Reply With Quote
I'm just using the spurraider technique of illogical conclusion as seen in the Tom Brady thread to make that determination. Carry on.
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.
I'm just using the spurraider technique of illogical conclusion as seen in the Tom Brady thread to make that determination. Carry on.
If the avenue to get there is to bend over and give into demands? Undeniably weaker. Makes us more vulnerable
Never called you livid in that thread either
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
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]
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]
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]
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/201...ge-nego/204122
Fox counting on the ignorance and senility of their old white male audience
So 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.
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.
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!
Well I'm just trying to see what cons utes 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.
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)
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.
So would you rather have the current hostage taking rate with 100% deaths or a higher hostage taking rate with close to 0% deaths?
They aren't going to prosecute people that do. That is not the same as condoning.
Alsoat 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.
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.
Didn't say you did
Serious question, how many foreign kidnappers keep track of these policies
As if them receiving said ransom would lower the hostage death rate close to 0% lol
Do harm to who exactly?
Blake still a cuck
Tale as old as time.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
