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.
|
It's an awful scenario, no easy choices that I can see.
IMHO, if a guy enlists with good intentions, but cracks under the pressure of war, I'd say we still owe him a debt. If he joined with the specific intent of collaberating with the enemy, that's something else. But we don't know. Heck, what if he developed a brain tumor and that's why he lost his bearings? Pure speculation, obviously...And I think a case can be made that this was a POW swap, which we have engaged in, as long as we have existed. This is a different war to be sure. In previous wars, if you did a POW swap at the end, you knew the guy you were releasing, wasn't going to take up arms against you.
This is a different, uglier world. We need rules to live by, but the old rules may not be applicable anymore. We are in a unique war with a very unique enemy, who has unique motivations.
Threaded Mode