Is this administration exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages?

[Midnight Judges]

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

Why did you leave the NY Times link intact and hide the source of the Republican hack article you quoted? The two are in direct contradiction in that the NY Times article says the negotiations were for reconciliations in Iraq and British hostages whereas the jackass Republican from the national review lies to his audience and says it was for two corpses. Of course on page 3 he goes on to contradict himself to cover his ass.

Why do people read this crap? Do you enjoy being mislead and lied to?

Anyway, the NY Times article you didn't quote is very interesting. I'm glad you posted it. It is certainly a situation that has no right answer and no good options. In the past, Presidents have been faced with these same difficulties. Ronald Reagan bribed terrorists with shoulder fire missiles to return some CIA agents in the 80s. Not long after that they kidnapped another agent and killed him. So when you pay for hostages, you are encouraging future hostage taking. Both Obama and Reagan realize(d) this. In that respect I certainly disagree with Obama and Reagan's decisions. OTOH, these hostages are real people and their families are begging you to do something. Future hostage situations might or might not occur. So you think to yourself "do I exchange this particular hostage situation for a possible future hostage situation?" As much as that sucks, under the right circumstances guys like Ronald Reagan think so:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/23/world/reagan-statements-on-iran-deal-the-contradictions-of-december.html

Anyway, my point is, that's one helluva scenario. And while it's easy for folks who don't know the true history of the CIA to snipe at Presidents who have to make these grueling decisions, the fact is there are two crappy options and jackasses like the Republican who wrote your article are more than willing to take advantage of the ignorant people who flock to their websites.

For a thorough history on the CIA:

http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X

[skinfan133]

No it's perfectly correct. Here is what happenned.

We were paying tribute to the Barbary pirates before and after the first Barbary war. Our console to the Barbary parates was a John Adams appointee named William Eaton. Eaton was one of the great American rockheads of history.

So the Barbary pirates raid Sardinia off the coast of Italy looking for slaves/ prisoners to ransom. And they capture the young Royal Anna Maria Porcile and take her back to be held for ransom. Her despirate family travel to Trippoli to pay the ransom, but can't raise the cash because of the Napolionic wars and the general termoil in Europe. The Great European powers turn them down for credit. So her families last shot is a newly independent republic of the United States, and our counsol Capt William Eaton; who is so outraged by the ransom, that he puts up a United States Note in exchange for the young royal.... After six months the family of the young royal still can't pay, so the debt becomes delinquant and the US is now on the hook for the money. When word get's back to the United States John Adams is no longer in office Jefferson is, and Jefferson is like "You did What?"

So in an effort to collect the debt the Pasha of Trippoli, arrests the United States Commodore Richard Morris Feb 1803, and holds him until Eaton's debt is paid. The floatila of three heavily armed United States ships pay the $20,000 ransom and agree's to remove Eaton as Console.

Eaton is taken home in disgrace and the Pasha now with a wet beak is looking for more US Shipping. When the USS Philidelphia runs aground in Trippoli Oct 1803, her crew is enslaved and Jefferson is enraged.

Now Jefferson needs a man with military experience who knows Trippoli to invade Trippoli. The only man who fits that build is Captain of the Revolutionary Army William Eaton, recently console to Trippoli. Jefferson asks Eaton's advice, and Eaton formulates a plan to remove the Pasha on a shoe string budget. Eaton agrees to return to Trippoli and implement his plan.

Eaton is dispatched with a hand full of promises, a single ship for support, and four marines. Eaton's plan is to find the former Pasha of Trippoli Hamet Karamanli, raise an army on a shoe string mostly on promises and his own charisma and depose the new Pasha of Trippoli who is causeing all the trouble. Which Eaton pretty much does... raising the army and invading..

Problem is Jefferson also dispatches Tobias Lear, behind Eaton's back to negotiate a peace treaty with the Pasha because he never expects Eaton to suceed. Lear is one of the truely unscroupulous men in American History. He had leveraged his place as keeper of George Washington's private secretary and Keeper of GW's papers after Washingtons death, into political capital; destroying sensitive unflattering letters Washington wrote about politically powerful people like Jefferson, in exchange for favors. Lear ended up negotiating a generous new treaty with the now motivated Pasha and yanked all of Eaton's military support, After Eaton had invaded and had some sucess with his mercenary army which was basically created on Eaton's credit and bluff.

perhaps I was thinking of the Second Barbary war. I still disagree though that the Barbary states could be labled terrorist. terrorism, if I'm not mistaken is primarily in the ballpark of political or ideological struggle rather than grounded in the more worldly quest for riches.

hence we call the losers in somalia pirates and the armed islamic radicals terrorists.

either way I love discussing the undeclared wars of the 19th century, on to the quasi war!

[Henry]

I am a free man. The First Amendment covers what the government is allowed to do. I can say or think whatever I want.

When the gov't starts telling me I can't and make laws that over steps it's bounds (patriot act), then I, as a free man and an American, can call for revolution until I am blue in the face. Just like you're free to tell me I am crazy.

Nice speech but I'm still pretty sure free speech ends with conspiring to violently overthrow the government.

[skinfan133]

Nice speech but I'm still pretty sure free speech ends with conspiring to violently overthrow the government.

got some precedent to back that up?

I'm pretty sure the first amendment is to protect us from the government, not the other way around :2cents:

[SnyderShrugged]

Hey!?! Who says a Revolution has to be violent?

Revolutions can happen in many forms that dont involve violence.

Ask Gandhi

[Henry]

got some precedent to back that up?

I'm pretty sure the first amendment is to protect us from the government, not the other way around :2cents:

How's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York

Gitlow v. New York was also important for defining the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech following the period of the "Red Scare," in which Communists and Socialist Party members were routinely convicted for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and Sedition Act of 1918. Gitlow, a Socialist, had been convicted of criminal anarchy after publishing a "Left Wing Manifesto." The Court upheld his conviction on the basis that the government may suppress or punish speech when it directly advocates the unlawful overthrowing of the government.

[SnyderShrugged]

How's this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act (18 U.S.C. § 2385) of 1940 is a United States federal statute that makes it a criminal offense for anyone to

"knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the duty, necessity, desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association."

I'm not sure thats the best example. Wasnt this the act that set the stage for the McCarthy hearings and the red scare stuff?

[Bang]

Yeah, I don't think "not negotiating with terrorists" has ever been any kind of official policy. Certainly, if we had an Obama speech or policy position against it, and then actual proof of this going on with his sanction, then you could go after him for hypocrisy, but this sounds like standard operating procedure for the U.S. for decades now.

It is official policy, but it is about hostage takings, hijackings terrorists with demands. Typically speaking it hasn't applied to states.

~Bang

[Henry]

I'm not sure thats the best example. Wasnt this the act that set the stage for the McCarthy hearings and the red scare stuff?

McCarthy abused the law, but it is still law.

Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding why people think free speech is universal. It isn't. You can't call for the murder of a citizen of the US. I'm no Constitutional scholar but I know that your right to free speech ends where someone else's right to life, liberty and all that begins.

And believe it or not, the President has those rights too.

Is this really up for debate?

[Madison Redskin]

Hey!?! Who says a Revolution has to be violent?

Revolutions can happen in many forms that dont involve violence.

Ask Gandhi

True enough. However, something tells me the poster wasn't praying for non-violent revolution.

[techboy]

The "other fabulous option?"

Did you just say what I think you said?

It's drastic, but yes, I think he meant

.

[skinfan133]

McCarthy abused the law, but it is still law.

Honestly, I'm having trouble understanding why people think free speech is universal. It isn't. You can't call for the murder of a citizen of the US. I'm no Constitutional scholar but I know that your right to free speech ends where someone else's right to life, liberty and all that begins.

And believe it or not, the President has those rights too.

Is this really up for debate?

I'm not saying that we have a right to advocate killing the president (or anyone for that mater) what i'm saying is that we as a people have the right to abolish, and yes overthrow if necessary, our government and replace it if the government becomes intolerable and abusive.

Gitlow v. NY was a reactionary case. its like the bully on the playground decreeing that anyone who stands up to him will be punched in the face for lack of a better analogy

[skinfan133]

It's drastic, but yes, I think he meant

.

out of curiosity how do you do a link like that??? I've been trying to figure it out for the last 30 minutes...

[CAPT_CHAOS47]

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

Anyone know if the Secret Service or the cops got this guy yet?

I voted for Mcain and thats, that!

But i would never go that route...

You need to grow up kid!

[Mark The Homer]

He has cleaned the post up.

Back to topic.

[Dan T.]

Personally I think he should have been made to lock that post in so that everyone could see where he's coming from in any debate.

The rhetoric is just gasp-inducing. Overthrow the government? Hints at assassination? Have people lost their ****ing minds?

[Madison Redskin]

I'm not saying that we have a right to advocate killing the president (or anyone for that mater) what i'm saying is that we as a people have the right to abolish, and yes overthrow if necessary, our government and replace it if the government becomes intolerable and abusive.

That's what elections are for. If you don't like the election process and feel the need to resort to overthrowing the government by other means, you aren't a patriot, you are an unAmerican extremist.

[Bang]

Well, let's be honest.

he did specifically say the FABULOUS option.

Could mean a makeover and some new shoes.

~Bang

[Henry]

I'm not saying that we have a right to advocate killing the president (or anyone for that mater) what i'm saying is that we as a people have the right to abolish, and yes overthrow if necessary, our government and replace it if the government becomes intolerable and abusive.

Gitlow v. NY was a reactionary case. its like the bully on the playground decreeing that anyone who stands up to him will be punched in the face for lack of a better analogy

I love the ideals. You guys are all truly inspiring.

Of course we have the right as human beings to self-determination, but legally speaking I'm pretty sure, under the framework of our government as it exists today, that the First Amendment does not cover conspiring to violently overthrow the government.

No government in the history of history has made it legal for it's citizens to take up arms against itself.

Again, are we really having this debate?

[JMS]

perhaps I was thinking of the Second Barbary war. I still disagree though that the Barbary states could be labled terrorist. terrorism, if I'm not mistaken is primarily in the ballpark of political or ideological struggle rather than grounded in the more worldly quest for riches.

hence we call the losers in somalia pirates and the armed islamic radicals terrorists.

I think the definition of terrorist is vague. But I would argue a terrorist is a person or group of people who attempt to strike terror in their subjects hearts in order to motivate them to a favorable position for the Terrorists. I think performing these acts based solely on their ability to strike terror into the hearts of their victems rather than any sense of justice or honor, is likewise a key component of the definition.

By my definition, which is not widely accepted ( no definition of the word is)... The Barbary Pirates would be terrorists. They used terror to extort tribute, ransom, and concessions from people solely based upon their ability and willingness to do so.

either way I love discussing the undeclared wars of the 19th century, on to the quasi war!

I do to. The accepted history and the real history are so totally different. William Eaton is a real character. When he got back to the United States after being betrayed by Jefferson. He spoke out against Jefferson, and Jefferson refused to re-imburse him for the trippoli invasion and ransom of the young Royal, which Jefferson tacked onto Eaton's tab; which bankrupted Eaton and greatly indebted his family. Eaton was used as a political tool of the opposition because his military success was so amaizing to blacken Jefferson's name too. Arron Burr who had destroyed his political career by killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel ( shot hamilton dead, after hamilton had discharged his weapon into the air, from Hamilton's death bed statements..)....contacted Eaton a now famous military commander to help him establish a new country in the mid west. Eaton was offered the #2 spot in the new country if he helped and backed Burr. Eaton a true American patriot played along with Burr, and collected information; then informed his political and personal enemy President Jefferson of what Burr was planning. Burr was captured and brought up on treason charges, and Eaton was a star witness against him. So impressive was Eaton on the witness stand it mezmorized the country and greatly enhanced Captain Eaton's already formatable reputation. Jefferson thankful for Eaton's help, paid his expenses and finally made him solvent. Arron Burr with his arms, fortune, and equipment confiscated; was found not guilty of treason and just faded into history.

[skinfan133]

That's what elections are for. If you don't like the election process and feel the need to resort to overthrowing the government by other means, you aren't a patriot, you are an unAmerican extremist.

OK thank you for dictating to me what I am.

If a government (not saying it currently is) becomes too abusive, we as a people have a right to overthrow it and replace. wtf do you think the basis of our revolution was???

and for your information, when I take my oath in three years to commission into the marine corps, I will swear everlasting fealty to the CONSTITUTION. I will defend it against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. If need be, if our government becomes an abusive and totalitarian power in the future, I hope we all just don't roll over and succumb to such an existence. The liberties we enjoy because of our Constitution are too precious to loose. Hence the armed forces swear to protect and defend the Constitution and not the government. :2cents::2cents:

and on a personal note, I hope you take back what you said about being unpatriotic and un-American.

[JMS]

Yeah, I don't think "not negotiating with terrorists" has ever been any kind of official policy. Certainly, if we had an Obama speech or policy position against it, and then actual proof of this going on with his sanction, then you could go after him for hypocrisy, but this sounds like standard operating procedure for the U.S. for decades now.

It has been official American policy for quite a long time. That policy was used to refuse to meet with the PLO and Yasser Arafat from the 1960's through the 1980's. Cost UN Secretary Andrew Young his job when he was caught secretly meeting with PLO representitives...

The historical facts are thought it's not a policy which administrations follow. It's more of an excuse, rather than a hard policy. Fact is even Israel who made the policy famous, has negotiated with terrorists when they believe it's in their interests to do so.

[JMS]

and for your information, when I take my oath in three years to commission into the marine corps, I will swear everlasting fealty to the CONSTITUTION. I will defend it against all enemies FOREIGN and DOMESTIC. If need be, if our government becomes an abusive and totalitarian power in the future, I hope we all just don't roll over and succumb to such an existence. The liberties we enjoy because of our Constitution are too precious to loose. Hence the armed forces swear to protect and defend the Constitution and not the government. :2cents::2cents: .

Officers in the US military have to have active clearances to get their commissions. Today even ROTC students passed their second year must have clearances. You will be supprised to hear that part of the clearnace form is a question, have you ever been been a member of any organization professing, or otherwise professed the position to violently overthrow the United States Government.

And you did it on the internet.....

Professing violent overthow of the US governmet, which holds elections every two years isn't Patriotism. Although you might have understandable confused it for Patriotism. It's a young mans emotional statement to what he finds unacceptable. It's a poorly thought out reaction based on your, forgive me, relatively few life experiences. Such impulsive, careless and black and white beliefs make for good soldiers, but do lead to poorly thought out policy statements. Such statements are traits of young men. Brave, reactionary, and uncompromising. Old farts, are a little less emotional, more thoughtful, less impusive and a bit more timid. That's why 18-20 somethings are recuited for the mussle and sinue of the armed services and not us old farts..

[#98QBKiller]

Well, let's be honest.

he did specifically say the FABULOUS option.

Could mean a makeover and some new shoes.

~Bang

:laugh:

[Madison Redskin]

If a government (not saying it currently is) becomes too abusive, we as a people have a right to overthrow it and replace.

Replace it through democratic channels (i.e., elections), not force.

wtf do you think the basis of our revolution was???

Well, "taxation without representation" was a big deal. That doesn't really apply here (FYI, just because you don't like someone's policies, that doesn't mean you're being oppressed or otherwise unrepresented).

If need be, if our government becomes an abusive and totalitarian power in the future, I hope we all just don't roll over and succumb to such an existence. The liberties we enjoy because of our Constitution are too precious to loose.

No, I won't just roll over. I will exercise my right to vote and speak out.

and on a personal note, I hope you take back what you said about being unpatriotic and un-American.

If a person believes in overthrowing a government elected by the majority of Americans and in conformity with the Constitution, I think it's safe to say they're probably un-American.