re: "Blood money paid for release of CIA operative"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") looks at the big picture in terms of the laws of nations.

Money quote(s):

"There are many reasons that this is a tremendous blow to the safety and security of all Americans overseas and our countries security. First it completely undermines the concept of diplomatic immunity and will certainly result in kidnappings, captures and threats against State Department personnel world wide. Davis shold never have been taken into custody; the second he flashed that special passport, the Pakistanis should have said "Crap!" and then turned him immediately over to us. They would have had every right to boot him from the country, but they had an obligation to release him. This alone sets an awful precedent and if the mighty US can be forced to pay blood money for the release of protected personnel, what about the rest of the countries? Their diplomats are now fair game as well."

This is why our diplomats should be armed, as Mr. Davis was. If it's okay to bring back the Anglo-Saxon custom of Wergeld (and we should call it that, rather than qisas), it's okay to bring back the Anglo-Saxon custom of self-defense.

"(N)ow we have subjugated US and international laws and treaties to the religious extremism contained in sharia law. WOW! What an absolutely insane precedent to set. It is one thing for Hillary to throw on a scarf when she is parleying with some of the marginally-civilized, misogynistic bastards we deal with and even sometimes call allies. It is quite another to overturn centuries of hard won safeguards for diplomatic personnel that enable us to deal with friends and enemies to hopefully avoid continuations of diplomacy by other means. Now that Islam has the last word, we might all want to do some boning up on Ilsamic do's and don'ts in case we decide to set foot outside the US.

And of course this is another example of the gutless, cringing whipped-dog, bong hit diplomacy our President specializes in. The correct answer to the Pakistanis when the took custody of Davis would have been the ticking of a clock counting down. If an ally is willing to do this, then they no longer need to be an ally."

Pakistan, like Saudi Arabia, often tries to have it both ways with us. This is not to be encouraged.

re: "Obama Pays Ransom For American Diplomat"

Federale ("Federal Service Guarantees Citizenship") explains why this was not necessarily a good idea.

Money quote(s):

"(S)ubmission to Islamist and Pakistani tribal traditions have superceded international treaties that have been in effect for years. Not to mention the hundreds of years of customary law that granted imunity to diplomats. All this thrown under the bus to promote sharia law and the supremacy of Islam in the world.

This incident could have been easily ended by the U.S. informing the Pakistani government that their holding of Davis was what it was, an act of war. The U.S. could have seized a Pakistani diplomat in retaliation, cut off military and economic aid, stopped issuing immigrant and non-immigrant visas to Pakistanis, canceling all outstanding visas or expelling some or all Pakistani diplomats from the U.S. Anyone of these actions would have forced the Pakistani government to comply with international law"

At this point, I suspect that paying Wergeld was the least bad of the various options available.