Obama Privatizes Negotiating With Terrorists

by JASmius



There is a reason why the longstanding policy of the U.S. government to not negotiate with terrorists on principle has been standing in place for so long: We want to deter terrorists from seizing U.S. hostages, and negotiating with them and paying their ransoms or otherwise meeting their demands will only incentivize more hostage-taking and more terrorism.  This is not difficult to understand.

Which, of course, is why the Obama Regime has effectively outsourced terrorist negotiations and capitulating to them to hostages' families:

In a softening of longstanding policy, the Obama administration will tell families of Americans held by terror groups that they can communicate with captors and even pay ransom without fear of prosecution — part of a broad review of U.S. hostage guidelines that will be released Wednesday.

Barack Obama ordered the review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones' release.

The move does make some good faith effort to keep families informed and not otherwise come across like dealing with the local DMV.  But abdicating control over future hostage situations - the counterterrorism version of "leading from behind" - is insane.  It's bidding hail and farewell to any remaining U.S. influence over and against any jihadist group anywhere.  It's unilateral (which is to say, illegal and unconstitutional) executive abrogation of the Logan Act, when it comes right down to it, since state terrorism sponsors - Iran comes to mind - use terrorist networks as a core instrument of their belligerent, genocidal foreign policy, which, as we learned almost thirty-seven years ago, most definitely includes taking American hostages.

The way the White House is going to do this?  What else?  "Prosecutorial discretion" writ large:

Two people familiar with the review said there will be no formal change to the law, which explicitly makes it a crime to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that that will continue to be the case.

This policy provides O with the fig leaf of not having to be the one who capitulates to jihadist demands personally, even though that will still be effectively the case behind that artificial wall of separation, as he can wash his hands like Pontius Pilate and point to the families whose loved one(s) he did nothing to protect from capture in the first place and who just want them back, safe and sound.  Even though that will guarantee even more of other families' loved ones will suffer the same grisly fate.  Which is what the law barring private citizens from freelancingly negotiating with terrorists was put in place to prevent.

Exit question: If a family or families want to arm themselves to the teeth and go rescue their loved ones from their captors personally, since the Regime will never do it, would the White House be as lenient and laissez-faire about that option?