Government Threatened Foley Family Over Ransom Payments

Yes, I'm sure the family of a terrorist kidnapping victim would be able to communicate with the terrorists without the government's knowledge.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/after-foley-killing-us-defends-refusal-to-pay-ransom-to-terrorist-groups-that-kidnap/2014/08/21/99b5867c-2971-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html

 

So a goddamn State Department spokeswoman says it is illegal. Big fuckin' deal. Let them try it in court.

I would think by now that we'd all be a little wary of any particular administration telling us what's illegal and what isn't.

 

I'm pretty sure there's a right answer and a wrong answer but she speaks with a bit more authority than, say, a message board poster. I'll gladly accept the right answer but I'll be quite surprised if such action is "perfectly legal."

 

The parents are being interviewed on Fox News now.

Remarkable people. Speaking very calmly and lovingly about their son.

Father admits that he probably wouldn't be in favor of paying ransoms if it didn't involve his son. Says when they told him it would be illegal for him to pay a ransom, he said, "so what? I'd rather be in jail here than have my son in jail there."

 

This is the thing. It's all very easy to, intellectually, say what's the right thing to do -- and whether that would make any difference whatsoever to untrustworthy, life-disrespecting zealots either way, anyway -- when you don't have any real, personal stake in it.

I'm also with Longtime Listener in that no one in their right mind and with any kind of an understanding heart would prosecute a case such as that of the Foleys.

It truly is a heart-wrenching, unimaginable position in which to be.

For perspective on it, and a very good read, I'd recommend -- as I did on the Books' Thread a while back -- that everyone pick up "The Price of Life" by Australian photographer Nigel Brennan. Brennan was kidnapped and held for millions in ransom along with Canadian reporter Amanda Lindhout in Somalia in 2008, and their families successfully worked (and paid for) their release after 462 days after their governments employed the same policy of refusing to negotiate with terrorists.

It's was a harrowing, gripping tale -- made all the more so because it was real. I read Brennan's book, which focused specifically and in-depth on the negotiating and retrieval process, after having also read Lindhout's best-selling book, "A House in the Sky," which was written differently and focused on the pair's captivity. Together, the books gave a full, well-rounded, informative, and eye-opening and heart-wrenching account of a real-life personal experience with terrorism by some relative nobodies who defied their governments to bring their journalist family members home alive.

 

It is illegal to provide funding to any designated terrorist organization. Period. Doesn't matter if you're funding them out of the goodness of your own heart, or in return for a particular good or service, in this case the return of an individual. You cannot transmit funding in any way to a terrorist organization, or for that matter to any other organization that the government under whose laws you live so indicates.

There's also no legal way to transmit that currency. Suitcase full of bills? Has to be declared to customs. Bank transfer? Banks aren't allowed to facilitate transfers to banned organizations (ask BNP Paribas what happens if you do).

 

A company my wife does some work for (onlythat.com) received an order for five paintings from someone living in Iraq.

However, the company is prohibited from even selling anything to anyone in that country (or Iran, or Syria).

Prohibited, in fact, from even communicating (through the regular business channels) to this person.

FREEDOM! : : :

 

I'd be interested to know how many of those siding with the government on this have children of their own.

If you have a kid and you wouldn't go to any lengths -- even breaking a federal law or two -- to even have a chance of saving his/her life, IMHO you are a shitty parent.

 

Can't you agree with the policy, but also understand why the family would want to do anything possible to save their son?

 

What I'm saying is, if it's my kid, fuck your policy. Simple as that.