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.

 

So let's say negotiating with terrorists is a non issue . Do you have a problem if the adminstration broke law and didn't give proper notice to congress.

Why does "direct " matter?

Why does "direct " matter?

 

There is a lot of nuance in foreign policy it always matters.

There is a lot of nuance in foreign policy it always matters.

 

Not if history has shown that we negotiate. Terrorists know.

Why does "direct " matter?

 

To expand further being able to deny having a hand in anything when it comes to foreign policy is of the up most importance. When we go "direct" or on the record we now set precedent. We set the going rate for any soldier captured on foreign soil in future cases. It complicates how we handle those situations for future leaders or even Obama himself. If I'm in Al-qadea and I have a few buddies locked up down near Cuba I now know I need to take a U.S. soldier to get them back.

Not if history has shown that we negotiate. Terrorists know.

 

We understand history differently .

To expand further being able to deny having a hand in anything when it comes to foreign policy is of the up most importance. When we go "direct" or on the record we now set precedent. We set the going rate for any soldier captured on foreign soil in future cases. It complicates how we handle those situations for future leaders or even Obama himself. If I'm in Al-qadea and I have a few buddies locked up down near Cuba I now know I need to take a U.S. soldier to get them back.

 

I would that this is one of the problems with this situation. US soldiers are already coveted targets and now we have publicly established what their worth is. I think we all know that behind the scenes negotiations occur in every administration, but calling a press conference and announcing the value is wrong, period.

 

The other issue I have been seeing is that the father of this soldier appears to have a questionable background. I was shocked at how easily he rattled of the language. I can't confirm the authenticity, but have been seeing that he had tweeted some very disturbing things about G-Bay detainees.

 

As a former soldier, I am torn about this deal. If it's my son, I'm all for it as a parent. It is certainly not politically correct to condemn the action, even though it violated the law.

 

After all, this isn't the first trashing of our laws that has been done by this CIC, so I'm not surprised.

If I was being held hostage, I am sure that I would applaud my government for obtaining my release but the POTUS has the responsibility of acting in the best interests of all Americans. This is a very bad precedent. It is always wrong when our government negotiates from a position of weakness with terrorists.

 

Obama's willingness to once again violate U.S. law is worse than the fact that he made a five for one swap with the Taliban.

 

Finally, if this administration is going to negotiate with terrorists, is this the best deal that they could get? Releasing five terrorists in exchange for one American? That shows some pretty poor negotiating skills. Israel makes deals worse than this, but only because our own government coerces them into making bad deals.

There are two different debates going on.

 

1. Did President Obama set a precedent? I think it's semantics. History has shown that a few Presidents negotiated. Direct vs indirect is irrelevant IMO. Did we see an increase in soldiers being kidnapped after President Reagan got 7 hostages back? You think that if it was "indirect" that terrorists didn't still notice? It's not new. Each POTUS has to make a decision.

2. Should we have negotiated for a soldier? If I take a step back and remove emotions, I'm not sure what we gain by this move. We freed some really bad people. I'm no sure how we as a country gain anything. I say that without even bringing in some questions about this particular case and how he disappeared.

There are two different debates going on.

 

1. Did President Obama set a precedent? I think it's semantics. History has shown that a few Presidents negotiated. Direct vs indirect is irrelevant IMO. Did we see an increase in soldiers being kidnapped after President Reagan got 7 hostages back? You think that if it was "indirect" that terrorists didn't still notice? It's not new. Each POTUS has to make a decision.

2. Should we have negotiated for a soldier? If I take a step back and remove emotions, I'm not sure what we gain by this move. We freed some really bad people. I'm no sure how we as a country gain anything. I say that without even bringing in some questions about this particular case and how he disappeared.

I disagree. The most important aspect of this incident is Obama's violation of a law that he signed and his apparent belief that creating a signing statement allows him to unilaterally amend bills before he signs them. Of course, Obama has not explained his act of lawlessness yet and we only have an anonymous White House staffer to explain how he rationalized his action.

 

The most dangerous precedent that Obama has set is repeatedly not following American laws that he is responsible for enforcing. Congress has made matters worse by not protecting the balance of power by holding Obama accountable for failing to follow and enforce existing laws.

So lets say he got approval. Now you're OK with it

So lets say he got approval. Now you're OK with it

But the fact is, Obama did not notify Congress as the law requires. If he had followed the law, then I still would have disagreed with the policy but I would not be accusing him of being an outlaw in this particular instance.

 

The notion that U.S. presidents should follow and enforce federal laws seems to be lost on many liberals, but I think that it is a fairly important concept.

But the fact is' date=' Obama did not notify Congress as the law requires. If he had followed the law, then I still would have disagreed with the policy but I would not be accusing him of being an outlaw in this particular instance. The notion that U.S. presidents should follow and enforce federal laws seems to be lost on many liberals, but I think that it is a fairly important concept.[/quote']

 

Administration says law was followed. Congress notified before anyone was released.

Administration says they did not negotiate directly. Used govt of Qatar as middleman.

Administration says law was followed. Congress notified before anyone was released.

 

In doing more reading they said they told Congress in "the past" that they were working on this. I guess we need someone from Congress to dispute that. Does that satisfy the law?