Should you be able to pay ransom?

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:21:29 -0400

A local radio host brought up an interesting topic for debate this morning: Should the government stop you from paying ransom to a terrorist organization (Al Qaeda, et al) in order to get your child or loved one back?

Currently, the Federal government will not pay ransom to get a citizen back. Should this stop a parent from being able to do so? Under the full realization that those funds would then be turned around to use against our forces.

I'm interested to hear the different sides of the story. I know this is a potential hornet's nest, but lets discuss.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 11:25 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:25:11 -0400

I don't think the government should restrict the family, but I do think families should take into consideration any information the government could offer in reference to other avenues of approach.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Apr 27 at 2015 11:25 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:25:21 -0400

Is a 5 for 1 prisoner exchange considered ransom, Mr. Obama???

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Apr 27 at 2015 11:25 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:25:22 -0400

In my opinion if you are paying ransom that would help a terrorist group you should be brought up on charges. Doing this you mays as well be buying them weapons to kill innocent people with! My opinion only.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Apr 27 at 2015 11:41 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:41:39 -0400

Government negotiations with terrorists and those who hold captives should be continued to be forbidden. Third party negotiations may be acceptable if leveraged to gain information on where the hostages are held - to reduce friendly casualties and/or facilitate their rescue.
On the other hand, POW exchanges between combatant nations should continue to be authorized by Congress in cases where nations are fighting a war especially when the warring parties abide by the Geneva/Hague Conventions. Non-state terrorists such as Al Qaida, ISIS, etc. have never and probably never will agree to or abide by the Geneva/Hague Conventions and should never be negotiated with - except for unconditional surrender.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 12:33 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:33:45 -0400

The same thing happened in the 2nd Punic War. After Hannibal's victories at Cannae, Lake Trasemine, and the Trebia, They had many aristocratic Roman's family members as hostages. The Senate forbade the citizenry from paying ransoms to get them back. A Hard choice, and many were slaughtered but it was a tough decision that helped earn Rome her Empire.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Apr 27 at 2015 2:16 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:16:19 -0400

Paying ransom only encourages more hostage taking and should remain outlawed.

I understand a family's dilemma and desire to do what it can to get a hostage freed, but paying a ransom is just not a good idea. As I stated, it encourages more hostage taking, and, as pointed out by others, provides funding to the hostage takers to continue to carry out their illegal activities.

I saw on the news the father who, when asked about the possibility of going to jail if he paid a ransom, stated "I would prefer to be in jail over here than my son to be in jail other there". While I certainly understand the sentiment and sympathize with him, it is still just not a good idea.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 2:30 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 14:30:27 -0400

***** UPDATE *****

Apparently anyone that raises money to pay ransoms will no longer be facing prosecution by the Feds. This is why the topic came up on the radio this morning. This came down from the Administration.

Response by SGT Toby Woodrich made Apr 27 at 2015 9:17 PM

SGT Toby Woodrich — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 21:17:35 -0400

I think as long as the Government can sell guns and trade prisoners to other country's for whatever reason's so should we. I do see how it is a bad idea but how is it fine for our government to do similar things but restrict us?