Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (145244)	8/22/2014 12:21:29 PM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

<here are the facts. The General Accountability Office says it was illegal, which means it was. No way to spin this. < Personally, I am more concerned about the landscape that the prisoner exchange has created. The US has long held to the rule that the US doesn't negotiate with Terrorists. Now sure the US has done prisoner swaps with conventional war adversaries before. But, Terrorists are not "conventional war" adversaries. Americans have died in the past due to our long standing stature of non-negotiation, and had built the basis for terrorists understanding there was a "zero net gain" for taking our Citizens and Military agents as hostages. The exchange of Bergdahl may have changed all that. The Terrorist Organizations now see the capture of American Citizens and our Military agents as a bargaining chip. Look at James Foley.. held hostage for a couple of years. Held for ransom and then executed, really executed, in a Middle Eastern Desert. The question has to be asked if there is any connection between a change in the US Govt. stance about "not negotiating with Terrorists", and the Execution Style slaying of Foley only weeks after the US sponsored swap? For me, the damage is not whether a specific law was broken, but more so the ramifications of the actions. PCSTEL