U.S Changes Hostage Policy.....

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom.....


The Obama administration will tell families of Americans held by terror groups that they can communicate with captors and even pay ransom without fear of prosecution — part of a broad review of U.S. hostage guidelines that will be released Wednesday.

President Barack Obama, in a softening of longstanding policy, ordered the review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones' release.

Two people familiar with the review said there will be no formal change to the law, which explicitly makes it a crime to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that that will continue to be the case.....snip~

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom


Well now.....what do you think of this? Despite there being no formal change to the law. Should families be allowed to negotiate with Terrorists?

So Obama feels the wealthy will be able to get their children back and the not so wealthy will be given videos of their children being slaughtered. Add to this if ransoms will now be paid by families would you want you child over their? Think the number of kidnappings may now go up? Duh...and some say GWB was stupid.

MMC said:

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom.....


The Obama administration will tell families of Americans held by terror groups that they can communicate with captors and even pay ransom without fear of prosecution — part of a broad review of U.S. hostage guidelines that will be released Wednesday.

President Barack Obama, in a softening of longstanding policy, ordered the review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones' release.

Two people familiar with the review said there will be no formal change to the law, which explicitly makes it a crime to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that that will continue to be the case.....snip~

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom


Well now.....what do you think of this? Despite there being no formal change to the law. Should families be allowed to negotiate with Terrorists?

Click to expand...

not only should families be allowed to, but if a family pays a ransom and another hostage whos family can't pay is killed all the families that paid should be charged with felony murder.

rhinefire said:

So Obama feels the wealthy will be able to get their children back and the not so wealthy will be given videos of their children being slaughtered. Add to this if ransoms will now be paid by families would you want you child over their? Think the number of kidnappings may now go up? Duh...and some say GWB was stupid.

Click to expand...

Personally I don't think the Government should ever negotiate with terrorist for any reason. If people choose to go those parts of the world, knowing the chances of something bad happening is great then they are on their own. It's called Personnel Responsibility, something lots of people talk about but very few actually practice.
If the parents want to try to deal with the terrorist they can roll the dice and take their chances.

I know you have a very narrow view of the world and hate anyone that don't toe the line, but no president (regardless of the alphabet letter they wear} can control what people decide to do.

And yes, GWB was, is and always will be stupid. Just like the last 4 or 5 presidents we've had. Not to mention all the congress critters and senate snakes.

EMNofSeattle said:

not only should families be allowed to, but if a family pays a ransom and another hostage whos family can't pay is killed all the families that paid should be charged with felony murder.

Click to expand...

Mornin' EMN. :2wave: Why should the families that pay a ransom be charged with felony murder?

MMC said:

Mornin' EMN. :2wave: Why should the families that pay a ransom be charged with felony murder?

Click to expand...

because if terrorists come to believe they can finance their activities through ransom they'll kidnap more and more americans for money. what these families are doing if they pay ransom to terrorist groups is (maybe) getting their own kid back at the expense of many others.

what will happen when they kidnap someone who's fam can't pay?

EMNofSeattle said:

because if terrorists come to believe they can finance their activities through ransom they'll kidnap more and more americans for money. what these families are doing if they pay ransom to terrorist groups is (maybe) getting their own kid back at the expense of many others.

what will happen when they kidnap someone who's fam can't pay?

Click to expand...

How many years in prison would you give to a family member who tried to ransom back their loved one, got caught and arrested, and then their loved one got beheaded by ISIS?

MMC said:

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom.....


The Obama administration will tell families of Americans held by terror groups that they can communicate with captors and even pay ransom without fear of prosecution — part of a broad review of U.S. hostage guidelines that will be released Wednesday.

President Barack Obama, in a softening of longstanding policy, ordered the review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones' release.

Two people familiar with the review said there will be no formal change to the law, which explicitly makes it a crime to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that that will continue to be the case.....snip~

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom


Well now.....what do you think of this? Despite there being no formal change to the law. Should families be allowed to negotiate with Terrorists?

Click to expand...

Good morning MMC

Anyone want to hazard a guess why vessels traveling the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, and the Indian Ocean off the cost of East Africa are frequently taken over by Somali pirates? I'll give a hint - it's because European nations and nationals readily forked over tens of $millions to the pirates for the release of their loved ones and property. When crime pays, crime increases.

Now, look at what happens when Chinese, Iranian, Indian or American vessels are attacked. Somali pirates get blown out of the water and their bases in Somalia are attacked.

You want to see a rise in Americans kidnapped throughout the world? Just make it profitable and see what happens. With this new policy announcement, if I was an American of means, I wouldn't leave North America without a significant security force for protection.

Deuce said:

How many years in prison would you give to a family member who tried to ransom back their loved one, got caught and arrested, and then their loved one got beheaded by ISIS?

Click to expand...

probably 5.

what you're failing to see is, by paying off terrorists who abduct US Nationals, you're decalring there's an economic value to taking Americans hostage. I only suggested they be charged if after they pay a ransom someone else is captured, who's family can't afford the ransom and that hostage killed.

which is reasonable, considering the fact that negotiating with terrorists means you are making US Foriegn policy decisions without the approval of the US Government, which can undermine our foriegn policy everywhere.

It's now officially open season on Americans overseas.

I do not think the US government should negotiate with terrorists. However, I don't have a problem with families deciding for themselves if they want to without fear of prosecution. If a person's child or loved one is being held hostage they should not be forced to do anything, and that includes sitting idle.

jmotivator said:

It's now officially open season on Americans overseas.

Click to expand...

And that's really the issue right? If US policy changes and families now can negotiate with some 3rd party government organization to pay off terrorists, that is a payoff the terrorists are willing to work to fulfill. They make money by ransoming people to further their terrorist cause, buy more bullets to kill people and arm more kidnappers to ransom yet more people who pay them off. I would think it would be better to take a much harder line on this from the US policy perspective. First the State Dept. issues travel warnings and ban to areas which are known terrorists kidnap and ransom, that is already done - now if your kid decides to go there ANYWAY and gets nabbed ... why would the government allow that bad decision to encourage and pay off for terrorists?

Here's what I would do: I'd increase the amount of advertising and notifications of banned travel. I'd make sure that no one can go overseas without knowing which areas are banned for American's to travel, which areas are hot spots for kidnappings. I'd also step up protecting American's overseas in these hotspots as much as I could. Lastly, I'd say in no uncertain circumstances that hiking into Syria through Turkey because it looks "FUN" means you will die - you will be saved by the American government, or by mommy and daddy writing your Senator to help negotiate a $2 million dollar pay off and release of a stupid person.

Can I hold the family responsible for a stupid 21 year old who got nabbed in a dangerous and known area? No. But then again, if it's found out that some back channels were used to pay off the terrorists and the kid comes back to the US, damn right I would charge whomever paid off the terrorists and I'd charge that dumb 21 year old, and if there isn't laws on the books now that would allow it, I'd have lawmakers create some with mandatory jail time, say 5-7 years.

MMC said:

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom.....


The Obama administration will tell families of Americans held by terror groups that they can communicate with captors and even pay ransom without fear of prosecution — part of a broad review of U.S. hostage guidelines that will be released Wednesday.

President Barack Obama, in a softening of longstanding policy, ordered the review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones' release.

Two people familiar with the review said there will be no formal change to the law, which explicitly makes it a crime to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that that will continue to be the case.....snip~

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom


Well now.....what do you think of this? Despite there being no formal change to the law. Should families be allowed to negotiate with Terrorists?

Click to expand...

I see the magic pen is back in action.

I thought the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws of the nation.

EMNofSeattle said:

because if terrorists come to believe they can finance their activities through ransom they'll kidnap more and more americans for money. what these families are doing if they pay ransom to terrorist groups is (maybe) getting their own kid back at the expense of many others.

what will happen when they kidnap someone who's fam can't pay?

Click to expand...

I would be concerned, with what the favor could be in place of a cash ransom.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064749489 said:

I see the magic pen is back in action.

I thought the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws of the nation.

Click to expand...

Mornin MA. :2wave: Well.....BO isn't formally changing the law. Its the same strategy he had with Immigration and the law. Their just going to turn their back on if these people were in good faith negotiations with some terrorists.


Good faith meaning.....they still have to let BO know. But don't worry about the justice dept coming after them.

IMO, even as the policy change is well-intentioned, it's counterproductive. It will increase the rewards relative to risks of hostage-taking. In doing so, it could produce more hostage-taking.

Deuce said:

How many years in prison would you give to a family member who tried to ransom back their loved one, got caught and arrested, and then their loved one got beheaded by ISIS?

Click to expand...

How many years would you give a family who sent a million dollars to ISIS that ISIS then used to fund more mass slaughter?

I think the family in your scenario are punished enough at that point, but that doesn't mean you stop policing families to ensure they don't fund radical terrorist groups.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1064749489 said:

I see the magic pen is back in action.

I thought the executive branch is supposed to enforce the laws of the nation.

Click to expand...

Two words Obama has taught us during his tenure: Prosecutorial Discretion.

Perfectly good policy if the government had kept its mouth shut about it. They have never prosecuted a parent for negotiating a ransom. They should have left it that way. Just plain stupid.

fmw said:

Perfectly good policy if the government had kept its mouth shut about it. They have never prosecuted a parent for negotiating a ransom. They should have left it that way. Just plain stupid.

Click to expand...

Here's an SAT question for you:

Barack Obama is to State Secrets what Bill Clinton is to:

(a) International Trade
(b) Fiscal Policy
(c) Social Programs
(d) Interns

MMC said:

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom.....


The Obama administration will tell families of Americans held by terror groups that they can communicate with captors and even pay ransom without fear of prosecution — part of a broad review of U.S. hostage guidelines that will be released Wednesday.

President Barack Obama, in a softening of longstanding policy, ordered the review last fall after the deaths of Americans held hostage by Islamic State militants. The families of some of those killed complained about their dealings with the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for their loved ones' release.

Two people familiar with the review said there will be no formal change to the law, which explicitly makes it a crime to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that the Justice Department has never prosecuted anyone for paying ransom and that that will continue to be the case.....snip~

US won't prosecute hostages' families who pay ransom


Well now.....what do you think of this? Despite there being no formal change to the law. Should families be allowed to negotiate with Terrorists?

Click to expand...

Curious, when did the US become a monarchy?

Doesn't **** like this have to be, like approved by congress?

I am sorry, I am not seeing a whole lot of democracy in the Excited States, Obama decrees and the puppets follow.

I mean he wrote Obamacare in his office, and never a whimper

This isn't going to affect how many hostages are taken because it doesn't change anything. Families have always paid ransomes and the government has always allowed them.

Just because an act increases the odds of a crime being commited in the future doesn't mean that act should be illegal.

Cooperating with an armed robber increases the odds the robber will continue to use the method in the future. So should it be illegal to do what the guy with the gun says?

Ockham said:

Two words Obama has taught us during his tenure: Prosecutorial Discretion.

Click to expand...

Heya Ockham. :2wave: I thought it was......Republicans <<<<< Bad! :mrgreen:

jmotivator said:

Here's an SAT question for you:

Barack Obama is to State Secrets what Bill Clinton is to:

(a) International Trade
(b) Fiscal Policy
(c) Social Programs
(d) Interns

Click to expand...

As I remember, Clinton tried to hide his tryst with Monica.

Fearandloathing said:

Curious, when did the US become a monarchy?

Doesn't **** like this have to be, like approved by congress?

I am sorry, I am not seeing a whole lot of democracy in the Excited States, Obama decrees and the puppets follow.

I mean he wrote Obamacare in his office, and never a whimper

Click to expand...

Heya F&L. :2wave: BO did order a review last year. I guess they couldn't see a change coming. So BO said he wont change anything from the formal law.....but he will say its okay for a change that really wont be any change. Consider it nothing more than a Change-up!