OMG !!! - 'Government Threatened Foley Family Over Ransom Payments, Mother of Slain Journalist Says'

[WillyT]

Government Threatened Foley Family Over Ransom Payments, Mother of Slain Journalist Says
By BRIAN ROSS, JAMES GORDON MEEK and RHONDA SCHWARTZ - ANCNews
Sep 12, 2014, 8:31 AM ET


This November 2012 file photo shows a posting on the website freejamesfoley.org of then-missing journalist James Foley while covering the civil war in Aleppo, Syria. - Nicole Tung/AP Photo

<snip>

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.

<snip>

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

[JaneyVee]

1. Did they ask for a ransom?

I honestly don't know.

[WillyT]

8. Here:

Foley's captors demanded 100 million euros ($132.5 million) in exchange for his release, according to an official with GlobalPost, the U.S.-based online publication the freelance journalist was working for at the time of his abduction in Syria in 2012.

GlobalPost "never took the 100 million seriously" because ransoms paid for other hostages being held by ISIS, which refers to itself as the Islamic State, were "dramatically less," Philip Balboni, president and chief executive of the news agency, told CNN.

Balboni said the amounts paid previously for hostages released was between 2 and 4 million euros. "So we thought that something in the range of $5 million was probably the right amount to pay for the ransom," he said.

There was an effort to raise money. But there was never any true negotiation between the news outlet and Foley's captors, Balboni stressed, saying that ISIS simply made demands.

Link: http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/21/world/meast/isis-james-foley/

[pnwmom]

23. Are you aware that ransoms are a major source of funding for ISIS?

And the US is doing what it can to cut off funding at its source?

As long as people keep paying these ransoms, ISIS will continue kidnapping for that purpose and will continue to grow from the proceeds.

I think the US position is correct, as painful for the families involved. If they know they won't get money from kidnapping US citizens, they will be less likely to target them in the future.

[Brigid]

36. I think you would change your tune . . .

If it were someone you loved. To criticize a family for trying to get their loved one back is about as callous as it gets. I don't know what the solution is here, but condemning the families is not it.

[pnwmom]

37. Where did I criticize the family? Their reaction is perfectly understandable.

But the US policy is the correct one, IMHO.

[Brigid]

40. And what do you have to say to the families?

I've honestly never heard of such callousness.

[pnwmom]

47. I would say I'm very sorry for your loss.

It was a terrible thing to happen to them that shouldn't happen to any family.

I wouldn't even try to justify the US policy to them because they couldn't possibly be in an emotional state to hear it. It would just rub salt into their wounds to argue such a position with them.

But that doesn't mean it isn't the correct position for the US government, since these ransoms are helping ISIS to grow, and only encourage them to kidnap more people.

[Brigid]

51. You're right about one thing . . .

There is no justification for a policy of threatening families with prosecution for trying to save their loved ones.

[AnalystInParadise]

52. This ^

To paraphrase the other poster...... "sucks your son was kidnapped, but we are better off as a nation letting him die, because we stuck to our guns".....

[WillyT]

54. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

The outpouring of compassion here is heartening... NOT !!!

They couldn't have sent somebody in business attire to explain the facts ???

They had to send an Officer from the White House to THREATEN THEM ???

I would have tossed out decorated military man out of my house in a nanosecond.

Dear Officer... FUCK... YOU...

[840high]

84. Amen.

[pnwmom]

94. So do we say to the family of the next one who is kidnapped,

"yes, we know that this kidnapping wouldn't have occurred if they KNEW they couldn't get any ransom money from an American, but we thought that would give us bad P.R. So how much money can you fork over? ISIS wants a lot."

[AnalystInParadise]

116. LMFAO

You act like ISIS is not going to kidnap anyone because we didn't pay a ransom. So I will chalk you up as someone who would rather the U.S. stick to its guns than let a family save their child. Noted and publicly witnessed.

[pnwmom]

142. That has been the practice with al Queda, who also kidnap for profit.

They have been concentrating on kidnapping Europeans because their governments will pay ransoms.

[AnalystInParadise]

143. And your point is still

that you think we are better off not letting his parents try and rescue him and that it is peachy keen the family was threatened by members of PBO's administration. I tend to value human life before nation state politics, but I am a humanist.

[Agschmid]

93. Agree.

[marlakay]

46. Just finished reading book about a girl who got kidnapped in Somalia

and only way she got out was after 15 months and ransom paid. She was raped, tortured, locked up in dark room, starved, etc.

Things only got better after they finally got the government out of the situation and family paid some money. The girl was Canadian.

I agree giving money to them is bad, but I also agree after reading this book what else can you do? They are insane rabid wild believing guys who care nothing for human life at all. It's only a commodity to them and money.

[WillyT]

53. Yes... And Do YOU Realize You Wouldn't Have A Clue About The Situation On The Ground...

If it were not for these brave journalists ???

Europe has similar laws as ours. They fudge and violate them often... using middle-men, and not calling it ransom.

Those journalists, OUR JOURNALISTS, were brave heroes... the people they were trying to inform... not so much.

[pnwmom]

56. Where have I criticized the journalists? n/t

[WillyT]

59. Well... Apparently You Are OK With The WH Sending An Officer In Full Regalia To Threaten The Family

I'M NOT !!!

[pnwmom]

62. Where did you read the "full regalia" part of this?

In a story like this, with emotionally overwhelmed parents, it's hard to know what really went on. Maybe the official was an insensitive dunderhead. Or maybe the parents were so upset and fearful that nothing any government official could have said would have placated them. Or maybe both. What parents could have reacted calmly to the news that they couldn't pay a ransom to get their son back? Of course they're upset and even outraged.

But that doesn't mean the government's no ransom policy is wrong.

[WillyT]

63. How Would They Know That He Was "Highly Decorated" Without Him Wearing Them ???

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.

From the OP.

And apparently... I'm not the only one outraged... see above.

[zappaman]

64. No you are not the only one outraged.

Apparently the Tea Party is OMG outraged as well..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025526697#post58

[WillyT]

66. I Don't Give One Fuck About The Tea-Baggers...

This was the ham-fisted, stupid, over-reaching intimidation that pisses me off.

And apparently... pissed off others within the Administration.

[mattclearing]

108. So your position is that financing terrorism is ok, so long as they take your family member hostage?

It may be callous to threaten prosecution, but I don't see how raising $100,000,000 for a violent stateless militia, regardless of the circumstances, can be justified, condoned, or excused.

[Brigid]

65. Exactly.

I picture a military officer in full dress uniform, coming across as gruff, overbearing, and intimidating. They are not exactly the most sensitive of people.

[pnwmom]

69. That was the reporter's paraphrase, and we interpreted it differently.

I assumed that the official had a name, and the parents repeated it to the reporter. The reporter didn't state the name, but instead referred to him with a description -- a highly decorated officer.

Again, we don't know what actually happened. It certainly could be that the officer was clumsy and insensitive. It also could be that no one in the world, no matter how sensitive, could have handled this job in a manner that wouldn't have upset these terrified parents.

[DustyJoe]

86. ummmmmmm

Looking real closely at it. What would we call the swap for 1 American Sgt. for 5 Al Queda leaders that are surely now in ISIS leadership roles ?

Using the sama analogy that bowing to these terrorists and their threats (bergdahl was supposedly in 'immediate' danger). Does the US actions in that case make it likely to target kidnappings of Americans for ransom ?

Seems the US military leadership that told this family to not give anything for there sons release under penalty of prosecution had a whole different take on the same situation with Bergdahl. Maybe because it was one of their own and not a lonely civilian.

Just sayin.

[pnwmom]

87. Al Queda and ISIS are separate entities. And no money exchanged hands

in the exchange of prisoners.

[glowing]

131. They weren't members of al queda, they were Taliban and deemed relatively harmless..

so harmless, people hadn't heard of them as even being in Gitmo as any sort of terrorist... And they have to remain in Kuwait under monitoring for 1 yr.

[DirkGently]

133. Except the major war criminal, you mean?

The fifth, however, has a darker past. Mohammed Fazl was chief of staff of the Taliban army and is accused of commanding forces that massacred hundreds of civilians in the final years of Taliban rule before the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. He was arrested in November 2001 after surrendering to U.S.-allied warlords in northern Afghanistan.

http://www.latimes.com/world/afghanistan-pakistan/la-fg-taliban-prisoners-20140606-story.html#page=1

[sabrina 1]

103. I would wait until it was my son, brother, sister, mother they were threatening to kill unless they

were paid a ransom, before saying what you just said. I have a feeling your tune would change also if it was your son. '

It is not Ransom money that is behind these groups, it is Saudi money and according to a recent interview on NPR, some of it comes from the CIA.

Other countries have quietly paid to get the release of their citizens one of whom was with Foley. He stated that he felt bad when he was released due to the ransom paid while Foley wasn't.

I guess if I was a prisoner of a group like that I would want to be from a country that cared enough about its citizens lives to part with some of the money we spend on wars which are the cause of terror in the first place.

He should have been 'bailed out'. We bailed out Wall St criminals knowing full well they are going to continue their criminal corruption knowing they can away with.

[pnwmom]

105. Ransom money IS a major source of funding for ISIS.

Each time a country pays off a ransom, they increase the likelihood that another of their citizens in the future will be taken for the same purpose.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/isis-terror/deep-pockets-dark-goals-how-will-isis-keep-funding-terror-n187296

Ransom payments are one of ISIS’s major sources of income, with “tens of millions of dollars” paid by some European governments and wealthy relatives of the kidnap victims over the past two years. The low end of the estimate range is "well above $25 million," according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

SNIP

Michael Leiter, former director of the National Counter Terrorism Center and an NBC analyst, said ransom payments help ISIS and other terrorist groups and add risk for citizens of those countries who agree to pay up.

"There is no doubt that paying ransom both encourages more kidnapping and provides terrorists with critical financial resources," said Leiter. "Al Qaeda in North Africa specifically avoided taking hostages of countries that didn't pay up, instead targeting European nationals whose countries routinely wrote checks. Moreover, these funds were central to purchasing the weapons and other support necessary to carry out additional attacks."

[sabrina 1]

132. What encourages terrorism and kidnapping is our foreign policies, our very presence in these places,

our own kidnappings and torture and renditions and bombings and destabilization of these regions. THAT is the single biggest factor together with our support for dictators, that is the cause of these groups having a raison d'etre regarding the kidnapping of westerners.

And because of that our government OWES the people their policies placed in those positions, whatever it takes to save their lives.

Every other country values the lives of even one of their citizens more than the theory that it rescuing them is the major cause of any of this. But not here, we do not place any value on life.

I don't care what some pundit says to support these awful policies, that life could have been saved and it wasn't while others who were kidnapped with him, were saved.

Shame on us for our lack of respect for human life and for refusing to acknowledge the culpability of our government in the whole mess in the first place.

I guarantee one thing, if Dick Cheney's daughter was the victim, our policy of not dealing with terrorists would change in an instant.

[JoePhilly]

2. Right wing is screaming about this too.

Apparently, the US should allow families of those kidnapped to give terrorists money.

[Savannahmann]

3. We allow shipping companies to give the Somali pirates money.

We allow the owners to give the pirates money a total of 129 times. Has anyone been prosecuted for that yet?

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

Sorry, couldn't find a link through the approved Huffington post site. Still looking.

[WillyT]

4. Hell... We Allow Certain Banks To Launder Money For The Murderous Drug Cartels...

[Octafish]

29. And no one ever goes to jail.

From 2002: The Ultimate Cold Call

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8793528&mesg_id=8794400

[leftstreet]

5. Musn't interrupt the flow of Teh Marketz! n/t

[Rex]

9. But but but but...

What about Iran-Contra? What about selling weapons to then alive Saddam to fight Iran? What about us telling the Taliban a 'carpet of gold' or a 'carpet of bombs'?

It is okay for the PTB to negotiate with terrorist and dictators...I guess us mortals are just expected to sit back and watch our loved ones die.

Sad, but expected.

[JoePhilly]

10. Did you read your own links?

I expected to find how the US government condones US companies paying ransom.

I did not see that. The one link is tough to read on a mobile phone, endless popups that block most of the iPhone screen.

The articles also discuss the complex history if the countries and pirates in the region. Apparently there are well known rules. Hurt a hostage, you get less.

I could also point out that pirates are not terrorists, but why do that before you address our governments view on this with neither article seems to address.

[tanyev]

44. I can totally understand the family being upset.

But anyone who's ever screamed that 'we don't negotiate with terrorists!' has no right to criticize the administration for this.

[kelliekat44]

68. If ransom had been paid by government, the RW would scream the loudest in view of Reagan trading

arms for hostages illegal actions and the fuss the left made about it.

Then, this: If it were my child and I could scrape up the money for the ransom I would do it and take my chances on being prosecuted and found guilty.

[Bluenorthwest]

74. Eric Holder represented Chiquita Banana Co when they were found guilty of paying terrorists

'protection money'. Holder negotiated their settlement, helped them navigate the civil suits that came as a result of their having paid off terrorists. He sided with those who had given terrorists money, in fact he profited from that whole scenario hugely. Career making cashola for Eric 'No Ransom For You' Holder.

[jillan]

6. I need to hear more information on this before I know what to think. There HAS to be more to this.

Or let me rephrase that - I HOPE there is more to this.

I want to hear the general's side of this.

[pnwmom]

25. The other side to this is that ISIS's major funding source is ransoms.

The US and Britain have been working to cut off their funding, while other countries have been paying ransoms for their citizens -- and thereby helping ISIS grow.

[Lurks Often]

7. It's the public's perception of this that is going to matter.

What the public is going to see is that the family of a man who was videotaped having his head chopped off by terrorists was prevented from doing anything to help him and worse, it's coming across as heavy handed.

It's not going to matter to the general US public that US law forbids paying ransom to terrorists.

[JoePhilly]

12. I would not be so sure.

Americans are very afraid of terrorists.

They still don't know that Iraq isn't Afghanistan.

[jwirr]

11. If we start paying ransom there will not be one ISIS but dozens of small terrorist groups that are

kidnapping our citizens and asking for money. It is the same argument we make when we want the USA to stop all torture - if they do not then it is fair game for our enemies to do it also.

I feel sorry for the family but I do not want to start every terrorist group in the world asking for ransom.

[JoePhilly]

13. This has been the US position for a long time.

Apparently some had no idea.

[GeorgeGist]

109. As a parent, I would ignore your fear.

[jberryhill]

112. I hope you safely direct the lives of your adult children

And pay $100,000 to dissuade them from doing anything which may put them in harm's way.

That would be more economically efficient, and keep the money in the family.

[jwirr]

114. And I would not blame you BUT how are you going to feel when the blowback comes and there are

even more families? By the way there is a reason that the FBI does not want people to pay ransom in kidnap cases. First of all it works as a incentive to more kidnapping and secondly after the ransom is paid what keeps the kidnapper from killing the captive anyhow so they cannot testify?

[zappaman]

14. OMG! It's against Federal law to give money to terrorists!

Even in ransom form!
What will the children think!!!!

[WillyT]

60. Your Compassion... Is Underwhelming... Again...

[zappaman]

61. WTF?

I feel bad for them.
But I merely pointed out that giving money to terrorists is against federal law even in ransom form.
It's not "threatening" to tell them they can't do it.

OMG! When you get to be president, perhaps you can change this law so we all can give money to terrorist groups.

[Comrade Grumpy]

70. I'd like to see a US Attorney with the chutzpah to actually charge someone for this.

"You paid money to rescue your child and avoid having his head cut off, so we're going to throw you in prison."

[Autumn]

76. That would go over like a lead balloon wouldn't it.

I would have paid it had it been my child. Let them charge me later

[SammyWinstonJack]

15. rec

[Blue_Tires]

16. For the record, I'd like to know the exact comments

I'd hope they were a LOT harsher than "Ma'am, if you go through with this you could be subject to prosecution under such-and-such law..." to warrant this much outrage...

[OilemFirchen]

18. There's ALWAYS a backstory.

That said, this is probably Obama's fortieth Watergate.

I've lost count.

[Blue_Tires]

30. We'll see...

But as it stands now, despite the headlines I've seen nothing that could be described as "threatening"...

[elehhhhna]

31. Giving them factual information is a threat?

I get that they are heartbroken and this information would be horrible to hear BUT paying ransom is a shit policy that encourages more kidnapping.

[OilemFirchen]

34. It wouldn't appear so, apart from the potential of a dickhead throwing his weight around.

This, BTW, is not the earliest report of this "outrage". Right-wing sources have been suckling at this teat and the family's "disappointment" with Obama for over a day now.

If Foley's family grants an interview with Sean Hannity, the pattern will be revealed.

[TwilightGardener]

35. Foley's brother was on Fox, only blaming the State Dept. instead of the NSC and

this military officer. But he did make sure to also use the word "appalling".

[OilemFirchen]

38. Yeah, saw that.

I'm not ready to jump to conclusions, but I do think we've seen this movie before.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. But, we're launching another lost war because they didn't pay the ransom.

How brilliant is that?

[ann---]

20. Do you honestly believe

they would have spared him even if they got the money? Highly unlikely. I thought Baby Bush said
"we don't negotiate with terrorists."

I feel bad for the parents of Mr. Foley, but the law is the law.

[Fred Sanders]

22. How bizarre is that to not realize this is not happening because of one journalist?

[NYC_SKP]

19. Help me, DU. How outraged am I supposed to be to be a good progressive???

Let's see, isn't sending money to an international terrorist group an act of terror itself.

My sympathy for the family, but that paying money would have saved their son is pretty unlikely.

They're criminals, kind of evil, yanno.

[bobduca]

104. "supposed to be to be a good progressive"

nah no need to bother with pretense.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Too funny, Foxified version is that Americans should be allowed to give money to terrorists?

When is telling someone about the law they might not be aware of a threat?

Only in the RW bizarro world.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. Bingo. nt

[treestar]

78. And I thought we don't negotiate with terrorists

over anything.

[justiceischeap]

26. Has anyone heard of the kidnapping industry in S. America?

This is why you don't give terrorists or kidnappers ransom. It becomes a cottage industry.

[elehhhhna]

33. iirc Italy had a huge problem with this as well.

[liberal_at_heart]

100. So you would sacrifice the life of your child so that it wouldn't happen to anyone else?

You can say whatever you like. I don't believe there isn't a single person who wouldn't do whatever it took to save their child.

[MFM008]

107. agreed

As the parent of an only child, I'm afraid I would pay, kill,
Or human or animal sacrifice anything to get him back.
Maybe this is as extreme as isil, I don't know, but I'd pay
It and go to jail for life happy he was safe and could live
A life..it's not PC but it's something I would have to
Live with.

[jberryhill]

113. this man was no child

[TwilightGardener]

27. They're upset and angry and can run to the media and say anything they wish.

It may be their perception that they were threatened, but that may not have been the intention of any government officials involved--maybe they were being informed of current law and policy, or were being dissuaded from whatever they were doing for good reason. There's no way for the administration to really defend itself or its members, because no one knows what all went on behind the scenes or what efforts were being made (beyond the rescue attempt), probably most or all of it is classified, and there are still hostages that must be dealt with. More intriguing is ABC's "current and former officials" who were "outraged"--what members of the NSC or State Dept. would leak damaging info to the media about conversations with hostages' families while the situation is ongoing?

[TwilightGardener]

32. BTW: ABC's Brian Ross has a bad reputation for not being credible:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78793.html

[Sunlei]

28. This is a sad thing, but I do not want our Gov. to ever 'ok' ransom payments to terrorist 'groups'.

[flamingdem]

39. Grieving mom blames and insinuates

Problem is with the rules. Though I thought they give leeway to individual efforts. We have to remember Foley was previously captured and returned to the field. Journalists have to own that others cannot be penalized for their decisions.

She claimed they should have gone in sooner. There are other mothers children on that rescue mission remember.

[Progressive dog]

41. Not paying ransom is the right thing to do,

ransom funds the terrorists and encourages more hostage taking. It sucks for the families but the rule has been in place for decades.

[Agschmid]

42. Yah ok.

[Brigid]

43. The way the Foleys have been treated is downright sickening.

It is no wonder they're interpreting it, rightly or wrongly, as threatening and uncaring. They don't care about geopolitics; they care about their son.

[pnwmom]

48. How have they been treated exactly?

Someone informed them about the law that prohibited ransom payments. Is that the "treatment" you're referring to, or is there something else?

[Brigid]

49. They were treated as if they were in the way.

They had to beg for any information about their son, and they were threatened with prosecution when the tried to save him.. There has to be a better way than that.

[treestar]

80. So the law should be ignored

whenever it would me "mean" to enforce it?

And what about the future kidnappings that would be encouraged? Why should we feel any less for those victims?

And what about people who can't afford the ransom? In fact, it's hard to believe that ISIS offered the family any ransom - they'd want a lot more money than one family could come up with.

[Brigid]

82. A little compassion and sensitivity go a long way.

I'm just saying.

[treestar]

83. it is possible to recognize that there is a law that ransoms can't be paid

and have compassion all at the same time.

Some of the posts say that.

Others are attempting to claim that we have no compassion if we recognize there is a law. I suppose we are even meaner people if we see good reason for this law.

[geek tragedy]

45. Tragic. But, giving money to terrorists is illegal

for very good reasons.

[daredtowork]

85. I'm curious on this point

I thought it was illegal for the government to negotiate with terrorists.

If you're a private family, what's the difference between a "terrorist" and any violent criminal that threatens to behead your child if you don't deliver a ransom. Are they not "domestic terrorists"? Is it illegal to attempt to pay the ransom even if the police/FBI advise you not to?

What if you are abroad when this happens, but the people who kidnap your child aren't on the Terrorist watchlist? Let's say you're in England and the kidnappers look like anyone you might meet on the street in rural small town America (i.e. white males with guns). Let's say they include some political statement in their note: "We support X militia in Boondocksville, Texas." Are they terrorists now?

By the way, if "money is speech", isn't the State limiting the families private speech by suppressing their attempt to dispose of their money as they see fit?

I totally understand the State not negotiating with terrorists, but I'm not sure I understand this idea of a family's private actions as treason.

[geek tragedy]

88. Giving money to terrorists is illegal.

Not really more complicated than that.

[daredtowork]

89. Where is the list of "terrorists" you can't give money to?

And, again, why isn't giving money to any violent kidnapper illegal, then? Who is the "terrorists" - who you say they are?

[geek tragedy]

90. State dept designates them Nt

[daredtowork]

91. That seems to mean

If I'm a terrorist group, and if what I actually want is the money and not the propaganda, then all I have to do is hire non-designated violent people to do the crime and demand the ransom.

Same events occur - all that's different is the bureaucratic stamp.

[Agschmid]

118. Your overthinking this and failing miserably.

[daredtowork]

122. If it ends up hurting the victim more than the terrorist

Then there is a problem with the law.

My "overthink" can fail all day, and this approach is still going to benefit terrorists more. Just this thread shows the policy sewing horror and confusion, which will undermine support from any move Obama makes: the benefit goes to the terrorists.

[Agschmid]

123. In a just society, there is no benefit to someone who kills without empathy, thought, or remorse.

[daredtowork]

128. I can't imagine how someone who kills can ever sleep again

What I'm saying is a law doesn't work if it causes more problems for the victims that it does for the criminals its supposed to inhibit.

[jberryhill]

95. This list is published here

The OFAC lists are divided up into various categories.

You will go to jail if you give money to people on the list you can access here:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/SDN-List/Pages/default.aspx

It is regularly updated and available in a variety of data formats for integration into business process software for OFAC compliance.

[Brigid]

92. There is a concept in Jewish law called Pikuach Nefesh.

It basically means that the preservation of human life overrides any other consideration. I am no rabbi, of course; but I think this situation could fall into that category.

[CBHagman]

96. But ISIS will use that money to kill other people's sons and daughters.

I wouldn't say a word against the Foley family, and I understand why someone would do almost anything to save the life of his/her child. However, ISIS responded to Steven Sotloff's mother's pleas by killing her son and filming it. And he's not their only victim. There are reporters who have to watch the videos of ISIS doing this to police officers and others. The ransom in effect would be positive reinforcement.

I realize that it sounds cold the way I have written it, but there are other people whose names we don't know who are suffering because of ISIS.

[jberryhill]

97. So let me ask you something....

If an attacker takes your friend hostage with a knife, and tells you that they will let your friend go if you give the attacker a gun, then do you do it?

Because that's what this is about.

[Brigid]

99. Another situation where there are no good options.

But the government prosecuting me for trying to deal with the situation would not help.

I think that is what is really angering me: the government's terrible treatment of these families.

[jberryhill]

115. you will kill other people's children to save yours

The government is not in the position of endorsing your willingness to kill others because a fully responsible adult pursued a dangerous occupation.

[daredtowork]

102. I also wonder if

This family couldn't have "unfriended" the US as rapidly as possible, asked for emergency amnesty in another country that didn't have these guys on the Terrorist list and paid for the ransom that way?

I'm not advocating paying off terrorists here: it's just that my first impression of the rules is that the loopholes are vast and possibilities for inhumanities even vaster. The terrorists will end up being the only winners by being the ones to exploit the loopholes. Lame law is lame.

[geek tragedy]

121. preservation of one life while endangering hundreds more is not a wise decision nt

[Doctor_J]

50. Things in this country are coming unglued

Some bad shit coming.

[The Straight Story]

55. Swapping a life for cash, bad. Swapping one person for several prisoners, good.

Got it.

[liberal_at_heart]

71. +1

Every move our government makes is calculated and political. Geez, sometimes it seems like there isn't a shred of humanity left in government.

[treestar]

81. Those are other humans, not money

Negotiated between the two sides.

[DirkGently]

127. No difference at all, policy wise.

Freeing terrorists we claim are extremely dangerous is if anything more enabling to terrorists than paying a few dollars as other countries do.

So which is it? Do we or do we not "negotiate with terrorists?"

[randome]

57. Yes, things are always so simple that a four-year-old could understand.

And you are always eager to leap to the conclusion that Obama and his Administration are nothing more than evil, heartless monsters.

Kind of like ISIS.

'Listen' to the excitement in your post: 'OMG!!!"
[hr][font color="blue"][center]There is nothing you can't do if you put your mind to it.
Nothing.[/center][/font][hr]

[BeyondGeography]

58. TeaParty.org just sent me an email on this11!!!!111!!!

BREAKING NEWS! James Foley’s Brother: Obama Regime Threatened Us…Read the latest now on TeaParty.org

Hey Tea Party Loyalist,

We've made Obama's life a living hell and have prevented him from fully advancing his radical agenda. But now the imperial dictator is moving swiftly, burning America to the ground. If you help us we can pull this out and turn it around.

Think: how badly do you want to continue to destroy Obama's plans for amnesty, stop his destruction of our Constitution, end his gun grab or stop his relentless abuses of office and never-ending executive orders that bypass Congress?

Look, we have campaigns ready that'll blast Obama's plans to pieces. All we need is your support!

[WillyT]

67. Good For You... Why Are You On Their List Exactly ???

[liberal_at_heart]

72. Some of the responses in this thread are amazing. There literally is nothing the Obama

administration can do wrong is there. I'd like to know what these people would be thinking and feeling if it were their relative. I guarantee they would not be thinking about the law. They would be thinking about the life of their relative and the gruesome way they were probably going to die.

[WillyT]

73. Bingo !!! - It's About Supporting This Administration... NO... MATTER... WHAT !!!

[geek tragedy]

125. Absolutely incorrect. It's about a policy of not encouraging people to kidnap

more Americans while giving them the money to buy weapons to kill more people in the Middle East.

It's being rational about policy instead of having an emotional reaction to the case.

[SomethingFishy]

144. So letting this man die was good policy because the people who

killed him will think twice before kidnapping again since they didn't get any money?

Yeah, whatever.

[geek tragedy]

145. Yes, that is the point. If they see it does not pay

to kidnap Americans for ransom, they won't target us.

Also, helping ISIL commit genocide is indefensible.

[SomethingFishy]

146. You know what? If we were dealing with sane people..

I'm sure you would be right. But we aren't. And not paying them is going to do absolutely nothing to stop it from happening again.

[geek tragedy]

147. 50 Europeans kidnapped, two Americans.

Is that the ratio you would expect, given our history in that region?

[TwilightGardener]

77. Nobody is blaming the family for being upset. I think we all understand

how desperate they must have been. But again, we're only hearing their side, their judgment. They may have misunderstandings and inaccurate perceptions of the true situation, and certainly there's information they don't have access to. I wouldn't be happy if I got the worst result possible of a hostage situation--I'd be full of "if only's" and full of anger and blame. But the government cannot rescue everyone from their bad choices or circumstances. They just can't.

[Agschmid]

120. Yup.

[treestar]

79. What?

The executive branch is supposed to enforce the law.

It does not matter who the POTUS is, if that's the law, it's the law.

[jberryhill]

98. I would be thinking of the next hostage whose capture I would be funding

Do you seriously believe that businesses should pay protection money to the Mafia?

[bobduca]

106. I saw that movie too!

[GeorgeGist]

110. I take it you have no children.

[jberryhill]

111. You take it wrong

I take it you are self centered and cannot see beyond your own immediate impulses.

Shortsighted selfishness is not a virtue. You would kill someone else's children to save yours? Nice.

This man was an adult in a risky occupation.

[geek tragedy]

124. No, it's called being rational about policy that affects everyone.

Endangering hundreds, maybe thousands of people to save one is not defensible policy.

[DirkGently]

129. Trading prisoners is no different.

It was the rightwingers claiming trading dangerous Taliban members for a U.S. soldier would encourage terrorism.

Now that the administration is on the other side of that issue, we should all agree with that exact same rightwing logic?

[geek tragedy]

134. No. Prisoner swaps in an armed conflict that is winding down are

quite different than paying ransom to kidnapping terrorists. That swap happened only because the conflict there is winding down, and as part of that winding down.

You will also do well to remember that the five released Taliban have to sit out the conflict for another year.

But thanks for the rightwing talking point that is making the rounds.

[DirkGently]

135. You know that whole "winding down" thing is meaningless though, right?

The Taliban isn't winding down. We're trying to pull out. Not the same.

There's no analogy to a state vs. state war wrapping up.

We released Taliban leaders to save the life of an American prisoner. It is exactly, precisely, identically the same, policy-wise, to paying ransom, and if anything more enabling to terrorists, given one we released is considered a war criminal responsible for a huge civilian massacre.

The main real difference is that America is tired of fighting the Taliban, but perhaps willing to start a new fight with ISIS.

So which is it? Do we or do we not "negotiate with terrorists?"

You can't have it both ways simply because that would be convenient to the administration here.

[geek tragedy]

136. It is not the same. It was a swap of prisoners of war.

That is what happens in armed conflicts. And the fact that the US is withdrawing does not mean the conflict is winding down--indeed that is why it is winding down.

prisoner exchanges are routine. They happen in most conflicts.

There is a special duty owed to soldiers who are put in harm's way by their government.

But,again, thanks for the rightwing talking points on Bergdahl.

[DirkGently]

138. The rightwing talking points are all yours here.

I supported Bergdahl's release, and would support negotiating for the release of other Americans.

You are arguing that we don't negotiate with terrorists, except when the Obama administration decides to negotiate with terrorists, right?

[geek tragedy]

139. The Taliban are an armed militia in the field of battle.

The prisoners we take of theirs are prisoners of war. As was Bergdahl.

Swapping POWs is not unusual.

[DirkGently]

141. The Taliban is on our list of designated terrorist organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_designated_terrorist_organizations

And ISIS is both more of an "armed militia" and more "in the field of battle" than the Taliban.

So all you're basically arguing for is the administration's right to make arbitrary distinctions as to which terrorists it will negotiate with, and which ones it will not.

Which is nothing new, of course. We have always made nonsensical distinctions like this.

Ronald Reagan and Oliver North certainly saw the distinctions you are describing as legitimate.

[DirkGently]

140. I thought sacrificing other people's kids was a conservative thing?

"Sorry, but you'll need to die having that baby, for my philosophy."

"Sorry, but we'll need you to fight in this pointless conflict, because the War on Terror."

"Sorry, but your parents / children / disabled friend will have to starve because SS is against our philosophy."



"Sorry, but we don't negotiate with terrorists. Except when we negotiate with terrorists, because our philosophy kind of conveniently comes and goes?"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. How many terrorist organizations has our CIA given money to? "Legally", of course.

Anybody remember the "Freedom Fighter" in Afghanistan? The Contras? Anti-Iranian government forces? Unita? And, a long list of other killers who did their fair share of slitting throats.

[liberal_at_heart]

101. Exactly.

[NYC_SKP]

117. OMG, we should have given them all our lunch money, then they wouldn't bully us!

Our government did the right thing.

Sorry to disappoint.



.

.

[LittleBlue]

119. We should have just paid them. It's a stupid policy.

The idea is that if we don't pay, it deters kidnappings because we deprive them of incentive.

Nowadays they use these poor people in beheading videos. So these groups still have incentive to kidnap for propaganda purposes. The old law, and Obama administration, look utterly ridiculous. Blood is on their hands.

[nashville_brook]

126. iirc we're the only country that doesn't pay ransoms

so if Foley and Sotloff had been employed by a French news service, they'd likely still be alive.


And the pretense for war wouldn't exist.

[DirkGently]

130. Bingo. We won't pay, but we'll go to war?

Convenient policy, if you sell war for a living.

[DirkGently]

137. So, corporations pay ransom so often that

... there is a whole line of insurance for it. Here is a bit from AIG's Kidnapping, Ransom and Extortion, or "K&R&quot no relation to DU slang ) policy page:

Claims Scenarios
A company sends an employee to visit Brazil and explore a new business opportunity. On the third-day of the visit, the employee is kidnapped and the company is notified that the employee is being held for a ransom of $1 million. The company immediately calls the AIG 24/7 emergency hotline and two NYA International consultants are sent to work hand-in-hand with the company’s crisis management team. After five days of negotiations, the employees are released for a ransom of $500,000. The company submits its proof of loss to AIG and is reimbursed the ransom amount in full.

Did neither of these journalists work for any organizations that carried anything like this?

Do we forbid American corporations from using such policies, depending on whether the kidnapping organization is on our "list" of terrorist orgs?

Or do we simply hand-pick when we're going to say ransom cannot be paid?