U.S. Sent Cash to Iran as Americans Were Freed

[Sunseeker]

Just so we're clear... You believe it was ransom but just don't care?

I take them for their word when they say it wasn't. I have no reason to believe otherwise, aside from the timing, which isn't enough evidence IMO.

Did we get our soldiers back? Yup. Did we find out that a bunch of them dun fucked up to begin with? Yup. Did we get into an armed conflict with Iran? Nope.

Frankly, we are one of if not the richest nation on Earth. If we're not using our absurd wealth to buy people off, honestly I think we're doing it wrong. You can make the world a lot happier a lot faster by paying people to love you than by bombing them until they fear you.

[Wulfey]

If anyone ever asks "how did the right end up with Trump?" Point to this story. The entire right wing entertainment-verse echoed that these was a secret ransom payment. Every wingnut news Org, Trump, FOX, Drudge, WSJ, AMRadio, Newt, Paul Ryan, most R congressmen, all of it said in unison that this was a secret ransom. But this was neither a secret nor a ransom. It was published in January and it was a return of held funds. It had to be done in cash because Iran isn't integrated into the global finance situation.

The wingnut-verse simply ran with a false headline because it fed their narrative in the face of obvious evidence. That is how you get Trump. The right doesn't care about the facts (not secret, not ransom) and just goes with it because it feels good and they think their lack of trust of Obama is sufficient evidence. Trump plays right into that and says all the things wingnuts hope and suspect about people they hate, evidence be damned.

[Jimmy Woods]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL could repeat the LOL's for awhile, but the only thing fishy here is the timing of this story and the terrible week Donald Trump is having. I guess when your guy is in a free fall you need to try and come up with anything you can to change the news cycle. Unless of course you believe the US shouldn't pay Iran what they owe them and just bomb them or nuke them as Trump would say.

[Orbitus]

Pathetic.

As expected from the current adminstration.

Pathetic, same as all of your arguments.

[Ghostpanther]

So the americans in question were kidnapped by terrorists?

Well, since Iran is still listed as a terrorist sponsored nation, I would say yes.

[lockedout]

The same usual suspects with the same usual intellectual capacity lack...
Or dishonesty, I don't know which one. My bet is on the former though. Reputation precedes..

Ransom is something you pay out of your own pocket, out of your own belongings.
This payment however was never US money. It was Iranian money ever since.

Which is 100% true.
The question is would we have paid it back anyway?

[Mayhem]

Well, since Iran is still listed as a terrorist sponsored nation, I would say yes.

On Wednesday, State Department spokesperson John Kirby responded to the criticism.

"As we've made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim at the Hague Tribunal were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home. Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of the Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years. The funds that were transferred to Iran were related solely to the settlement of a long-standing claim at the U.S.-Iran Claims Tribunal at The Hague," Kirby said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-u...tainees-freed/

http://archive.is/cuteP
non paywall wsj article.

[Ghostpanther]

Which is 100% true.
The question is would we have paid it back anyway?

What is one thing which may be overlooked, it was paid in currency which was not US dollars because it is illegal to use US currency that way. Delivered in unmarked cargo planes. Like crooks would do. Which in my opinion is a good representation of the present administration and the one they support. Crooks.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-u...tainees-freed/

http://archive.is/cuteP
non paywall wsj article.

And? It is well known Iran does support other terrorists groups and this is just a way for the present administration to grasp for straws. So in essence they illegally captured some of our people and then demanded payment which they felt was owned to them. It was nothing but ransom. I would not have gave those suckers anything but a hard time. They violate human rights constantly.

[Mayhem]

And? It is well known Iran does support other terrorists groups and this is just a way for the present administration to grasp for straws. So in essence they illegally captured some of our people and then demanded payment which they felt was owned to them. It was nothing but ransom. I would not have gave those suckers anything but a hard time. They violate human rights constantly.

It was legal in Iran. It is well known that the US does support terrorists groups. The US violate human rights constantly.

Pretty useless points.

Senior U.S. officials denied any link between the payment and the prisoner exchange. They say the way the various strands came together simultaneously was coincidental, not the result of any quid pro quo.
“As we’ve made clear, the negotiations over the settlement of an outstanding claim…were completely separate from the discussions about returning our American citizens home,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said. “Not only were the two negotiations separate, they were conducted by different teams on each side, including, in the case of The Hague claims, by technical experts involved in these negotiations for many years.”

It wasn´t ransom, since the negotiations about that case are going on for years.

[Cthulhu 2020]

> The US owed money to Iran because of a decades old failed deal.

> We had already negotiated the release of these prisoners months ago.

> Iran wanted some of the money it was owed from long ago as a sign of good faith.

> We would have gotten the people anyway, this was just greasing the wheels for further good will with Iran.

> Republicans claiming that we paid a ransom for prisoners.

> Republicans don't really seem to care about American lives, if saving them means they get a shot at Obama.

> When it comes to Benghazi and saving America in other incidents, it's all they care about.

[Ghostpanther]

It was legal in Iran. It is well known that the US does support terrorists groups. The US violate human rights constantly.

Pretty useless points.



It wasn´t ransom, since the negotiations about that case are going on for years.

Oh bullshit. We do not execute people who want to be homosexual or want women to be silent and cover their faces while out in public. It was under the table cookery done by the administration. Ransom paid for a dumb ass deal which sucked anyway. I could not care less what is legal in Iran. If it was up to me, they would not have any trade deals at all from the US until they stop violating human rights and sponsoring terrorists.

[Mayhem]

Oh bullshit. We do not execute people who want to be homosexual or want women to be silent and cover their faces while out in public. It was under the table cookery done by the administration. Ransom paid for a dumb ass deal which sucked anyway. I could not care less what is legal in Iran. If it was up to me, they would not have any trade deals at all from the US until they stop violating human rights and sponsoring terrorists.

And i never said these are the human rights the US constantly violates. And they don´t care for your laws.

You should be glad the rest of the world isn´t thinking like you, about not trading with countries that violate human rights and sponsor terrorists.

How are US arms dealers doing btw? The fucking hypocricy.

[caervek]

Yeah, if you borrow 500 dollars from the bank and you're in the process of repayment but they hold your family prisoners until you pay it back, that's not a ransom at all, not in the least!

Well no that is, but it's also nothing like this situation.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, since Iran is still listed as a terrorist sponsored nation, I would say yes.

Iran is considered a terrorist sponsored nation because it overthrew a US puppet dictator who had been brutally oppressing the country for decades following a US/UK backed coup. That sort of behaviour gets you put on the naughty list.

[Milchshake]

Can't wait for Trump to mangle this headline. I can remember the days when the GOP was considered the party of elder statesmen, like HW Bush or even a Dick Lugar.

For people cross posting from that Ben Shapiro thread, Ben was one of the people who did a hatchet job to Lugar's reputation. Poor ole Dick just wasn't NeoCon enough for their liking.

[caervek]

Did we get our soldiers back? Yup. Did we find out that a bunch of them dun fucked up to begin with? Yup. Did we get into an armed conflict with Iran? Nope.

Wait what soldiers? this is about a bunch of Iranians who held dual US citizenship, one was a journalist, one was a pastor and one was a retired marine :S

- - - Updated - - -

If we aren't selling arms to the Iranians then why the hell are we giving them nearly 2 billion instead?

Because it's their money and seizing it because 'Murica was passable in the 1970's but it's 2016 and that stuff isn't cool anymore.

[Nihilist74]

It is probably a lot less money than the cost of the iraq war.

[Deleted]

Exactly, that's the main reason to not negotiate with terrorist. This isn't the first time Obama admin has done this.

the official stance of just about anyone is they do not negotiate with terrorist, hostage takers, and the like.

unofficially, hostage taking is an extremely lucrative business as long as you keep your word. it's often simply easier and cheaper to pay for someones release then the alternatives, regardless of whether it's bushpeople or nation states that do the kidnapping. most companies that do business in shady parts of the world have ransom insurance for this very reason.

[SirBeef]

Sounds like a clever excuse for paying a ransom.

If you lack any comprehension skills it does but it really isn't.

[Yvaelle]

You should re-read Machiavelli.

You realize The Prince was written by Machiavelli, to his political enemy (Cesare Borgia), about how to ensure he was as shitty a ruler as possible. It's pretty much a book on how to alienate the public, lose friends, and burn bridges - but written in such a way that it formalizes the sociopathic behavior his intended audience (and former rival, prisoner, and torturer) - would recognize in himself - and due to his narcissism - take as a compliment / advice.

Even the title, The Prince, is a tongue-in-cheek comment about Cesare's nepotism, and the false claim to power his family wielded. Cesare rose to power as the son of the most corrupt pope in history - whereas a king rules by divine right, which the pope here claims, and by pushing his son (Cesare) into power, now rules by divine extension (a prince).

Most of Machiavelli's other writing on the subject of political philosophy is pretty typical moral stuff, except The Prince, written immediately after he was hung by his arms until they dislocated from exhaustion, beaten, and left to hang there for three weeks until he was emaciated (from which he never fully recovered) - upon being released he immediately traveled far away, into the countryside where he was out of view/reach - and then wrote a sardonic book, called The Prince, which should properly be subtitled, "Cesare Borgia is a total asshole".

It is perhaps one of the biggest failings in academic poli sci that so many people are told to read The Prince, and then walk away thinking Machiavelli is actually advocating that shit.

[Svifnymr]

> The US owed money to Iran because of a decades old failed deal.

We had money from a deal with the previous regime, I don't know that we ever planned on paying it back.

> We had already negotiated the release of these prisoners months ago.

The prisoners, the money, the nuclear treaty, all negotiations happening at the same time. Even if they're not one big deal, there's still bound to be links, as you say next.

> Iran wanted some of the money it was owed from long ago as a sign of good faith.

> We would have gotten the people anyway, this was just greasing the wheels for further good will with Iran.

Who knows if we'd have gotten the people, or how the nuclear deal may have shook out, or anything else.

> Republicans claiming that we paid a ransom for prisoners.

> Republicans don't really seem to care about American lives, if saving them means they get a shot at Obama.

> When it comes to Benghazi and saving America in other incidents, it's all they care about.

These aren't soldiers captured, they're at best political prisoners and we're not supposed to do those sorts of deals. They should have at least had the decency to do it behind doors and not do everything within a day of each other...

And of course there's the idea of "where did the money go", but then I assume all governments run on kickbacks and skimming funds. Frankly I'm not sure why we were negotiating with Iran anyway for any of it.