Discussion for article #227667
“but we made clear what the law is.”
We do not negotiate with terrorist.
6 Likes
Umm, which law would that be?
This one, just for starters:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1202
It’s also illegal to provide funding to terrorist organizations, and paying ransom to ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc., pretty clearly would accomplish exactly that.
19 Likes
It’s illegal in the United States to pay ransom to hostage takers. That is why, unlike many other countries in the world, kidnapping for ransom is not a very common problem in the U.S. It’s also why Somali pirates tend to leave American ships alone.
10 Likes
This WH is desperate for a James Baker. And has been for years.
The families would obviously just want to pay the ransom money and have their loved one back home safe, but that both funds ISIS to commit more atrocities and gives them incentive to capture more people to hold for ransom. No matter how it plays out, there’s no way for us to win in those kinds of situations.
9 Likes
ISIS was asking for 132 MILLION dollars for Foley. That can buy a lot of weapons, and pay a lot of ISIS salaries, to kill a lot of Iraqi Christians and Shia and citizens who resist. Other countries have been paying ransoms to free their citizens and in doing so have been a major source of funding for ISIS’s rise to power. For every one foreign national saved, there are potentially thousands of Iraqi deaths paid for.
15 Likes
Gracias, Mr. N.
1 Like
Worth repeating. Thank you.
4 Likes
Where’s Eustace?
2 Likes
I’m sorry meta but that wasn’t meant to be a snark.
1 Like
I know that rationality doesn’t enter the equation when depraved lunatics are literally holding knives to the throat of someone you love, but if I knew they were contemplating committing a serious felony to prevent that, I would kinda feel obligated to tell them. I wouldn’t expect them to thank me for it, of course.
11 Likes
So why didn’t they just go ahead and pay the ransom, and face the consequences of breaking the law. Sadly it would be Obama’s fault if the terrorists took the money and killed the captives anyway.
1 Like
So what if they did threaten them?
If I thought raising the money and paying it would bring my son home safely, I wouldnt give a rat’s ass about being prosecuted…and I would welcome the publicity of a prosecution. If they thought it needed to be paid so badly, they should have raised it.
3 Likes
Amen to that. He has his days of civility but not too often
Thank you. As soon as I heard that number, I concluded that ISIS never intended to release Foley or any of them, for that matter. The number is just too crazy for most Americans to come up with. As for the country paying for it, sorry not gonna happen.
1 Like
Wait, are you sure about that?
It’s a crime to pay ransom to domestic kidnappers? Not just the anti-terrorism-funding law linked to above - there’s a law against paying ransom to anyone?
Ok, so the administration confirms it did threaten the family. They’re just saying they had to, cause it’s the law and stuff. Not like the Justice Department ever declines to prosecute or anything, so siree, it’s automatic - pay to save your husband and you’re going to jail, lady.
Sheesh what doublespeak.
Excellent research, Mr. Neutron
1 Like