The US does not negotiate with terrorists... (1 Viewer)

[TheIronSheik]

LINK

Oh, wait. I guess we do, now.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

 

[Apple Jack]

U.S. Has always negotiated with terrorists.

 

[Apple Jack]

Didn't you people watch the west wing? How much and where do we send it?

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

I completely get why our policy on negotiating with terrorists is what it is. I get it. It makes sense. I do believe that in some regards, it has reduced the number of kidnappings, etc.

With that said, if a loved one was held by ISIS, and I had the ransom money, I honestly wouldn't care if I was prosecuted or not. I'd pay it if I felt it would bring them home vs. have them die a horrible death.

 

[snogger]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

The second part I fully agree with.. if you want to pay the terrorists with your own money go right ahead, and you should NOT be prosecuted for it.

But, IMO, the Government itself should not get in the business of negotiating the release.. , it just seems to open the door to more kidnappings if they know the US Government will work with you to get them released.

 

[snogger]

I normally avoid reading the Comment sections on Yahoo linked articles.. reading the for this article proves I need to stay away:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S NIGHTMARISH PLAN TO STAY IN POWER AND FURTHER DESTROY THIS GREAT COUNTRY

I’ve heard from many reliable sources that Obama has a devious plan to stay in power after his term ends in 1/17. He is planning with the Iranians for a terrorist bomb to hit the US. This plan is being done with his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian from corrupt Chicago.

During the devastation, Obama will declare Marshall Law, attempt to seize all guns owned by citizens and stay in power for years. If this is true, this is the sleaziest, most devilish plan I have ever heard of, even for a Communist like Obama.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

The second part I fully agree with.. if you want to pay the terrorists with your own money go right ahead, and you should NOT be prosecuted for it.

But, IMO, the Government itself should not get in the business of negotiating the release.. , it just seems to open the door to more kidnappings if they know the US Government will work with you to get them released.

They're not. The policy of not making concessions remains. But what if the terrorists are a bunch of amateurs who eventually just want some assurances that a drone strike isn't coming if they actually release someone. Should a policy against even speaking with terrorists prevent someone from the government being able to pick up a phone and talk to them? That's all that's changed.

 

[snogger]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

The second part I fully agree with.. if you want to pay the terrorists with your own money go right ahead, and you should NOT be prosecuted for it.

But, IMO, the Government itself should not get in the business of negotiating the release.. , it just seems to open the door to more kidnappings if they know the US Government will work with you to get them released.

They're not. The policy of not making concessions remains. But what if the terrorists are a bunch of amateurs who eventually just want some assurances that a drone strike isn't coming if they actually release someone. Should a policy against even speaking with terrorists prevent someone from the government being able to pick up a phone and talk to them? That's all that's changed.

.. More than likely, through back channels, this probably already happens, but that is where it should stay..

Again, just my opinion that by telling terrorists.. Hey... If you kidnap someone we will "talk" to you about it..

leads to a "of course no Money options will be discussed "

 

[Bucky86]

Thanks, Obama!!

 

[randall146]

I normally avoid reading the Comment sections on Yahoo linked articles.. reading the for this article proves I need to stay away:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S NIGHTMARISH PLAN TO STAY IN POWER AND FURTHER DESTROY THIS GREAT COUNTRY

I’ve heard from many reliable sources that Obama has a devious plan to stay in power after his term ends in 1/17. He is planning with the Iranians for a terrorist bomb to hit the US. This plan is being done with his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian from corrupt Chicago.

During the devastation, Obama will declare Marshall Law, attempt to seize all guns owned by citizens and stay in power for years. If this is true, this is the sleaziest, most devilish plan I have ever heard of, even for a Communist like Obama.

I mean, we all knew he intended to stay in power and further destroy this great country, but to learn he his plan to do so is devious is somewhat disconcerting.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I normally avoid reading the Comment sections on Yahoo linked articles.. reading the for this article proves I need to stay away:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S NIGHTMARISH PLAN TO STAY IN POWER AND FURTHER DESTROY THIS GREAT COUNTRY

I’ve heard from many reliable sources that Obama has a devious plan to stay in power after his term ends in 1/17. He is planning with the Iranians for a terrorist bomb to hit the US. This plan is being done with his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian from corrupt Chicago.

During the devastation, Obama will declare Marshall Law, attempt to seize all guns owned by citizens and stay in power for years. If this is true, this is the sleaziest, most devilish plan I have ever heard of, even for a Communist like Obama.

I mean, we all knew he intended to stay in power and further destroy this great country, but to learn he his plan to do so is devious is somewhat disconcerting.

If he declares himself dictator for life, I just hope he starts wearing one of those quasi-military outfits with lots of epaulets and mirrored sunglasses.

 

[Bucky86]

I normally avoid reading the Comment sections on Yahoo linked articles.. reading the for this article proves I need to stay away:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S NIGHTMARISH PLAN TO STAY IN POWER AND FURTHER DESTROY THIS GREAT COUNTRY

I’ve heard from many reliable sources that Obama has a devious plan to stay in power after his term ends in 1/17. He is planning with the Iranians for a terrorist bomb to hit the US. This plan is being done with his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian from corrupt Chicago.

During the devastation, Obama will declare Marshall Law, attempt to seize all guns owned by citizens and stay in power for years. If this is true, this is the sleaziest, most devilish plan I have ever heard of, even for a Communist like Obama.

I mean, we all knew he intended to stay in power and further destroy this great country, but to learn he his plan to do so is devious is somewhat disconcerting.

If he declares himself dictator for life, I just hope he starts wearing one of those quasi-military outfits with lots of epaulets and mirrored sunglasses.

And sexy female bodyguards.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

 

[Dan Lambskin]

"Marshall Law"

 

[The Ref]

"This plan is being done with his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian from corrupt Chicago."

Because the worst part of Chicago politics is the Iranian part.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

By giving into money demands, it will make kidnapping a much more profitable gameplan. The number will rise and kidnappings will take place in much more American visited areas.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

By giving into money demands, it will make kidnapping a much more profitable gameplan. The number will rise and kidnappings will take place in much more American visited areas.

If ISIS kidnapped your lady friend and said, "We need $25K or she dies." And you had $25K, would you pay them?

 

[Fennis]

U.S. Has always negotiated with terrorists.

 

[Fennis]

A far bigger issue is Obama insistence on calling them ISIL instead of ISIS. Its so ####### annoying.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

By giving into money demands, it will make kidnapping a much more profitable gameplan. The number will rise and kidnappings will take place in much more American visited areas.

If ISIS kidnapped your lady friend and said, "We need $25K or she dies." And you had $25K, would you pay them?

I would want to, yes. But the truth is, they wouldn't return her. They have proven over and over that they take that money then ask for more. It's a terrible decision to have to make, but by not paying that amount, you're protecting others from suffering the same fate.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

By giving into money demands, it will make kidnapping a much more profitable gameplan. The number will rise and kidnappings will take place in much more American visited areas.

If ISIS kidnapped your lady friend and said, "We need $25K or she dies." And you had $25K, would you pay them?

I would want to, yes. But the truth is, they wouldn't return her. They have proven over and over that they take that money then ask for more. It's a terrible decision to have to make, but by not paying that amount, you're protecting others from suffering the same fate.

I'd have a hard time with that...I completely know where you're coming from, but I feel like if I didn't do everything I could to try, I'd be partly to blame.

 

[Fennis]

List of people to call if I get kidnapped:

Sheik

Warren Buffet

My mom

Bill Clinton

My ex-girlfriend

My wife

 

[CletiusMaximus]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

By giving into money demands, it will make kidnapping a much more profitable gameplan. The number will rise and kidnappings will take place in much more American visited areas.

If ISIS kidnapped your lady friend and said, "We need $25K or she dies." And you had $25K, would you pay them?

I would want to, yes. But the truth is, they wouldn't return her. They have proven over and over that they take that money then ask for more. It's a terrible decision to have to make, but by not paying that amount, you're protecting others from suffering the same fate.

It seems what we need then is a better negotiator. In my experience, no one wants to negotiate with anyone, until it behooves them to do so, in which case they will.

 

[roadkill1292]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

Tracking the funding of terrorists is an effective interdiction technique. But the idea that we "stop" terrorism by stopping the flow of money to those organizations is ridiculous. We can tell that by the fact that these groups remain well-funded even with the current policy in place. One reason why terrorism is an effective asymmetrical warfare technique is that its not expensive.

By giving into money demands, it will make kidnapping a much more profitable gameplan. The number will rise and kidnappings will take place in much more American visited areas.

If ISIS kidnapped your lady friend and said, "We need $25K or she dies." And you had $25K, would you pay them?

I would want to, yes. But the truth is, they wouldn't return her. They have proven over and over that they take that money then ask for more. It's a terrible decision to have to make, but by not paying that amount, you're protecting others from suffering the same fate.

It seems what we need then is a better negotiator. In my experience, no one wants to negotiate with anyone, until it behooves them to do so, in which case they will.

The Donald? He says he's pretty good at it.

 

[The Tick]

I normally avoid reading the Comment sections on Yahoo linked articles.. reading the for this article proves I need to stay away:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S NIGHTMARISH PLAN TO STAY IN POWER AND FURTHER DESTROY THIS GREAT COUNTRY

I’ve heard from many reliable sources that Obama has a devious plan to stay in power after his term ends in 1/17. He is planning with the Iranians for a terrorist bomb to hit the US. This plan is being done with his closest advisor, Valerie Jarrett, an Iranian from corrupt Chicago.

During the devastation, Obama will declare Marshall Law, attempt to seize all guns owned by citizens and stay in power for years. If this is true, this is the sleaziest, most devilish plan I have ever heard of, even for a Communist like Obama.

I mean, we all knew he intended to stay in power and further destroy this great country, but to learn he his plan to do so is devious is somewhat disconcerting.

If he declares himself dictator for life, I just hope he starts wearing one of those quasi-military outfits with lots of epaulets and mirrored sunglasses.

And just for good measures, better pin some medals on there also! No reason to go half-### on something important like this.

 

[Buckychudd]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

I'm not usually one to bash Obama, but this is a horrible decision.

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

I'm not usually one to bash Obama, but this is a horrible decision.

And to be clear, this isn't meant to be bashing Obama. I just don't agree with the WH's decision to announce this.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

I'm not usually one to bash Obama, but this is a horrible decision.

And to be clear, this isn't meant to be bashing Obama. I just don't agree with the WH's decision to announce this.

I agree 100% here..I think the logical thing to do would be to keep the policy, but basically tell people who have kidnapped loved ones "Look, our public stance is that we'll go after you if you negotiate, but do what you have to do."

 

[TheIronSheik]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

I'm not usually one to bash Obama, but this is a horrible decision.

And to be clear, this isn't meant to be bashing Obama. I just don't agree with the WH's decision to announce this.

I agree 100% here..I think the logical thing to do would be to keep the policy, but basically tell people who have kidnapped loved ones "Look, our public stance is that we'll go after you if you negotiate, but do what you have to do."

And to be honest, I feel like this is how we've done things since the beginning of time. Not sure why this needed changing.

 

[Fat Nick]

I don't see how anybody could conceivably have a problem with either of these policy changes.

The second strikes me as particularly overdue. If your family member were captured by terrorists and held hostage, you really wanted the government to be able to prosecute you if you wanted to pay a ransom? That's obscene.

Giving money to a terrorist organization gives them more capital to commit more kidnappings.

I'm not usually one to bash Obama, but this is a horrible decision.

And to be clear, this isn't meant to be bashing Obama. I just don't agree with the WH's decision to announce this.

I agree 100% here..I think the logical thing to do would be to keep the policy, but basically tell people who have kidnapped loved ones "Look, our public stance is that we'll go after you if you negotiate, but do what you have to do."

And to be honest, I feel like this is how we've done things since the beginning of time. Not sure why this needed changing.

If you can't make your own, might as well make it look like you did...

Before I get people upset, I'm just making a joke...

 

[Phil Elliott]

What was he trying to accomplish with this? Did he think it was going to stop or slow down the kidnappings? There's plenty of laws that are selectively not enforced or enforced.