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

[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 prosecuted

No, 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 stance

So 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 got die.

[Blake]

Good god. Why do people even respond to chump? Just let that got 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 semantics

I 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?