Should The US Pay Ransom To Terrorist (James Foley)

[Tugg Speedman]

Tonight 60 Minutes did a story about the three US hostage that were beheaded in Syria in 2014. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-hostage-policy-lesley-stahl/

The first of the three was James Foley, MU alumni, huge MU basketball fan and possible poster here many years ago.  MU established a scholarship in his honor in late 2014.

The story went on to say that ISIS wanted 100 million Euros ($110 million) for the release of the three Americans.  The US has a policy of not paying ransom and thus did not.  Further the story went to say that when the families of the hostages tried to raise the money that the US government told them they risked going to jail, as well as those that donated, for violating US law.  The story also went to say that most European countries did pay and got their hostages back.

They seemed to do a balanced job of noting that paying for hostages encourages more hostages and that money could go to fund terrorist activities. 

On the other hand, they also noted (correctly in my opinion) that the beheading of the hostages, especially Foley that went first, gave ISIS a media event they could have never achieved even with $110 million.  In other words, had they paid and got their release, ISIS might have remained one of many terrorist groups instead of the terrorist group.  The spectacle of the beheadings is what separated ISIS from the pack.

Maybe we can have a discussion without running afoul of the political rules here.  It was an MU alum at the center of this issue which is why I posted it here.

My opinion ... I really do not know.  Both arguments are good and reasonable.  This appears to be one of those issues with no right answer, just best guesses and hope you pick the right one.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I really don't know either? 
I totally agree that we should not negotiate with terrorists or kidnappers because if you pay they will only kidnap more people knowing they can keep the money train going.
Of course if one of my kids was kidnapped I sure as hell would want the ransom paid.

Wasn't their a good Russell Crowe movie on this subject, Proof of Life?

[brandx]

No

[rocket surgeon]

NO, cuz  we should never promise them a rose garden-ok, lock 'er down 

[Babybluejeans]

There's a "no negotiate" policy for a reason. The trickle-down effect would be massive. It's also my understanding that the U.S. will sometimes look the other way if private entities arrange to pay a ransom.

[Tugg Speedman]

There's a "no negotiate" policy for a reason. The trickle-down effect would be massive. It's also my understanding that the U.S. will sometimes look the other way if private entities arrange to pay a ransom.

Agree with the reason for the policy.

However, the 60 minutes story interviewed the parents of one of the hostages killed and they were warned in no uncertain terms they would be arrested if they attempted to pay a ransom.  Their was not looking the other way in this case.

Additionally the argument is the speculate of ISIS beheading Americans set them apart from the rest of the terrorist groups.  The Jihads flocked to ISIS because they looked like a winner and they became a real force in the middle-east.  Now the US is spending billions and billions fighting them.

Had they spent $1110 million in 2014 to get their hostages back ISIS would have been one of many groups trying to become the top dog.  None of them would have risen and that would have provided stability in the middle-east as they all fight each other instead of one powerful group fighting us.

Of course this is a guess but it is a good argument for paying ransom.

[Benny B]

Agree with the reason for the policy.

However, the 60 minutes story interviewed the parents of one of the hostages killed and they were warned in no uncertain terms they would be arrested if they attempted to pay a ransom.  Their was not looking the other way in this case.

Additionally the argument is the speculate of ISIS beheading Americans set them apart from the rest of the terrorist groups.  The Jihads flocked to ISIS because they looked like a winner and they became a real force in the middle-east.  Now the US is spending billions and billions fighting them.

Had they spent $1110 million in 2014 to get their hostages back ISIS would have been one of many groups trying to become the top dog.  None of them would have risen and that would have provided stability in the middle-east as they all fight each other instead of one powerful group fighting us.

Of course this is a guess but it is a good argument for paying ransom.

Actually, it's a terrible argument.  $1.1B, $111M, $110M or whatever you were trying to say can recruit a lot more jihadists and make you look like a winner more effectively than any amount of beheadings you can film.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Of course this is a guess

Mother used to comment that yours is as good as mine but at times I wonder...

[Tugg Speedman]

Actually, it's a terrible argument.  $1.1B, $111M, $110M or whatever you were trying to say can recruit a lot more jihadists and make you look like a winner more effectively than any amount of beheadings you can film.

The argument put forth was the beheadings were the catalyst that put ISIS on top.  Then Jihads from other groups joined them and they became the powerhouse terrorist organization.  The argument put forth is we would have been better off if we paid the ransom ISIS would not have gotten the publicly of taking on the US via beheadings and perception of trouncing the US.

I understand your argument but that is not how they portrayed it.

[GWSwarrior]

In before the lock

[Babybluejeans]

The argument put forth was the beheadings were the catalyst that put ISIS on top.  Then Jihads from other groups joined them and they became the powerhouse terrorist organization.  The argument put forth is we would have been better off if we paid the ransom ISIS would not have gotten the publicly of taking on the US via beheadings and perception of trouncing the US.

I understand your argument but that is not how they portrayed it.

No one's saying they don't understand the "argument put forth" you keep referring to. They're just saying that it's silly.

[tower912]

This is one of those ethical dilemmas I used to love in poli sci classes.    You can argue it passionately either way and make some very valid points.      The needs of the one versus the needs of the many.    Which will make the kidnappers stronger, them making a point and killing their victim or giving them a boatload of cash?    If it comes to terrorism, who draws the line between freedom fighter and terrorist?Each of these questions could be a 20 page term paper.    I'm not sure the answers are easier in the real world.