Marco Rubio does not live in the real world. He believes sanctions can be the answer to everything including Americans trapped in other countries. His answer to the Iranian hostages was to state, "They should not be hostages at all."
He said Bergdahl is an example for militants all over the world in trading him for the release of those sent back to the Taliban.
Bergdahl was a POW. The USA has an obligation to bring their POWs home. Rubio's statements assume far too much. Let's say Rubio doesn't value people.
What Marco Rubio is saying is that people should remain in international prisons forever until the country anti-ups as if playing poker. Human beings matter in this world and they matter to families and their countries. Stating there will be no attempts made to bring Americans home is politically vicious.
If President Obama could have brought any Americans, finding themselves in foreign jails, home the very next day he would have.
Does Marco Rubio actually believe Americans are only in Iranian prisons or Taliban POW camps? Really?
Vietnam POWs Return Home on February 14, 1973, 18 days after the Vietnam peace agreement was signed, the first American prisoners of war returned home from Vietnam. The first man off the plane, Capt. Jeremiah A. Denton Jr., calls for U.S. citizens to unify.
Our people were in Vietnam POW camps for a very long time. John McCain lost the easy use of his arms because of his detention. What does Marco Rubio think he is saying when there is absolutely no negotiations between the USA and other countries?
Americans are in prison in many countries. Which one more often than others Hong Kong, China is number one in jailing Americans. Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, the UK are all places where Americans are in prison and no one puts them on a diplomatic table.
...5. Hong Kong, China (click here)
Some of America's favorite pastimes -- like baseball, or bitching about the government, or searching for "Tiananmen Square" on Google -- are illegal in China (Ok, maybe not baseball), so it could be our love of free speech that keeps getting us in trouble in Hong Kong. That, or we keep overstaying our visas....
The reason Americans are a priority in prisons like that in Iran is because it is known they do not do well. Their physical health deteriorates. Third World countries consider prisons a place where people go to stay after they have broken the law. They mostly consider the "American Model" of losing their constitutional rights as the correct posture to take. If prisoners die it is because they lost their rights. In the case of China, those on death row can be counted on to donate organs for transplant for a fee.
The fact is the Third World is not going to invest in the health of prisoners when they have dearly little monies for their own people.
For that reason and to keep the integrity of human life as above all other issues, there were separate negotiations being conducted with Tehran for the Americans in their prison.
July 27, 2015
By Robin Wright
Fourteen months ago, (click here) President Obama authorized a top-secret, second diplomatic channel with Tehran to negotiate freedom for Americans who had disappeared or been imprisoned in Iran. It was a high-risk diplomatic gamble. The initiative grew out of nuclear negotiations, launched in the fall of 2013, between Iran and the world’s six major powers. On the margins of every session, Wendy Sherman, the top American negotiator, pressed her Iranian counterparts about the American cases. The Iranians countered with demands for the release of their citizens imprisoned in the United States for sanctions-busting crimes. More than a year of informal discussions between Sherman and her counterpart, Majid Takht Ravanchi, the Iranian Foreign Ministry official in charge of American and European affairs, led to an agreement, in late 2014, that the issue should be handled separately—but officially—through a second channel. After debate within the Administration, Obama approved the initiative. But it was so tightly held that most of the American team engaged in tortuous negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program were not told about it....
The fact there was separate talks about releasing Americans from prison is proof enough the topics of Iran's nuclear program and human life were not equated. They better not be. Ever!
History is going to paint those returned from Iran recently far differently than hostages. The Iranian hostages were taken when militants took over the US embassy. The Iranian hostages were on US Soil (embassy) when they were taken. They were never charged with crimes.
While the USA is very pleased to have any Americans home, those recently released were detained do to the fact they were charged with crimes. I don't want to retry this issue, but, Iran had grounds within their law to do what they did.
It is wrong for Iran to carry on with Americans as they did. The three hikers could not be more innocent in their actions. In the USA the accused actions are always taken into consideration. If the Americans put a toe over an Iranian border they were guilty. In the USA those same people were innocent. The hikers held no malice toward Iran, it was an innocent venture into a MISTAKE IN NAVIGATION.
But, the current Americans returning home were charged with crimes before they became an issue for American Presidents.
I think it is very foolish for Republican candidates to play the US population as simpletons. There is no way an American President is going to turn their backs on Americans in foreign prisons. I just don't see it.
Whether it happens quickly enough is a separate discussion that goes something like, "How well can American negotiators impress an agenda for release from the hands of international criminals such as al Qaeda?" There have been Americans killed at the hands of international criminals. International criminals have no priorities to any sovereign country. International criminals are interested in ransom. That is the only thing that will free them and the USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
I often think, as I do today, why do Americans do this? They believe they are innocent as it is understood in the USA. When they apply for a passport, their knowledge of other countries and their laws should accompany such a privilege.
I understand how important religious faith is to morality, however, ask the Roman Catholic Church how many valiant priests and nuns have been lost along the way.
I just don't believe in taking chances. Americans have magnificent allies where foreign travel is nearly trouble free. Heck, in Europe and Canada health care needs by visiting those countries are never refused. Perhaps if Iran had an international hospital such as the one in Cuba our prisoners would be in better shape.
I am glad they are home, but, rather than saying "Why are they prisoners in the first place;" my reply is "What the heck were they doing there?" Life as an American should not be as a martyr. Life for the majority of Americas is good, especially since health care is accessible. Health is a measure of quality of life.
But, journalists are important people and very misunderstood abroad. Today, I thought, I wonder how the Washington Post is feeling. That publication has been running high risk to bring information to Americans. When this once again has occurred for the Washington Post, I can only reflect on Daniel Pearl.
I really don't believe it is worth it. USA intelligence is suppose to decide about information not the American people. Jason was writing about the Iranian people and had a wife that was Iranian, but, it was not appreciated.
Social media has made the world appear closer and more friendly than it actually has become. I think it is prudent to place a priority on journalists and not necessarily the buy line.
I look forward to Jason's continued writings as his wife as well. May they both be satisfied with their life in the USA.
He said Bergdahl is an example for militants all over the world in trading him for the release of those sent back to the Taliban.
Bergdahl was a POW. The USA has an obligation to bring their POWs home. Rubio's statements assume far too much. Let's say Rubio doesn't value people.
What Marco Rubio is saying is that people should remain in international prisons forever until the country anti-ups as if playing poker. Human beings matter in this world and they matter to families and their countries. Stating there will be no attempts made to bring Americans home is politically vicious.
If President Obama could have brought any Americans, finding themselves in foreign jails, home the very next day he would have.
Does Marco Rubio actually believe Americans are only in Iranian prisons or Taliban POW camps? Really?
Vietnam POWs Return Home on February 14, 1973, 18 days after the Vietnam peace agreement was signed, the first American prisoners of war returned home from Vietnam. The first man off the plane, Capt. Jeremiah A. Denton Jr., calls for U.S. citizens to unify.
Our people were in Vietnam POW camps for a very long time. John McCain lost the easy use of his arms because of his detention. What does Marco Rubio think he is saying when there is absolutely no negotiations between the USA and other countries?
Americans are in prison in many countries. Which one more often than others Hong Kong, China is number one in jailing Americans. Canada, Mexico, the Bahamas, the UK are all places where Americans are in prison and no one puts them on a diplomatic table.
...5. Hong Kong, China (click here)
Some of America's favorite pastimes -- like baseball, or bitching about the government, or searching for "Tiananmen Square" on Google -- are illegal in China (Ok, maybe not baseball), so it could be our love of free speech that keeps getting us in trouble in Hong Kong. That, or we keep overstaying our visas....
The reason Americans are a priority in prisons like that in Iran is because it is known they do not do well. Their physical health deteriorates. Third World countries consider prisons a place where people go to stay after they have broken the law. They mostly consider the "American Model" of losing their constitutional rights as the correct posture to take. If prisoners die it is because they lost their rights. In the case of China, those on death row can be counted on to donate organs for transplant for a fee.
The fact is the Third World is not going to invest in the health of prisoners when they have dearly little monies for their own people.
For that reason and to keep the integrity of human life as above all other issues, there were separate negotiations being conducted with Tehran for the Americans in their prison.
July 27, 2015
By Robin Wright
Fourteen months ago, (click here) President Obama authorized a top-secret, second diplomatic channel with Tehran to negotiate freedom for Americans who had disappeared or been imprisoned in Iran. It was a high-risk diplomatic gamble. The initiative grew out of nuclear negotiations, launched in the fall of 2013, between Iran and the world’s six major powers. On the margins of every session, Wendy Sherman, the top American negotiator, pressed her Iranian counterparts about the American cases. The Iranians countered with demands for the release of their citizens imprisoned in the United States for sanctions-busting crimes. More than a year of informal discussions between Sherman and her counterpart, Majid Takht Ravanchi, the Iranian Foreign Ministry official in charge of American and European affairs, led to an agreement, in late 2014, that the issue should be handled separately—but officially—through a second channel. After debate within the Administration, Obama approved the initiative. But it was so tightly held that most of the American team engaged in tortuous negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program were not told about it....
The fact there was separate talks about releasing Americans from prison is proof enough the topics of Iran's nuclear program and human life were not equated. They better not be. Ever!
History is going to paint those returned from Iran recently far differently than hostages. The Iranian hostages were taken when militants took over the US embassy. The Iranian hostages were on US Soil (embassy) when they were taken. They were never charged with crimes.
While the USA is very pleased to have any Americans home, those recently released were detained do to the fact they were charged with crimes. I don't want to retry this issue, but, Iran had grounds within their law to do what they did.
It is wrong for Iran to carry on with Americans as they did. The three hikers could not be more innocent in their actions. In the USA the accused actions are always taken into consideration. If the Americans put a toe over an Iranian border they were guilty. In the USA those same people were innocent. The hikers held no malice toward Iran, it was an innocent venture into a MISTAKE IN NAVIGATION.
But, the current Americans returning home were charged with crimes before they became an issue for American Presidents.
I think it is very foolish for Republican candidates to play the US population as simpletons. There is no way an American President is going to turn their backs on Americans in foreign prisons. I just don't see it.
Whether it happens quickly enough is a separate discussion that goes something like, "How well can American negotiators impress an agenda for release from the hands of international criminals such as al Qaeda?" There have been Americans killed at the hands of international criminals. International criminals have no priorities to any sovereign country. International criminals are interested in ransom. That is the only thing that will free them and the USA doesn't negotiate with terrorists.
I often think, as I do today, why do Americans do this? They believe they are innocent as it is understood in the USA. When they apply for a passport, their knowledge of other countries and their laws should accompany such a privilege.
I understand how important religious faith is to morality, however, ask the Roman Catholic Church how many valiant priests and nuns have been lost along the way.
I just don't believe in taking chances. Americans have magnificent allies where foreign travel is nearly trouble free. Heck, in Europe and Canada health care needs by visiting those countries are never refused. Perhaps if Iran had an international hospital such as the one in Cuba our prisoners would be in better shape.
I am glad they are home, but, rather than saying "Why are they prisoners in the first place;" my reply is "What the heck were they doing there?" Life as an American should not be as a martyr. Life for the majority of Americas is good, especially since health care is accessible. Health is a measure of quality of life.
But, journalists are important people and very misunderstood abroad. Today, I thought, I wonder how the Washington Post is feeling. That publication has been running high risk to bring information to Americans. When this once again has occurred for the Washington Post, I can only reflect on Daniel Pearl.
I really don't believe it is worth it. USA intelligence is suppose to decide about information not the American people. Jason was writing about the Iranian people and had a wife that was Iranian, but, it was not appreciated.
Social media has made the world appear closer and more friendly than it actually has become. I think it is prudent to place a priority on journalists and not necessarily the buy line.
I look forward to Jason's continued writings as his wife as well. May they both be satisfied with their life in the USA.
