Is this administration exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages?

[jrockster21]

I am an Obama supporter, I voted for him, and I think he is doing much better than his critics say he is. However if what I'm reading in these articles is true, its a massive misstep by this administration, and puts all of our contractors, soldiers, etc. overseas in danger. The US not negotiating with terrorists is a long-standing policy that should never, EVER change. It really breaks my heart to hear that it might be changing.

---------

Negotiating with Terrorists

The Obama administration ignores a longstanding — and life-saving — policy.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

As the Iranian government’s murderous repression of the Iranian people continues, critics right and left agitate over the deafening silence of an American president who, as a candidate, derided the Bush administration’s ambitious democracy promotion as too timid. They speculate as to why Barack Obama won’t speak out: Why won’t he condemn the mullahs? Is he daft enough to believe he can charm the regime into abandoning its nuclear ambitions? Does the self-described realist so prize stability that he thinks it’s worth abandoning the cause of freedom — and the best chance in 30 years of dislodging an implacable American enemy?

In truth, it’s worse than that. Even as the mullahs are terrorizing the Iranian people, the Obama administration is negotiating with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization and abandoning the American proscription against exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages kidnapped by terrorists. Worse still, Obama has already released a terrorist responsible for the brutal murders of five American soldiers in exchange for the remains of two deceased British hostages.

click link for the rest.

-----

Here is the orginal NY Times article from June 8th:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world/middleeast/09release.html?_r=1

[hokie4redskins]

"Show me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

I'm not sure why this is a surprise.

The dude's an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, covorts with anti-Americans Davis, Dohrn, Ayers, and Wright, quietly demands Miranda rights for terrorists and people are suddenly shocked?

:whoknows:

I'm still staggered the American public did not care more about Obama's associations before the election.

[JMS]

I am an Obama supporter, I voted for him, and I think he is doing much better than his critics say he is. However if what I'm reading in these articles is true, its a massive misstep by this administration, and puts all of our contractors, soldiers, etc. overseas in danger. The US not negotiating with terrorists is a long-standing policy that should never, EVER change. It really breaks my heart to hear that it might be changing.

Dude, we have always negotiated with terrorists. Think the invasion of tripolie in the early 1800's is what kept American shipping safe? Nope it's the treaty we signed with the pirates and the tribute Jefferson paid them which accomplished that.

More recent examples of America negotiating with Terrorists.

Lyndon Johnson for the crew of the USS Pueblo -- A US Navy intelligence ship captured by the North Koreans on January 23, 1968, which remains in N. Korea's hands today.

In 1972, Nixon went to Peking to shake hands with the greatest terrorist of the 20th century. Between the great leap forward, and the culteral revolution more people died at Mao's hand than did at Hitler's or Stalin's.

Carter talking to the Iranians about recovering our hostages from the Embassy.

Reagan's sending a cake, bible, and plane load of missiles to Iran.

Reagan and Bush negotiating with Hezbollah / Islamic Jihad to get the American hostages out of Lebonon.

Clinton's negotiations to recover our pilot from Somalia and negotiationg pulling our troops out of that conflict.

George Bush's puttting General Mushariff and Pakistan on the US payroll to the tune of 10 billion dollars over his 8 year adminstration. Pakistan being a country which uses terrorism as a instrument of foreign policy. Ask any Indian.

I would argue negotiating with terrorists is not the issue. We like most countries, even Israel, do it. What's important is what you give up and what you get in return.

[jrockster21]

Dude, we have always negotiated with terrorists. Think the invasion of tripolie in the early 1800's is what kept American shipping safe? Nope it's the treaty we signed with the pirates and the tribute Jefferson paid them which accomplished that.

Poorly worded, I changed the thread title.

[Henry]

Reagan's sending a cake, bible, and plane load of missiles to Iran.

Sorry, but that made me laugh.

[GoSkins561]

If you havn't noticed, Obama is about changing a l ot of things very quickly. While I appreciate his hard work, this administration needs to slow down a little bit.

[hokie4redskins]

Dude, we have always negotiated with terrorists. Think the invasion of tripolie in the early 1800's is what kept American shipping safe? Nope it's the treaty we signed with the pirates and the tribute Jefferson paid them which accomplished that.

More recent examples of America negotiating with Terrorists.

Lyndon Johnson for the crew of the USS Pueblo -- A US Navy intelligence ship captured by the North Koreans on January 23, 1968, which remains in N. Korea's hands today.

In 1972, Nixon went to Peking to shake hands with the greatest terrorist of the 20th century. Between the great leap forward, and the culteral revolution more people died at Mao's hand than did at Hitler's or Stalin's.

Carter talking to the Iranians about recovering our hostages from the Embassy.

Reagan's sending a cake, bible, and plane load of missiles to Iran.

Reagan and Bush negotiating with Hezbollah / Islamic Jihad to get the American hostages out of Lebonon.

Clinton's negotiations to recover our pilot from Somalia and negotiationg pulling our troops out of that conflict.

George Bush's puttting General Mushariff and Pakistan on the US payroll to the tune of 10 billion dollars over his 8 year adminstration. Pakistan being a country which uses terrorism as a instrument of foreign policy. Ask any Indian.

I would argue negotiating with terrorists is not the issue. We like most countries, even Israel, do it. What's important is what you give up and what you get in return.

Treaty Shmreaty. We crushed the Barbary pirates because we were unwilling to negotiate for safe passage through Mediterranean waters. The U.S. Navy provided safe passage.

The rest of your examples don't touch upon the non-state actor factor of terrorism today. Your Hizballah reference included hostages representing multiple nationalities. Very delicate situation.

Johnson was caught spying on a state entity and you call that negotiating with terrorists?

You mean the same Musharraf that every radical in Pakistan wanted dead?

Mao was an authoritarian human rights violator who killed his own people with his cultural "revolution." He didn't outright kidnap or compromise American interests and demand American acquiescence. Nixon was simply reaching out his diplomatic hand.

Iran Contra? ****, the ISRAELIS were in on that too. Reagan was supporting a more centrist Iranian political arm. Those negotiations didn't compromise our interests any more than our attempt to compromise those of the mullahs. Did we lose face? Yes. Did we negotiate with terrorists? Hardly. Besides, Iran Contra was going on way before we put them on the list of state sponsors of terror.

Carter gets blasted because an invasion of a U.S. embassy is an invasion of U.S. soil. And even if you're right, and all presidents have "negotiated with terrorists," none did so in a more lily-livered way than that rube Carter. Perception is key in this thing. Did anyone think for one second Reagan was bowing to the Iranians?

Regardless, let's just dismantle the State Department while we're at it.

[skinfan133]

Dude, we have always negotiated with terrorists. Think the invasion of tripolie in the early 1800's is what kept American shipping safe? Nope it's the treaty we signed with the pirates and the tribute Jefferson paid them which accomplished that.

your grasp of the Barbary Wars is shaky. the first barbary war eneded in a treaty with stipulations for a prisoner exchange. the US government paid the difference in the number of prisoners (like a hundred people or something) in dollars to the Bashaw. it was not tribute. Buying sailors and marines out of slavery in a prisoner exchange is not the same as tribute, it was not considered tribute by either party to the treaty. it was a one-time payment also. the treaty was a direct result of the invasion in which the Marines owned the barbary forces.

secondly, the barbary pirates were not terrorists. international criminals yes, but terrorists no. they had what can be described as a loose confederacy and diplomatic ties with other nations.

and yes, Jefferson's war did keep US shipping safe, until the pirates outgrew their britches and got their asses handed to them again 10 years later.

treaties are not negotions, they are the end agreement. a peace treaty is not negotiating with terrorists.

[Bliz]

"Show me who your friends are, and I'll tell you who you are."

I'm not sure why this is a surprise.

The dude's an acolyte of Saul Alinsky, covorts with anti-Americans Davis, Dohrn, Ayers, and Wright, quietly demands Miranda rights for terrorists and people are suddenly shocked?

:whoknows:

I'm still staggered the American public did not care more about Obama's associations before the election.

Take a gander:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showpost.php?p=6510167&postcount=1

[Burgold]

treaties are not negotions, they are the end agreement. a peace treaty is not negotiating with terrorists.

something in this logic just doesn't ring true.

[skinfan133]

something in this logic just doesn't ring true.

how so?

a treaty between the United States and another government is different from negotiations with terrorists.

[Madison Redskin]

I am an Obama supporter, I voted for him, and I think he is doing much better than his critics say he is. However if what I'm reading in these articles is true, its a massive misstep by this administration, and puts all of our contractors, soldiers, etc. overseas in danger. The US not negotiating with terrorists is a long-standing policy that should never, EVER change. It really breaks my heart to hear that it might be changing.

Then you must think General Petraeus did a disservice to this country when he orchestrated a strategy which resulted in U.S. and coalition forces negotiating and ultimately working with insurgent groups. Don't you recall seeing photographs of U.S. troops on patrol with former insurgents?

[honejc]

It's breaking my heart to see this administration tear down this country block by block.

Edit: In case people were wondering. I was talking about resignation, nothing more.

[Burgold]

how so?

a treaty between the United States and another government is different from negotiations with terrorists.

I agree with that, but it seems to me that nations are trying to negotiate peace treaties with terrorists constantly... especially if we include the Palestine/Israeli conflict. People are often bartering or urging others to barter peace for this or that. When the U.S. negotiated with Arafat that was us negotiating with terrorists for peace or a return of hostages, etc.

I don't think the terrorist component is key here and sometimes I think the definition of a terrorist is blurred. There are certainly nations that I consider terrorist nations. Yet there are also groups with a nation that are terrorist independent of the wishes of its citizens or governments.

We seem to drop and add that terrorist label at our convenience sometimes. As we did when we trained and supplied the terrorists in Afghanistan to make life miserable for the Soviets.

[Predicto]

It's breaking my heart to see this administration tear down this country block by block.

HOPE!! CHANGE!!

...yeah, for a socialistic terror-tolerating society. America's ****ed... Need impeachment... or the other fabulous option

The "other fabulous option?"

Did you just say what I think you said?

[AAARedskin]

Obama is yet to be correct on any issue. Yeah, in the recent photos, those freed MUSLIM TERRORISTS really look all traumatized and sickly huh? Yeah ,all that endless torture 24/7 really did a number on them huh? Pics of them enjoying ice cream and swimming as free men is disgusting and it's more evidence of what a monumental FAILURE Obama is as a "president" and a "leader." What a joke....(OK time to bash me now....yeah, the TRUTH upsets people)

[JMS]

Treaty Shmreaty. We crushed the Barbary pirates because we were unwilling to negotiate for safe passage through Mediterranean waters. The U.S. Navy provided safe passage.

Wrong.

The first "barbary war" of 1801-1805 Jefferson actually Invaded them while negotiating a treaty, and abruptly withdrew support for the Invasion ( 3-4 marines and an former diplomatic console) when the treaty was signed. Jefferson ended up paying the Barbary pirates more than they were actually asking! Our "Invasion" failed. We paid off the Barbary Pirates.

You are thinking of the second Barbary war a decade latter. ( 1815)

The rest of your examples don't touch upon the non-state actor factor of terrorism today. Your Hizballah reference included hostages representing multiple nationalities. Very delicate situation.

All negotiations with terrorists are delicate situtations.

Johnson was caught spying on a state entity and you call that negotiating with terrorists?

"spying" from a ship in international waters.

You mean the same Musharraf that every radical in Pakistan wanted dead?

Not "every radical in Pakistan" Musharraf actually employed quite a few radicals himself. The Musharraf who actually recognized and supported the Taliban. The one who had ties with Al quada. The one who developed nuclear weapons and then sold the technology to N. Korea, Libyia, and Iran. The one who is responsible for hundreds of deaths from terrorists acts in India preceeding and following 9/11. That Mucharif.

[SkinInsite]

It's breaking my heart to see this administration tear down this country block by block.

HOPE!! CHANGE!!

...yeah, for a socialistic terror-tolerating society. America's ****ed... Need impeachment... or the other fabulous option

Thanks for chiming in Mr. Booth.

[#98QBKiller]

It's breaking my heart to see this administration tear down this country block by block.

HOPE!! CHANGE!!

...yeah, for a socialistic terror-tolerating society. America's ****ed... Need impeachment... or the other fabulous option

Care to explain what you mean by this?

[#98QBKiller]

Obama is yet to be correct on any issue. Yeah, in the recent photos, those freed MUSLIM TERRORISTS really look all traumatized and sickly huh? Yeah ,all that endless torture 24/7 really did a number on them huh? Pics of them enjoying ice cream and swimming as free men is disgusting and it's more evidence of what a monumental FAILURE Obama is as a "president" and a "leader." What a joke....(OK time to bash me now....yeah, the TRUTH upsets people)

Where I come from, the truth is backed up by facts. All you've given here is your opinion, then followed it up by complaining that you'll get bashed for flaunting that opinion as the truth. Hmmm...

[AAARedskin]

The "other fabulous option?"

Did you just say what I think you said?

The other option could be a military coup perhaps, ala the movie "Seven Days in May," with Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster. You may be surprised to know that Americans DIDN'T vote for America to give up Democracy in favor of Socialism and Communism. It's been 6 months, and this Obama Presidency has made America WORSE.....a lot WORSE, and there is no relief in sight. People and businesses still are not getting loans, and jobs are getting harder and harder to find. The Dems have the White House AND the CONGRESS! Where are the jobs, Dems? Where? Where is the STIMULUS for the PEOPLE?

40 months and count.......

[GibbsFactor]

The "other fabulous option?"

Did you just say what I think you said?

Judges ruling...

I believe he went there. Oh boi.

[AAARedskin]

Where I come from, the truth is backed up by facts. All you've given here is your opinion, then followed it up by complaining that you'll get bashed for flaunting that opinion as the truth. Hmmm...

Here are some FACTS for you to chew on: Unemployment has gotten worse since the fella YOU VOTED FOR became "president." People and businesses are still not getting loans since the fella YOU VOTED FOR became "president." Jobs have gone away since this guy became "president." He and his pals in Congress QUADRUPLED the National Deficit since he became "president, " on a scheme that has NO TRACK RECORD of ever really fixing an economy. Hey, how is the STIMULUS working out for you? Wants some more FACTS? Oh, and the tired argument of "but he inherited a big mess from Bush," is not going to work anymore. He promised the moon, and he cannot deliver.

[Heisenberg]

It's breaking my heart to see this administration tear down this country block by block.

HOPE!! CHANGE!!

...yeah, for a socialistic terror-tolerating society. America's ****ed... Need impeachment... or the other fabulous option

Considering how moronic the first 20+ words of the post were . . . I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the last five.

Hope you get what's coming to you for that post.

[hokie4redskins]

Wrong.

The first "barbary war" of 1801-1805 Jefferson actually Invaded them while negotiating a treaty, and abruptly withdrew support for the Invasion ( 3-4 marines and an former diplomatic console) when the treaty was signed. Jefferson ended up paying the Barbary pirates more than they were actually asking! Our "Invasion" failed. We paid off the Barbary Pirates.

You are thinking of the second Barbary war a decade latter. ( 1815)

I'd appreciate some links with your rebuttals.

What exactly did I say that was "wrong?" We crushed the Barbary threat. In our nascency, we realized very early that negotiating might not protect our interests. Can't fault Jefferson (a diplomat at heart) for negotiating with puppets of a foreign government regardless of how crass.

Eventually, though, Americans felt humiliated paying off a bunch of knife-sucking thugs in blousy pants. That’s what led to the Barbary Wars, first in 1801 when Jefferson became president, and again in 1815, when James Madison sent the United States Navy to shell the Barbary Coast. The battles became the stuff of legend — “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Hymn — and were critical in developing the nation’s young Navy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/weekinreview/12gettleman.html

I'm simply advocating for lessons learned.