Full Version: It's time for Action Jackson!
First, the proposal: Send Jesse Jackson to the Middle East to win the release of a captured American.
The results:
1984-wins the release of Navy airman Lt. Robert Goodman
1990-Wins release of Americans taken hostage during the Gulf war
1999-Wins release of American soldiers held in Kosovo
Who is for it:
Trent Lott (a foaming-at-the-mouth, long-haired, tye-dye wearing, VW wagon driving, birkenstock wearing, latte sipping, liberal, & radical senator)
The missing soldier's wife
The task at hand:
(From the April 18th edition of the Chicago Sun Times: Article by : Jack Elliott Jr. of the AP)
Questions for debate:
1.)Given Jackson's obvious record of success, should he be allowed to intervene in this situation and possibly win the release of a missing American soldier?
2.)Given the fact that the soldier's wife asked Jackson to become involved in this issue, should the government honor the request and allow Jackson to pursue different channels of negotiating and meeting with the "terrorists" who kidnapped this man?
3.)Why is it that unlike Jackson, sitting presidents are unable to free soldiers held in captivity?(i.e.-the sending of TOW missiles to terrorists to free hostages doesn't count
)
The results:
1984-wins the release of Navy airman Lt. Robert Goodman
1990-Wins release of Americans taken hostage during the Gulf war
1999-Wins release of American soldiers held in Kosovo
Who is for it:
Trent Lott (a foaming-at-the-mouth, long-haired, tye-dye wearing, VW wagon driving, birkenstock wearing, latte sipping, liberal, & radical senator)
The missing soldier's wife
The task at hand:
QUOTE
The Rev. Jesse Jackson will contact religious leaders in Iraq to seek the release of Thomas Hamill, the American civilian truck driver abducted in Iraq, Hamill's wife said Saturday.
Kellie Hamill, who has been pleading in the media for her husband's release, said Jackson made the offer last week and she asked him to intervene.
Kellie Hamill, who has been pleading in the media for her husband's release, said Jackson made the offer last week and she asked him to intervene.
(From the April 18th edition of the Chicago Sun Times: Article by : Jack Elliott Jr. of the AP)
Questions for debate:
1.)Given Jackson's obvious record of success, should he be allowed to intervene in this situation and possibly win the release of a missing American soldier?
2.)Given the fact that the soldier's wife asked Jackson to become involved in this issue, should the government honor the request and allow Jackson to pursue different channels of negotiating and meeting with the "terrorists" who kidnapped this man?
3.)Why is it that unlike Jackson, sitting presidents are unable to free soldiers held in captivity?(i.e.-the sending of TOW missiles to terrorists to free hostages doesn't count
)
QUOTE(nebraska29 @ Apr 18 2004, 03:40 AM)
QUOTE
The Rev. Jesse Jackson will contact religious leaders in Iraq to seek the release of Thomas Hamill, the American civilian truck driver abducted in Iraq, Hamill's wife said Saturday.
Kellie Hamill, who has been pleading in the media for her husband's release, said Jackson made the offer last week and she asked him to intervene.
Kellie Hamill, who has been pleading in the media for her husband's release, said Jackson made the offer last week and she asked him to intervene.
(From the April 18th edition of the Chicago Sun Times: Article by : Jack Elliott Jr. of the AP)
1.)Given Jackson's obvious record of success, should he be allowed to intervene in this situation and possibly win the release of a missing American soldier?
2.)Given the fact that the soldier's wife asked Jackson to become involved in this issue, should the government honor the request and allow Jackson to pursue different channels of negotiating and meeting with the "terrorists" who kidnapped this man?
3.)Why is it that unlike Jackson, sitting presidents are unable to free soldiers held in captivity?(i.e.-the sending of TOW missiles to terrorists to free hostages doesn't count
) 1. Jesse can take a wild stab at trying to free Mr. Hamil. While he's at it, though, he can try to negotiate the release of that US soldier we saw on the news a couple days ago as well
2. Sure. See above answer
3. Sitting presidents don't want the reputation of negotiating with terrorists. That's political suicide and for an incumbent who is running for re-election, that kills the chances of re-election because the American people don't want softies
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Apr 18 2004, 07:35 AM)
3. Sitting presidents don't want the reputation of negotiating with terrorists. That's political suicide and for an incumbent who is running for re-election, that kills the chances of re-election because the American people don't want softies
Very good point, to tell you the truth, I never considered such a view. Perhaps that it why Carter was perceived as being weak on such issues, he had a less than "iron-clad" approach to matters like that. Good post!
I think he should be allowed to go over to Iraq and negotiate peace if America is willing to negotiate.
Currently, the United States has been negotiating with this group, and it would be best for someone to negotiate who has such a great amount of experience.
Jackson for pres- er - peace!
Currently, the United States has been negotiating with this group, and it would be best for someone to negotiate who has such a great amount of experience.
Jackson for pres- er - peace!
1.)Given Jackson's obvious record of success, should he be allowed to intervene in this situation and possibly win the release of a missing American soldier?
Ah, but here is one of Jackson's comments that could present a problem for our military commanders and government:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/...iraq/index.html
2.)Given the fact that the soldier's wife asked Jackson to become involved in this issue, should the government honor the request and allow Jackson to pursue different channels of negotiating and meeting with the "terrorists" who kidnapped this man?
Although our government is not commenting on the current hostage situation in Iraq (other than to say there will be no negotiating with terrorists), they have special forces and coalition looking for them (as in previous wars and with the other hostages (including Jessica Lynch at the beginning of the major part of the war.) So, I don't expect to hear our government or military voicing any public "yeas" about Jackson's promise to any hostages' families.
3.)Why is it that unlike Jackson, sitting presidents are unable to free soldiers held in captivity?(i.e.-the sending of TOW missiles to terrorists to free hostages doesn't count )
Here is an answer from Condi Rice:
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...07849784755903E
That is not to say however( as Condi Rice and some military commanders during recent interviews have said), that behind the scenes our government isn't doing everything humanly possible to locate them and secure their release.
Ah, but here is one of Jackson's comments that could present a problem for our military commanders and government:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/18/...iraq/index.html
QUOTE
Jackson also noted that the idea of a swap -- as the insurgents holding Maupin said in a videotape they wanted to do -- must be considered.
"The U.S. is holding a significant number of theirs," he said. "I think in a situation like this ... the issue of negotiation and swap must not be out of the picture," Jackson said.
"The U.S. is holding a significant number of theirs," he said. "I think in a situation like this ... the issue of negotiation and swap must not be out of the picture," Jackson said.
2.)Given the fact that the soldier's wife asked Jackson to become involved in this issue, should the government honor the request and allow Jackson to pursue different channels of negotiating and meeting with the "terrorists" who kidnapped this man?
Although our government is not commenting on the current hostage situation in Iraq (other than to say there will be no negotiating with terrorists), they have special forces and coalition looking for them (as in previous wars and with the other hostages (including Jessica Lynch at the beginning of the major part of the war.) So, I don't expect to hear our government or military voicing any public "yeas" about Jackson's promise to any hostages' families.
3.)Why is it that unlike Jackson, sitting presidents are unable to free soldiers held in captivity?(i.e.-the sending of TOW missiles to terrorists to free hostages doesn't count )
Here is an answer from Condi Rice:
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectI...07849784755903E
QUOTE
President Bush's national security advisor says the United States will not negotiate with hostage-takers holding Americans in Iraq.
Condoleezza Rice says the Bush administration will do all it can to obtain the release of the hostages. But she makes clear there will be no negotiations with their captors. "The president of the United States does not negotiate with terrorists," she said.
During a series of interviews on American television, Ms. Rice was asked if the White House would consider a prisoner swap. She told ABC's This Week that the hostage-taking must be seen in a broader context.
"This is an attack by regime loyalists and some foreign terrorists on a process that is underway in Iraq," said Ms. Rice. "They want to intimidate us, they want to intimidate our allies. They want to intimidate the Iraqis."
Condoleezza Rice says the Bush administration will do all it can to obtain the release of the hostages. But she makes clear there will be no negotiations with their captors. "The president of the United States does not negotiate with terrorists," she said.
During a series of interviews on American television, Ms. Rice was asked if the White House would consider a prisoner swap. She told ABC's This Week that the hostage-taking must be seen in a broader context.
"This is an attack by regime loyalists and some foreign terrorists on a process that is underway in Iraq," said Ms. Rice. "They want to intimidate us, they want to intimidate our allies. They want to intimidate the Iraqis."
That is not to say however( as Condi Rice and some military commanders during recent interviews have said), that behind the scenes our government isn't doing everything humanly possible to locate them and secure their release.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.