Sotloff's parents told they could be prosecuted for paying ransom to IS
Source: Yahoo news
The parents of murdered journalist Steven Sotloff were told by a White House counterterrorism official at a meeting last May that they could face criminal prosecution if they paid ransom to try to free their son, a spokesman for the family told Yahoo News Friday night.
"The family felt completely and utterly helpless when they heard this," said Barak Barfi, a friend of Sotloff who is serving as a spokesman for his family. "The Sotloffs felt there was nothing they could do to get Steve out."
The journalist's father, Art, was "shaking" after the meeting with the official, who works for the National Security Council, Barfi said. The families of three other hostages being held by the militant group Islamic State were also at the White House meeting, sources told Yahoo News.
The Sotloff family issued their statement after Diane Foley, the mother of murdered journalist James Foley, told ABC News that her family took statements by the White House counterterrorism official about legal bars to paying ransom as a "threat, and it was appalling. ... We were horrified he would say that. He just told us we would be prosecuted."
The Sotloffs “heard the same thing the Foleys did,” Barfi said in his statement to Yahoo News.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/sotloff-s-parents-were-told-they-could-be-prosecuted-for-paying-ransom-to-is-234329991.html
Well if this isn't a WTF moment.
There is a White House official whose head had better roll. I don't care how high up it goes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)
diabeticman
(3,121 posts)I hope the War machine and government has enjoy the blood they splashed over their hands.
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)and faced the consequences. Very few would fault them for so doing.
At the proverbial "end of the day", I doubt the feds would have done a thing. Too much bad publicity.
still_one
(98,883 posts)the insensitive nature of whoever talked to the parents was not appropriate
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)I seriously doubt that paying the ransom would have changed a thing, except for allowing the family the notion that they did all possible to obtain the release of their son.
I would think at the very least there would be some sort of mollification associated with that.
Hoppy
(3,595 posts)I wouldn't and I am allowed to vote so no matter what the judge tells me.
delete_bush
(1,712 posts)This is totally different than funding them because you believe in their cause.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)I'll always heard the GOPs and fake news claim that we do not, absolutely not, negotiate with terrorists.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)A group the U.S. considers terrorists. We negotiate when we want to.
candelista
(1,986 posts)
George II
(67,782 posts)....I guess it's acceptable around here.
Sopkoviak
(357 posts)I guess I've been fooled. Is this one of those parody sites.
What's misleading?
George II
(67,782 posts)Sopkoviak
(357 posts)They sure as hell weren't going to try and pay a ransom afterwards.
That's you Misleading headline?
Good fucking grief.
Turborama
(22,109 posts)Not about when they may have tried to pay a ransom. 
"Sotloff's parents told they could be prosecuted for paying ransom to IS": implies they have just been told they could face prosecution for paying a ransom.
"Sotloff's parents were told they could have been prosecuted if they had paid a ransom to IS": would have been more accurate.
Psephos
(8,032 posts)Time to pull down the curtain "protecting us" from seeing Oz.
840high
(17,196 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Just out of understandable compassion for a desperate and distraught family.
BUT the government has these laws because it does not want people paying money to terrorist groups that would then use that money to kill more people and hurt more citizens. If they receive payments they are only encouraged to kidnap more people. There is more than just one life at stake here.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)we are going to do...
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Why do we have relations with them if this is considered "aiding and abetting terrorism"?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Mosby
(19,491 posts)It's one of ISIS's main sources of revenue, it enables them to buy weapons and equipment.
babylonsister
(172,759 posts)
eShirl
(20,259 posts)I have no problem with that
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Some version of "sucks to be them?" 
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)fully knowing his parents are prohibited by law from paying ransom.
Brigid
(17,621 posts) 
chrisa
(4,524 posts)It's not like they'll just stop. Americans will only be safe from kidnapping for ransom when the profit motive is removed. Paying ransoms out may save a life, but it'll end the lives of countless others.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)What to do for them?
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)Nothing.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)On the other hand, paying out every ransom that ISIS demands would not only encourage them to kidnap every American they see, but would allow them to expand and improve their operations so that they can grab more Americans at a faster pace and make more money.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)That's the official line, but Europe does it and gets their loved ones back. This country's callous attitude just astounds me. I would leave if I could.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)Al Qaeda and other kidnapping organizations are not stupid. They're purely motivated by profit in regards to kidnapping. If a target generally doesn't yield a successful outcome, it becomes less desirable.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)Threatening these desperate families with prosecution and treating them as if they don't matter is not the answer. I don't know what is, but this callousness mskes us no better thsn IS.
chrisa
(4,524 posts)implications of giving in to ransom demands.
StevePaulson
(174 posts)How can we call ourselves better than Isis or anyone else.
George Washington "Let them want for nothing"......
George Washington would have Bush and Cheney hung.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)Going to the cops. Dangerous, but at least it's there. These families have nothing -- just a government that threatens them.
StevePaulson
(174 posts)Is a crime.
Period.
christx30
(6,241 posts)and be on the run from the Feds than to see him beheaded. My son's life means more to me than the official line and the desires of some government slime ball.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)....and behead someone else's son or daughter? Where does the circle end?
christx30
(6,241 posts)I'm not willing to give my child's life for some politician's foreign policy.
More ransome. More kidnappings. More ransom. More kidnappings. Reality is reality.
No ransom. No reason to kidnap other than "jihad" right.....
By the way. When will Bush and Cheney be prosecuted for ordering the torture of prisoners?
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)it's tragic that the Sotloffs and Foleys have lost sons to terrorists. Paying the ransom of hundreds of millions of dollars to those terrorists would only ensure that many more families lost sons or daughters. The American (and British) policy of not paying ransom to terrorists has a sound basis. Americans and Britons represent less than 10% of persons kidnapped by Al Qaeda and affiliates. The reason for that is that they know the USA and UK won't pay ransom, and they target nationals of countries that will pay.
candelista
(1,986 posts)We're not talking about the USG paying ransom. We're talking about a family doing it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)The family on their own wouldn't have been able to raise it.
FrodosPet
(5,169 posts)ISIL is only shooting, crucifying, and beheading Shia, Christians, Kurds, Yazidis and selling women into sexual slavery.
Not our problem. Sucks to be them.
customerserviceguy
(25,406 posts)a lot of Moms and Dads will sit down to Thanksgiving dinner with their journalism majors, and discuss this.
flamingdem
(40,898 posts)A few million.
The family could have risked it but that could have interfered with the rescue or release attempts.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)I sm just furious about the way the families have been treated.
StevePaulson
(174 posts)We actually dropped boots on the ground in Syria to attempt a rescue.
Losing a child sucks. Ask any Iraqi that did nothing to deserve losing their child to the Bush War Machine.
How many families were blown to bits during "shock and awe"? Were their families in the dogpile of naked muslims at Abu Gharib? On a box with a hood hooked to electrical wires? How about the families of the 4,000 soldiers that were killed in Iraq looking for imaginary WMD's? Are they upset too?
Dead From Bush's Lies.
How about the "better to fight them over there than over here" Bush strategy?
I guess 'ol Bush smoked out 30,000 pissed off people.
DON'T EVER FORGET TO BLAME BUSH FOR THIS MESS
Blaming Obama for ISIS would be like blaming the current leader of Japan for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sopkoviak
(357 posts)Doesn't that encourage more kidnappings?
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)The 5 Gitmo detainees were POWs. POW is not the same as kidnapping.
POW trade is not the same as paying ransom for a civilian hostage.
There is a HUGE difference.
Sopkoviak
(357 posts)To me it's a distinction without a difference
Dr Hobbitstein
(6,568 posts)govt PUT him there. It was our responsibility to bring him back.
His transfer did not fund any terrorist organizations.
Sotloff put HIMSELF in Syria, where he was kidnapped. ISIL would have used the 130 million to fund MORE kidnappings and to finance other attacks. The US Gov sent a team in to RESCUE Sotloff. It's all they could do.
If you cannot see the difference in the US taking responsibilities for it's actions (Bergdahl POW transfer) and funding terrorist organizations (paying 130+ mil for Sotloff), then I can't help you.
Sopkoviak
(357 posts)I don't need any help.
I just disagree with your position.
That is allowed isn't it?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)Our police state government is evil. It doesn't matter if a democrat or republican is at the helm. It's gone way beyond that point. We have crossed the rubicon. We need grass roots opposition and revolt. So tired of armchair politicking.
mulsh
(2,959 posts)A cursory search on google spit up only the Yahoo story. It also turned up a couple of similarly sourced stories about James Foley's parents. I'd like to see other sources reporting this story and get greater detail before jumping to too many conclusions or amping up the outrage.
LoisB
(13,031 posts)politicaljunkie41910
(3,335 posts)I'd seen this report on other websites which I don't have an account for (so couldn't comment) and as I read through some of those responses, I thought, "how lame". Assuming they were able to successfully raise the money, who would dare try and prosecute them as parents for trying to save their child.
Thanks for saying what I thought was the obvious. I just wish the family had spoken out earlier. They'll always wonder whether they might have been able to save their child. Unfortunately there are sick people in this world who will slaughter innocent people in the name of religion and politics.
bklyncowgirl
(7,960 posts)Terrorists groups fund their activities by holding people for ransom.
I do not know whether or not this was handled delicately or with ham handed bureaucratic callousness--it probably doesn't matter. To families desperate to get their loved ones back, this is a cruel policy no matter how sensitively the bad news is delivered.
If it was my family member, I would try to pay the ransom and dare the government to prosecute me. A little time in jail would be worth it to have my child, husband, wife, lover safe.
Of course if I paid the ransom, some of the worst people on the planet would have my money to buy more arms and kidnap more innocent people thus perpetuating a vicious cycle.
I don't know what is right, do you?
karynnj
(60,968 posts)If I were the mother, I don't even think there is a way that I could hear any official telling me the US position is not to pay ransoms as supportive, comforting or kind. All I would process is that there is nothing I could do to help save my child.
In addition, I wonder given that the US amounts were SO much higher and the US position was known if ISIS would really have released the Americans even if the money could have been raised. It seems hard to believe that an individual could raise something like $130 million dollars. Then would you trust that they would hand over the journalist unharmed? The fact that many of these people are said to have been Saddam's and then in AQ in Iraq may suggest that they want to use the American captives more to cause pain here than to raise money.
I really can't imagine the conversation ever getting beyond the officials saying that paying the money was illegal. Could the idea of prosecution have been just because they said it was illegal? I can't imagine that you could find 12 jurors who would agree to imprison a parent doing this or a prosecutor cold hearted enough to do so.