America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 years ago by cacman. 19 replies replies.
Obama to support terrrorists ransom....
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
DrafterX Offline
#1 Posted: Tue, Jun 23 2015, 1:32 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/23/white-house-to-release-hostage-policy-review-wednesday/?intcmp=latestnews

Film at 11..... Think Think
cacman Offline
#2 Posted: Tue, Jun 23 2015, 2:14 PM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Allowing families to negotiate and pay terrorist demands will only further promote more hostages being taken.
Speyside Offline
#3 Posted: Tue, Jun 23 2015, 2:16 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
^+1
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted: Tue, Jun 23 2015, 2:59 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
he's prolly thinking about the Somali pirates... Mellow
mikey1597 Offline
#5 Posted: Tue, Jun 23 2015, 6:19 PM EST
Joined: 05-18-2007
Posts: 14,162
DrafterX wrote:
he's prolly thinking about the Salami pirates... Mellow



I bet he does
Burner02 Offline
#6 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 5:50 AM EST
Joined: 12-21-2010
Posts: 12,884
This idea will work out as well as a turd in a punch bowl.
DrafterX Offline
#7 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 7:22 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
he's trying to justify the Bergdaul thing... Mellow
TMCTLT Offline
#8 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 7:31 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
I'm surprised he's not trying to start a " Go Fund Me " page for them.....Whistle
DrafterX Offline
#9 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 7:40 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
it's all part of the job creation thing... just overseas.. Mellow
Brewha Offline
#10 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 7:57 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
cacman wrote:
Allowing families to negotiate and pay terrorist demands will only further promote more hostages being taken.

So you think the families should be prosecuted for communicating or paying ransom?
Why?
TMCTLT Offline
#11 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 8:14 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Brewha wrote:
So you think the families should be prosecuted for communicating or paying ransom?
Why?



Because it is still NOT a guarantee that they'll EVER see their relative anyway AND as stated already, once they know there's $$$ to be had for this......it will never end. Americans just need to Steer Clear of these areas around the globe, don't give the bastards the opportunity
Brewha Offline
#12 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 8:35 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
TMCTLT wrote:
Because it is still NOT a guarantee that they'll EVER see their relative anyway AND as stated already, once they know there's $$$ to be had for this......it will never end. Americans just need to Steer Clear of these areas around the globe, don't give the bastards the opportunity

Then you feel a law against paying a kidnaper should be on the books – not just terrorists – right?

What penalty for the wife and kiddies would you feel is just?
DrafterX Offline
#13 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 8:38 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,559
eye for an eye I say.. Mad
TMCTLT Offline
#14 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 8:50 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
Brewha wrote:
Then you feel a law against paying a kidnaper should be on the books – not just terrorists – right?

What penalty for the wife and kiddies would you feel is just?




Terror IS terror.....right? be it a kidnapper as you put it or a "terrorist" your just being silly now to include penalties for siblings, not that that surprises me.
Brewha Offline
#15 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 9:21 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
DrafterX wrote:
eye for an eye I say.. Mad

So the penalty should be a fine???Huh
cacman Offline
#16 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 9:21 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Brewha wrote:
So you think the families should be prosecuted for communicating or paying ransom?
Why?

Ransom payments lead to future kidnappings, and future kidnappings lead to additional ransom payments. And it all builds the capacity of terrorist organizations to conduct attacks. We must find a way to break the cycle. Refusing to pay ransoms or to make other concessions to terrorists is, clearly, the surest way to break the cycle, because if kidnappers consistently fail to get what they want, they will have a strong incentive to stop taking hostages in the first place.
http://www.vice.com/read/where-exactly-is-the-rule-that-says-you-cant-negotiate-with-terrorists-998

---

This (Taliban/Bergdahl trade) appears to be a really irresponsible deal, even for the Obama Administration. However, when one realizes this exchange greatly benefited the Taliban and did nothing to benefit national security of the United States or that of our allies, this exchange fully equates to “adhering” to an enemy and “giving them Aid and Comfort.” Such is Treason as defined in Article III. Section 3. of the Constitution of the United States.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Present law mandates that President Obama must notify key persons in Congress at least 30 days before any prisoners are released from GITMO. This was not done. Obama is not authorized to bypass Congress and to unilaterally release GITMO Terrorist prisoners. Obama is not our Imperial President nor is Obama our Dictator even though he has repeatedly stated he desires to have such power.

A President who sides with Terrorists, illegally bypasses Congress, and willfully and repeatedly endangers the security of the United States of America and its citizens is not doing his job as mandated by our Constitution or intended by our Founding Fathers.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2014-06-01/does-negotiating-terrorists-equate-treason#.VYq6S6b394s

---

Article III. Section 3. of the Constitution of the United States
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

If you are a millionaire or person of influence/stature, you and your entire family could potentially become a target here in the US and oversees.
Brewha Offline
#17 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 9:23 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
TMCTLT wrote:
Terror IS terror.....right? be it a kidnapper as you put it or a "terrorist" your just being silly now to include penalties for siblings, not that that surprises me.

Sorry, I really shouldn't go dragging the kids into this…..
Brewha Offline
#18 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 9:53 AM EST
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,201
cacman wrote:
Ransom payments lead to future kidnappings, and future kidnappings lead to additional ransom payments. And it all builds the capacity of terrorist organizations to conduct attacks. We must find a way to break the cycle. Refusing to pay ransoms or to make other concessions to terrorists is, clearly, the surest way to break the cycle, because if kidnappers consistently fail to get what they want, they will have a strong incentive to stop taking hostages in the first place.
http://www.vice.com/read/where-exactly-is-the-rule-that-says-you-cant-negotiate-with-terrorists-998

---

This (Taliban/Bergdahl trade) appears to be a really irresponsible deal, even for the Obama Administration. However, when one realizes this exchange greatly benefited the Taliban and did nothing to benefit national security of the United States or that of our allies, this exchange fully equates to “adhering” to an enemy and “giving them Aid and Comfort.” Such is Treason as defined in Article III. Section 3. of the Constitution of the United States.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Present law mandates that President Obama must notify key persons in Congress at least 30 days before any prisoners are released from GITMO. This was not done. Obama is not authorized to bypass Congress and to unilaterally release GITMO Terrorist prisoners. Obama is not our Imperial President nor is Obama our Dictator even though he has repeatedly stated he desires to have such power.

A President who sides with Terrorists, illegally bypasses Congress, and willfully and repeatedly endangers the security of the United States of America and its citizens is not doing his job as mandated by our Constitution or intended by our Founding Fathers.
http://lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/2014-06-01/does-negotiating-terrorists-equate-treason#.VYq6S6b394s

---

Article III. Section 3. of the Constitution of the United States
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

---

If you are a millionaire or person of influence/stature, you and your entire family could potentially become a target here in the US and oversees.

Right, paying kidnapers encourages kidnapping. I agree. But normally it is not a crime to pay them. In the case of terrorist it was a bit of a stretch to prosecute people anyway.

But you can be proud that if they took you wife or child you would stair them down with steely eyes and say; “No, I cannot pay you for their release. It would encourage crime and I must protect society before I protect them.” Right.


Treason? You would even float the idea that the finest president of our lifetime would commit Treason?
Shame on you cacman. Shame!
cacman Offline
#19 Posted: Wed, Jun 24 2015, 10:56 AM EST
Joined: 07-03-2010
Posts: 12,216
Brewha wrote:
But you can be proud that if they took you wife or child you would stair them down with steely eyes and say; “No, I cannot pay you for their release. It would encourage crime and I must protect society before I protect them.” Right.

Luckily I'm not in a position where I have to make that decision or worry about it. Will say this, if put there and regardless of the outcome, I would end the situation with those that did it to MY satisfaction.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top