It’s Okay to Pay Ransom to Terrorists, says Obama

by Jack

Ben Shapiro writes, “ABC This Week, Brian Ross reported that a White House review of America’s hostage policy is making the recommendation that the U.S. government look the other way if families want to make a ransom payment to terror groups to free their loved ones — thereby changing the long-standing rule that the federal government does not allow anyone to negotiate with terrorists.”

One senior White House official commented on these recommendations: “There will be absolutely zero chance of any family member of an American held hostage overseas ever facing jail themselves, or even the threat of prosecution, for trying to free their loved ones.”

The family of Warren Weinstein was told, don’t pay any ransom. They sent Al Qaeda $250,000 for his release, despite being warned. The terrorists never released Weinstein and many months later he was accidentally killed in a drone strike. Now the family has neither their money nor Weinstein, but we have a new policy on ransom. Why? Is this because Obama is feeling guilty and can’t handle his tough job?

Democratic Congressman John Delaney said the policy change “could make sense.” He added, “I’d like to see the data that suggests that families being put in a position where they can actually pay to get their loved ones home really actually changes the outcomes in terms of how many people are taken hostage. I totally support the U.S. government’s policy. We should absolutely not negotiate for hostages, but to put families like the Foleys (James Foley – beheaded reporter) in the situation they were in, I think is really tough.”

Kidnapping for ransom by Islamic terrorists isn’t just about money, it’s about humiliation. There is nothing that could make a big nation look small than paying a ransom to an enemy that holds their citizens. And where does all that ransom money go? It goes to pay the wages of all the hostage takers and their numbers grow because this business pays big money! They’re larger and stronger and in a much better position to take more hostages while they wage a war of terror. How can anyone disagree with this? It’s written time and again in history – why does our White House reject the lessons from the past?

We should put fear back on them as a consequence of their despicable, sub-human acts of violence.

The numbers of beheaded hostages at the hands of ISIS are growing at an alarming rate and maybe it’s not possible to save them once captured, but it is possible to prevent future kidnappings and in that sense their deaths can mean something.   Here’s how:  When that CIA drone strike accidentally killed two hostages, they also killed a number of high value targets.  If we had done this deliberately it would have been better in the long run than to pay a ransom.  I believe we should hit terrorists as hard as we can and not let hostages be their shield.  If hostages have no value as a shield why would they use them that way?  If hostages only draw fire, why would you take a hostage?  This is a harsh policy, I admit, but it is a policy that will alter the future of hostage taking.  And one last thing, we can’t have prisoner swaps if we don’t take prisoners.   This is how to handle ISIS, Al Qaeda and any other terrorist organization.