Government Threatened Foley Family Over Ransom Payments, Mother of Slain Journalist Says

[grahamhgreen]

Obama administration officials repeatedly threatened the family of murdered journalist James Foley that they might face criminal charges for supporting terrorism if they paid ransom to the ISIS killers who ultimately beheaded their son, his mother and brother said this week.

"We were told that several times and we took it as a threat and it was appalling," Foley's mother Diane told ABC News in an interview.

She said the warnings over the summer came primarily from a highly decorated military officer serving on the White House's National Security Council staff, which five outraged current and former officials with direct knowledge of the Foley case also recounted to ABC News in recent weeks.

"Three times he intimidated us with that message. We were horrified he would say that. He just told us we would be prosecuted. We knew we had to save our son, we had to try," Diane Foley said.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/government-threatened-foley-family-ransom-payments-mother-slain/story?id=25453963

[Spider Jerusalem]

1. ISIS demanded a ransom of over $100 million dollars.

Payment of ransom to terrorist organisations like ISIS is illegal under US law because it funds terrorism and encourages the kidnapping of more Americans (it's specifically illegal under laws that criminalise the provision of material support to terrorist organisations). It's too bad for the Foleys, whose son did not deserve to die at the hands of fanatics, but the USA's policy on ransom is not about them. And I am sure that a Republican administration would have informed them of the illegality of ransom payment. Telling someone that they'll be breaking the law and will be liable to prosecution for doing so is not "threatening", it's informing.

[Savannahmann]

8. Question.

Does this policy apply to pirates? I only ask, because several corporations have paid in excess of $400 million to the Somali pirates to get their ships and crews back.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/08/07/when-ransoms-pay-for-terrorism/with-somali-pirates-pay-the-ransom-until-theres-global-consensus

http://www.ibtimes.com/secret-flow-somali-piracy-ransoms-179-hijacked-ships-generated-some-400m-payments-2005-so-where-has

So is the US Government pursuing those companies for funding terrorism or has it turned a blind eye because we're talking corporations and not a distressed family? Or do we consider piracy somehow different than terrorism. I mean, the threat is the same, give us what we want or we'll kill these people.

[Spider Jerusalem]

19. The policy applies to pirates as well, at least where the US is concerned.

There is however a distinction; piracy is not in fact terrorism (in the sense that term is generally used). Pirates are acting purely for financial gain; their actions don't have a political dimension.

[Savannahmann]

26. Indeed?

I could argue that. The most successful pirate has a larger following, and thus more power due to the larger group behind him. Warlords in those ravaged lands operate on the same principle. Control and power are political. Just ask congress, which exercises political control through that same principle. Yes, that same principle. Why are there so many threads telling people to GOTV? Because with more followers, our side can exercise more political control, and deny the other side from exercising political control.

Politics is a part of everything. From drug lords, to street gangs. We may call it other terms, but it is politics. The Foreman at most job sites is a person who is respected by the other workers. They will follow his/her orders because of that respect. If the Foreman says it's too dangerous, the employees will look at the job, weigh the risks, and then follow the Foreman despite their personal opinion, because the foreman has political power. Granted that power is derived from the employer, but that power is withdrawn as soon as the foreman loses that respect.

Drug gang. The soldiers follow the leader because the leader provides money, and other benefits. The leader's orders will be followed because of that, which is a political system in a manner of speaking. If the leader randomly kills his employees without reason, then the money and benefits are no longer worth the risk. Call it what you want, it's political reality to those involved from the drug lord to the lowliest soldier. The drug lord must take care of his followers, or he will lose that power.

Most of those involved in ISIS are probably like many in our military. They don't care, all they want is whatever they're after. For some it may be college. For others, a steady paycheck. For still others a chance to earn a citizenship or other benefit. They don't join to spread democracy around the world or other lofty sentiments like that. If they had that idea in their heads, they lost it seconds after the first round was fired at them. I'm not saying that ISIS has a college plan of note. I'm saying that someone gave the soldiers a chance to have power, and all they had to do was mouth a few words.

There was a story after we took Afghanistan, that many of the troops were just going home. They could not fight the Americans and hope to win with total air superiority. That is loss of political power.

How about commercial fishing? We've all seen The Deadliest Catch. The Captains who deliver have people clamoring to join their boats. Good catches, good paydays, and fair treatment of the workers. The more abusive Captains are going through the workers no matter how much money is promised. The fishermen know they can get a job on another boat, and they do.

Politics figures into everything we do. We consider what we will say and how it will be received by the listener. Many of us try and choose our words for maximum effect, which is politics. Even religion is political. I belong to this group, but not that one.

So the pirates are in fact political, the same way that the drug lords are political, and the same way that any group is political. Look how often the dictators like Kim Jong Un announce they will destroy the United States or whatever enemy they are talking about. Their followers give them political power, even if they are just shouting threats that they can not possibly carry out.

Politics and Image my friend, are a much larger part of life than we normally think. Imagine a leader who talks to himself. Soon that leader will be without any followers. Other than the odd lunatic who would join a cult.

[A Simple Game]

30. Where is the corporation headquarters? Where is the ship registered?

Very few ships are of United States registry.

[Savannahmann]

33. Very true.

But many ships of every corporation including those who paid the ransom do call on the United States. Remember, it's illegal to pay this ransom. So why doesn't the United States ban those shipping companies from coming to the ports? If I participated in a criminal activity, I'd lose my property through Civil Forfeiture. Why don't they?

I'm pointing out the selective enforcement of the law, not stating that the law is wrong. If something is illegal for one, it needs to be applied equally to everyone. That is the principle of true democracy, when no one is above the law, and no one is below it.

[morningfog]

2. Wow.

[Android3.14]

3. I feel for the family, but that is the way it should be

Paying the ransom spawns more kidnappings and supports terrorism.

[Cali_Democrat]

4. Good. No ransom should be paid. It's illegal and encourages more kidnappings. nt

[leftstreet]

5. Yes. Because there are so many westerners living in ISISland

The US should have just paid it. Sure would have been cheaper than the coming war$

[LanternWaste]

6. And absolutely no negative consequences or precedents set by paying...?

And absolutely no negative consequences or precedents set by paying...?

[leftstreet]

7. Well, they paid the Wall Street Bailout Ransom

gazillions more $$ with no fear of consequences or precedents being set


How much more harm in helping out a Main Streeter?

[Savannahmann]

10. Like how we deal with the Somali pirates?

More than $400 million paid to the Somali Pirates so far, and no prosecutions of the companies, nor sanctions, nor even barring their ships from docking at American ports. Just a subtle turning of the head so we don't actually see it right?

[cali]

9. OK. say your premise is correct. It still sounds like the family

was treated callously.

[leftstreet]

12. That's the really shite thing here

To do that when they were already under such horrid stress

[Cali_Democrat]

13. The media is making it seem like they were treated callously...

The mom is obviously angry because her son was murdered and she's looking for someone to lash out against....ABC News is milking it.

The goal of the media is to increase outrage and generate ratings. In reality, the poster above me nailed it. They were simply informed of US law and possible prosecution.

Time to move on to the next media-hyped outrage.....

[cali]

14. how... callous of you. discount the family. YOU weren't there. The family was.

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Keep trying.....nt

[cali]

17. lol. keep straining and pushing out those... claims that you know what happened.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. The mom said they were told of prosecution if they violated the law.

Was there some other threat?

Like I said....keep trying....

LOL.

[Dont call me Shirley]

29. Yeah, McCain and Graham, they want their war, sociopathic brats.

[cascadiance]

11. The Sotloff family has also had a number of problems too over their son's slaying...

Apparently, a "moderate" Syrian opposition group tipped off ISIS that Sotloff was coming to their domain from Turkey to do a report, which got him captured earlier.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/09/09/4338745/white-house-denies-sotloff-family.html

And apparently, there is a lot of tension recently between the family and the White House where they made a request that is unspecified, but wasn't handled to their satisfaction? Perhaps bounty money that the Foley family was also looking to get paid too?

I hope the administration knows what it's doing and not allowing people like Foley and Sotloff to be used in a game that we shouldn't be playing or something like that.

[Blue_Tires]

20. Not a lot of info here to go on

For starters, I'd like to at least know the exact nature of the comments, and how they were delivered (in person, over phone, e-mail, etc.), and if that "highly decorated military officer" was authorized to communicate with the family...

I'd also want to know *when* those comments were made, i.e., was it before, during or after SOCOM attempted their ill-fated rescue mission?

Finally, wasn't the ransom an astronomical number that no family could ever hope to fundraise even a fraction of? How much had the family raised at that point? Had they already made any payment arrangements, or make contact with a 'go-between?'

[CJCRANE]

21. Without the two videos there wouldn't be a casus belli.

From the polls it appears that the two videos terrified Americans more than the two towers being knocked down.

[Thinkingabout]

22. It is cruel to say but if the ransom was paid there would be more Foleys in the future.

It would be rewarding ISIS for the killings already committed, for raping women, for capturing women for the pleasure of their troops, and for purchasing more arms to kill more people.

[AngryAmish]

24. Horseshit.

How many hostages are there? 10? Ransom them out. Cheaper than war.

Then have the President give this speech:

The United States are done with your squalid, backward country. You chose barbarism.

So be it.

From now on there is a permanent ban on any American from traveling to Iraq or Syria. If any American is so much as threatened by whatever you call a government we will turn off the lights in your country. Next American threatened means we turn off the water.

May god fuck you all.

[Thinkingabout]

25. Do you think these two guys are the only Americans outside of the US?

You don't encourage more kidnappings by paying money. Are you willing to put up $100 million for every person who is kidnapped?

[AngryAmish]

32. It is time to make them fear us.

Is ISIS a signatary to a treaty? Any treaty?

Then they are free game.

Our lazy congress needs to issue Letters Marque and Reprisal. Raise a mercenary army, and butcher them hand over fist.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. I'm a father

If it were my child, I'd be pissed too, because as a parent, you're not looking at the big picture or what the effect (possibly increasing the number of kidnappings, funding more terrorists acts, etc) might be. You just want your child back, safe and alive.

But a President and his administration MUST look at the big picture - they are duty-bound to do so. The outcome is heart breaking for the family, and I won't for a second judge their reactions or statements. I haven't lived in their shoes, and hope to God I never do. But I don't doubt for a second that it was heart wrenching for President Obama and his administration to have to make and communicate that decision to the families, knowing as they most surely did, what the outcome would be.

[Savannahmann]

27. Then why hasn't the US banned shipping companies that paid pirates?

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1892366,00.html

Instead we turn a blind eye.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. Where the pirates designated as terrorist groups?

My understanding is that the law pertains to terrorist groups as designated by the United States.

[Savannahmann]

34. So paying ransom to normal criminals is acceptable to the US Govt?

If I hold your cell phone hostage, and you pay me, haven't you committed a crime too?

I'd direct you to this website. http://www.hiscoxbroker.co.uk/hiscox-asm/41.html

They sell kidnapping insurance. In other words, the insurance company will negotiate and pay a ransom if you are kidnapped. Allow me to quote a part of the website, and I'm willing to bet it will be a part of the eventual lawsuit.

Aren't there some countries where paying a ransom is illegal?

Yes, there are. However, the first objective of our policy is always the safety of the victim and in all countries the authorities recognise that victims of kidnapping have a right to life. Most will allow the payment of a ransom on humanitarian grounds.

In fact, merely banning the payment of ransoms does very little to curb the problem of kidnap. Many factors determine whether the environment is conducive to the crime. In some countries where ransom payments are illegal, there are still many incidents of the crime because of social conditions and relatively inexperienced law enforcement agencies that are unable to cope with the problem. Evidence clearly suggests that making the payments of ransoms illegal does not reduce kidnappings - it merely drives the activity underground and encourages families to pay illegally behind the backs of the authorities.

Furthermore, ransom negotiations with kidnappers can be a very useful weapon in gaining information about them, which can lead to their eventual arrest and conviction. This is certainly the case in the US where the FBI allows discussions about ransom as a way to open up the criminals' identity, with the result that most US kidnappers are caught.

Well, all civilized countries, which perhaps one day the United States will join the rest of the more enlightened first world.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

37. Legally, yes it is

Because one involves individuals or businesses whereas the other is seen as an issue of national security.

From a national security perspective, I agree with the no-ransom policy when it comes to terrorist groups.

From the perspective of a parent, I'd take my chances with the court system and do whatever I could to raise and pay ransom if it were my child being held by ISIS.

[BillZBubb]

31. It was a difficult situation, but the law specifically calls for prosecution in such a case.

No doubt the military officer didn't handle the situation with much tact.

If I was a parent in that situation and could raise the money, I would disobey the law if paying the ransom had a reasonable chance of getting my child set free. Let the government prosecute if they must. Better to spend a few years in a federal prison than let your child be murdered.

[Savannahmann]

35. Civilized nations recognize that kidnapping victims have a right to life.

While there are laws on the books, they are never enforced because of that simple humanitarian fact. Waving that cudgel before the family was the height of ill conceived advice.

One day, perhaps the United States will join the civilized nations that think people have a right to life.

[LittleBlue]

36. This is a disgrace. Whoever threatened them needs to resign immediately. nt