Was it wrong to prosecute Oliver North for trading arms for hostages?

[geek tragedy]

Seems there is quite a bit of debate here as to whether we should do whatever it takes, pay whatever price necessary, to obtain the release of American hostages. Including paying money which will be spent acquiring weapons and financing more kidnappings and armed attacks.

Oliver North had what he thought was a 'neat idea'--obtain the release of hostages held by Iran by arranging arms sales to Iran (illegal at the time) and then take the proceeds to fund the terrorist contras in Nicaragua.

This was bipartisan condemnation, though some Republicans (e.g. Limbaugh) thought North was a hero.

A special prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh, was appointed to prosecute.

So, where do we stand? It it okay to fund terrorists and give them access to weapons as ransom to get hostages released?

Should such actions be prosecuted, or is the current administration in the wrong?

10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Illegal ransoms and funding of terrorist organizations should be prosecuted--Obama/Walsh are right
	10 (100%)
	Illegal ransoms and funding of terrorist organizations should not be prosecuted--North was justified.
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[cali]

1. what inspired this poll?

[geek tragedy]

3. People are aghast that Obama refused to allow ransom to be paid

Last edited Sat Sep 13, 2014, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

for Sotloff and Foley. And the claim is that only Obama-wordhipping apologists think such ransoms should not be allowed.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. The family may be prosecuted. You ok with that?

[geek tragedy]

7. They weren't because they didn't fund ISIL.

Giving material support to a terrorist organization is illegal for good reason.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Just keep digging.

US government 'threatened' families of beheaded reporters

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2014/09/14/02/30/foley-family-threatened-by-us-government#uZSxoeyyvhRTCByj.99

The families of two journalists beheaded by Islamic State jihadists were both warned by US government officials they could face prosecution if they raised a ransom for their release.

The recent executions of James Foley and Steven Sotloff by Islamic State (IS) extremists triggered worldwide revulsion and Washington has since declared it is at war with the radicals.

The United States has a policy of never paying ransoms, contending that doing so would endanger Americans all over the world.

A spokesman for Sotloff's family has said the murdered journalist's parents were told by a White House counter-terrorism official last May that they could face prosecution if they paid a ransom in an attempt to secure the release of their son.

Both families were threatened.

[geek tragedy]

12. It was accurate advice. They would be guilty of a criminal act

and could face prosecution for that criminal act.

Had they consulted any criminal defense lawyer, he would have told them the same thing.

Or do you dispute that people sending money to ISIL "could face prosecution?"

[morningfog]

63. It was unsolicited advice for a government agency. In other words, a threat.

Legal advice should only be given by an attorney in an attorney-client relationship.

[Shrike47]

60. I can't imagine actual prosecution.

The political fallout against the Feds would be enormous.

[Warren Stupidity]

64. perhaps, but this was done to these families as they were desperately trying

to get their loved ones out of harms way. It was done to stop them from taking action. It was a threat. Now that they are dead, yes of course there probably won't be an prosecution.

Comparing this episode to Ollie North funneling arms to the Contras using the hostage deal as a cut out, is fabulously dishonest.

[cali]

14. I think comparing what North did to these families is horrible.

and ridiculously off base. and the man's name was Sotloff. I also think that a lot of people object to how the families were treated (according to members of both families) more than the refusal to allow ransom to be paid. Both families said they were treated callously. If true, they deserved better than that.

I'm appalled that you'd compare North to these devastated, grieving families. It's a cruel thing to do.

[geek tragedy]

21. Not comparing the families, I am comparing the justifications of sending

money to terrorists to get hostages released.

[pnwmom]

49. I don't think there would have been any approach that could have been made to those

terrified families, in explaining the law, that would not have seemed callous.

Maybe the official really botched it up, but I don't know what he could have said to make the families feel better.

[ScreamingMeemie]

2. I did not vote in this poll due to the "Apples and Oranges" rule...

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Oh for fuck sake.

Oliver North extended the "arms for hostages" deal with Iran to include transfers of armaments to the Contras in Nicaragua. That part of the deal, his contribution to the mess, had NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEING ANYONE. It was about violating the Boland amendment to continue a foreign policy initiative congress had explicitly forbidden.

If it were only about freeing 7 hostages in Lebanon, it wouldn't have been a scandal.

[geek tragedy]

6. Really. Funneling arms to Hezbollah and Iran wasn't considered

scandalous? Where'd you read that, the NATO base in Kazakhstan?

[Warren Stupidity]

8. You should fix your fucked poll. That was not North's contribution.

His contribution was, as I stated, to enhance the mess to include supplying the Contras, which, as I stated had fuck all to do with freeing anyone. It was using the hostage problem as a cut out to ship weapons to the Contras.

Your poll is a dishonest mess.

[geek tragedy]

9. How is financing the contras worse than financing ISIL? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

11. A government official engaged in corrupt practices is no different

than a family desperately trying to save their child?

What the flying derp are you talking about?

[geek tragedy]

13. Money going to terrorists is money going to terrorists.

Whether from a bureaucrat, a family member of a kidnapping victim, or the Saudi royal family.

[cali]

20. the motivations are entirely different and should be taken into consideration

Are you telling me that you actually can't see the differences here? If your child was being tortured and threatened with a terrible death are you telling me you wouldn't try to do whatever you could to save him? I'm not saying that the families should have been allowed to pay the ransom. I am saying there is no comparison between North and these families, despite your glib, black and white pov.

[geek tragedy]

22. I would go mad with grief probably.

And, I am not comparing the families to North.

The Iran-Contra hostages had families too. All hostages--and potential hostages--do.

You said the families shouldn't have been allowed to pay ransom. Well, that's exactly what the USG told them--that it was illegal.

[Lochloosa]

16. I agree. North went far beyond trading arms for hostages.

[cali]

15. sucky poll. disgusting comparison of grieving families to a right wing nut job criminal.

[geek tragedy]

18. The families did nothing wrong.

The question is whether funding terrorist organizations to free hostages should be allowed.

If Obama was wrong for not allowing such ransoms and deals, then why criticize Reagan? Money is money, and a released hostage is a released hostage.

[merrily]

25. Because selling arms to Iran was against federal law and a President is supposed to

faithfully execute laws, not violate them?

[geek tragedy]

26. So is funding ISIL.

Everyone is supposed to obey criminal statutes.

[merrily]

28. They did NOT fund IS. You're right. Let's give the bereaved the death penalty for nothing.

Fucking traitors.

[geek tragedy]

29. Where did I say anything bad about

the families?

[cali]

17. The Obama administration traded high value terrorists for Bergdahl.

Yeah, yeah. That was different because Bergdahl was military.

right.

[geek tragedy]

19. So you think we should have paid the ransom?

And, thanks for parroting the rw claim that prisoner exchanges are a form of appeasing terrorists.

Taliban are an armed enemy in combat. Afghanistan is their country. The guys released were nasty, but prisoners of war.

And Bergdahl was there because the government sent him there.

[ZombieHorde]

31. Are you making a label-based argument?

I have a cold, and I'm not thinking or reading very well right now, but it seems like your argument is based off labels, such as "country" and "prisoners of war."

[geek tragedy]

32. Status, not label.

Opposing sides in military conflict exchange prisoners all the time.

In the Bergdahl case, it is part of withdrawing from Afghanistan--part of prisoner releases' purpose is to see if the other side can deliver what it promises.

[ZombieHorde]

33. I don't understand

the difference between status and label, in this context.

[geek tragedy]

35. Label implies no meaningful difference. nt

[ZombieHorde]

39. Isn't meaning in these situations subjective?

In the context of this situation, is there any scientific evidence for a meaningful difference?

[geek tragedy]

42. Science?

Exchanges of prisoners of war towards the end of conflict are standard fare. It doesn't create incentives the way paying ransom to kidnappers of civilians does, and it reflects the fact that those captured got captured because their government put them in harm's way.

[ZombieHorde]

66. I'm sorry.

I probably shouldn't be having this discussion because I am thinking so poorly due to my cold. However, I'm stubborn, so....

I think your rebuttal makes a lot sense, but only because people truly believe in the social/rhetorical constructs in play. So I am currently agreeing with you, but my reasons may be different than some other people's reasons.

[tkmorris]

23. Jesus Fucking Christ dude, seriously?

If you can't tell the difference between what Oliver freakin' North did and the desire of the family members to possibly pay a ransom you just might be... I don't know what really, and likely I wouldn't say it here if I did but FUCK ME is this an offensive post.

[morningfog]

43. It is an offensive post. It shows how far some will sink.

But wait, there is lower to go.

There are years of apologia ans offensive comparisons ahead.

[merrily]

24. Ollie North did not get prosecuted for paying ransom for hostages.

He got prosecuted for breaking the law.

[Comrade Grumpy]

27. North should still be in prison, but the families of hostages should not be prosecuted.

Yeah, I understand the logic behind the no-ransom policy.

But there is such as thing as prosecutorial discretion.

Who wants to be the US Attorney who says, "You paid a ransom to rescue you're child from being beheaded by savages, so now I'm going to throw you in prison."

[randome]

53. No one has said that and no one is likely to say it.

Sometimes a situation resides between a rock and a hard place with no good choices.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Comrade Grumpy]

55. If I were a family member, I would ignore US government threats and do what I could...

...to save my loved one. Even paying ransom to terrorists.

I'd let federal prosecutors worry about charging me later.

[randome]

57. I probably would, too.

But I disdain the implication of some that the Administration is full of heartless monsters. Like ISIS itself. I don't see it that way.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

30. North? Reagan should have gone to jail for Iran Contra. nt

[Jamastiene]

34. I was going to vote yes, but changed my vote.

I think your poll is worded in such a way as to gloss over what North really did. No, it's not right funding terrorists, but North's situation wasn't really about freeing any hostages. He was doing something ELSE underhanded at the same time and that was the real reason he did what he did. THAT is why he was prosecuted.

I had to change my vote because I just didn't feel right voting in such a push poll as that, one that glosses over North's real complicity in underhanded dealings.

[geek tragedy]

36. How about Macfarlane? nt

[Rex]

37. One of the worst apples to oranges comparisons that I've seen.

Keep it classy.

[geek tragedy]

38. The families committed no crime .

Certainly I screwed up in the execution of this post if that is implied.

[Rex]

41. Who are we to sit and judge them? They didn't run for office

with the PROMISE of protecting the U.S. Constitution. The families are private individuals that have no obligation to act rational (imo) in the case of their beloved ones getting kidnapped and then beheaded. The State OTOH sets the precedence for what citizens will and won't do.

One could even dare say they went as far as they did, because they've watched the State violate it's own sacred rules over and over again.

And (on a personal note) I would be desperate enough to trade myself for another family member.

[geek tragedy]

45. I'm not criticizing the families.

Not sure how much more clear I can be on that.

Point I am making is that the government's duty to protect extends to all Americans. Not just these victims--there's a duty to not make more kidnappings more likely, and to not provide a group like ISIL with the means to continue its abhorrent record.


I can't imagine the horror of the families have suffered.

[Rex]

46. True, but you know as well as I do "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

Although, strangely enough, we DO make and break dictators;





Got to stop the State from making monsters imo.

[geek tragedy]

48. Amazing how supporting dictators never

makes Americans safer, but does allow the well-connected to make money.

[Rex]

51. Defense contractors don't care who they sell their arms to.

I think all they see are $$$ when they look at a Saddam or a Qaddafi.

Seems to be a GOP trait, I don't recall any Dem presidencies creating monsters...Nixon had his Pol Pot, Henry had his Pinochet, Reagan had his Qaddafi, Poppy had his Norega, Rummy had his Saddam.

[geek tragedy]

52. Carter's record wasn't perfect.

LBJ killed more people in Vietnam than most dictators do.

But, yeah Republicans are prone to encouraging dictatorships. That's the model they want here.

[Rex]

54. Maybe it also explains why some of them (GOP) are Pooty Poot lovers.

The idea of controlling people in that way, appeals to them.

[geek tragedy]

58. Russia is the ultimate red state. nt

[ZombieHorde]

40. I don't agree with the current administration on this subject.

I don't know enough about the Oliver North situation to have an opinion.

Note: I am not claiming knowledge is needed for an opinion, I am just saying that in this situation, I haven't formed an opinion because of my ignorance.

[woo me with science]

44. Wow. Absurd AND slimy.

Every time you think the talking points can't possibly sink lower...

Trash thread.

[randome]

50. Oh. Good one.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Enrique]

56. it's all about Obama

convoluted rationalizations that all boil down to defending Obama.

[randome]

59. Or convoluted rationalizations to see his Admin as full of heartless monsters. Like ISIS.

It isn't 'defending' anyone to point out the policy and the ramifications of paying a ransom to bloodthirsty kidnappers.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Precision and concision. That's the game.[/center][/font][hr]

[randr]

61. North did not trade arms for the "release" of hostages

He traded arms to keep the hostages in Iran until the election was over. The release was a well timed event held up until the inauguration day of Herr Reagan.

[geek tragedy]

62. Different hostages. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

65. Oh it is worse than that - he used the hostage deal to funnel arms to the Contras.

The hostage deal (and these were the Beirut hostages not the Tehran hostages) was used as cover to violate the Boland amendment and ship arms (supposedly going to Iran to free the hostages) to Nicaragua. That piece of work was North's contribution to Iran-Contra - the "Contra" part. North broke the law not for humanitarian reasons, but to help the Contras slaughter peasants.

I'll say it again, this is a dishonest derp-ridden fucked poll.

[U4ikLefty]

67. Is it wrong to laugh at a stupid polling question? n/t