Forgetting Foley

"I feel let down by the US." It was with these words that Diane Foley summed up her feelings
about the government's approach to the rescue of journalist James Foley, who had been held
hostage by Islamic State militants for 13 months before being beheaded in a video circulated
by ISIS. Could James Foley have been saved? Yes he could, but his parents were threatened
with legal action if they paid the ransom, which ruined the chances.

Hostage taking is not a modern thing, or even a particularly unique as a way of terrorists to
generate cash. In fact, it's rather simple. You take a hostage and ask for money. You get the
money, you release the hostage. Simple, but very effective. In fact, in 2014 ISIS made over
$20 million in ransoms and 2015s total is unknown.

Funding terrorism (which it is if you pay a ransom, you are doing) is a federal offence under
Chapter 113b, 2339c, D1, and can land you with up to 20 years in jail and a fine to pay,
and that is not an appealing prospect. Not only is funding terrorism a federal offence, but it
could (in theory) lead to your death. In 2011 the average ransom demanded was $5.4 million.
This is enough money to buy 540,000 AK47's, and if someone bought that many AK47's in
one shipment, I would fear for my life. Another point against paying ransom fines is whether
you can afford it or not. The family of James Foley were asked for $132 million. To put that
much money into perspective, you could buy more than 458 Ferrari 458's, or 4 Boeing jet
liners. The Foleys didn't have this much money to hand, so they appealed to Americas (and
the worlds) sympathetic side and set up a crowd funding page for the ransom fines. A few
days after the page was set up however it had to be taken down after the family was
threatened with "severe legal action" by the FBI. The family then asked what they were doing
that was so illegal and just kept getting told by the FBI that "we don't negotiate with
terrorists". This was the wrong way to approach it, as Gary Noesner (Former FBI hostage
negotiator) is recorded to have said that "...very rarely were we able to get a hostage out if a
ransom wasn't paid"

One point in favour of paying ransom fines is that it can save lives, and prevent human
suffering. James Foley tried to escape from captivity in an industrial complex north of
Aleppo twice, but failed and was tortured both times for trying. And this was no soft torture,
this was water boarding and being hung upside down torture. Not nice. Not only was Foley
put through this, but so were the 23 hostages he was held alongside. And it doesn't end at
inhumane torture, the four American journalists that were captured were cruelly beheaded in
a horrific act of violence. Could this have been prevented? Yes it could, as most hostages are
returned once the ransom has been paid

This leads onto the next point, that you most likely will get the hostage back if you pay up,
and this is as true in Foleys case as it is in many others, including the Iranian Hostage crisis
of '79-'81 where 66 hostages were taken, and 444 days later 66 were returned, with the only
casualties being an Iranian service man, and 8 American service men, who were all killed in
the first rescue attempt. We even know have evidence the 25 Europeans held alongside Foley
were returned safely after their ransoms were pain. If we look at this we see that the odds of
Foley being released were very high, and could have saved his family a year's worth of
suffering, and Foley could have been back out there, documenting war zones, instead of lying
as a stiff, lifeless corpse somewhere in Syria.
I am happy to say that on the 24th of June this year President Obama changed the law to
allow families to pay hostage ransoms without having legal action taken against them. This is
a huge leap forward for the U.S, a country that was previously watching its own citizens
languish in the hands of terrorists. I feel that this was the correct decision, as although paying
ransoms is expensive and can lead to financial trouble for the family, nothing is stronger than
the love of your family, and most people would do anything in their power to get a family
member back. And is America not known as "The land of the Free"?

Forgetting Foley
"I feel let down by the US." It was with these words that Diane Foley summed up her feelings
about the government's approach to the rescue of journalist James Foley, who had been held
hostage by Islamic State militants for 13 months before being beheaded in a video circulated
by ISIS. I want to discuss the points relating to the allegedly illegal act of paying his ransom,
which could, if it had been allowed to happen, resulted in him being returned.

Hostage taking is not a modern thing, or even a particularly unique as a way of terrorists to
generate cash. In fact, it's rather simple. You take a hostage and ask for money. You get the
money, you release the hostage. Simple, but frighteningly effective. In fact, in 2014 ISIS
made over $20 million in ransoms and the total for 2015 is unknown.

Funding terrorism (which it is if you pay a ransom, you are doing) is a federal offence under
Chapter 113b, 2339c, D1, and can land you with up to 20 years in jail and a fine to pay,
and that is not an appealing prospect. In 2011 the average ransom demanded was $5.4
million. This is enough money to buy 540,000 AK47's, or enough to arm the British
Army...Twice. Another reason not to pay ransom fines is that you might not be able to
afford it. The family of James Foley were asked for $132 million. To put that much money
into perspective, you could buy more than 458 Ferrari 458's, or 4 Boeing jet liners. The
Foleys didn't have this much money to hand, so they appealed to Americas (and the worlds)
sympathetic side and set up a crowd funding page for the ransom fines. A few days after the
page was set up however it had to be taken down after the family was threatened with "severe
legal action" by the FBI. The family then inquired as to what they were doing that was so
illegal and but were just told by the FBI that "we don't negotiate with terrorists". This was the
wrong way to approach it, as Gary Noesner (Former FBI hostage negotiator) is recorded to
have said that "...very rarely were we able to get a hostage out if a ransom wasn't paid."

One point in to balance this out is the fact that paying ransoms can save lives, and prevent
human suffering. James Foley tried to escape from captivity in an industrial complex north of
Aleppo twice, but failed and was tortured both times for trying. The torture methods used by
ISIS included water boarding and being hung upside down for hours on end. Not only was
Foley put through this, but so were the 23 hostages he was held alongside. And it doesn't end
at inhumane torture, the four American journalists that were captured were also cruelly
beheaded alongside Foley in a horrific act of violence. This could all have been prevented if
the US government had allowed the ransom fines to be paid, resulting in 5 lives saved, which
is surely no bad thing?

This leads onto the final point, which is that you most likely will get the hostage back if you
pay up, and this is as true in Foleys case as it is in many others, such as the Iranian Hostage
crisis of '79-'81 where 66 hostages were taken, and 444 days later 66 were returned, with the
only casualties being an Iranian service man, and 8 American service men, who were all
killed in the first rescue attempt. We even know have evidence the 25 Europeans held
alongside Foley in Aleppo were returned safely to their after their ransoms to were paid. If
we look at this we see that the odds of Foley being released were astronomical if the ransom
had been paid, and this could have saved his family over a year's worth of suffering. Foley
could have been back out there, documenting war zones, instead of lying as a stiff, lifeless
corpse somewhere in Syria if the small mindedness of the FBI and US government hadn't got
in the way.

I am delighted to say that on the 24th of June this year President Obama changed the law to
allow families to pay hostage ransoms without having legal action taken against them. This is
a huge leap forward for the U.S, a country that was previously watching its own citizens
languish in the hands of terrorists. I feel that this was the correct decision, as although paying
ransoms is not without risk, nothing is stronger than the love of your family, and most people
would do anything in their power to get a family member back. And to finish, is America not
known as "The land of the Free"?

Words: 800

Bibliography:
history.com/topics/iran-hostage-crisis
nytimes.com
theglobalist.com
newsweek.com