|
|
Â
|
| Quote: |
| James Foley's kidnapping was not an isolated case. In recent years, a number of American journalists have been captured by militants — at least 30 journalists are currently missing in Syria alone, according to the Associated Press. Investigative reporter David Rohde experienced that while working for The New York Times in Afghanistan, where he was kidnapped by the Taliban in 2008. He endured seven months in captivity in Afghanistan and Pakistan in before he managed to escape. Like Foley's abduction in Syria, Rohde's kidnapping was subject to a media blackout that captors demanded and family members in the US accepted. “Families do that because they don’t want to get their relative killed,” says Rohde, who's now with Reuters. But while Rohde survived his captivity, he says media blackouts and behind-the-scenes agreements aren't keeping journalists safe. “The problem with blackouts is that it keeps everything in the shadows and it doesn’t hold governments accountable for what’s happening," Rohde argues. "The payments by European governments for their hostages are being kept secret and then the American government faces very little pressure." Rohde says that difference between European and American policies causes problems for American hostages. European governments will and do pay out ransoms to terrorist organizations, but the United States does not. In fact, other than the highly public prisoner that freed Bowe Bergdahl from Taliban captivity in May, Rohde says there has not been a single case of the US government paying a secret ransom to free a captured American. “American citizens shouldn’t kid themselves thinking that the government is going to secretly pay a ransom or help them," Rohde says. "That isn’t going to happen." |
This is anything but an easy topic to state that there is a simple and clear solution. But I think that those who believe ransoms should be paid have to address one important fact, ransoms continually climb in price. Do we pay $100 million for a single person? Do you draw a line in the sand and say never more than $1 million? What happens if there is a demand to stop the bombing when a genocide is threatened? Or do you simply have a blanket policy of no negotiations (and possibly lose someone for $10,000)?
I feel strongly that you don't change foreign policy for a single hostage, but I'm ambivalent about a blanket policy for payments.
The subject about releasing the failed rescue attempt came up.
His take, from what it took from his comments, were that some things shouldn't be made public. Which happens to be the pentagons point of view.
So I don't know if his omission to recognize all of the behind the scenes actions isn't just that.
I know it's a fine line. Especially if those doing that work seem slighted.
Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said in a statement that the mission to rescue the Americans targeted a "captor network" inside the militant group, and included air and ground elements.
"Unfortunately, the mission was not successful because the hostages were not present at the targeted location," Kirby said.
A senior U.S. official also told Fox News the troops apparently just missed the hostages, as the Americans were believed to have been at the site just a few days prior to the mission.
Lisa Monaco, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said in a statement that the Obama administration chose to authorize the mission because of the "national security team’s assessment that these hostages were in danger with each passing day in ISIL custody."
An investigative source told Fox News that the "top-tier" group's mission included rescuing at least three Americans, including James Foley. The American photojournalist's horrific beheading by Islamic State militants, also known as ISIS or ISIL, was shown on a YouTube video Tuesday night.
Link - ( New Window )
The subject about releasing the failed rescue attempt came up.
His take, from what it took from his comments, were that some things shouldn't be made public. Which happens to be the pentagons point of view.
So I don't know if his omission to recognize all of the behind the scenes actions isn't just that.
I know it's a fine line. Especially if those doing that work seem slighted.
Excuse my language but...Rohde is a prick, and his wife is an ungrateful bitch. And both are opportunistic fucks.
I made this very point in previous threads (I think this was during Bergdahl's release). Also what's irksome is that they will criticize the government/military/intelligence community efforts throughout the ordeal but will expect the government to do all it can to recover them from situations that they put themselves in.
I read Michael Totten regularly. He's reported a fair bit from war zones in the Middle East, even lived in Beirut for an extended period, but he's talked about having common sense when it comes to taking on an acceptable amount of risk and knowing when the danger is too great to subject yourself to it.
Quote:
The Obama administration sent U.S. troops to Syria recently to attempt to rescue hostages being held by Islamic State militants, including journalist James Foley, but failed to find them, the Pentagon said Wednesday.
Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said in a statement that the mission to rescue the Americans targeted a "captor network" inside the militant group, and included air and ground elements.
"Unfortunately, the mission was not successful because the hostages were not present at the targeted location," Kirby said.
A senior U.S. official also told Fox News the troops apparently just missed the hostages, as the Americans were believed to have been at the site just a few days prior to the mission.
Lisa Monaco, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said in a statement that the Obama administration chose to authorize the mission because of the "national security team’s assessment that these hostages were in danger with each passing day in ISIL custody."
An investigative source told Fox News that the "top-tier" group's mission included rescuing at least three Americans, including James Foley. The American photojournalist's horrific beheading by Islamic State militants, also known as ISIS or ISIL, was shown on a YouTube video Tuesday night.
Link - ( New Window )
Also in your link the spokesman said that the operation was reported by the Pentagon because it was going to be made public by an unnamed media outlet. To what extent might this endanger future operations?
I fully support keeping these operations quiet until they no longer put our special forces in additional danger.
I'd love to know who was about to publicize this.
Quote:
I watched him on morning Joe. All the questions were about ransom paying.
The subject about releasing the failed rescue attempt came up.
His take, from what it took from his comments, were that some things shouldn't be made public. Which happens to be the pentagons point of view.
So I don't know if his omission to recognize all of the behind the scenes actions isn't just that.
I know it's a fine line. Especially if those doing that work seem slighted.
Excuse my language but...Rohde is a prick, and his wife is an ungrateful bitch. And both are opportunistic fucks.
That is most surely true as I don't know the guy.
First time I heard of him was this morning. So that's the only reference point I have to go on.
I know there are hostages that have been rescued, escaped, or killed. Other than that, all I know is the media take.
One's assessment of any situation is directly proportional to the amount of known factors.
Quote:
is that the journalists who are "pushing the envelope" by making contact with the Taliban or putting themselves in harm's way are risking their lives, which is their right, but they know damned well the possibility that other people will have to risk their lives to get them back. In some cases lose their lives.
I made this very point in previous threads (I think this was during Bergdahl's release). Also what's irksome is that they will criticize the government/military/intelligence community efforts throughout the ordeal but will expect the government to do all it can to recover them from situations that they put themselves in.
Both of your comments are spot on. Absolutely frustrating.
Also, I agree that reporters who put themselves in harms way to make a name for themselves assume all the risks.
If we start paying then where does it end (answer is it doesn't). Every week someone will kidnap an American for $5M. This policy has developed over years of addressing these situations, there is no need to change it now. The answer is for reporters to get the hell out of war zones.
I say: Let 'em crash!
Quote:
In comment 11817524 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
is that the journalists who are "pushing the envelope" by making contact with the Taliban or putting themselves in harm's way are risking their lives, which is their right, but they know damned well the possibility that other people will have to risk their lives to get them back. In some cases lose their lives.
I made this very point in previous threads (I think this was during Bergdahl's release). Also what's irksome is that they will criticize the government/military/intelligence community efforts throughout the ordeal but will expect the government to do all it can to recover them from situations that they put themselves in.
Both of your comments are spot on. Absolutely frustrating.
100%
Agree...they'll go from independent parties (that most competing factions recognize) to targets of opportunity to further these factions' causes.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/tumblr_m9fsraQt2a1r4zr2vo1_500.gif .