Reply With Quote
yep, my reaction, too. Controversy about this is intense.
Figure a lot more Americans will be taken hostage now.
what in the actual ?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/23/politi...use/index.html
yep, my reaction, too. Controversy about this is intense.
Figure a lot more Americans will be taken hostage now.
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 ing 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.
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 res utions 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 . 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.
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.
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.
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.
The benefit for Obama was clear. It gave him short term justification to get rid of 5 high profile guilty as 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?
Secret Muslim!
Not on point, particularly, but I think you mean TWA 847.
Oops... my mistake. Getting old.
no matter how you try to look at it, the govt is taking an openly weaker posture than they had before
read the article
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
It's understood. Everyone knows what we are talking about. It doesn't change who is being prosecuted.
So why has any American been kidnapped in the first place?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
Do countries who have allowed families to pay ransoms have proportionately more of their citizens kidnapped?
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
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 lawsSo 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?
No, family members were still being prosecuted. Are you saying someone other than family members of kidnap victims were prosecuted?
Provide a link.
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
Yes or no?
kidnappers around the world are high fiving
Or not
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
