Carter wins release of man from North Korea

[editec]

That about sums it up.

I wonder what Carter gave away to secure his release.

He gave Kim credibility by negotiating with him.

Former presidents have been fulfilling these kinds of roles and missions for a mighty long time.

Trying to make this into a partisan issue indicates how completely clueless many of you folks really are when it comes to international politics.

Kim wasn't even there, he was in China.

Irrelevant.

Carter negotiated with Kim's government.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You would side with the North Koreans just to make President Carter and other Democrats look bad?

What does this tell us about your real motives here? That laying down with dogs (the North Koreans) doesn't really result in getting up with fleas is those fleas help scratch a partisan itch?

I would side with not negotiating with dictators and I'd let a man that committed a crime serve out his punishment.

So, by your rationale, such as it is, all Americans imprisoned by dictators anywhere in the world must suffer their fate without intervention or diplomatic effort to release them. No matter what the crime, no matter what the punishment, the concept of negotiation with dictators takes precedence over human rights or the safety of imprisoned American citizens. That about sums it up, right?

If an American violates the law then yes they should be punished the same way we punish foreigners who come here and commit crimes. Your strawman argument is rather broad and very weak, in this situation regarding N. Korea, the man illegally entered the country and that is in violation of the law and he should be punished according to N. Korea's laws. Just because America has a habit of letting illegal alien criminals go free doesn't mean that all nations should also.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

He gave Kim credibility by negotiating with him.

Former presidents have been fulfilling these kinds of roles and missions for a mighty long time.

Trying to make this into a partisan issue indicates how completely clueless many of you folks really are when it comes to international politics.

Kim wasn't even there, he was in China.

Irrelevant.

Carter negotiated with Kim's government.

Then you should have specified that Carter gave the N. Korean government credibility.

 

[Queen]

That about sums it up.

I wonder what Carter gave away to secure his release.

He gave Kim credibility by negotiating with him.

Former presidents have been fulfilling these kinds of roles and missions for a mighty long time.

Trying to make this into a partisan issue indicates how completely clueless many of you folks really are when it comes to international politics.

Kim wasn't even there, he was in China.

Oh you ruined their fun with facts. Oh wait, I forgot, that won't stop them.

 

[Nosmo King]

I would side with not negotiating with dictators and I'd let a man that committed a crime serve out his punishment.

So, by your rationale, such as it is, all Americans imprisoned by dictators anywhere in the world must suffer their fate without intervention or diplomatic effort to release them. No matter what the crime, no matter what the punishment, the concept of negotiation with dictators takes precedence over human rights or the safety of imprisoned American citizens. That about sums it up, right?

If an American violates the law then yes they should be punished the same way we punish foreigners who come here and commit crimes. Your strawman argument is rather broad and very weak, in this situation regarding N. Korea, the man illegally entered the country and that is in violation of the law and he should be punished according to N. Korea's laws. Just because America has a habit of letting illegal alien criminals go free doesn't mean that all nations should also.

Which position are you taking now?

 

[Ozmar]

Carter returning from North Korea with detained American – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

Why is it that only former Democrats go on these humanitarian missions? Clinton was the last to win a release.

Because Carter's political ideology isn't far flung from that of Kim Jong Il.

 

[JimH52]

Because those idiots are the only ones willing to negotiate with dictators. I'd of let the man do his time, after all he did the crime.

You would side with the North Koreans just to make President Carter and other Democrats look bad?

What does this tell us about your real motives here? That laying down with dogs (the North Koreans) doesn't really result in getting up with fleas is those fleas help scratch a partisan itch?

I would side with not negotiating with dictators and I'd let a man that committed a crime serve out his punishment.

His trip was independent and humanitarian. You call anything that happens in NK law? There is only one voice there and no law.

Using your rational, the woman in Iran needs to be stoned to death...

Typical blind republican justice.