Isis-held hostages have been blown-off to keep with our formal policy since then? We didn't capitulate in any of those cases, did we? One can only assume something more was gained by the Bergdahl trade than just bodies for bodies.

[m>s]

Is he trying to bait Isis so we can get support together for boots on the ground?

[admiralsnackbar]

Is he trying to bait Isis so we can get support together for boots on the ground? Pretty sure he want nothing to do with another land war in Asia, but I'm sure he'd trade some assets for aerial assault intel.

[CosmicCowboy]

Agreed (somewhat), but his exchange was a deviation from policy, not a formal change. Given neither of us are cleared to know what was gained by the exchange, I'm not convinced pulling the gotcha hypocrisy card is merited. How many Isis-held hostages have been blown-off to keep with our formal policy since then? We didn't capitulate in any of those cases, did we? One can only assume something more was gained by the Bergdahl trade than just bodies for bodies.

The benefit for Obama was clear. It gave him short term justification to get rid of 5 high profile guilty as hell terrorists from Guantanamo...

[admiralsnackbar]

The benefit for Obama was clear. It gave him short term justification to get rid of 5 high profile guilty as hell terrorists from Guantanamo... And track them back to their holes to bomb them, I expect. You really think Bergdahl's deserter ass was worth a nickle to the Pentagon? Or, to just go on what you said: do you think this administration was just itching to give away 5 terrorists for a deserter? Why?

[ChumpDumper]

And track them back to their holes to bomb them, I expect. You really think Bergdahl's deserter ass was worth a nickle to the Pentagon? Or, to just go on what you said: do you think this administration was just itching to give away 5 terrorists for a deserter? Why?:cry Secret Muslim! :cry

[FromWayDowntown]

(see United flight 847)

Not on point, particularly, but I think you mean TWA 847 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847).

[admiralsnackbar]

Not on point, particularly, but I think you mean TWA 847 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_847). Oops... my mistake. Getting old.

[spurraider21]

Did you guys actually bother reading? The US policy hasn't changed, they just are saying they will cease prosecuting families of hostages for raising money to pay --and/or paying -- ransoms. In other words, private individuals can try to pay ransoms without fear of legal reprisals, but the government will maintain its no-negotiation position. International kidnappings will continue to be an issue as they've always been, but US foreign policy has never legislatively limited or controlled it. Kidnappings for political gain to force the US to capitulate via trades or public concessions will continue to be ignored. So what's the big fucking deal?
no matter how you try to look at it, the govt is taking an openly weaker posture than they had before

[admiralsnackbar]

no matter how you try to look at it, the govt is taking an openly weaker posture than they had before How?

[spurraider21]

How?
read the article

[ChumpDumper]

no matter how you try to look at it, the govt is taking an openly weaker posture than they had beforeWhere was the strength in prosecuting the families of kidnapping victims?

[spurraider21]

Where was the strength in prosecuting the families of kidnapping victims?
they prosecuted families of kidnapping victims who attempted to pay ransoms. it's intellectually dishonest to leave that part out.

if i was a terrorist/kidnapper or whatever, i'd be less incentivized to go after somebody if there are more hurdles to receive ransoms or whatever my objective is

[ChumpDumper]

they prosecuted families of kidnapping victims who attempted to pay ransoms. it's intellectually dishonest to leave that part out. It's understood. Everyone knows what we are talking about. It doesn't change who is being prosecuted.


if i was a terrorist/kidnapper or whatever, i'd be less incentivized to go after somebody if there are more hurdles to receive ransoms or whatever my objective isSo why has any American been kidnapped in the first place?

Do countries who have allowed families to pay ransoms have proportionately more of their citizens kidnapped?

[spurraider21]

It's understood. Everyone knows what we are talking about. It doesn't change who is being prosecuted.
it absolutely changes who is being prosecuted. you dont get prosecuted merely for being related to a kidnapping victim, which is what your wording implied


So why has any American been kidnapped in the first place?

Do countries who have allowed families to pay ransoms have proportionately more of their citizens kidnapped?
it creates less incentive to do so, wouldn't eliminate it. we have laws against crimes domestically, yet we still have crimes. that doesn't mean we should erase those laws

[ChumpDumper]

it absolutely changes who is being prosecuted. you dont get prosecuted merely for being related to a kidnapping victim, which is what your wording impliedNo, family members were still being prosecuted. Are you saying someone other than family members of kidnap victims were prosecuted?

Provide a link.



it creates less incentive to do so, wouldn't eliminate it. we have laws against crimes domestically, yet we still have crimes. that doesn't mean we should erase those lawsDo countries who have allowed families to pay ransoms have proportionately more of their citizens kidnapped?

Yes or no?

[Blake]

kidnappers around the world are high fiving

Or not

[admiralsnackbar]

read the article I did, chief -- that's why I'm asking. Sorry if the question seemed rudely short, though. Working on a lot of things at once.

[CosmicCowboy]

And track them back to their holes to bomb them, I expect. You really think Bergdahl's deserter ass was worth a nickle to the Pentagon? Or, to just go on what you said: do you think this administration was just itching to give away 5 terrorists for a deserter? Why?

Yes I do.

Obama's openly stated goal is to close Guantanamo.

it's easy to send the low level marginally guilty ones back to Qatar or other places without political blowback.

It's a lot harder to justify letting known hard core terrorists loose. Thus, the Bergdahl "exchange".

[ChumpDumper]

Yes I do.

Obama's openly stated goal is to close Guantanamo.

it's easy to send the low level marginally guilty ones back to Qatar or other places without political blowback.

It's a lot harder to justify letting known hard core terrorists loose. Thus, the Bergdahl "exchange".Why not just put them on trial and keep them in a federal prison when they are convicted?

[CosmicCowboy]

Why not just put them on trial and keep them in a federal prison when they are convicted?

This was much easier.

[admiralsnackbar]

Kidnappers who go for money are just that, kidnappers. Regardless of where they're from. Same motive, same crime. Terrorists who kidnap to try to bend US policy to their will by leveraging global media pressure are a different animal, and we still deny them the power to dictate terms to us as far as I can tell. Even the Bergdahl situation seems to have been initiated and controlled by the US (for whatever reasons one chooses to believe).

[ChumpDumper]

This was much easier.It was the easiest way to make the US a pariah for human rights abuses and do the Islamist's recruiting for them.

What a cowardly, flippant answer.

[admiralsnackbar]

Yes I do. Obama's openly stated goal is to close Guantanamo. it's easy to send the low level marginally guilty ones back to Qatar or other places without political blowback. It's a lot harder to justify letting known hard core terrorists loose. Thus, the Bergdahl "exchange". With all the black sites the US maintains, why would it be easier to publicly release 5 allegedly hard-core terrorists for a deserter than to simply "dissappear" them quietly? You really don't think there was any strategic reasoning behind it all?

[CosmicCowboy]

With all the black sites the US maintains, why would it be easier to publicly release 5 allegedly hard-core terrorists for a deserter than to simply "dissappear" them quietly? You really don't think there was any strategic reasoning behind it all?

I think the only reasoning behind it was political reasoning, not strategic reasoning.

and it worked.

[admiralsnackbar]

I think the only reasoning behind it was political reasoning, not strategic reasoning. What do you speculate that political reasoning was? Honest question.

[CosmicCowboy]

What do you speculate that political reasoning was? Honest question.

It was easier to send then to Qatar than put them on trial and send them to prison. Too much political push back against housing terrorists in US prisons. By just doing it and then announcing it with that stupid rose garden ceremony with the parents they tried to spin it as a wonderful thing to return an american hero that had been held captive by the enemy. A lot of idiots like boutons bought it hook line and sinker.

[SnakeBoy]

Now w/o the US threat to prosecute US ransom payers, a big obstacle will be removed, so kidnappers are encouraged to kidnap Americans, the richer the better, and demand ransom without US govt intervention. There is much controversy in US circles about the change, about US's policy threat to prosecute vs not prosecute.

I don't have a problem with the change in policy. If the families can secure the release of their loved ones then good for them. It's really a bs argument to say this will encourage the kidnapping of Americans because by saying that you are implying that terrorists were somehow discouraged from kidnapping Americans prior to the policy change.

[spurraider21]

No, family members were still being prosecuted. Are you saying someone other than family members of kidnap victims were prosecuted?

Provide a link.
I never made that claim. But leaving out the part i bonded would include more people under the scope of prosecution. By limiting that only to those who have attempted to pay ransoms, you are decreasing the number of people prosecuted and thus changing the people being prosecuted


[quoteDo countries who have allowed families to pay ransoms have proportionately more of their citizens kidnapped?

Yes or no?[/QUOTE]
I don't know, and I'm OK with that. I'm only discussing the US governments new open stance

[ChumpDumper]

I never made that claim. But leaving out the part i bonded would include more people under the scope of prosecution. By limiting that only to those who have attempted to pay ransoms, you are decreasing the number of people prosecuted and thus changing the people being prosecutedNo, the people being prosecuted are still families of the kidnapped. Nothing changes that.



I don't know, and I'm OK with that. I'm only discussing the US governments new open stanceSo you can't tell for certain if the US government's position is weaker or not.

I'm OK with that.

[RD2191]

Good god. Why do people even respond to chump? Just let that faggot die.

[Blake]

Good god. Why do people even respond to chump? Just let that faggot die.

person A makes a claim

Chump asks them to back it up

Person A + robdiaz get livid.

Tale as old as time.

[Th'Pusher]

I think the only reasoning behind it was political reasoning, not strategic reasoning.

and it worked.
Is Guantanamo Bay is closed?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is Guantanamo Bay is closed?

They are certainly working on it. Obama considers closing it before leaving office as one of his legacies.

[spurraider21]

No, the people being prosecuted are still families of the kidnapped. Nothing changes that.
If you narrow the scope, it changes the people being prosecuted. It's the difference between saying "people are prosecuted for drug use" vs "people who are suspected of drug use are prosecuted for drug use." There is a difference between those two statements, even though they are still "people."



So you can't tell for certain if the US government's position is weaker or not.

I'm OK with that.
It is weaker than it was before. How much weaker it is relative to other states is not something I'm concerning myself with.

[spurraider21]

person A makes a claim

Chump asks them to back it up

Person A + robdiaz get livid.

Tale as old as time.
Where did I get livid?

[ChumpDumper]

If you narrow the scope, it changes the people being prosecuted. It's the difference between saying "people are prosecuted for drug use" vs "people who are suspected of drug use are prosecuted for drug use." There is a difference between those two statements, even though they are still "people."They are still family members of the kidnap victims. Nothing you said changes that.




It is weaker than it was before. How much weaker it is relative to other states is not something I'm concerning myself with.You can't tell if it is weaker at all. Trying to prove it is is something you aren't concerning yourself with.

I'm OK with that.

If you actually check the record of kidnap victims' being returned, you might change you mind.

But you won't concern yourself with that either.

I'm OK with that.

[Blake]

Where did I get livid?

Well you used bold and called him intellectually dishonest. If you don't want to think that's being livid and can think of a better term for it, then by all means

[spurraider21]

They are still family members of the kidnap victims. Nothing you said changes that.we both know exactly what this exchange has been about. i simply thought you had poor choice in wording, but id rather not continue arguing about semantics




You can't tell if it is weaker at all. Trying to prove it is is something you aren't concerning yourself with.

I'm OK with that.

If you actually check the record of kidnap victims' being returned, you might change you mind.

But you won't concern yourself with that either.

I'm OK with that.
It is weaker now than it was before this new policy.

What I'm not concerning myself with here is our strength/weakness relative to other states. Only our strength/weakness relative to where we were before this new policy.

[spurraider21]

Well you used bold and called him intellectually dishonest. If you don't want to think that's being livid and can think of a better term for it, then by all means
I used bold to point out the difference between our statements. It was a tool of communication, not anger or emotion.

Calling him intellectually dishonest was just calling it as I saw it. Why does one need to be emotional/angry/livid to make that sort of observation?

[ChumpDumper]

we both know exactly what this exchange has been about. i simply thought you had poor choice in wording, but id rather not continue arguing about semanticsI agree we knew exactly what we were talking about and arguing about it at all was a waste of time.



It is weaker now than it was before this new policy. In what way?


What I'm not concerning myself with here is our strength/weakness relative to other states. Only our strength/weakness relative to where we were before this new policy.If it raises the possibility of successfully freeing a hostage from 0% to close to 100%, would you say that is a weaker position or a stronger position?

[spurraider21]

In what way?

If it raises the possibility of successfully freeing a hostage from 0% to close to 100%, would you say that is a weaker position or a stronger position?
If it raises the probability (through incentive) of hostage taking, I would certainly say it is a weaker position.

[ChumpDumper]

If it raises the probability (through incentive) of hostage taking, I would certainly say it is a weaker position.You didn't answetr the question.

If it raises the possibility of successfully freeing a hostage from 0% to close to 100%, would you say that is a weaker position or a stronger position?

[pgardn]

Heard this on NPR.

If hostage taking is truly economic in intent, then a market will be created by rich families that can make the payments.
I don't get this. I need to read all the details.

[Blake]

I used bold to point out the difference between our statements. It was a tool of communication, not anger or emotion.

Calling him intellectually dishonest was just calling it as I saw it. Why does one need to be emotional/angry/livid to make that sort of observation?

I'm just using the spurraider technique of illogical conclusion as seen in the Tom Brady thread to make that determination. Carry on.

[spurraider21]

You didn't answetr the question.

If it raises the possibility of successfully freeing a hostage from 0% to close to 100%, would you say that is a weaker position or a stronger position?
If the avenue to get there is to bend over and give into demands? Undeniably weaker. Makes us more vulnerable

[spurraider21]

I'm just using the spurraider technique of illogical conclusion as seen in the Tom Brady thread to make that determination. Carry on.
Never called you livid in that thread either

[ChumpDumper]

If the avenue to get there is to bend over and give into demands? Undeniably weaker. Makes us more vulnerableSo perceived strength is more important to you than live hostage returns.

I disagree with that.

I'd rather allow families to pay for a chance to get their loved ones back than stick with our current safe hostage return rate, which is zero.

[spurraider21]

So perceived strength is more important to you than live hostage returns.

I disagree with that.

I'd rather allow families to pay for a chance to get their loved ones back than stick with our current safe hostage return rate, which is zero.
you are moving the goalposts. you asked which was a stronger position, not which one was more touchy-feely

[boutons_deux]

Fox News Repeatedly Called For The Hostage Negotiation Policy It's Now Criticizing Obama For

Fox News stoked fears that the Obama administration's new policy to allow families of hostages to engage in private ransom negotiations will endanger Americans and encourage kidnappings, despite previously criticizing the White House for its policy preventing families from paying ransoms.

Fox News Hyped Fears That The New Policy Will Endanger Americans And Encourage Kidnappers

Fox's Ed Henry Suggests Obama's Directive "Encourages More Kidnapping And Endangers Men And Women In Uniform."

On the June 24 edition of Fox & Friends, Ed Henry suggested that the Obama administration's new hostage policy "encourages more kidnapping" and "endangers our men and women in uniform because if, all of the sudden, you are negotiating with terrorists and say, okay, the family of an American who unfortunately, tragically, has been kidnapped, if you allow them to come up with a million dollars, two million dollars, and then they get freed, that could encourage ISIS to kidnap more people." [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 6/24/15 (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/06/24/40559/fnc-ff-20150624-henry1)]

Fox News Contributor: White House Hostage Policy Change "Increases The Odds" Of Kidnappings.

On the June 24 edition of America's Newsroom, Fox News contributor Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said that changing the policy "increases the odds of U.S. citizens being captured and held hostage. Any time you essentially endorse something, you get more of it. Any time you actually do something like this, you're going to actually put lives of U.S. citizens in danger." [Fox News, America's Newsroom, 6/24/15 (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/06/24/40561/fnc-an-20150624-shafferhostages)]

Fox Host Melissa Francis: New Hostage Policy "Really Encourages Hostage-Taking."

On the June 24 edition of Outnumbered, Host Melissa Francis said the new hostage policy is "like hanging out an 'open for business sign'" because it "really encourages hostage-taking." [Fox News, Outnumbered, 6/24/15 (http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2015/06/24/40562/fnc-out-20150624-melfrancis)]

But Previously, Fox News Figures Slammed The Obama Administration For Banning Private Hostage Negotiations

Megyn Kelly Lamented That The U.S. Government Prevented Families From Paying Ransoms Themselves.

On the September 11, 2014 edition of The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly interviewed John Foley, father of hostage James Foley, and lamented that U.S. government policy prevented families from paying ransom privately in a hostage situation (emphasis added):

FOLEY: No, no. We're appalled by the situation. You know, it went past not doing everything they could into -- they were actually in a penance they got in our way. And that's what really you know, bothers me to the core. You know, we were -- I was specifically threatened by the Department of State about, you know, raising funds towards, you know, ransom demands for my brother. You know, we were smart enough to look past it, but it slowed us down, we lost a lot of time trying to regroup.
(CROSSTALK)

KELLY: Wait, they didn't want you to do it privately? It's one thing that the American government won't do it. That's been our long standing policy. But they didn't want you to do anything privately? [Fox News, The Kelly File, 9/11/14, via Nexis]


Fox's Geraldo Rivera: Government Threat Of Prosecution For Paying Ransom Is "Really Low Down And Dirty."

On the September 12, 2014 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox contributor Geraldo Rivera said the U.S. government's policy of preventing the families of hostages from raising money for ransom was "really low down and dirty. And it's a symbol really of ... arrogance" (emphasis added):

RIVERA: Well, I certainly relate to that, brother. If it were my brother, God forbid, I would do everything I could to negotiate with anybody I could to save his life. I totally relate to this family. The country has a policy that the nation doesn't negotiate with terrorists. That's the headline. Of course the headline is a lie also. We negotiate with terrorists. We have at various times throughout our history. When you have a war -- a declared war against someone like the United States against Germany or Japan - you have prisoners of war, you have prisoner exchanges.

BOLLING: Fair enough. But talk about what Foley's brother said right there. He was specifically threatened by the State Department if he were going to go ahead and raise money to try to get his brother back.

RIVERA: I'm not going to defend that. I totally believe him. I think that the bureaucracy is blind.

BOLLING: Can you imagine that though?

RIVERA: I think it's really low down and dirty. And it's a symbol really of the arrogance, I think, of the yuppies that they have in the State Department.

BOLLING: Right. Josh Earnest was asked about that today, by the way, at the White House. He kind pushed it over to the Department of Justice and asked them about that. They kind of denied it but man, here's a young guy going, 'I wanted my brother back. I wanted to raise money, we were going to do it and the state pushed back.' [Fox News, The O'Reilly Factor, 9/12/14, via Nexis]


Sean Hannity: "Who Are We To Stop" Families Of Hostages From Negotiating Ransoms?

On the September 15, 2014 edition of Hannity, host Sean Hannity suggested that families of hostages should be allowed to privately pay ransoms without the threat of prosecution from the government (emphasis added):

HANNITY: Last question. Diane Foley, the mother of James Foley, in an interview reported by the UPI, actually said that her and her family were intimidated three times and they were forbidden from going to the media, and if they attempted to raise money to pay off ransom for their son, and that they were threatened with prosecution three times. Now, this becomes a delicate issue. I don't think the United States should be involved in it, but if they wanted to individually do that, who are we to stop them? [Fox News, Hannity, 9/15/14, via Nexis]


http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/06/24/fox-news-repeatedly-called-for-the-hostage-nego/204122

:lol

Fox counting on the ignorance and senility of their old white male audience

[ChumpDumper]

you are moving the goalposts. you asked which was a stronger position, not which one was more touchy-feelySo the stance that is perceived as stronger leads to a 100% hostage death rate.

Is that better than the stance that you perceive as weaker but historically more effective in getting hostages freed alive?

I say it isn't.

[spurraider21]

Again, you are moving goalposts. You originally asked if it was a weaker or stronger position. Now you are shifting goalposts to weigh the importance of strength vs hostage retrieval.

[admiralsnackbar]

Is allowing Americans to spend their money as they choose (instead of wasting tax revenues punishing them for doing so) a move towards weakness? If so, I'll take that kind of weakness every time. 'MURCA!

[ChumpDumper]

Again, you are moving goalposts. You originally asked if it was a weaker or stronger position. Now you are shifting goalposts to weigh the importance of strength vs hostage retrieval.Well I'm just trying to see what constitutes governmental weakness here.

The government isn't paying the ransom, it's allowing families to pay ransom.

How does that make the government's position weaker? Conversely, how is threatening to prosecute the families of the hostages who try to negotiate a position of strength?

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't make a government stronger or weaker; just that it's more effective in getting hostages back alive.

[spurraider21]

Well I'm just trying to see what constitutes governmental weakness here.

The government isn't paying the ransom, it's allowing families to pay ransom.

How does that make the government's position weaker? Conversely, how is threatening to prosecute the families of the hostages who try to negotiate a position of strength?

I'm of the opinion that it doesn't make a government stronger or weaker; just that it's more effective in getting hostages back alive.
this is where we disagree, for reasons i've already laid out in this thread. feel free to go back and read through them.

[lefty]

http://media.giphy.com/media/DOYApS6tOLjOg/giphy.gif

[ChumpDumper]

this is where we disagree, for reasons i've already laid out in this thread. feel free to go back and read through them.I did but I don't see how a stance is considered strong when it gets every hostage killed without fail. That policy looks more stupid than strong.

[spurraider21]

I did but I don't see how a stance is considered strong when it gets every hostage killed without fail. That policy looks more stupid than strong.
It gives a green light for those who take hostages with financial intentions. By not negotiating and not allowing payment, there wouldn't be nearly as much incentive to take hostages, because you'd be biting at a rock. This new position sends a message that "if you take one of ours, we will get you paid."

now, a deterrent policy won't eliminate the problem. having laws against murder doesn't stop murder. but i'm fairly confident those laws are still deterrents and do have some preemptive effects. having a policy of no negotiation, no payment deters people from taking hostages (in the cases where their objectives are monetary)

[ChumpDumper]

It gives a green light for those who take hostages with financial intentions. By not negotiating and not allowing payment, there wouldn't be nearly as much incentive to take hostages, because you'd be biting at a rock. This new position sends a message that "if you take one of ours, we will get you paid."

now, a deterrent policy won't eliminate the problem. having laws against murder doesn't stop murder. but i'm fairly confident those laws are still deterrents and do have some preemptive effects.Could be, but they took hostages before and they were all killed. The old policy did not stop those kidnappings and served as an automatic death sentence to anyone taken. We'll find out soon enough, but since American citizens were being kidnapped regardless of the previous policy, I'm fine with trying something other than automatic death.

[spurraider21]

Could be, but they took hostages before and they were all killed. The old policy did not stop those kidnappings and served as an automatic death sentence to anyone taken. We'll find out soon enough, but since American citizens were being kidnapped regardless of the previous policy, I'm fine with trying something other than automatic death.
as i said before, we still have plenty of murders despite laws against them. that doesn't mean the laws in place don't deter and prevent many others. if the U.S. no longer had any penalty for murder, wouldn't you anticipate murder rates to climb?

you are thinking about the people that have been kidnapped or the ones that are going to be kidnapped regardless of policy. that's noble. but you also need to consider those who would not have been kidnapped but not for this more lenient approach adopted by the government

it is an overall softer stance which only endangers more people.

[ChumpDumper]

as i said before, we still have plenty of murders despite laws against them. that doesn't mean the laws in place don't deter and prevent many others. if the U.S. no longer had any penalty for murder, wouldn't you anticipate murder rates to climb?

you are thinking about the people that have been kidnapped or the ones that are going to be kidnapped regardless of policy. that's noble. but you also need to consider those who would not have been kidnapped but not for this more lenient approach adopted by the government

it is an overall softer stance which only endangers more people.So would you rather have the current hostage taking rate with 100% deaths or a higher hostage taking rate with close to 0% deaths?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They aren't going to prosecute people that do. That is not the same as condoning.

Also :lol at the deterrence notion. Locally such a policy makes sense. Local gangs don't kidnap for a reason. We have our thumb on Mexican and Canadian politics and law enforcement though. We don't have governance over foreign territory and to think it dissuades middle easterners from targeting westerners in the region seems naive. Our NATO allies have all kinds of different policies and the locals in the areas we are talking about really do not think along those lines. Yemen Somalia, Syrian plateau, the river basin to the south are all lawless territories and warzones.

It's not like we are going to stop going after groups that we label terrorist with our engorged military and intelligence complexes. I don't think they are going to shift away from guerilla/kamikaze tactics. We brought back Bergdahl and are now prosecuting him. Two others have died recently. National intelligence types are not likely to be forthcoming with families but then they were forbidding families from acting on their own.

[spurraider21]

So would you rather have the current hostage taking rate with 100% deaths or a higher hostage taking rate with close to 0% deaths?
i'd need a statistical analysis that would demonstrate:
a) what the current % death is
b) exactly that % death there would be with the soft policy
c) what % increase we have in hostage situations as a result of the policy

And in the meantime, before that information is available, I'm not a fan of the government taking a softer stance. Logistically, not much has even changed at all. According to the article, they already rarely enforced this rule, and families were already negotiating without prosecution. What actually has changed is the government is making a public statement about taking a softer stance, which can only do more harm than good.

[Blake]

Never called you livid in that thread either

Didn't say you did

[Blake]

.... also need to consider those who would not have been kidnapped but not for this more lenient approach adopted by the government

it is an overall softer stance which only endangers more people.

Serious question, how many foreign kidnappers keep track of these policies

[TheSanityAnnex]

So would you rather have the current hostage taking rate with 100% deaths or a higher hostage taking rate with close to 0% deaths?
As if them receiving said ransom would lower the hostage death rate close to 0% lol

[Blake]

i'd need a statistical analysis that would demonstrate:
a) what the current % death is
b) exactly that % death there would be with the soft policy
c) what % increase we have in hostage situations as a result of the policy

And in the meantime, before that information is available, I'm not a fan of the government taking a softer stance. Logistically, not much has even changed at all. According to the article, they already rarely enforced this rule, and families were already negotiating without prosecution. What actually has changed is the government is making a public statement about taking a softer stance, which can only do more harm than good.

Do harm to who exactly?

[Clipper Nation]

person A makes a claim

Chump asks them to back it up

Person A + robdiaz get livid.

Tale as old as time.
Blake still a cuck

Tale as old as time.

[spurraider21]

Serious question, how many foreign kidnappers keep track of these policies
i don't know. do you?

they usually know who their targets are, know what country they're from. it's logical to assume they'd know these sorts of policies, but i can't say for sure. can you say for sure?

[spurraider21]

Do harm to who exactly?
future victims, for starters

[TheSanityAnnex]

Blake still a cuck

Tale as old as time.

The cuck ship sailed long ago. 2015 is all about transgender bigotry. Seriously, get some new material.

[Clipper Nation]

The cuck ship sailed long ago. 2015 is all about transgender bigotry. Seriously, get some new material.
:lol

[Blake]

Blake still a cuck

Tale as old as time.

^ calm lividness

[Blake]

i don't know. do you?

they usually know who their targets are, know what country they're from. it's logical to assume they'd know these sorts of policies, but i can't say for sure. can you say for sure?

I have no idea. That's why I'm asking

[Blake]

future victims, for starters

but not really to the US

[ChumpDumper]

As if them receiving said ransom would lower the hostage death rate close to 0% lolYou might want to take a look at the hostages from countries that allow such negotiations.

I'm sure you haven't

[spurraider21]

but not really to the US
lol

[Blake]

lol

so if the US positioned isn't effected, what's left..the families?

So the law to make it illegal to pay ransom is just there to protect future families while the family with the actual kidnap victim suffers?

[spurraider21]

so if the US positioned isn't effected, what's left..the families?

So the law to make it illegal to pay ransom is just there to protect future families while the family with the actual kidnap victim suffers?
it is aimed to deter. if you dont negotiate, there is no benefit to taking hostages. when you start negotiating in an effort to save current victims (which may or may not work), you are also providing further incentive for these incidents to repeat, putting even more people in harms way

its fine though. obama did it, so you need to find a way to tell yourself it was the right thing to do. i get it.

[Blake]

it is aimed to deter. if you dont negotiate, there is no benefit to taking hostages. when you start negotiating in an effort to save current victims (which may or may not work), you are also providing further incentive for these incidents to repeat, putting even more people in harms way

speculation.

But in reality, prosecuting families that have kidnapped members gives them automatic death sentence.


its fine though. obama did it, so you need to find a way to tell yourself it was the right thing to do. i get it.

det spurraider illogical conclusion technique

[spurraider21]

speculation.

But in reality, prosecuting families that have kidnapped members gives them automatic death sentence.
except they already rarely prosecuted families who are negotiating ransoms. the only thing they've done is make a public statement of weakness and a willingness to bend over

[Blake]

Meh, the weakness angle is pretty weak.

To get to the main point, prosecuting families that are already enduring emotional anguish and fear is just beating them while they're down. That's really it.

[Th'Pusher]

except they already rarely prosecuted families who are negotiating ransoms. the only thing they've done is make a public statement of weakness and a willingness to bend over
We're the terrorists unaware that the U.S. Rarely prosecuted families who are negotiating ransom?

[spurraider21]

We're the terrorists unaware that the U.S. Rarely prosecuted families who are negotiating ransom?
i have no clue

[spurraider21]

Meh, the weakness angle is pretty weak.

To get to the main point, prosecuting families that are already enduring emotional anguish and fear is just beating them while they're down. That's really it.
yeah well according to the article, as ive said a few times now, they already weren't prosecuting them

[Th'Pusher]

i have no clue
Really? Upstream you seam pretty convinced they were aware of the law to prosecute was on the books. Why wouldn't they know the law was actively being enforced. You seem to think the kidnappers are pretty well informed as far as I can tell.

[spurraider21]

Really? Upstream you seam pretty convinced they were aware of the law to prosecute was on the books. Why wouldn't they know the law was actively being enforced. You seem to think the kidnappers are pretty well informed as far as I can tell.
the US has a generally known policy of "not negotiating with terrorists." making a public statement that they are now willing to hedge on that is what i'm not happy with

[admiralsnackbar]

the US has a generally known policy of "not negotiating with terrorists." making a public statement that they are now willing to hedge on that is what i'm not happy with The government position hasn't shifted. Are you conflating official state policy with the potential actions of individual citizens?

[Th'Pusher]

the US has a generally known policy of "not negotiating with terrorists." making a public statement that they are now willing to hedge on that is what i'm not happy with
That general policy hasn't changed.

[Th'Pusher]

The government position hasn't shifted. Are you conflating official state policy with the potential actions of individual citizens?
He is. Op just hates Obama with his heart soul mind and body. :cry

silly man

[Blake]

yeah well according to the article, as ive said a few times now, they already weren't prosecuting them

But the potential to prosecute was there. Families were receiving mixed messages from different government agencies about how to handle the situations.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-obama-hostage-policy-20150623-story.html

[spurraider21]

The government position hasn't shifted. Are you conflating official state policy with the potential actions of individual citizens?
are you being purposely obtuse? the state policy in question is specifically about actions of individual citizens

[TheSanityAnnex]

You might want to take a look at the hostages from countries that allow such negotiations.

I'm sure you haven't
It appears you have. I would be interested in seeing successful hostage ransoms paid to those held hostage by Middle Easterners.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You might want to take a look at the hostages from countries that allow such negotiations.

I'm sure you haven't
And are you also claiming US families didn't negotiate because of US laws?

[admiralsnackbar]

are you being purposely obtuse? :lol One could say the same of your position if one wanted to sound like a dick, I guess.

[Winehole23]

A government standing on principle to forgo the chance to save the lives of its own citizens is a dereliction of duty, period.

[boutons_deux]

A government standing on principle to forgo the chance to save the lives of its own citizens is a dereliction of duty, period.

a govt being shaken down for $100Ms by terrorists is a sucker, encouraging never-ending hostage-taking.

Doesn't help that Imperial Corporatist Dick-Measuring War-is-Our-Business-Plan USA is the biggest war monger, country-breaker on the planet. That could cause some pushback in the form of hostage taking.

It's tough situation.

I hear there are about 30 American hostages being held around the world now.

[spurraider21]

A government standing on principle to forgo the chance to save the lives of its own citizens is a dereliction of duty, period.
A chance to save some citizens while increasing the risk of danger to more citizens

[ChumpDumper]

a govt being shaken down for $100Ms by terrorists is a sucker, encouraging never-ending hostage-taking. The government isn't paying ransoms.

Do you read anything but your own RSS feed?

[boutons_deux]

The government isn't paying ransoms.

Do you read anything but your own RSS feed?

have you GFY today? I answering to "A government standing on principle to forgo the chance to save the lives of its own citizens is a dereliction of duty, period.", NOT to the new USA hostage policy.

[ChumpDumper]

A chance to save some citizens while increasing the risk of danger to more citizensHow much is a family member's life worth to you?

[ChumpDumper]

have you GFY today? I answering to "A government standing on principle to forgo the chance to save the lives of its own citizens is a dereliction of duty, period.", NOT to the new USA hostage policy.So you're not talking about any actual US policy and just ranting about nothing.

OK.

[spurraider21]

How much is a family member's life worth to you?
a lot. if my own family were involved, i'd have a more emotional response to it. that's not the duty of the government.

[ChumpDumper]

a lot. if my own family were involved, i'd have a more emotional response to it. that's not the duty of the government.So you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?

[spurraider21]

So you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?
there are a lot of things i wouldn't be fine with. if my family were falsely imprisoned and ordered to 30 years of hard labor in north korea, i'd be upset that the US isn't doing anything to help that situation either.

it's not the duty of the government to pander to the emotions of individuals. sometimes difficult decisions need to be made for the general welfare

[ChumpDumper]

there are a lot of things i wouldn't be fine with. if my family were falsely imprisoned and ordered to 30 years of hard labor in north korea, i'd be upset that the US isn't doing anything to help that situation either.

it's not the duty of the government to pander to the emotions of individuals. sometimes difficult decisions need to be made for the general welfareSo you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?

[spurraider21]

So you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?
i answered that question already

[Th'Pusher]

a lot. if my own family were involved, i'd have a more emotional response to it. that's not the duty of the government.

Is it the duty of the government to lawfully preclude an individual from negotiating the release of another citizen?

[ChumpDumper]

i answered that question alreadyNo, you didn't.

So you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?

[spurraider21]

No, you didn't.

So you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?
i've answered the question already. feel free to go back through my responses, and read them carefully.

[ChumpDumper]

i've answered the question already. feel free to go back through my responses, and read them carefully.No, you didn't.

So you'd be fine if you were forbidden to do anything to save the life of your family member because of a government policy?

[TheSanityAnnex]

It appears you have. I would be interested in seeing successful hostage ransoms paid to those held hostage by Middle Easterners.

paging chump

[ChumpDumper]

paging chump
No money reportedly changed hands in the recent cases that made headlines. The governments of the U.S. and the U.K. say they refuse to pay ransom for their citizens, but other governments, private companies and individuals have turned over millions to terrorist organizations like al Qaeda and ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Security officials told ABC News that prior to the execution of journalist James Foley, several other European hostages had been released by ISIS – but only after the terror group received a reported $2 million to $3 million for each. According to public remarks by U.S. Treasury officials, at least $165 million in ransom has been funneled to terrorist organizations since 2008.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fullpage/inside-terrorist-hostage-negotiations-price-freedom-25114240

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fullpage/inside-terrorist-hostage-negotiations-price-freedom-25114240

Appreciate the artice. Still doesn't look like it is anywhere close to the 0% you claimed.

[ChumpDumper]

Appreciate the artice. Still doesn't look like it is anywhere close to the 0% you claimed.I said close to zero.

I'll wait for you to produce deaths of hostages from said countries now.

[Blake]

i've answered the question already. feel free to go back through my responses, and read them carefully.

I can't find it. Was it a yes or no?

My answer is no.

[boutons_deux]

St Ronnie paid ransom money for hostages

Forgetting Reagan’s Worst Scandal

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/26/forgetting-reagans-worst-scandal/

Useful Idiot St Ronnie and his accomplices, another really nasty bunch of assholes