Wasn't Bergdahl release secured by paying a ransom to Terrorists?

[Savannahmann]

Not only did the Government negotiate with Terrorists, but they paid a ransom of releasing five detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowe_Bergdahl#Release

Yes, the Taliban is a Terrorist Organization according to the State Department.

9/1/2010 Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP)

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

So since 2010, the Taliban has been a terrorist organization, or at least a criminal one since they detained a soldier for years. The question I have is obvious friends. Explain why it was OK to negotiate, and pay the ransom to terrorists for Bowe Bergdahl but it was wrong to pay a ransom for or even negotiate for the release of James Foley.

[JoePhilly]

1. No.

A prisoner swap is not a ransom.

No matter how much the far right and a segment of the left want it to be.

[Shankapotomus]

17. +1000

Agreed. You can't trade released prisoners for weapons. But you can buy arms with money.

[Agschmid]

27. Yup.

[morningfog]

2. In many ways IS is more like the Taliban than it is like AQ.

They are more brutal and ambitious than the Taliban, but IS caries out municipal functions, like the Taliban has and does. IS is a quasi-government body in that respect. AQ didn't have similar ambitions.

In 5-10 years IS will likely become more moderate, more integrated and western nations more willing to negotiate with them. We just feel that we need to put them in their place first with our bombs. Of course, at the same time we will waste tons of money, kill innocent people and risk unpredictable blowback.

[spanone]

3. they wanted $132 million for mr. foley. a prisoner exchange probably didn't exist for isis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/21/world/middleeast/isis-pressed-for-ransom-before-killing-james-foley.html?_r=0

[TwilightGardener]

4. Bergdahl = property of US Government, abducted in combat zone by hostile forces

that we were fighting at the time--some of whom we held as prisoners. Formal prisoner exchange was do-able. Russia and Ukraine are doing that now too, BTW. The terrorist designation for the Taliban is fuzzy at best, we do recognize them as somewhat more than that, and have been arranging peace deals with them and Afghanistan in Qatar.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. ie political interest just like the oil.

It's cold and calculating. No humanity involved.

[TwilightGardener]

6. I think the Obama administration definitely wanted all hostages back, military, civilian,

doesn't matter. Many lives were risked to get Bergdahl back, many lives were risked to get Foley/Sotloff back. Had any of those operations gone sideways, the political damage and damage to very valuable military assets and personnel would have been terrible. To ignore these simple facts in service of scoring a political (or anti-war) point is actually more cold and calculating.

[liberal_at_heart]

7. Then why not do the same thing for the journalist that they did for Bergdahl?

[TwilightGardener]

8. How could they? They are entirely different circumstances.

The Taliban is not ISIS. Who are we holding that ISIS really wants? How do we know we could deal with them reliably in a prisoner exchange? Did you see what it took to get Bergdahl back--not just the years of making the deal to begin with, all the parties and contacts that had to be arranged, but the logistics of the exchange itself? This is all completely beside the fact that we're talking about a US army soldier in a war vs. a private citizen in a country with a civil war where we have NOTHING, not even diplomats or mediators currently, to arrange anything like the same situation.

[liberal_at_heart]

9. They could have payed the money or they could have sent a team into to rescue him.

They do those kinds of things all the time for people that are important to them. The fact is that a journalist's life just isn't as important as a soldier's life as far as the government is concerned. And to me that is cold and calculating.

[TwilightGardener]

10. THEY SENT IN SPECIAL FORCES TO RESCUE THEM!!!!

IT FAILED, SOMEONE TIPPED THEM OFF!! A special forces member got shot in the attempt. Jesus, I hate to shout, but you don't seem to get it.

[Agschmid]

28. Who says they would be able too?

And I don't think your can operate under the assumption that ISIS would have given him back, IMO they wanted to execute all three of these folks.

[Spider Jerusalem]

11. A prisoner exchange is not a ransom.

[Fred Sanders]

14. True, confusing definitions is what Fox News does....as in when is a war a "war"....

[Savannahmann]

18. Isn't it?

An exchange of goods or services is called barter. Barter is taxable according to the IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-%26-Self-Employed/Bartering-Tax-Center

The Taliban is a terrorist organization according to the State Department. That classification stands today. If you donate money or your service to the Taliban to build a school, you have aided terrorists. The same is true for sending medical supplies.

Prisoner exchanges are carried out between governments. Is the Taliban a recognized government in Pakistan? No.

My point to all of this should be obvious. We should have negotiated to get Foley back. If a hundred million was too much offer a lot less and see what happens. It cost nothing to negotiate, and an accommodation may be reachable. Instead, the Government did what it took to get Bergdhal back and that is admirable. They should have done the same for Foley. If they were unwilling then the next best thing is to stand back and let the family save their son.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. No, it's not.

And negotiated with what? We don't pay ransom to terrorists. We aren't going to start paying ransom to terrorists because it sets a very bad precedent.

[Savannahmann]

20. But we already did.

Is the Taliban a terrorist organization according to the State Department? Haven't we assassinated the various leaders even within Pakistan? But we negotiated, and we gave the Taliban what they wanted didn't we?

[Spider Jerusalem]

21. Prisoner exchange is not ransom.

There's a difference between exchanging prisoners and between paying tens of millions. Israel has exchanged prisoners with Hamas; one sincerely doubts that they'd accede to demands for payment of ransom in money.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. No, the Taliban is not a terrorist organization according to the State Department

Tehrik-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), the group designated by the State Department as a terrorist group, is not the same group as the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The TTP is not directly affiliated with the Afghan Taliban movement led by Mullah Omar, with both groups differing greatly in their histories, strategic goals and interests although they are both predominantly Pashtun.[9][10][11] The Afghan Taliban, with the alleged support of Pakistani Taliban, operate against international coalition and Afghan security forces in Afghanistan but are strictly opposed to targeting the Pakistani state.[10] The TTP in contrast has almost exclusively targeted elements of the Pakistani state although it took credit for the 2009 Camp Chapman attack and the 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt.[12][13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehrik-i-Taliban_Pakistan

[Blue_Tires]

23. So if you follow the "prisoners = currency" model like the Israelis do

the solution is to capture/kidnap and indefinitely imprison as many ISIS people as possible...We'll need tens of thousands of them though, since one of 'ours' is worth 50-100 of 'theirs'

[nashville_brook]

12. it's part of what muddies the policy, in addition to the fact that corp exec use insurance and

consultants to free their people.

i think there's plenty of room for a better outcome to have been obtained from this situation. and, employing a military solution instead of a diplomatic solution speaks volumes for what our objectives are.

[TwilightGardener]

13. Diplomatic solution? What diplomatic solution would there possibly be to the immediate

problem of ISIS?

[DirkGently]

15. As you keep saying, $$ is the problem.

A weapons embargo, enforced, would be a start. ISIS is running around waving American weapons we left in Iraq.

There is no military solution, if that's what you're implying. Fighting ISIS benefits Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah.

[TwilightGardener]

16. We are trying to limit their movements (asking Turkey to better secure borders, for example)

and we're looking to cut funding and black markets that support them. We are also pushing political reconciliation with the new government. But that wouldn't solve the immediate problem of, say, the Mosul dam, the Baghdad Green Zone, the Haditha dam, Erbil, Yazidis, Turkmen Shia, etc. For that, you need some military action.

[GeorgeGist]

22. Your welcome to your war.

I think you'll regret it someday.

[TwilightGardener]

24. It's not "my war" or anything I want. I just don't know what the alternative is

if we don't intervene. No one else is going to step up. I don't see us standing back and watching Iraq collapse without lifting a finger.

[Ilsa]

26. No. Those prisoners had been slated for release

Earlier. It was fortunate that their release coincided with negotiations to get Bergdahl back.

That was a right wing talking point that was in error.