Rice: No Negotiations With hostage-Takers: The President does not negotiate with terrorists

VOA ^ | 4-19-04 | Paula Wolfson

[Indy Pendance]

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."

Ms. Rice's appearances on three television news programs came as another new book on the Bush administration's Iraq policy was released. This one was written by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward, best known for his coverage of the Watergate scandals of the 1970s that led to the resignation of former President Richard Nixon.

Mr. Woodward's new book focuses on the lead-up to war in Iraq, and states that war planning began just months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States.

Condoleezza Rice told the Fox News Sunday program that military options were discussed that November. "By the end of November, things were starting to wind down in Afghanistan and I do think the president's mind was beginning to move to what else he would have to do to deal with the blow, the threat that had emerged as a result of 9/11," said Ms. Rice.

She said the most hostile relationship the United States had at the time in the Middle East was with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. She said the president wanted to look at all possible courses of action before going to the United Nations.

Mr. Bush's handling of the terrorist threat and the war in Iraq has become a crucial issue in the U.S. presidential election campaign. While Condoleezza Rice was defending the administration's record, the likely Democrat Party nominee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, was leveling more criticism.

He told NBC's Meet the Press that the president has failed to reach out to other countries, and acknowledged they are now reluctant to help.

"That is the dilemma. That is exactly the quandary that President Bush and this administration have put the United States of America in," he said.

Senator Kerry said the administration's diplomacy has been stunningly ineffective, and said if he is elected he will pursue a more multi-lateral approach.

[Indy Pendance]

[Destro]

Then why did we decalre a unilateral cease fire and open negotiations?

[freebilly]

Senator Kerry said the administration's diplomacy has been stunningly ineffective, and said if he is elected he will pursue a more multi-lateral approach.

First he'll shoot one of the wounded enemy in the head, then he'll accuse his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes, then he'll throw his medals over a fence, then he'll take part in a discussion of assassinating US Senators. This is about as multi-lateral as it gets....

[Destro]

I have no answer because your point was too well stated.

[Destro]

PS: I am also for killing lots of them till they let our guys go or not dare take anymore. Whichever is easier.

[endthematrix]

That is because "civilized" nations that follows treaties and war doctrines. Terrorists do not and they perpetuate attack to further their goals. Remember the Al Qaida hijacking of an Indian airliner? The Indian government caved and let out a bunch of crazies some are loose on the streets of the world today waiting to kill and maim your fellow countrymen.

[Texasforever]

Then why did we declare a unilateral cease fire and open negotiations?

It wasn't over hostages because they were taken later. I don't agree with the ceasefire but it allowed the "Iraqi leadership" to gain some sense of relevance in the process. Is it smart, I don't know but it is at least defensible.

[Destro]

Civilians are hostages - soldiers are POWs.

[Texasforever]

Why did you think I didn't know the difference? The civilian hostages came AFTER the "unilateral ceasefire" That was my only point.

[jaykay]

Then why did we decalre a unilateral cease fire and open negotiations?

Breaking News: politicians lie.

[Destro]

Sorry - I was talking only about the POW. A quirk of war's laws allows the exchange of POWs but since civilian hostage taking is criminal negotiations over them would set a bad precedent, unless you can argue that those civilian contractors were working for the military supplying logistics tasks usually done by soldiers in the past and in that case the rules of war may apply to them as well - a gray area for sure.

[Texasforever]

Well like I said, I agree with you about the unilateral ceasfire. If I had my way there would be a lot of large gaping holes where these "freedom fighters" used to be. Having said that I can also see where it could be argued that giving the IGC a bit of “street cred “would be strategically helpful down the road.

[pt17]

The president of the United States does not negotiate with terrorists

Oh? Somebody help me understand what it is we're doing in Fallulah and with Sadr if not negotiating.

[jaykay]

Well, the prisoners we are holding are terrorists suspected of attacks against U.S. soldiers. If they are released, they will go back to staging such attacks. So the question is, if freed will they end up killing more U.S. soldiers than if they just kill those that they are holding? Also: negotiating with them will encourage more kidnappings.

How about we announce the execution of all prisoners in our custody if the hostages aren't freed within 24 hours?

[jaykay]

Somebody help me understand what it is we're doing in Fallulah and with Sadr if not negotiating.

Bargaining.

[Allegra]

If they're willing to swap to me one American for one of their persuasion??? I'd swap in a heartbeat. It's idiocy to do otherwise.

I know it's awful that they have our hostages. Horrible.

But we can't swap and give in to their demands. It would set a terrible precedent and the situation would just get worse.