White House Shifts Hostage Policy

Eunos_Cosmo

Forum Addict
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
6,968
Location
Oakland
Car(s)
'84 Mazda RX7, '12 Mazda 2, '99 Porsche Boxster
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/24/fact-sheet-us-government-hostage-policy

The two big change, as written by TWH:

PPD-30 reaffirms the ?no concessions? policy, but makes clear for the first time that ?no concessions? does not mean ?no communication.? The U.S. Government may itself communicate with hostage-takers, their intermediaries, interested governments, and local communities to attempt to secure the safe recovery of the hostage.

In this context, there has been concern expressed by families of hostages about potential prosecutions of family members under the statute prohibiting the provision of material support to designated foreign terrorist organizations. Consistent with the no-concessions policy, the U.S. Government will focus on exploring all appropriate options to ensure the safe recovery of their loved ones. The United States Department of Justice does not intend to add to families? pain in such cases by suggesting that they could face criminal prosecution.

So essentially, families will now be legally allowed to pay off hostage takers to recover their family members and the US government will be negotiating [in some capacity] with terrorists and other non-state criminals. Personally, I think this is a dangerous move that could potentially endanger many Americans overseas. I was planning to travel to the middle east next summer (Iran) but this has me concerned.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think this is a dangerous move that could potentially endanger many Americans overseas.
Agreed. It's the same soft approach as when Hillary said we should show respect for and empathize with terrorists.
 
Now that I think about it, I think this will effect Americans in Central & South America far more. Whereas in the middle east, hostage taking is very high profile and linked to big symbolic messages and terrorism and jihadists, in Mexico it's simply a business. Out of the two Mexican girls I've dated, one was actually kidnapped and the other's father was kidnapped, both held for ransom. In both cases, they were targeted because they were wealthy, nothing more. It's a straightforward business. You take somebody, and you request money for their life. The BIGGEST deterrence against this is the knowledge that the US Government is going to give you fuck-all nothing, and not even their families are allowed to pay you. I think this is why relatively few Americans are kidnapped south of the border. There is almost no incentive. Now, there might be. And that's dangerous.

You know....it makes me mad. I don't really care about politics. I don't give a shit about Obama one way or another. But his last year in office he seems absolutely desperate to make some imagined significant contribution to the US's foreign policy and international standing. Cuba, Iran, and now this. I don't think he's really thinking these things through.
 
Last edited:
Should adopt Israel's policy, can anyone remember last time someone took an Israeli hostage?
 
Should adopt Israel's policy, can anyone remember last time someone took an Israeli hostage?

Do you mean after Munich when they assassinated many people not affiliated with the massacre?
 
I think this is more adapting the law to the real world than anything else. These sort of "communications" are going on either way.

Maybe you're right. I hope so. There are somewhere between 3-6 million Americans outside the US. 30 hostages for 3+ million people seems indicative of a policy that works pretty decent to me.
 
Now that I think about it, I think this will effect Americans in Central & South America far more. Whereas in the middle east, hostage taking is very high profile and linked to big symbolic messages and terrorism and jihadists, in Mexico it's simply a business. Out of the two Mexican girls I've dated, one was actually kidnapped and the other's father was kidnapped, both held for ransom. In both cases, they were targeted because they were wealthy, nothing more. It's a straightforward business. You take somebody, and you request money for their life.

The first five minutes of this radio show is an interview with an expert* on this stuff (warning: this link should autoplay audio):

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/409/held-hostage?act=0#play

* his company sells kidnapping insurance, which is a thing
 
You know....it makes me mad. I don't really care about politics. I don't give a shit about Obama one way or another. But his last year in office he seems absolutely desperate to make some imagined significant contribution to the US's foreign policy and international standing. Cuba, Iran, and now this. I don't think he's really thinking these things through.
Reminds me of when he broke the law to trade five senior Taliban (who the WH agrees will likely resort back to terrorism) for a deserter. He also had the deserter's dad at the WH speaking the language of his son's captors, yet James Foley's and Steven Sotloff's parents never made it to the Rose Garden after ISIS beheaded their sons.
 
Do you mean after Munich when they assassinated many people not affiliated with the massacre?

Pretty much what Eunos said, talking about the fact that they don't really try to save hostages and just shoot whoever is trying to use them.
 
Top