Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
Somewhere in the desert of eastern Syria, a militant from the Islamic State beheaded the American journalist James Foley this week. The killer and his terrorist group are responsible for Foley's death. They should be the focus of public anger.
But Foley's execution is also chilling a wake-up call for American and European policymakers, as well as U.S. news outlets and aid organizations. It is the clearest evidence yet of how vastly different responses to kidnappings by U.S. and European governments save European hostages but can doom the Americans. Hostages and their families realize this fully - even if the public does not.
"I wish I could have the hope of freedom and seeing my family once again, but that ship has sailed," Foley said moments before he was killed in a craven video released by the militant group on Tuesday. "I guess, all in all, I wish I wasn't American."
Foley clearly spoke under duress. But his regret at being an American captive, real or not, reflected grim fact.
This spring, four French and two Spanish journalists held hostage by the Islamic State extremists were freed - after the French and Spanish governments paid ransoms through intermediaries.
The U.S. government refused to negotiate or pay a ransom in Foley's case or for any other American captives - including my own abduction by the Taliban five years ago.
With the help of an Afghan journalist abducted with me, I was lucky enough to escape. But today Foley is dead and the Islamic State militants now say Steven Sotloff, a journalist for Time magazine whom the group also captured, will be killed if the United States does not stop bombing its fighters in Iraq.
There are no easy answers in kidnapping cases. The United States cannot allow terrorist groups to control its foreign policy.
One clear lesson that has emerged in recent years, however, is that security threats are more effectively countered by united American and European action. The divergent U.S. and European approach to abductions fails to deter captors or consistently safeguard victims.
Last month, a New York Times investigation found that al-Qaida and its direct affiliates had received at least $125 million in revenue from kidnappings since 2008 - primarily from European governments. In the last year alone, they received $66 million.
"Kidnapping hostages is an easy spoil," Nasser al-Wuhayshi, the leader of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, wrote in a 2012 letter to the leader of an al-Qaida affiliate in North Africa, "which I may describe as a profitable trade and a precious treasure."
Publicly, European governments deny making these payments. But former diplomats told the Times that ransoms have been paid through intermediaries.
Kidnapping as a fundraising tactic is thriving and rates are going up. In 2003, a ransom of roughly $200,000 was paid for each captive, the newspaper found. Today, captors reap millions per captive.
Abductions have become so lucrative that al-Qaida leaders in Pakistan help oversee negotiations for affiliates. Militants groups spread across North Africa, the Middle East and South Asia are now following the same rough protocol.
Hostage-taking by extremist groups is now so pervasive that at least one major aid organization is not sending U.S. aid workers to areas where they might be abducted. Instead, they are sending citizens from European countries with governments that will pay ransoms.
The cases have taken on a grim pattern: Hostages are abducted, months pass with no news from the captors and a threatening video or email is then sent to families. In some cases, the militants ask that cases not be made public so ransom can be paid quietly.
This was the case in Foley's tortuous, 21-month abduction. For the first 16 months after Foley was taken captive, his family had no information regarding his whereabouts. They learned he was alive from two Spanish journalists who were freed by the Islamic State in March after a ransom was paid.
In a subsequent email message, the captors instructed the family to keep the case quiet and not identify the Islamic State as the kidnappers. Fearing for Foley's life, the family obeyed. Other American families with loved ones taken captive by militants have done the same.
Privately, the Foleys and other families have grown intensely frustrated with the failure of American officials to negotiate with the captors. U.S. government officials also refused to coordinate their response in any way with European governments.
In the days and weeks ahead, the Foley family will speak for themselves about their ordeal. But the payment of ransoms and abduction of foreigners must emerge from the shadows. It must be publicly debated. American and European policymakers should be forced to answer for their actions.
Foley believed that his government would help him, according to his family. In a message that was not made public, Foley said that he believed so strongly that Washington would help that he refused to allow his fellow American captives to not believe in their government.
A consistent response to kidnapping by the U.S. and Europe is desperately needed. The current haphazard approach is failing.
James Foley must not die in vain.
© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2014.
21 Comments
Login to comment
nath
Huh? Maybe the consistent response should be not giving money to terrorists! Full stop!
turbotsat
US response to kidnapping seems consistent. No ransom paid.
Don't know what this author David Rohde is on about. Seems like he wants US to pay ransom but most of his article's points seem like counterpoints to that.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/multiple-kidnappings-for-ransom-funding-isis-source-says/
hatsoff
Don't blame the US Government for not paying, blame the terrorists for kidnapping and killing. The following quote demonstrates that paying ransoms merely funds terrorist activities and encourages more kidnappings to take place in a grotesque cycle of supply and demand.
FPSRussia
I do NOT in any fashion blame the U.S government for the heinous killing.
It was this individual and the terrorist organization that he represents who are to blame.
FizzBit
Yeah, just FAGEDABOUDIT!
All the hundreds of thousands of men, women and children the US have killed, and millions of borrowed money that the US has spent for that country. The two wars and the occupation. The destabilization of Syria.
Just FAGEDABOUDIT! The fact that we wouldn't even be there if there was no oil.
Dumb question!
M3M3M3
I don't think the US position on ransom is as pious or principled as they try to frame it. All countries want to do absolutely everything they can to recover their citizens but for most countries the only tool they have is a bit of cash. The US on the other hand, is in a unique position with intel and elite troops that have the real capability to recover their captives. The US pays billions of dollars to have these unique capabilities on standby 24/7 specifically so they don't need to pay ransoms... Maybe if Denmark or Spain had the same, they wouldn't be paying ransoms either.
Also, if they had been able to rescue Foley based on the intel from the ransomed European captives, we might not be criticizing their governments for paying. I think these things have to be decided on a case by case basis. Having an inflexible no ransom policy might be just as counterproductive as paying the ransoms.
I'm also curious how the ransoms are physically paid. Do they drop a bag of cash from a helicopter like in the movies?
Thunderbird2
You pay kidnappers and they'll only do it again.
Shanique Smith
What kind of god those militants serve? How can one kill so heartlessly, for selfish gains? I wonder what kind of brainwashing westerners go through that they could join such an organization?
I particularly wonder what is the mindset of that masked British guy who stood over Foley, as he said his last words.
Their god supports kidnapping a person then demand a ransom, and if that random is not paid execute him/her?
jerseyboy
Htasoff -- agreed. It is the countries that yield to terroists that are causing the problem, not those that refuse to yield to their threats.
M3M3M3 -- nonsense. Principles are principles and are not related to a country's wealth or military might. The U.S. has had many more captives executed than recovered over the past decade due to its policy. And many terrorist groups target Americans because they know they can influence other countries to pay a ransom by brutally executing the Americans. So, in effect, Americans are paying for those folks freedom with their lives. And since all the countries you mention happen to be part of NATO, there is no doubt the U.S. would be more than willing to conduct collective military actions with those countries to rescue hostages. In fact, the failed attempt to rescue Foley was intended to free a group of hostages from several countries, not just him.
lostrune2
ISIS is flushed with $100s millions due to the ransoms paid by some European governments. They don't even need to ask for aid - they can make money on their own - they can generate their own revenue.
BertieWooster
Death is never pretty. Foley's tragic death is the death of ONE person.
THOUSANDS of tragic deaths are occurring due to US drones and mass killings.
It's just that they don't get the publicity that Foley did and people are not including them in the equation.
This is what is being protested here.
It would have been prevented if the US hadn't invaded Iraq and slaughtered hundreds of thousands, many of them innocent non-combatants. For every suspected terrorist killed by a drone, there are 10 or 20 people who just happened to be in the area who die grisly deaths like Foley's.
nath
@BertieWooster and your point is? I don't ask for peace from ISIS. I just want them to stand still until the drone comes by :-)
bass4funk
Death is never pretty. Foley's tragic death is the death of ONE person.
Death is death. Doesn't matter if it's one or a thousand. When you have war, you have civilians, you have civilians, some will get killed, there is NO way around it. There is NO time in history where innocent people didn't get caught up and killed. There is NO such utopia.
And THOUSANDS more of these TERRORISTS kill and slaughter their own people, where is your outrage Bertie? Being selective again?
Because FOLEY was a journalist, a FREELANCE journalist, who knew the risks and took it upon himself to go to these war torn, dangerous countries. ISIS was trying to make a point and Foley was kidnapped a few years ago and as a bargaining chip, they thought they could extort the US or get the US to stop bombing, they wouldn't on either occasions and to intimidate them, the US doesn't negotiate with terrorists, that has been the cornerstone of American policy for over 40 years. So naturally, Foley who was a high profile person would get the worlds attention. If you would put on TV all the killings of innocent people worldwide, you would need a separate 24 hour cable channel dedicated to the suffering and death of innocent people. If you have the money, you can create that kind of station, if there is a market for it and people want to see it.
Bertie, when you talk like that, that is pure nonsense, I was there in Iraq, know many Iraqis and that is just not true. Again, surely, you must be MORE outraged at the murder of the Kurds and Shia that Saddam perpetrated during his reign and also the sectarian violence which killed 5 times over, that must've outraged you and infuriated you as well, isn't it right, Bertie?
BertieWooster
Bass,
What on Earth was the US doing in Iraq in the first place?
nath
I think James Foley contributed to James Foleys death. He left it before, but couldnt get enough. There is risk involved; he knew it and enjoyed the rush.
Should of never went there to begin with.
bass4funk
@bertie
To overthrow a crazy maniac, tyrannical leader.
@5petals
You are totally correct.
night knight
@bass4funkAUG. 24, 2014 - 11:58PM JST
To kill a leader of a stable country, turning Iraq into bloody mess and international terrorist camp. To seize iraqi oil and gas.
nath
False flag - he isn't even dead. Just gets the local populace to follow and allow a new war so they can sell more and steal more. Read the stupid comments like nuke the Middle East and death to Muslims all negative and fascist fascist statements. Even if he was killed how many have been killed on the other side by drones etc constantly western media being a one way street...
bass4funk
Iraq was not stable, maybe to the outside world, but inside, NO. Also, the US didn't kill Saddam, it was the Shia Iraqis.
That was the sectarian and civil unrest, overwhelmingly, the US had very little to do with that, they were more in the middle. And if we seized Iraq's oil, then why does ISIS control the majority of it?
Please stop reading Think Progress.
JTDanMan
Right. Anyways...
I'm wondering about the so-called problem of printing the image of Foley right before he was killed. Perhaps those of you not in the US have not heard about the 'controversy' of the NY Post publishing a front page photo of James Foley caused widespread anger.
What? Are supposed to be children?
bass4funk
I never heard of any problems showing Foley's picture. The outrage came from as why Youtube and Twittervwould allow the beheading to be shown? It was wrong, distasteful and disrespectful towards his family.
Of course everyone know about the story, I saw him many times on TV, he was like, a freelance Journalist, he chose to go to Syria and Iraq, he knew the consequences and what possibly could happen, he was already kidnapped once, that should have been a signal, but he decided to go again, brave guy, but I wouldn't have done it.