Http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014......dium=RSS

Interesting situation. I personally don't have a strong feeling about it either way. The government rationale is twofold: it would encourage future kidnappings, and it would give money to a terrorist organization that could use it to further their activities. On the other hand, it seems only natural for families to do whatever they can to free their loved ones, and they aren't giving the organization money for the purpose of furthering their activities.

There's no, shall we say, coercion exception?

Apparently not.

I read this and thought about posting it, but it seemed so sad. Poor family.
Of course, they were not going to get him back; the whole point was shock and awe...

I believe she was told it would be illegal to raise money to raise a ransom and they she COULD BE prosecuted. I seriously doubt, though, that she ever would have been charged if she went ahead anyway.

Why do you believe that when she claims that she was told that they would be prosecuted?

Easy. I seriously doubt that she would have been prosecuted, regardless. And that's because I believe no prosecutor would believe he could get a conviction. And I would agree.

I agree that she would not have been prosecuted. I don't agree that from that fact we can infer that she wasn't threatened with prosecution. Surely as a defense attorney you had clients whose behavior was coerced by hollow threats (or at least attempts were made)?!

Of course. But from the reporting I heard today on CNN, she apparently was told she COULD be prosecuted, not that she WOULD be. Although I don't doubt that she could have interpreted it that way. But the statement, nonetheless, was accurate- she could have indeed been prosecuted if the government actually chose to do so, which is highly unlikely.

Moot point, I think. The requested ransom amount was $132.5 million. I doubt the Foley's could raise that.

And when Foley's agency responded to the one ransom request, there was never a return response from the captors.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio......4423419/

"There was only one ransom demand ... There was never a negotiation. They never responded with a different figure and we never stated a figure."

I find it beyond odd that the Obama Administration would threaten legal action gaining the release of an American reporter while they themselves released FIVE murderers from Gitmo for one deserter .. Can we sue them Bob?

No. They didn't do anything wrong. And you have no right to sue anyway because you have no standing. BTW, the individuals in Guantanamo weren't being held on murder charges. In fact, they weren't being held on any charges at all, other than being "enemy combatants." Nor has the soldier in question been charged with desertion.

This all does confirm, though, that you get all of your information from "conservative talk radio" as you said in another thread. And, as is usually the case, it was all wrong.

Bob... I got my information from the guys who bunked with the deserter .. They ALL said he deserted...They also regretted the lives of those who died trying to find him.At some point Bob, you have to show some respect for those who died for this country and not those who are bent on destroying it. The killers that were released beheaded other human beings.....

When was he charged with desertion? He was known to wander away from his post and had actually done it before. Again, has he been charged with desertion?

Second- The people who were released from Guantanamo were NOT murderers, nor did they ever behead anyone. Do you just make stuff up as you go along?
They were mid to high level Taliban officials, not even combatants.

You can see who each of them was and what job he held here:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/31/us/bergdah......tainees/

You really need to get your information from somewhat more reliable sources. FOX, Limbaugh and other right-wing talking heads aren't exactly accurate sources.

I'd love to hear, though, where you heard they were murderers who were beheading people.

BOB .. FROM YOUR OWN LINK ...DID YOU EVEN READ IT????

Mullah Mohammad Fazl
Fazl commanded the main force fighting the U.S.-backed Northern Alliance in 2001, and served as chief of army staff under the Taliban regime. He has been accused of war crimes during Afghanistan's civil war in the 1990s. Fazl was detained after surrendering to Abdul Rashid Dostam, the leader of Afghanistan's Uzbek community, in November 2001. He was wanted by the United Nations in connection with the massacre of thousands of Afghan Shiites during the Taliban's rule. "When asked about the murders, he did not express any regret," according to the detainee assessment. He was alleged to have been associated with several militant Islamist groups, including al Qaeda. He was transferred into U.S. custody in December 2001 and was one of the first arrivals at Guantanamo, where he was assessed as having high intelligence value.


AND HERE IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAID ABOUT HIM BEFORE oBAMA RELEASED HIM ......

“Detainee is assessed to be a HIGH risk, as he is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies,” his Guantanamo detainee file reads. “If released, detainee would likely rejoin the Taliban and establish ties with ACM [anti-coalition militia] elements participating in hostilities against US and Coalition forces in Afghanistan.”

I don't think that "not being charged with desertion", necessarily proves that he didn't desert.

Only if you call CNN "conservative talk radio".
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/01/us/bergdahl-deserter-or-hero/

As to whether or not he's been charged. The investigation isn't over.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/check......l-stage/

You do have to wonder how much pressure the military might be under from the administration to go easy on him to avoid further embarrassment.

They have enough egg on their face already .... RUG... BROOM!!!!

Http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/20......-the-Law

"White House chief of staff Denis McDonough said the administration “didn’t threaten” to prosecute the families of journalists Steven Sotloff and James Foley who were beheaded by ISIS, they just "made clear what the law is."

Translation.

It's not a threat, it's a promise.

And they did it three times, in case they didn't understand the first two times.