by Jack
When American aid-workers, reporters, etc., are held for ransom by terrorists it places their nation in an uncomfortable position of saying no to terrorist demands
while the victims families plead for us to do something to get them home, even pay ransom. However, if ransom isn’t paid they still win. The terrorists will parade their cause before the media. They will flaunt their power over a helpless America… who is too impotent to reach them where they live.
This is a real bad deal for us and I feel sorry for the victim’s families, but they were forewarned. They were asked by our government not to go there and still they took the risk. The victims knew that Muslim terrorists have a strong desire to kidnap Westerners, especially Americans.
This is the reality that neither our liberals in government or the liberal media want to address. They’re loath to hold the victims in any way accountable for their situation and that’s not helpful. It reminds me of the example of scantly clad drunk woman walking through dark streets and being raped. She bears NO accountability for using poor judgment, if we are to be politically correct. But, how much responsibility do we bear to protect such a person?
Recently, it was disclosed that a drone strike killed two hostages, Warren Weinstein (see older man in pic on right) an American aide worker and an Italian reporter, Giovanni Lo Porto. Today we find out that Weinstein’s family had paid a ransom for his release a year ago, but that promised release never happened. Instead the terrorists increased their demand to include a prison exchange. Speculation was this was due to President Obama’s demonstrated willingness to negotiate with terrorists and release 5 significant prisoners from Gitmo for one army deserter. What is not speculation is, Obama broke a long standing policy that the United States never negotiates with terrorists and Congress says he also broke the law.
Islamic militants did not start kidnapping in earnest until 2003, when a German official flew to northern Mali with three suitcases full of cash to secure the release of 14 European hostages. That first big ransom breathed life into an Islamic militant group known as…. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. Thus began the formula for a kidnap economy began that now finances Islamist extremist groups around the globe.
In the middle east, this failure to act has led to Americans being stalked, abducted, and sold from one militant group to another and held for months, or even years, in the hope of a multimillion-dollar payday. Such hopes are kept alive by France, Germany and other European governments that routinely facilitate ransom payments for the release of their own citizens. And now America has joined that club, thanks to President Obama, who actually broke a law to make it happen. He was required by the war powers act to give Congress a 30 day notice if a prisoner swap is under consideration. Obama broke the law because he was Hell bent on getting prisoners out of Gitmo by any pretext so he can close it and enhance his legacy.
.
A scantily clad woman drunk woman walking through dark streets and then being raped bears ABSOLUTELY NO responsibility for being a victim of a brutal and depraved assault.
She just isn’t too bright.
Obama should be 100% responsible since he and he alone maintains his, “kill list.” Generals in the field are no longer giving the orders to “fire.” Now it’s coming for the Oval Office to some guy in a bunker in Arizona.
Obama’s ‘Kill List’ Grows:
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=9135
The “Guardian” news site out of England is turning out to be a good source for US news.
ACLU files new lawsuit over Obama administration drone ‘kill list’:
“As the US debates expanding its campaign against the Islamic State beyond Iraq and Syria, the leading US civil liberties group is intensifying its efforts to force transparency about lethal US counterterrorism strikes and authorities.
On Monday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) will file a disclosure lawsuit for secret Obama administration documents specifying, among other things, the criteria for placement on the so-called “kill list” for drone strikes and other deadly force.
Information sought by the ACLU includes long-secret analyses establishing the legal basis for what the administration terms its “targeted killing program” and the process by which the administration determines that civilians are unlikely to be killed before launching a strike, as well as verification mechanisms afterward to establish if the strike in fact has caused civilian deaths.
The suit, to be filed in a New York federal court, also seeks basic data the Obama administration has withheld about “the number and identities of individuals killed or injured” in counterterrorism strikes, according to the ACLU filing. In February 2013, Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who favors the drone strikes, estimated they had killed 4,700 people.
“Over the last few years, the US government has used armed drones to kill thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians. The public should know who the government is killing, and why it’s killing them,” Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director for the ACLU, told the Guardian.”
Continued..
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/16/aclu-files-new-lawsuit-over-obama-administration-drone-kill-list
Jack: “What is not speculation is, Obama broke a long standing policy that the United States never negotiates with terrorists”
Uh, he may have broken that STATED standing policy. But anyone who argues that this policy has ever consistently been followed in practice is deluding themselves. America has negotiated with terrorists numerous times in American history, including more than once under Reagan:
“In 2007, a British IT consultant named Peter Moore, who had been captured in Baghdad by Shiite militiamen who ambushed Moore and his bodyguards, was freed after some 900 days in captivity. Sadly, only Moore would ultimately survive the experience as the terrorists murdered the remaining four members of his party.
To secure Moore’s release, the U.S. government agreed to free Qais al-Khazali who had previously served as a spokesman for the Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr (remember him?). We had, most assuredly, negotiated with terrorists to arrange for Moore’s release and handed over a high value detainee in the process.
Note that Mr. Moore was a civilian—not military—and yet we freed a high value terrorists as the price for the freedom of an American captive.
In 1985, the Reagan administration used the Israelis to ‘front’ a deal (not unlike how we have used the Qataris in the instance of Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl) whereby the Israelis freed 700 prisoners in trade for Americans that were taken captive on a hijacked TWA flight.
And then, of course, there is whole Iran-Contra thing.
These are but a few examples of the secret dealing with terrorists that has long taken place.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/06/05/why-we-dont-negotiate-with-terrorists-no-longer-holds-up-as-policy/
Weren’t you just saying we need to be more aware of our country’s history? Criticize Obama all you want for negotiating with terrorists. But to argue that he broke with precedent here is simply untrue.
Chris, not sure what is behind this attempt to criticize me for saying we have a long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists over hostages. Does this mean you think we should be negotiating with terrorists?
Obama’s case was unique in that he did not consult with Congress within the time prescribed by law.
‘How is Iran-Contra the same as negotiating with terrorists for the release of Americans?
“Criticize Obama all you want for negotiating with terrorists. But to argue that he broke with precedent here is simply untrue.” Did I say that?
Jack: “Chris, not sure what is behind this attempt to criticize me for saying we have a long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists over hostages. Does this mean you think we should be negotiating with terrorists?”
No, it means that we do not have a long standing policy not to negotiate with terrorists over hostages. I don’t see how I could have made that any more clear.
“Obama’s case was unique in that he did not consult with Congress within the time prescribed by law.”
You may be right about that, but you were wrong when you said “Obama broke a long standing policy that the United States never negotiates with terrorists.”
” ‘Criticize Obama all you want for negotiating with terrorists. But to argue that he broke with precedent here is simply untrue.’ Did I say that?”
Yes, you did. Are you seriously asking your commenters to not only repeat their own arguments, but also to repeat your own because you can’t remember them?
It’s not that I don’t remember them, lol, it’s that I find your comment incredulous and punctilious and I wonder to what end?
Sorry to change topics but we are held hostage by DemoNcrats in Sucramento.
Read the article below. It is completely obscene. These DemoNcrats are going to destroy with ever increasing tax increases and new taxes and regulation. This is why it is absolutely imperative that the State of Jefferson becomes reality.
Despite record tax haul, legislators pursue further increases
http://calwatchdog.com/2015/04/25/ca-rakes-in-the-taxes/
Allow me this. Negotiating with terrorists is likely not a good idea. Manipulating terrorists in the form a negotiation may be worth a shot.
As usual Chris’ specious attacks on Post Scrips is specious.
Get a life, dude. 😀
I think the average person would agree, negotiating with terrorists is a real bad idea. The FBI says never do it. The US has a standing policy not to negotiate for hostages. Which is why I find it almost comical that Chris finds it necessary to beat me over the head reminding us there’s been a few times rare time in history where our presidents have deviated from this policy.
Since we all agree in general terms never negotiate… I have to wonder, what’s the point in even bringing up this history? All I can think of is Chris is trying to demonstrate he’s the smartest guy in the room and as slaps me down for not mentioning the exceptions to the rule?
Now, how about this as a positive idea: Instead of negotiating we have a standing bounty that if anyone provides information that leads to recovery of hostages or the death or capture of named terrorists, we offer a bounty… a minimum reward of say $200,000 and relocation, up to $1,000,000 for a really, really good tip. Turn the tables on these guys, let our money work against them, rather than ransom building up their little armies.
Love your idea of a bounty reward Jack. You should send it to LaMalfa’s office. Waste of time to send it to Boxer or Feinstein.
“I have to wonder, what’s the point in even bringing up this history?”
My point was abundantly clear, and I have no choice but to assume you are being willfully obtuse. You said “Obama broke a long standing policy that the United States never negotiates with terrorists.” Do you know what the word “never” means? It means never. The fact that you now acknowledge there have been “exceptions” shows that you know you were wrong. Once again, you were criticizing Obama for doing things that many other presidents have done. But they all had “exceptions” that made it OK, which Obama of course never gets. Reagan literally sold arms to Iran in exchange for hostages but God forbid conservatives ever remember that for longer than two seconds after they’ve been reminded.
“Once again, you were criticizing Obama for doing things that many other presidents have done.” That may be true, but past presidents are out of reach. President Obama is not, what he is doing ought to be subject to closer scrutiny and criticism.
Pointing out that Obama has only done what 3 other presidents has done is a cop out, an attempt to deflect accountability and minimize responsibility. Look, we can’t undue the mistakes of the past, and those presidents are long gone! But, Obama is right here, right now, and he’s really screwing up to the point it looks like he’s doing on purpose. This guy deserves to yelled at for his poor judgment.
Ditto #12.
Re “Reagan literally sold arms to Iran in exchange for hostages but God forbid conservatives ever remember that for longer than two seconds after they’ve been reminded.”
That statement is a pure, unadulterated bullshit, typical of the left, of Democrats, and Chris. Chris, who hardly knows his own mind, claims to be telepathic about conservatives and what goes on in their minds? What a quintessential extremist left-wing stooge. At least Dewey was funny. Chris can’t even get a laugh.
This page (and documentary) is a pretty good summation of what went wrong. Ultimately Reagan survived the affair by being honest about it. He was heavily influenced by tapes of the hostages being tortured, as I recall.
Democrats and left wing twits will never forgive Reagan for leaving “office with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.” They hate that he survived the Iran-Contra debacle intact.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/reagan-iran/
Addendum to the above: I don’t think Obama’s legacy will suffer because of this unfortunate event.
By the way — as I recall and correct me if I am wrong — under Reagan, hostages were released, not blown to smithereens. The Carter presidency Iranian hostages and the Iran-Contra affair hostages.
Who has Obama succeeded in releasing besides Islamic terrorists?
Pie, I hardly see how that article makes Reagan look better. According to the PBS link you cited, not only did he trade arms for hostages, he lied about it and tried to cover it up.
Jack, of course it makes sense to focus on criticizing the president we have now, my problem is when conservatives act as if the thing they are criticizing Obama for is unprecedented, like you did when you said we “never” negotiate with terrorists. At the same time presidents like Reagan who have done exactly the same thing are practically worshipped by the right, while Obama doing the same thing is used as evidence of him being the worst president ever. That’s the part of the criticism that seems silly to me. If you had said “Many presidents have negotiated with terrorists, but we should never do it and Obama is wrong to follow their example” then I couldn’t fault you, but you tried to make it sound like this was unique when it really isn’t.
Re: “Pie, I hardly see how that article makes Reagan look better.” That was not my intent, idiot.
Really? Could have fooled me. You said: “Ultimately Reagan survived the affair by being honest about it.” But your source says exactly the opposite.
Re #18: It is easy to fool a fool, but a fool does not really need any assistance to be a fool.
Try re-reading the last line instead of reading only what you want to hear.
Idiot.
Perhaps I should take Chris by the hand on this one.
From the article …
“Despite the fact that Reagan defended the actions by virtue of their good intentions, his honesty was doubted. Polls showed that only 14 percent of Americans believed the president when he said he had not traded arms for hostages.”
‘Although laws had been broken, and Reagan’s image suffered as a result of Iran-Contra, his popularity rebounded. In 1989 he left office with the highest approval rating of any president since Franklin Roosevelt.”
What is your point? That Reagan’s approval rating matters more than what he actually did?
I know you think you are being clever and that I am just too stupid to get what you are trying to say here, but you might want to consider that the reason I don’t understand your argument is because you make no effort to be understood. You don’t engage with anyone who disagrees with you, you just insult.
And no, calling out racism when I see it is not the same as throwing out random ad hominems. “What you said was racist” is at least an argument. It can be responded to and challenged intelligently. Sneering and saying that the other side is too stupid to understand an argument that you’ve never actually articulated is much different.