The going rate for gaining the release of terrorist from Guantanamo has been established. Freedom for five Islamic terrorists requires one American hostage.

 

Bergdahl release arrangement could threaten the safety of Americans, Republicans say

 

The American government's official policy has been that it does not negotiate with terrorists for decades. Of course, previous administrations did negotiate with terrorists off the record through third parties but they generally managed to keep such deals quiet.

 

Current American law requires that the Obama administration give Congress 30-days notice before transferring any prisoner from Guantanamo and according to Republicans, that notice was not given in this case. Apparently, the Washington Post did not think that it would be newsworthy to determine if any Democrats in Congress might object to Obama once again deliberately disregarding a bill that he signed into law himself.

 

To paraphrase Captain Renault in Casablanca, I am shocked, shocked to learn that Obama has ignored another law that he swore to faithfully execute.

 

A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity to explain the timing of the congressional notification, acknowledged that the law was not followed. When he signed the law last year, Obama issued a signing statement contending that the notification requirement was an unconstitutional infringement on his powers as commander in chief and that he therefore could override it.

 

“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” the official said. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”

This case is a tough one. I mean its hard place to be but when you become president its what you sign up for. I can't imagine making the decision with an American soldiers life on the line. But and there is a but , this does set a precedent in foreign policy that could end up being very scary. Trading prisoners of war between two established armies has precedent but this country up until this point has established a difference between a traditional army and terrorists . Any direct negoitians with a terrorist organization wipes out decades of American foreign policy precedent.

This case is a tough one. I mean its hard place to be but when you become president its what you sign up for. I can't imagine making the decision with an American soldiers life on the line. But and there is a but , this does set a precedent in foreign policy that could end up being very scary. Trading prisoners of war between two established armies has precedent but this country up until this point has established a difference between a traditional army and terrorists . Any direct negoitians with a terrorist organization wipes out decades of American foreign policy precedent.

 

I'm with you there.

Yeah I thought we didn't negotiate with terrorist and of course if it was my son I would want them too.

Should have kept the whole thing hush hush, no since in being transparent now. Now the not telling Congress about it, did you ever expect otherwise.

I hope we put trackers inside them and blow them up with a laser guided tomahawk missile.

I'm with you there.

 

Listen im not going to harp on that actual decision to save an American life this is a no win situation. I'm glad one of our boys came home and his mom and dad get to hug him again. But after the fact we do need to take a look at the process that led to the decision and if laws were broken and figure out where this leaves us for future negotiations.

Listen im not going to harp on that actual decision to save an American life this is a no win situation. I'm glad one of our boys came home and his mom and dad get to hug him again. But after the fact we do need to take a look at the process that led to the decision and if laws were broken and figure out where this leaves us for future negotiations.

 

I know it's a shock, but I'm with you here also.

Listen im not going to harp on that actual decision to save an American life this is a no win situation. I'm glad one of our boys came home and his mom and dad get to hug him again. But after the fact we do need to take a look at the process that led to the decision and if laws were broken and figure out where this leaves us for future negotiations.

 

I know it's a shock, but I'm with you here also.

 

We all three agree...could be a first :lol2:

Not negotiating with terrorists is a myth.

I just can't find it in myself to criticize this decision. I hear what you're saying...but the soldier is coming home ALIVE.

Not negotiating with terrorists is a myth.

 

In the pure sense of the statement you are right . But a direct negotiation such as this is pretty unprecedented.

I just can't find it in myself to criticize this decision. I hear what you're saying...but the soldier is coming home ALIVE.

 

The last part of your statement is why I struggle to be mad as well. But when I think about it without emotion this decision has to be investigated and dissected.

In the pure sense of the statement you are right . But a direct negotiation such as this is pretty unprecedented.

 

I don't remember all of the details so fill some in in you know them.

 

President Carter offered to release billions in assets in exchange for hostages, correct?

President Reagan offered arms in exchange for hostages, correct?

 

Whether it was direct or indirect is irrelevant. History has shown we will negotiate. Nothing new.

I think this is a very interesting case especially in regards to how he went missing in the first place.

It's now called give in to terrorist.

Next soldier will cost us 6 terrorist and then it will soon be 10 American hating terrorist for a soldier.

I don't remember all of the details so fill some in in you know them.

 

President Carter offered to release billions in assets in exchange for hostages, correct?

President Reagan offered arms in exchange for hostages, correct?

 

Whether it was direct or indirect is irrelevant. History has shown we will negotiate. Nothing new.

 

I don't thinking using Carter as an example of good foreign policy is a go to statement. I'll have to look it back up but I don't know of any direct negotiation Reagan made with terrorists.