Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·


Washington: The US government certainly tried to save James Foley before he was executed by Islamic State extremists. Sources have told The Washington Post that a secret raid was conducted in a bid to save the American journalist and others. It failed because the hostages were not at that location at that moment.

However, there may have been one big tactic they didn't try: paying a ransom. David Rohde, a well-respected journalist who works at the Atlantic and the Reuters news agency, touched upon this Wednesday, when he wondered whether US foreign policy had failed Foley with its refusal to negotiate with his captors. Rohde points out that journalists of other nationalities were apparently released after their governments paid large sums to the Islamic State, something the US government refuses to do (though private individuals and entities may).


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/james-f...y-a-ransom-20140822-1070if.html#ixzz3B599b9ja
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,652 Posts
Think about it though – if they paid a ransom to the terrorists, what they are doing is effectively funding terrorism. How many AK47s, IEDs and the like would $132 million get them? What if that money was in turn used to fund another terrorist attack on US soil?

On top of this, if the terrorists realise that they will receive a ransom from the US, isn't that just going to make the idea of kidnapping foreign press or aid workers even more attractive to them? They might target these people more directly to use the US as their own personal ATM. If this happens, it in turn leads to the families of kidnapped people saying "if the Government paid a random for Foley, then they must pay a ransom for our father/son/brother/mother/daughter/sister. This becomes a slippery slope, because the Government couldn't possibly justify paying one ransom and not paying another – effectively deciding who's life is worth the ransom amount and who's life isn't.

As unfair as it may seem, the US policy of not paying ransoms to terrorists is really the most fair route for the Government to take.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Not to pay any ransom is the best policy, $132 million would be enough to arm a decent sized countries army with guns and basic RPGs.

The act of paying ransom should be outlawed preventing any citizen or company from funding terrorism by this means.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,225 Posts
Not to pay any ransom is the best policy, $132 million would be enough to arm a decent sized countries army with guns and basic RPGs.

The act of paying ransom should be outlawed preventing any citizen or company from funding terrorism by this means.
It is illegal in the US at least. Doesn't mean it would stop it happening though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
938 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I have seen on the TV tonight that the US have done prisoner exchanges in the past.

I think it was 5 taliban for one.

Perhaps something like this could have been considered.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top