US Government negotiates with Taliban

[Llamalandia]

Holy crap I've been over this as have others, first Reagan declared it policy by executive order (which i've already linked to a couple times now. Secondly, because negotiating only further emboldens and encourages more hostage taking.

Fuck Reagan and his policy that uses arbitrary metrics and definitions. Reagan FUNDED terrorists, there's no leg to stand on there.

Also, if hostage negotiations "embolden" terrorists, whatever that means, then terrorists around the world are already no doubt incredibly "emboldened" because this is standard operating procedure.

The thing that really emboldens terrorists is the way we don't view them as human and keep all the prisoners that we do. They see us as an empire who won't cooperate or see them as real people and keeps people indefinitely, performs human rights abuses, and doesn't talk. I'd argue that this does the opposite of emboldening them.

Umm, no don't "fuck Reagan" in fact give him mad props for his awesomeness in defeating the USSR.

But that aside, every president since him has deeply respected and honoured that policy. Bush Sr. Clinton and Bush Jr. never negotiated with terrorists, only Obama has since the Reagan order.

[Ashmoria]

Please cite that Executive Order.

Again seriously? ok. let me find it.

On January 20, 1986, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive Number 207, which prohibits negotiations with terrorist organizations regarding the release of hostages. The Directive sets forth in unequivocal terms the United States' "firm opposition to terrorism in all its forms" and makes clear the government's "conviction that to accede to terrorist demands places more American citizens at risk. This no-concessions policy is the best way of protecting the greatest number of people and ensuring their safety." The Directive continues to say: "The [United States government] will pay no ransoms, nor permit releases of prisoners or agree to other conditions that could serve to encourage additional terrorism. We will make no changes in our policy because of terrorist threats or acts." This policy is further articulated in Department of State Publication 10217, which makes clear the United States "will not support the freeing of prisoners from incarceration in response to terrorist demands."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... tion_v.asp

I also have previously posted a link to scans of the actual document itself.

thank you for posting that again. the link is a little messed up.

its funny to have Reagan issue an executive order then violate it himself rather quickly.

[Farnhamia]

Please cite that Executive Order.

Again seriously? ok. let me find it.

On January 20, 1986, President Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive Number 207, which prohibits negotiations with terrorist organizations regarding the release of hostages. The Directive sets forth in unequivocal terms the United States' "firm opposition to terrorism in all its forms" and makes clear the government's "conviction that to accede to terrorist demands places more American citizens at risk. This no-concessions policy is the best way of protecting the greatest number of people and ensuring their safety." The Directive continues to say: "The [United States government] will pay no ransoms, nor permit releases of prisoners or agree to other conditions that could serve to encourage additional terrorism. We will make no changes in our policy because of terrorist threats or acts." This policy is further articulated in Department of State Publication 10217, which makes clear the United States "will not support the freeing of prisoners from incarceration in response to terrorist demands."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... tion_v.asp

I also have previously posted a link to scans of the actual document itself.

Yeah ... National Security Decision Directives are kind-a sort-a executive orders but are really more policy statements. They have no force of law. Anyway, do you know the circumstances under which this exchange happened, who got in touch with whom? Maybe the Taliban got tired of listening to Bergdahl whine all the time about how bad everything was.

[Llamalandia]

Again seriously? ok. let me find it.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/T ... tion_v.asp

I also have previously posted a link to scans of the actual document itself.

Yeah ... National Security Decision Directives are kind-a sort-a executive orders but are really more policy statements. They have no force of law. Anyway, do you know the circumstances under which this exchange happened, who got in touch with whom? Maybe the Taliban got tired of listening to Bergdahl whine all the time about how bad everything was.

Possible, either way, Obama seems to be in the wrong here. I mean, he couldve easily wait a month to do the deal, and let congress know. I'm guessing he figured they tell him hell no and pass a bill banning the transfer.

[Farnhamia]

Yeah ... National Security Decision Directives are kind-a sort-a executive orders but are really more policy statements. They have no force of law. Anyway, do you know the circumstances under which this exchange happened, who got in touch with whom? Maybe the Taliban got tired of listening to Bergdahl whine all the time about how bad everything was.

Possible, either way, Obama seems to be in the wrong here. I mean, he couldve easily wait a month to do the deal, and let congress know. I'm guessing he figured they tell him hell no and pass a bill banning the transfer.

And then the GOP accuses him of leaving our last POW behind as a campaign theme this fall. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

[Ashmoria]

Yeah ... National Security Decision Directives are kind-a sort-a executive orders but are really more policy statements. They have no force of law. Anyway, do you know the circumstances under which this exchange happened, who got in touch with whom? Maybe the Taliban got tired of listening to Bergdahl whine all the time about how bad everything was.

Possible, either way, Obama seems to be in the wrong here. I mean, he couldve easily wait a month to do the deal, and let congress know. I'm guessing he figured they tell him hell no and pass a bill banning the transfer.

that would seem to be the point of the law (or whatever you call a bit of a huge bill that funded the military)--to have time to work the base up into a frenzy.

well fuck that. we needed to bring him home.

[San Isicio]

Grand EU plot to destroy 'Murica.

Go EU! REMOVE HAMBURGER FROM PREMISES.

[Llamalandia]

Possible, either way, Obama seems to be in the wrong here. I mean, he couldve easily wait a month to do the deal, and let congress know. I'm guessing he figured they tell him hell no and pass a bill banning the transfer.

that would seem to be the point of the law (or whatever you call a bit of a huge bill that funded the military)--to have time to work the base up into a frenzy.

well fuck that. we needed to bring him home.

Why? he wasn't dying, they weren't mistreating him as far as anyone knows. I mean, by that logic we should have made the deal a month ago or a year ago or tow years ago. Just because we're "pulling out of afghanistan" doesn't mean we're leaving him behind. I mean, we continued recovery POW/MIAs for years after the withdrawal from 'nam after all.

[European Socialist Republic]

Grand EU plot to destroy 'Murica.

Go EU! REMOVE HAMBURGER FROM PREMISES.

What? What does the EU have to do with this?

[Ashmoria]

that would seem to be the point of the law (or whatever you call a bit of a huge bill that funded the military)--to have time to work the base up into a frenzy.

well fuck that. we needed to bring him home.

Why? he wasn't dying, they weren't mistreating him as far as anyone knows. I mean, by that logic we should have made the deal a month ago or a year ago or tow years ago. Just because we're "pulling out of afghanistan" doesn't mean we're leaving him behind. I mean, we continued recovery POW/MIAs for years after the withdrawal from 'nam after all.

we had to do it now because the qataris got the agreement now.

[Llamalandia]

Possible, either way, Obama seems to be in the wrong here. I mean, he couldve easily wait a month to do the deal, and let congress know. I'm guessing he figured they tell him hell no and pass a bill banning the transfer.

And then the GOP accuses him of leaving our last POW behind as a campaign theme this fall. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Yes, well same thing with the bin Laden kill. I mean you don't make these decisions based on the politics of it.

I mean, if the bin laden raid had ended in failure and the deaths of the seal teams, well, hell yeah, Obama wouldve gotten eviscerated by the GOP, but he did the courageous thing, risked his entire politcal career and killed bin Laden.

[Llamalandia]

Why? he wasn't dying, they weren't mistreating him as far as anyone knows. I mean, by that logic we should have made the deal a month ago or a year ago or tow years ago. Just because we're "pulling out of afghanistan" doesn't mean we're leaving him behind. I mean, we continued recovery POW/MIAs for years after the withdrawal from 'nam after all.

we had to do it now because the qataris got the agreement now.

And they couldn't have gotten it again later? I mean, keep in mind we didn't even accept the first offer, of 21 guys plus $1 million. It couldve waited, and we couldve leaned on intelligence assets around the world to find him and just taken him back by force anyway.

[Ashmoria]

we had to do it now because the qataris got the agreement now.

And they couldn't have gotten it again later? I mean, keep in mind we didn't even accept the first offer, of 21 guys plus $1 million. It couldve waited, and we couldve leaned on intelligence assets around the world to find him and just taken him back by force anyway.

there is no way to know if they could have nixed this deal and have gotten him back in some reasonable time in the future. that's why you take the deal you can get when you can get it.

[Llamalandia]

And they couldn't have gotten it again later? I mean, keep in mind we didn't even accept the first offer, of 21 guys plus $1 million. It couldve waited, and we couldve leaned on intelligence assets around the world to find him and just taken him back by force anyway.

there is no way to know if they could have nixed this deal and have gotten him back in some reasonable time in the future. that's why you take the deal you can get when you can get it.

Then why did we even do any negotiating? By your logic we should have merely agreed to give them the 21 guys and money right away.

[The UK in Exile]

there is no way to know if they could have nixed this deal and have gotten him back in some reasonable time in the future. that's why you take the deal you can get when you can get it.

Then why did we even do any negotiating? By your logic we should have merely agreed to give them the 21 guys and money right away.

They didn't like that deal, they negotiated till they got one they wanted, then they carried it out. "Why didn't they wait 30 days for permission to do their jobs?" why the fuck would they?

[Llamalandia]

Then why did we even do any negotiating? By your logic we should have merely agreed to give them the 21 guys and money right away.

They didn't like that deal, they negotiated till they got one they wanted, then they carried it out. "Why didn't they wait 30 days for permission to do their jobs?" why the fuck would they?

Umm, because it is the law? You have to give the congress 30 days prior notice before transferring anyone from gitmo.

[The UK in Exile]

They didn't like that deal, they negotiated till they got one they wanted, then they carried it out. "Why didn't they wait 30 days for permission to do their jobs?" why the fuck would they?

Umm, because it is the law? You have to give the congress 30 days prior notice before transferring anyone from gitmo.

That's an opinion, not one thats going catch one.

[Ashmoria]

there is no way to know if they could have nixed this deal and have gotten him back in some reasonable time in the future. that's why you take the deal you can get when you can get it.

Then why did we even do any negotiating? By your logic we should have merely agreed to give them the 21 guys and money right away.

I suppose there were more considerations than that.

[United States of Devonta]

They didn't like that deal, they negotiated till they got one they wanted, then they carried it out. "Why didn't they wait 30 days for permission to do their jobs?" why the fuck would they?

Umm, because it is the law? You have to give the congress 30 days prior notice before transferring anyone from gitmo.

Then Obama in my book is a hero, He went in balls deep to get our boy out of Taliban hands knowing he could be impeached.

[Llamalandia]

Umm, because it is the law? You have to give the congress 30 days prior notice before transferring anyone from gitmo.

That's an opinion, not one thats going catch one.

It's not an opinion that this was a violation of the law that is a fact. It's clear. It's a minor law sure, and it's not like there's any penalty I'm aware of and I doubt the GOP is going to try and impeach for this (though I can't be absolutely certain. But he did violate the law technically.

[Llamalandia]

Umm, because it is the law? You have to give the congress 30 days prior notice before transferring anyone from gitmo.

Then Obama in my book is a hero, He went in balls deep to get our boy out of Taliban hands knowing he could be impeached.

Fair enough, but the way i see it he released 5 potentially dangerous war criminals to terrorists, in exchange for one private/sergeant whose capture is highly suspicous without conducting any investigation. I'll give him credit for taking the political risk if this was his goal just like he did with killing bin laden, but beyond that I still have serious issues about this whole incident.

[Orcoa]

Then Obama in my book is a hero, He went in balls deep to get our boy out of Taliban hands knowing he could be impeached.

Fair enough, but the way i see it he released 5 potentially dangerous war criminals to terrorists, in exchange for one private/sergeant whose capture is highly suspicous without conducting any investigation. I'll give him credit for taking the political risk if this was his goal just like he did with killing bin laden, but beyond that I still have serious issues about this whole incident.

I bet you do have serious issues with this incident.

Would of been better if the president that did it was Republican and white?

[The UK in Exile]

That's an opinion, not one thats going catch one.

It's not an opinion that this was a violation of the law that is a fact. It's clear. It's a minor law sure, and it's not like there's any penalty I'm aware of and I doubt the GOP is going to try and impeach for this (though I can't be absolutely certain. But he did violate the law technically.

The president signed a statement suggesting that the law itself was an illegal interference with executive power. If the law is illegal, he has no reason to obey it.

[Farnhamia]

It's not an opinion that this was a violation of the law that is a fact. It's clear. It's a minor law sure, and it's not like there's any penalty I'm aware of and I doubt the GOP is going to try and impeach for this (though I can't be absolutely certain. But he did violate the law technically.

The president signed a statement suggesting that the law itself was an illegal interference with executive power. If the law is illegal, he has no reason to obey it.

It really isn't up to him to decide that. We gave GWB shit about all his signing statements that essentially said his administration didn't have to obey any laws they didn't like, I would have preferred Obama not do the same thing.

[Geilinor]

The president signed a statement suggesting that the law itself was an illegal interference with executive power. If the law is illegal, he has no reason to obey it.

It really isn't up to him to decide that. We gave GWB shit about all his signing statements that essentially said his administration didn't have to obey any laws they didn't like, I would have preferred Obama not do the same thing.

I don't think this is the first time Obama has done so, but I'm not sure.