Was Betancourt’s freedom bought?

I believe the answer to this question is an unequivocal yes. Ofcourse, money changed hands in the process of bringing these hostages to freedom. Will that ever be proven to the extent this market could be settled as yes? I don't think so.

@swilson
"Money changed hands in the process of bringing these hostages to freedom. Will that ever be proven to the extent this market could be settled as yes?"
I am aware that that won't happen.

That's why I didn't ask it.

My question is: Will the FBI concede or will the FBI reject the allegation of having payed money to induce the FARC commander.
In case the FBI concedes, this question settles YES. In case, though, the FBI rejects, this question settles NO. In case they do not make a statement at all until the end of July, this question is voided.

Columbia has denies the payment of a ransom already.

so your question is not what happened, but what will the statement be. Heres the answer: We do not negotiate with terrorists. question should probably void...

@kruijs..glad you clarified. when i read the question the other night it struck me has strange. i thought it had to be on paper. then thought what if they just said it at a press conference, would that count. didn't want you thinking i was nic-picking at you, so i just moved on. i agree with ironman their response will be we don't negotiate with terrorists. imho that would settle as no. only hard thing to figure out is if they'll comment by end of july. goodluck betters.

If a ransom was paid, it was probably paid by the French.

http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=221336

How would that settle?

By the way, here is the response from US Ambassador to Colombia: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hrtoMw97SlVA2m-B0SfinVDaE1vg

"How much did we give ... for the release of the three North-American hostages? Zero ... Zero. Nothing. Not one dollar, not one peso, not one euro. Absolutely nothing," Brownfield told reporters.

boogie,

whatever the french did doesn't matter here.
However, your second point is a good one. My question states explicitly "a statement by the FBI". Although I am even surprised that a US official actually gives a statement at all - it is no direct representative of the FBI. So this way, it doesn't settle the question. But if he speaks as representative of the US and therefor indirectly as representative for the FBI this would actually settle the question. If this is the case - which I leave to the cat-ed to decide - the question would settle "NO", and any predictions made after July 4 would be voided.

Actually, your QUESTION only reads "Was Betancourt’s freedom bought?" everything else was background information.

I was in Colombia when this happened. People did ask this question, but it seems unlikely that the FARC would willingly let two of their own men (who were wanted for crimes commited) to be captured as part of a deal like that. Also, they had a very extensive back-up plan for something like 30 helicopters to come in and intervene if the FARC figured out that they were being duped & were to turn violent.

@lovethenews
You're right. but only on first sight. The title does not describe the complete conditions for settlement of the question. Sometimes things are more complicated so it than is impossible to write it down in one single sentence.
The question title must reflect the intention, the quintessence of the question - I agree. The circumstances and conditions for settlement of the question should be described more detailed within the "settlement details" section of the question. Though that section isn't clearly visible to the user so I write these conditions into the background section.

Yes, I see it as a weakness of the system that the settlement details are not displayed.