Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
Not only that, but it leaves a bitter taste when the government forbids private citizens from ransoming their own son, because it would endanger American lives:
“We believe that paying ransoms or making concessions would put all Americans overseas at greater risk” and would provide funding for groups whose capabilities “we are trying to degrade,” Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, said in a briefing Thursday. Harf said it is illegal for any American citizen to pay ransom to a group, such as the Islamic State, that the U.S. government has designated as a terrorist organization. …
But then it gives up five dangerous terrorists to get back one of its employees who has deserted and put in danger the American lives of his brothers in combat, not only because of attempts to rescue him, but because it makes it even more attractive to capture others.
|
I see, so an active duty soldier held prisoner should be left behind because it's presumed he may have deserted? Is that going to instill confidence in our troops?
Remember when Israel swapped over 1000 prisoners for a single IDF soldier? Did that cause a swing in kidnappings for ransom?
Hybrid Mode
