Yes the attention focused on Missouri at this time have been a distraction from other more relevent matters. Immigration, the border, the scandals et al. I happened on to this and it really made me scratch my head. Think about the timing of this in relation to the Bergdahl trade etc.
On 3/4/2014 Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen appeared be fore the Center for a New American Security speaking on "Confronting New Threats in Terrorist Financing."
This statement is taken from that presentation:
"If we are going to successfully combat terrorist financing – especially in North Africa and Yemen – we must do a better job of preventing terrorist groups from successfully using kidnapping to raise money. We have a multi-faceted approach to do this."
"First is prevention. We are working closely with international counterparts to develop and implement best practices for governments and companies to reduce the risk that their citizens and employees are kidnapped in the first place. Some kidnappings could be prevented if relatively easy precautions were taken to, in effect, harden the target. We are exploring whether the structure and terms of insurance for businesses operating in high-risk areas could be modified to create additional incentives to implement these best practices."
"We know, however, that even the best efforts at prevention are not failsafe. So we are also working to reduce the underlying incentive to take hostages by encouraging governments to refrain from making concessions to terrorists. Refusing to pay ransoms or to accede to other terrorist demands is the surest way to convince potential hostage-takers that they will not be rewarded for their crime."
"This has been U.S. policy for many years. The U.S. government will not pay ransoms or make other concessions to hostage-takers. Although this may appear to be cold-hearted and is often agonizingly difficult to sustain in practice, plain logic and long experience demonstrate that this policy has led to fewer Americans being taken hostage, which protects the safety and security of our citizens around the world. We are not alone in this approach; the UK, for example, also steadfastly adheres to a no-concessions policy. Yet, despite the evidence indicating that kidnappers prefer not to take hostages who are citizens of countries that refuse to pay ransoms, not all countries have adopted this position. "
That was made in March 2014. Bergdahl was released 5/31/2014. So you can see what the policy was as stated above. It has never been clarified that the U.S did or did not pay a ransom in addition to making the prisoner trade. I guess that follows the pattern of transparency in the current Administration. We do know Obama authorized the trade without consulting with Congress. If a ransom was paid it had to be authorized by Obama, it was solely his deal. So if we paid a ransom that was against U.S. policy as stated above. At the very least it needs to be established if a ransom was paid. If so Obama not only exceeded his powers in making the trade and by passing Congress he also violated our policy if he paid an additional ransom. If he paid a ransom for one person why not others.
I have never seen any thing addressing this issue but if Obama's administration is all about transparency it needs to open up about the Bergdahl deal and clear up whether or not a ransom was paid. Again, if a ransom was paid without Congress approving it would that be grounds for impeachment etc. I am sick and tired of this guy exceeding his powers. A POTUS leads by example and he violated our policy concerning ransoms what message does that send.
On 3/4/2014 Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence David Cohen appeared be fore the Center for a New American Security speaking on "Confronting New Threats in Terrorist Financing."
This statement is taken from that presentation:
"If we are going to successfully combat terrorist financing – especially in North Africa and Yemen – we must do a better job of preventing terrorist groups from successfully using kidnapping to raise money. We have a multi-faceted approach to do this."
"First is prevention. We are working closely with international counterparts to develop and implement best practices for governments and companies to reduce the risk that their citizens and employees are kidnapped in the first place. Some kidnappings could be prevented if relatively easy precautions were taken to, in effect, harden the target. We are exploring whether the structure and terms of insurance for businesses operating in high-risk areas could be modified to create additional incentives to implement these best practices."
"We know, however, that even the best efforts at prevention are not failsafe. So we are also working to reduce the underlying incentive to take hostages by encouraging governments to refrain from making concessions to terrorists. Refusing to pay ransoms or to accede to other terrorist demands is the surest way to convince potential hostage-takers that they will not be rewarded for their crime."
"This has been U.S. policy for many years. The U.S. government will not pay ransoms or make other concessions to hostage-takers. Although this may appear to be cold-hearted and is often agonizingly difficult to sustain in practice, plain logic and long experience demonstrate that this policy has led to fewer Americans being taken hostage, which protects the safety and security of our citizens around the world. We are not alone in this approach; the UK, for example, also steadfastly adheres to a no-concessions policy. Yet, despite the evidence indicating that kidnappers prefer not to take hostages who are citizens of countries that refuse to pay ransoms, not all countries have adopted this position. "
That was made in March 2014. Bergdahl was released 5/31/2014. So you can see what the policy was as stated above. It has never been clarified that the U.S did or did not pay a ransom in addition to making the prisoner trade. I guess that follows the pattern of transparency in the current Administration. We do know Obama authorized the trade without consulting with Congress. If a ransom was paid it had to be authorized by Obama, it was solely his deal. So if we paid a ransom that was against U.S. policy as stated above. At the very least it needs to be established if a ransom was paid. If so Obama not only exceeded his powers in making the trade and by passing Congress he also violated our policy if he paid an additional ransom. If he paid a ransom for one person why not others.
I have never seen any thing addressing this issue but if Obama's administration is all about transparency it needs to open up about the Bergdahl deal and clear up whether or not a ransom was paid. Again, if a ransom was paid without Congress approving it would that be grounds for impeachment etc. I am sick and tired of this guy exceeding his powers. A POTUS leads by example and he violated our policy concerning ransoms what message does that send.
ointer:
