The dilemma of the government vs. the families of the kidnapped
The families of James Foley and Steven Sotloff have complained about the Obama administration’s threats to prosecute them if they tried to ransom their loved ones. It is completely understandable why the families would be upset about this. How could any family not want to do anything possible to save their members from such a horrific fate? And how could any family not be horrified that their own government might try to stop or discourage them?
I don’t think there’s anyone who could fail to sympathize. But that doesn’t mean the government isn’t correct in these cases.
Therein lies a terrible ethical, emotional, and practical dilemma. By paying ransoms the behavior of the terrorists is rewarded, more kidnappings of Americans will occur, and our enemies grow richer. And there is no guarantee at all that a group such as ISIS is actually serious about such negotiations.
Every now and then the Obama administration is right, and this is one of those times. However, they were probably particularly insensitive in communicating with the families, although I’m not sure that under the circumstances there would have been any acceptable way to say “no,” or any approach short of complete cooperation that would not raise the families’ ire and frustration.
But even before the families spoke out, I wrote about this issue and came to the very reluctant conclusion that the only way to deal with it is to never pay a ransom and to strongly discourage private sources from doing so, too.
That’s heartbreaking, and it also feels wrong. But anything one can do in such a situation, short of a successful rescue operation, feels wrong. The Obama administration’s policy on this may have been coldly conveyed in too harsh a manner, but it represents the stance of previous administrations, as well. You can’t pin this one on Obama, although you can certainly criticize him, and harshly, for dragging his feet on a rescue, if that report is true.
In her interview, the mother of James Foley says something cryptic. In addition to refusing to pay a ransom or to let the family do so, she says:
We were told that our government would not exchange prisoners, would not do a military action.
Would not do a military action? I thought there was a rescue attempt that failed. I’m not sure what she’s referring to here.
I have nothing but sympathy for both families, and I want to make it clear that I don’t criticize them for this. The problem is inherent in the situation itself. The perspectives of the family and the government are going to be different, and there’s no way to change that.
[NOTE: If you go back and read my post from a few weeks ago on the subject, you’ll find a discussion of the long history of US policy on the matter.]
Instead of a ransom, they should pay for personal bodyguards and security teams. When freighter liners finally started doing so, because even the insurance wasn’t enough to cover losses given the increase in pirating, Somalian pirates couldn’t take any ships with what they had. Vs paying the ransom from said pirates, it was far far cheaper.
That’s what people did under Bush, although many people didn’t hire Blackwater either because they couldn’t afford it or they thought they weren’t sufficiently important enough to need a bodyguard or 10.
Soldier of fortune companies would love to get half the ransom cost in return for doing a rescue attempt.
It is very easy to sympathize with the families, but as noted, for once team obama did the right thing. If the reports are true that bho delayed ordering a rescue mission when there was sound intelligence on their location its just a repeat of Benghazi and thus it is probably true. However, it is important to realize that Foley and Sotloff had to know the dangers involved in entering the conflagration in Syria. RIP.
The bit about no military action was a deliberate lie to hide the very reality that Delta Force WAS being tasked.
In such a circumstance, the authorities HAD to dissemble.
Later, when the maladministration divulged far, far, too much about its attempt to liberate Foley… ISIS doubled the guard and split up all of the hostages.
This, then, is the second time the maladministration talked way, way, too much.
For those with a memory: Barry buried the good doctor over in Pakistan. That gentleman was a total dupe. He didn’t even have a clue that DNA collection had an ulterior purpose. He’s serving what is effectively a life sentence at hard labor.
Islamabad was furious that their iron rice bowl was broken. OBL was good for two to three million dollars per day in Muslim shakedown monies.
It’s not for nothing that Barry Soetoro started planning his wind down of his Afghan project the moment OBL was dusted.
Islamabad is having civil unrest precisely because the money teat has dried up.
The Pakistan Army is stiffing the rest of that society.
Like Nazi Germany, Pakistan is at war with the whole world. It has no normal economy.
The last American fellow to attempt to help Pakistan was exposed to the jihadis and promptly captured on his way out of the country. That’s some timing. Obviously, he was fingered by the regime. Being Jewish, he is toast.
As sickened as I am over the knife edged executions, nay murders, of the American journalists; I can’t say that I regard them as any reason to go to war with ISIS.
For such a project will certainly eclipse their deaths in suffering.
The way to clamp down on jihadis is to STOP FEEDING THEM.
We ship way too much food, way too cheaply to the Muslim Middle East. The Muslim response always is to have a hyper-elevated TFR that hatches a brooding brood of jihadis — never more than twenty-years later.
Other than their war economies, Muslim lands have absolutely no use for 2nd, 3rd, 4rth, 5th sons.
These are ‘economies’ of absolutely zero growth — and total rage.
It’s not for nothing that the Muslims are invading the First World — retail — one by one.
They are also invading the Second World. You would not believe how many horny, frustrated Muslim men are roaming the streets of Russia. Moscow has replicated Paris and London.
This can ONLY end in a race based bloodbath.
Instead all of the authorities, everywhere, stand around like it’s 1913.
For those who’ve studied; WWI was driven by the explosion of 19th Century European populations. Ideology is entirely over rated as an explanation. Ideologically, most of Europe was on the same page!
The only substantive issue was land. The farm boys never dreamed that they’d all get employment in (newly) big cities. Every nation thought it needed more farmland for the boys. Hence, the universal need to adjust their borders.
And border adjustments triggered the Thirty-Years War, too.
Now witness the bloodletting in Arabia. All of the old borders are toast. They’re done. They’re history.
And the re-drawing has just begun.
#####
I’ve posted up on ebola.
Tragically, everything I’ve feared is rolling along at hyper-speed.
Barry Soetoro seems determined to import ebola.
Should it get here it will destroy the Democrat party. Pandemics are city killers; nukes before nukes.
The latest figures indicate that ebola is exponentiating away — doubling its toll every twelve days — maybe even quicker.
We haven’t got a chance in Hell of generating enough vaccine to handle ebola.
And it’s morphing into even more deadly variants.
That’s just perfect.
Once it breaks out into the larger world, our skin color won’t save us.
Ebola is just going to LOVE jet travel.
Blert,
I agree with the cutting off of all aid, especially free or subsidized food aid, to all majority muslim countries, and no longer selling/giving military equipment to those nations. The only muslims I would approve supporting are the Kurds and I wish we would go all out to help them create the establishment of Kurdistan, including a treaty to come to their defense when necessary. As I have stated before, them and the horse (or camel) to all the rest.
Every once in a while I disagree with Neo and take on the argument. In this case, the families are ordinary Americans. They are conducting foreign policy. If they are willing an able to ransom their relatives, that is up to them, not the American government. It is no different than families paying the ransom for people kidnapped in Mexico.
RickC:
They are giving money—considerable sums, actually—to terrorists. This is a violation of the law. They are also encouraging the taking of more hostages. They can do it, but the government is well within its rights to penalize them for financially aiding and abetting terrorists. Because, very unfortunately, that’s what they would be doing.
They can do it, but the government is well within its rights to penalize them for financially aiding and abetting terrorists.
The Regime has no moral authority or trumped up legal authority backing them, because the Regime is the one funding, training, and helping terrorist organizations. De Facto.
As such, the Regime has no “rights” to anything, period. Thus Hussein O did the right thing, for the wrong reasons and using the wrong methods. Because they exist.
I have a problem with this.
Yes, I agree that, if we negotiate with terrorists, and submit to some of their demands, we will get more terrorism. You get more of what works, and less of what doesn’t work. And the U.S. Government, as self-proclaimed protector of Americans abroad, does have a vested interest in doing the right thing for Americans, and not having private citizens go behind its collective back.
Having said that… the unspoken agreement is “don’t take steps to protect your loved ones overseas, because that’s OUR job”. In other words, we shouldn’t HAVE to contemplate ransoming off our loved ones in captivity, because we’re supposed to know that our government is doing everything possible to secure the captives’ release.
But we don’t have any confidence of that with the current administration, do we? Not after Benghazi, with a President and a Secretary of State willing to let their own ambassador be tortured and murdered (and then lie brazenly about it).
So, while I don’t think negotiating with terrorists is the right thing to do, I have no quarrel with the families of the captives for attempting to do so. They thought this was the only possible way they’d see their loved ones again… and they had very good reason to think so.