The US does or does not negotiate with terrorists

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Technically. There may have been a buffer but in reality we were negotiating with terrorists. It set up a bad precedence and it was against the law. Obama called the law breaking an 'oversight' ... but he darn well knew it was illegal.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

This....

a reply to: beezzer

We know that the law was broken to accomplish the Bergdahl swap, so why don't we let that go into the mix before we put the blame of negotiations on Qatar.
Thank goodness Qatar is in charge of negotiating for the US..... did they open the cells down in Gizmo to leave the 5 terrorists out?
We do know that Obama had nothing to do with it.... right? Qatar did it! Obama just heard about it on the news the next day!

a reply to: butcherguy

Another good point.

Obama appears to be "leading from behind". (AKA following")

To a larger question then; Is someone else driving US foreign policy? If so, who?

Most governments say they don't negotiate with terrorists in public as they do not want to appear weak. In practice Governments will always negotiate because they have a "duty of care" to their citizens.

originally posted by: beezzer
When Obama traded 5 GITMO terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl, people were outraged over the supposed flip in policy with no negotiations with terrorists. Sure, Bergdahl was a US soldier who "supposedly" defected, deserted his post to join the enemies side to fight, but later (perhaps) decided that it was a bad idea.
Obama was shown with Bergdahl's parents in a touching White House photo op, and it was a much debated topic for a while.

Now we are currently discussing the beheading death of journalist James Foley. Who wasn't a soldier who supposedly deserted, but was a person who was actively kidnapped. A failed rescue attempt was launched, but bad intel (supposedly) lead to a dead end. Instead of a photo op in the Rose Garden of the White House, Obama went back to the golf course.

The US does not negotiate with terrorists!

Wait, what?

Since when?

I offer to you, gentle readers, an opportunity to clarify this very confusing issue.

punch him in the throat!

did they ever figure out if bowe really deserted?

the rescue was flawless, but he/foley wasn't there. (sproing!)

i'd say all the hostages should know they will not go home. (if they do, it's a bonus)

look at all the attempts, look at what happens when you pay.

somalia, phillipines, nigeria, etc.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: beezzer

We know that the law was broken to accomplish the Bergdahl swap, so why don't we let that go into the mix before we put the blame of negotiations on Qatar.
Thank goodness Qatar is in charge of negotiating for the US..... did they open the cells down in Gizmo to leave the 5 terrorists out?
We do know that Obama had nothing to do with it.... right? Qatar did it! Obama just heard about it on the news the next day!

I never absolved Obama of breaking the law, so stop making out that i stated he was innocent.

It is clear that Obama broke the law in engaging in a prisoner exchange without consulting congress. That said, we also know that Qatar acted as the middle-man, so it isn't fair to shift the blame entirely on one side or the other, for the negotiations with terrorists.

What has happened to bergdahl since his release? I haven't really seen or read anything since even on here

a reply to: daaskapital

I never mentioned you, daas.
My post was not personal to anyone, other than beez, as he is the OP.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

originally posted by: daaskapital
the USA technically did not negotiate with terrorists. It wasn't even the USA which negotiated the release of Bergdahl. Qatar was the middle-man, the negotiator.

Technically. There may have been a buffer but in reality we were negotiating with terrorists. It set up a bad precedence and it was against the law. Obama called the law breaking an 'oversight' ... but he darn well knew it was illegal.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

Well we know there was a buffer in the negotiations. There are not ifs of buts about that. The terrorists were transported to Qatar before the USA flew in to Afghanistan to retrieve Bergdahl. Qatar acted as the middle-man.

Further, we do not know the extent to which the US may have negotiated directly with the terrorists. So we can't come to any solid conclusions on the matter.

As i state previously, all we know is that:

1 - Qatar negotiated with the Taliban on behalf of the USA, and secured a deal.

2 - The deal was a temporary one of which Obama had little time to respond.

3 - Obama broke the law as a result, and opted to engage in a prisoner exchange without going through the correct channels.

That's all we know regarding the situation. Of course it is possible that the USA was directly negotiating with terrorists, so please don't get the wrong impression. I know the allies were once negotiating with them in an attempt at brokering peace, so negotiation isn't unheard of.

a reply to: butcherguy

Fair enough then, lol.

I do apologise if i came off as rude. I just assumed you were referring to me, considering i am the only member in this thread, thus far, to state that Qatar was the middle-man and negotiator between the USA and the Taliban...seemed a bit odd, if you know what i mean.

originally posted by: Thefarmer
What has happened to bergdahl since his release? I haven't really seen or read anything since even on here

I believe he was cleared and given an office job in the US Army.

a reply to: daaskapital

No problem.
You are correct, Qatar definitely did act as the middleman.

a reply to: SLAYER69

Yes I agree with that 100%

There are absolutely bad guys that exist outside of the US, a lot of whom have been created based upon our foreign policy which has been based off of war in the name of democracy. Which is a nice subtle way to topple governments who stand in the way of our corporate/military interests. We have poked our noses all over the world, overextended our military and have done a nice job of destroying our own country in the process.

We have oppressed many a nation, using propaganda orchestrated through various NGO's throughout our history. A great example would be the legacy of Henry Kissinger.

When it comes to the last 20 years of our meddling in the middle east and I do realize that it goes back further than that, one simply needs to look at the outcome of our actions there to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with what we have been doing.

I guess from my vantage point I find it hard to come up with any excuse for the actions of my government, then when you look at the track record of the CIA and what they have spent their entire existence doing, it is beyond criminal, with thus far no accountability whatsoever. So I am getting a little tired of this Islamic fundamentalist script, but that is due to me being of the opinion that there is a heavy hand within our government who at the very least encourages such a thing to exist through their actions.

a reply to: beezzer
Wow. I was actually just about to start this exact topic. Scary, huh?


Oliver North: I Know A Ransom Of $5 6 Million Was…: youtu.be...

hotair.com...

Report: U.S. considered paying a ransom
for Bergdahl last year

Allahpundit, Jun 4, 2014

Why am I agitated and interested in this?

mobile.nytimes.com...

Before Killing James Foley, ISIS Demanded Ransom From U.S.

www.cnn.com...

Foley's last days: Mock execution, rescue
try

By Chelsea J. Carter, BarbaraStarr and Ashley Fantz, CNN

It is not clear where ISIS moved Foley and the
hostages. But several French journalists freed by
ISIS this spring have stepped forward to say they had been held in captivity with Foley.

Because, their country paid ransoms to free them. However...

Marie Harf says every day Jim Foley is held by IS…: youtu.be...




Disgusting. Simply. Disgusting.

The terrorists asked for the wrong thing.

If they had asked to trade the reporter for another gitmo detainee and the reporter had written stories sympathetic to the Islamic State(is) it would be ok

But the terrorists asked for money and the reporter was not an Islamic State(is) sympathizer, so no go in the minds of those in the White House

I think the administration doesn't see the two as equal, I think they see it as:
"It is ok to swap", that is not negotiating
"It is not ok to buy", that is negotiating
Juvenile thinking on the part of the administration, but part of their justification.

Also, the soldier was a known sympathizer who actively assisted his "captors", making it in the minds of the children in the White House, ok to do a swap.

a reply to: beezzer

I offer to you, gentle readers, an opportunity to clarify this very confusing issue.

Foley crossed the line. You and I both know that. He had no business being there. He went to make a name for himself and paid the ultimate price. You wanna play ... sometimes you're gonna pay. No tears from me.

It is sort of confusing but, not really. The US and everybody else tends to deal with certain types of terror groups. Ones that could also be considered resistance fighters and not simply a terror group. So for example the US negotaited with Viet Cong, the Taliban, the PLO etc. They will negotiate often to only trade people. They do not want to give a threat weapons, money or and idealogical victory.

Some of you will no doubt bring up Reagan trading arms for hostages. While this is true he did not trade the arms directly to the terrorist rather to Iran who was negotiating on thier behalf. It was during the Reagan administration as well the tactic of calling trades of prisoners from Israel for US or Western hostages pre-planned releases was created. And then whatever hostage they wanted would suddenly be free.

This is not just how the US does things it is pretty much universal the UK negotiated with the IRA, Spain with Basques, Sri Lanka with the Tamil Tigers, Israel with the PLO etc.

Again the same standard tends to be used. Resistance groups labled as terrorists and an exchange of hostages or prisoners. Israel once pre-planned released 1000 prisoners for one guy. In all these cases releasing prisoners is seen as no harm as even 1000 people is not going to change a strategic situation.

In the case of ISIS they wanted money directly sent to them. That would not happen and would be outside the norms of what the US has done in the past.

It is a bit complex but. it does make a certain amount of sense. A formula based on the type of group that limits it to prisoner exchanges tends to be the standard. Even Reagans weapons for a third party like Iran has not been something done again because it was deemed outside the norm.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: beezzer

I offer to you, gentle readers, an opportunity to clarify this very confusing issue.

Foley crossed the line. You and I both know that. He had no business being there. He went to make a name for himself and paid the ultimate price. You wanna play ... sometimes you're gonna pay. No tears from me.

You know, that could be it in a nutshell.

You can't complain about being bit by an alligator if you spend all your time in a swamp.

Every country on this earth negotiates with terrorists, unless of course they're the ones who are terrorizing. I dont care what people say, every single country does it, its just done behind closed doors. At least that's how I see it.

a reply to: beezzer
Israel. Look around.

America not only negotiates with terrorists, they train and arm them as well -enter Bin Laden CIA man.