View Full Version : Foley's parents "threatened" by US Gov.
Considering the source, needs additional confirmation, but claims it was via ABC news and CNN. Any see her make that claim? I'm not buying her story at face value per se, just pointing out the US has a bad habit of stating "we don't negotiate with terrorists" while negotiating with terrorists....Unless you're the US Gubment and it's politically expedient to do so.
Mother of American reporter James Foley says US official made threat if family paid ransom to Islamic State group.
The family of murdered American journalist James Foley says it was threatened by a US official with terrorism charges if they paid a ransom to his captors in Syria.
Foley's mother Diane told ABC News on Friday that a military officer working for Barack Obama's National Security Council had told them several times that they could face criminal charges if they paid a ransom.
"We took it as a threat and it was appalling," she said. "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."
"We were just told to trust that he would be freed somehow, miraculously,"
Foley's mother said on CNN. "And he wasn't, was he?"
The president's spokesman refused to discuss conversations that the family had with officials, but said they involved people from different government branches.
"I'm not going to get into who said what in the context of these individual conversations," spokesman Josh Earnest said, but he reaffirmed the US policy not to pay ransoms because it could encourage further abductions.
The National Security Council was quoted as saying that the Foley family was informed of US laws banning terrorism financing but denied the family was told they could face charges if they made a ransom payment.
John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said he was "taken aback" by the report. "I am totally unaware and would not condone anybody that I know of within the state department making such statements," he said.
James Foley was beheaded on video by an Islamic State fighter last month. Two weeks later a similar video showed another American journalist, Steven Sotloff, being beheaded.
http://m.aljazeera.com/story/2014912224527905440
It is indeed illegal to send money to known terrorist organizations - even when it is in the form of a ransom. That is because the money is used to fund more terrorism that destroys more lives.
Mr. Folly knew this when he decided to put himself in harm's way repeatedly. I do not fault the administration for advising his parents of the consequences should they decide to break the law.
Yeah, I'm kind of with Sensei here.
Also seems like the surest way to get your family member killed is to make a personal appeal video begging for their life to be spared. Seems like exactly what they want. All of your "my son has nothing to do with the war and we know Islam is peaceful" crap buys you nothing but their death.
Might as well make a video saying WE KNOW they are dead already, because you are barbaric, religious fanatics with no respect for life who only destroy.
It is indeed illegal to send money to known terrorist organizations - even when it is in the form of a ransom. That is because the money is used to fund more terrorism that destroys more lives.
Indeed, but stating "we don't negotiate with terrorists" while negotiating with terrorists is very bad for credibility and moral authority. As for Foley, a brave and dedicated journalist was he. But, he knew the stakes and new well what he was risking.
Mr. Folly knew this when he decided to put himself in harm's way repeatedly. I do not fault the administration for advising his parents of the consequences should they decide to break the law.
Which they interpreted as a threat apparently.
Q, what of the companies that have insurance to pay ransoms to kidnappers, for hijacked ships or kidnapped execs, is that legal? Is that considered non terrorist activity? Done outside US jurisdiction? Other?
I'm ok with the whole we don't pay ransoms and all so long as it's applied uniformly. When is the admin going to go after insurance companies that offer and pay off kidnap policies?? I know they have to risk loosing donations and all...
Indeed, but stating "we don't negotiate with terrorists" while negotiating with terrorists is very bad for credibility and moral authority. As for Foley, a brave and dedicated journalist was he. But, he knew the stakes and new well what he was risking.
Yeah, kind of hypocritical given the Administration just traded 5 Gitmo guys for Bergdahl.
I'm ok with the whole we don't pay ransoms and all so long as it's applied uniformly. When is the admin going to go after insurance companies that offer and pay off kidnap policies?? I know they have to risk loosing donations and all...
Hence my Qs above to Sensi.
MorphCross
09-15-14, 19:13
Yeah, kind of hypocritical given the Administration just traded 5 Gitmo guys for Bergdahl.
I would say it's hypocritical if they gave back the 5 men with a million dollars each. It's easier in most cases to track a living person than it is to track money that can be divided up and sent to small groups. Even though I don't agree with turning over 5 men who have probably further radicalized in their hatred of the west for someone who may or may not have caused the deaths of his fellow soldiers by "wandering" off reservation.
I would say it's hypocritical if they gave back the 5 men with a million dollars each. It's easier in most cases to track a living person than it is to track money that can be divided up and sent to small groups. Even though I don't agree with turning over 5 men who have probably further radicalized in their hatred of the west for someone who may or may not have caused the deaths of his fellow soldiers by "wandering" off reservation.
Trading 5 for 1 is still "negotiating" with terrorists. May not be giving funds to a terrorist org, but sure us hypocrisy if not "negotiating."
Under Federal IRS rules trading goods for goods is still a financial transaction. So using federal rules consistent means the govt did barter financial transaction with terrorists. May be entirely legal but still hypocritical.
Eurodriver
09-15-14, 19:26
Someone has to say it:
Why don't we offer to pay these bribes, and then just bomb the **** out of them when they show up?
Why didn't we blow away everyone after securing Bergdahl? We are dealing with terrorists, not civilized Belgians.
Trading 5 for 1 is still "negotiating" with terrorists. May not be giving funds to a terrorist org, but sure us hypocrisy if not "negotiating."
Or weapons via Iran Contra to a country hostile to the US. The fact is, we say we don't negotiate with terrorists, and they know we have before, and no doubt will again.
Someone has to say it:
Why don't we offer to pay these bribes, and then just bomb the **** out of them when they show up?
Why didn't we blow away everyone after securing Bergdahl? We are dealing with terrorists, not civilized Belgians.
Because (1) they will never show up again to accept their booty and will find another route to get it (2) 'cause we're the good guys and don't do that kinda thing :cool:
I say, don't negotiate with them ever (as in actually stick to the public claim...) , track them down and convert them to red mist at levels they simply can't sustain and ignore hand ringing of the UN and anti US countries who wish to see us crash and burn no matter what we do. There's a famous story of how the Russians dealt with such situations that supposedly lead to it essentially never happening again. True story I can't say. See:
http://articles.philly.com/1988-02-26/news/26242928_1_islamic-liberation-organization-soviets-hezbollah
Hence my Qs above to Sensi.
When it comes to piracy, there are a few factors at play. Most pirates are not part of recognized terrorist groups such as AQ, ISIS, Al Shaabab, etc. Second, the insurance companies paying these ransoms are foreign holdings such as Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group out of England and not subject to our laws.
I do not always agree with the Administration's handling of these situations. At the same time, I have no desire for my government to be "uniform" in its approach since each case should be judged on its merits. In addition, I have no problem with the government performing actions that are outlawed for its citizens; such is the nature of government to the governed.
Finally, our policy of not negotiating with terrorists came out of the Reagan Administration. There are very few laws restricting the Federal Government, and each POTUS has a lot of latitude in modifying this policy position.
I don't have a problem with our government not negotiating with terrorists, even though they frequently break their own rules and do it when it suits them.
I do have a problem with them threatening a grieving family with prosecution if they try to pay a ransom, particularly when there was no possible way they were going to be capable of meeting the terrorist's demands. Why don't you kick the family dog while you're at it, you insensitive pricks? :mad:
I don't have a problem with our government not negotiating with terrorists, even though they frequently break their own rules and do it when it suits them.
I do have a problem with them threatening a grieving family with prosecution if they try to pay a ransom, particularly when there was no possible way they were going to be capable of meeting the terrorist's demands. Why don't you kick the family dog while you're at it, you insensitive pricks? :mad:
Well, wouldn't want them to be short come tax time now would we?
When it comes to piracy, there are a few factors at play. Most pirates are not part of recognized terrorist groups such as AQ, ISIS, Al Shaabab, etc. Second, the insurance companies paying these ransoms are foreign holdings such as Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group out of England and not subject to our laws.
I do not always agree with the Administration's handling of these situations. At the same time, I have no desire for my government to be "uniform" in its approach since each case should be judged on its merits. In addition, I have no problem with the government performing actions that are outlawed for its citizens; such is the nature of government to the governed.
Finally, our policy of not negotiating with terrorists came out of the Reagan Administration. There are very few laws restricting the Federal Government, and each POTUS has a lot of latitude in modifying this policy position.
Thanx for the intel, that makes more sense at least.
That's as it may be. But having watched the three Benghazi contractors' interviews on Fox, and the Foleys' interview (also on Fox, oddly enough) one thing really jumps out at me. Unless I am really, really confused, these people are doing something really unusual these days: they have a moral compass and, each in their own way, "stuck to their guns". In the case of the contractors, literally.
Nowadays we are beset by weasels who will say and do anything if it serves their purposes. Oh, and that rumbling sound? Just the Four Horsemen, making their big comeback tour.
That's as it may be. But having watched the three Benghazi contractors' interviews on Fox, and the Foleys' interview (also on Fox, oddly enough) one thing really jumps out at me. Unless I am really, really confused, these people are doing something really unusual these days: they have a moral compass and, each in their own way, "stuck to their guns". In the case of the contractors, literally.
Nowadays we are beset by weasels who will say and do anything if it serves their purposes. Oh, and that rumbling sound? Just the Four Horsemen, making their big comeback tour.
Meh, such weasels have existed since humans started societies and you can see disdain for said weasels in the writings of all men of honor and honesty since before the Greeks. It's easy to lose perspective and everyone thinks the current time they live is different. Same shit, different century. The battle between that small % of people with back bone and moral compass and vision and the larger % of people who are weasels and followers of weasels continues as it ever did. The older you get and or the more history you read, does the immortal words of Mr Natural hit home: "Twas ever thus"
Weaslelness is a human trait passed by generations of weasels. :cool:
I don't have a problem with our government not negotiating with terrorists, even though they frequently break their own rules and do it when it suits them.
I do have a problem with them threatening a grieving family with prosecution if they try to pay a ransom, particularly when there was no possible way they were going to be capable of meeting the terrorist's demands. Why don't you kick the family dog while you're at it, you insensitive pricks? :mad:
So far, we have one side in this story: the family's perception. It is entirely possible that their perception is an unrealistic interpretation of a warning. Also, my understanding is that this warning came when Foley was still alive and their was no indication that he was about to be killed. Thus, it is not as if the communication happened while they were grieving his death.
Meh, such weasels have existed since humans started societies and you can see disdain for said weasels in the writings of all men of honor and honesty since before the Greeks. It's easy to lose perspective and everyone thinks the current time they live is different. Same shit, different century. The battle between that small % of people with back bone and moral compass and vision and the larger % of people who are weasels and followers of weasels continues as it ever did. The older you get and or the more history you read, does the immortal words of Mr Natural hit home: "Twas ever thus"
Weaslelness is a human trait passed by generations of weasels. :cool:
Amen to that. Thucydides wrote about it as did a whole lot of my favorite dead white guys. I wouldn't say that I have "lost perspective" as much as I occasionally wonder what the HELL is wrong with people. Then I get up the next day and hit it again. Murphy is everywhere, including into the bad guys' stuff. Perhaps more so because they lie to everyone, including each other. Let's hear it for Nemesis.
It is indeed illegal to send money to known terrorist organizations - even when it is in the form of a ransom. That is because the money is used to fund more terrorism that destroys more lives.
Mr. Folly knew this when he decided to put himself in harm's way repeatedly. I do not fault the administration for advising his parents of the consequences should they decide to break the law.
Checkmate....
Averageman
09-16-14, 17:09
So far, we have one side in this story: the family's perception. It is entirely possible that their perception is an unrealistic interpretation of a warning. Also, my understanding is that this warning came when Foley was still alive and their was no indication that he was about to be killed. Thus, it is not as if the communication happened while they were grieving his death.
I'm not sure how I would feel about someone 'warning me' not to pay a ransom. I don't know that I would take that meeting without some sort of way to record what was said to me.
I'm not sure if the Foley's have the kind of money that could make that happen, my understanding is that ISIS asks for tens of millions in ransom, thats some pretty long green right there.
All in all I can understand their grief and anger, but in the end when you go to stupid places and do stupid things...
Amen to that. Thucydides wrote about it as did a whole lot of my favorite dead white guys. I wouldn't say that I have "lost perspective" as much as I occasionally wonder what the HELL is wrong with people. Then I get up the next day and hit it again. Murphy is everywhere, including into the bad guys' stuff. Perhaps more so because they lie to everyone, including each other. Let's hear it for Nemesis.
A site dedicated to great thinkers who asked "what hell is wrong with people?" in their various ways and forms would be useful I think. Useful as both a tool of perspective that shit heads have always existed, and a collective of thoughts on their wisdom how to approach it using history as the lesson. We know of course one major failure of humanity, which allows said weasels emerge over and and over is due to ignoring history itself.
It is indeed illegal to send money to known terrorist organizations - even when it is in the form of a ransom. That is because the money is used to fund more terrorism that destroys more lives.
Mr. Folly knew this when he decided to put himself in harm's way repeatedly. I do not fault the administration for advising his parents of the consequences should they decide to break the law.
Kinda like how barry traded 5 gitmo prisoners for bergdahl?
So far, we have one side in this story: the family's perception. It is entirely possible that their perception is an unrealistic interpretation of a warning. Also, my understanding is that this warning came when Foley was still alive and their was no indication that he was about to be killed. Thus, it is not as if the communication happened while they were grieving his death.
Yeah, it's not like a family who's son was being held captive by brutal savages threatening to do exactly what they've done to countless other poor souls, should have cause to be fearful and inconsolable.
Nice try, but here's your ticket for the failboat. :(
Yeah, it's not like a family who's son was being held captive by brutal savages threatening to do exactly what they've done to countless other poor souls, should have cause to be fearful and inconsolable.
Nice try, but here's your ticket for the failboat. :(
Foley was held captive for almost 2 years and his family was not notified of his impending execution until 1 week before his beheading. In fact, multiple other foreign journalist were released by ISIS after their country or employer paid a ransom that was closer to $4M. However, ISIS wanted $130M or a prisoner swap which was unrealistic.
So, what would you do? Do you allow the family to send a few million (they had collected an undisclosed sum in donations) that has no chance of securing his release, violates our laws, and will be used to fund more terror attacks?
Foley was held captive for almost 2 years and his family was not notified of his impending execution until 1 week before his beheading. In fact, multiple other foreign journalist were released by ISIS after their country or employer paid a ransom that was closer to $4M. However, ISIS wanted $130M or a prisoner swap which was unrealistic.
So, what would you do? Do you allow the family to send a few million (they had collected an undisclosed sum in donations) that has no chance of securing his release, violates our laws, and will be used to fund more terror attacks?
That doesn't even make any sense. They want $130M and the family is going to send them at best, 3-5% for his release? Now, what have Foley and Sotloff cost us in response? In lost credibility on the world stage? I'm not saying we should pay them off, I'm saying that threatening the family is a zero sum game. Even if the family had $130M and wanted to pay, I'm not sure we should stop them. It's not like the NSA doesn't have the entire planet wired for sound and can't track things that happen in the ethersphere. I'd rather give them the money, track the money to them and send them a few hundred million in Tomahawks. I'd rather destroy their bank so that not only do they lose the millions the Foley family sent them, but all the millions the Europeans sent them as well. Do business with terrorists? Then you're an official enemy of the United States.
But then again I'd prefer we grow a set and declare war on the terrorist organization that declared war on the United States, then followed through by killing our citizens. When the best we can do is threaten the family of a kidnapping victim and drop a handful of bombs, all while saying we want to "degrade" the enemy? Weak sauce... :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.