What do you think of the ransom allegedly paid for the release of SGT Bergdahl?

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:41:02 -0500

If what the article states is true, do you see this as a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" on the part of the United States?

I do find it hypocritical to "preach" no payments to terrorists and then - again, assuming what the article reports is true - to pay a ransom in an attempt to gain the release of SGT Bergdahl.

What do you think? Here's the article:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/19/inside-the-ring-ransom-paid-for-bergdahl/

Inside the Ring: Ransom paid for Bergdahl

The Pentagon is under fire for making a ransom payment to an Afghan earlier this year as part of a failed bid to win the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, according to U.S. officials.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 9:43 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:43:39 -0500

If so, I can see why officials would keep that secret.
It is already bad enough that we let five (!) bad, bad guys go in exchange for Bergdahl; this does not improve my opinion.

Response by Izzy Avila made Nov 20 at 2014 11:24 AM

Izzy Avila — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 11:24:56 -0500

Sir Arthur Helps once wrote, “Nothing succeeds like success.” That observation rings true, unfortunately, for terrorists turning to kidnapping for ransom to raise the funds they need to maintain and expand their operations. Simply put, kidnapping for ransom has become today’s most significant source of terrorist financing because it has proven itself a frighteningly successful tactic. Any payment of ransom provides an incentive for further kidnapping operations; each transaction encourages another transaction.

Making matters worse, the success of today’s kidnappers attracts the attention of tomorrow’s would-be kidnappers, who then seek to learn the tricks of the trade. This is a vicious cycle. Ransom payments lead to future kidnappings, and future kidnappings lead to additional ransom payments.

http://www.newsweek.com/why-us-does-not-pay-ransoms-americans-kidnapped-terrorists-266315

Response by SPC Jack Hunt, JR made Nov 20 at 2014 2:33 PM

SPC Jack Hunt, JR — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 14:33:37 -0500

I thought it was clear all along that they were paying a ransom.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 20 at 2014 4:20 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:20:00 -0500

I will just leave this here out of respect for all those who were honorable during their time in captivity.

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Nov 20 at 2014 4:53 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 16:53:12 -0500

If this report is true then it is wrong for several different reasons.
- US Policy. This would violate stated and public US policy. US actions should not be in direct contradiction of US policy. If the policy is wrong then change the policy. If the policy is correct then have the discipline to stick with the policy.
- Proportionality. The US already gave up the equivalent of 5 Taliban GOs for a SGT. Why pay ransom on top of what is already a disproportional trade?
- Second Order Impacts. Payment of ransom in this case encourages kidnapping in future cases. This is the base argument of current US policy.
The issue of whether SGT Bergdahl is a deserter or not is a sequel issue that needs to be dealt with after his successful recovery. Since SGT Bergdahl is not recovered he should be investigated and possibly court martialed for desertion. Failure to court martial does both SGT Bergdhal and the US Army a disservice. SGT Bergdahl will have this allegation hanging over his head for the rest of his life. The Army will only encourage future desertions. Reasons for UCMJ include: punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and good order/discipline. Future desertions are not deterred if SGT Bergdahl is not punished (if tried and convicted).

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 5:14 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:14:15 -0500

There is only one response that they will ever understand. Negotiating by payment or prisoner swap will never work. Hint, Barbary Pirates. Unfortunately, violence is the only thing that will garner a response.

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 5:39 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 17:39:44 -0500

I would assume it is true when the The Pentagon’s spin on the payment is that the money was not technically a ransom (Really! It's not "technically" a ransom). Instead, defense officials are claiming the cash was intelligence money paid to a source for information that would lead to the release of Sgt. Bergdahl. I guess it only matters what the true meaning of the word is, is (sarcasm).

But then again it is very difficult to trust any information that involves this administration. What is or isn't, the magic of smoke and mirrors or dog and pony show seems to be a specialty by anyone associated with this administration.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Nov 20 at 2014 6:45 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:45:30 -0500

This is the link to the full length movie "Hanoi Hilton." For our younger service members, it is the most famous POW camp in Northern Vietnam where so many brave service members lingered for years. One was there for over 12 years. Tortured, beaten, starved, humiliated, isolated, and neglected. This movie is not for the faint of heart, but should be mandatory viewing for all who have served. God Bless our Vietnam Veterans and all those who spent time in captivity. RESPECT!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mso877Wa1Sg

Response by PO2 Corey Ferretti made Nov 20 at 2014 6:51 PM

PO2 Corey Ferretti — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:51:43 -0500

well we kind of did pay a ransome by freeing 5 high end detaines. And if we did pay money for it someone needs to be fired quickly

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 6:53 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 18:53:28 -0500

Again, anything to win elections and look like a champion for Military personnel, active duty and retired alike.

Response by CPO Jon Campbell made Nov 20 at 2014 7:05 PM

CPO Jon Campbell — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:05:58 -0500

The official policy is that we don't pay ransoms. The policy exists to discourage kidnappings. It doesn't mean we have tied our own hands and can't free ourselves. We make the process difficult but not impossible.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2014 8:48 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 20 Nov 2014 20:48:25 -0500

Why create an incentive for more kidnappings/imprisonment?