'So Little Compassion': James Foley's Parents Say Officials Threatened Family Over Ransom

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Dreadclaw69**

http://abcnews.go.com/International/government-threatened-foley-family-ransom-payments-mother-slain/story?id=25453963

The mother of slain American journalist James Foley said she wasn’t necessarily surprised that the U.S. government threatened her family with prosecution should they raise money to pay her son’s ransom, but she was astounded by how such a devastating message was delivered.

“I was surprised there was so little compassion,” Diane Foley told ABC News today of the three separate warnings she said U.S. officials gave the family about the illegality of paying ransom to the terror group ISIS. “It just made me realize that these people talking to us had no idea what it was like to be the family of someone abducted… I’m sure [the U.S. official] didn’t mean it the way he said it, but we were between a rock and a hard place. We were told we could do nothing… meanwhile our son was being beaten and tortured every day.”

Earlier this week five current and former officials with direct knowledge of the Foley case confirmed the alleged threats were made.

"It was an utterly idiotic thing to do that came across as if [the U.S. official] had the compassion of an anvil," said a former official who has advised the family.

Diane Foley told ABC News earlier this week that warnings over the summer came primarily from a highly decorated military officer serving on the White House's National Security Council staff. James Foley’s brother, Michael, also told ABC News that he was directly threatened with possible prosecution by a State Department official.

“It was very upsetting because we were essentially told to trust… that the way they were handling things would bring our son home,” Diane Foley said.

The U.S. government did try to rescue James Foley along with other American and European hostages from an ISIS stronghold in Syria in early July, but by the time the elite commandos arrived at the location, the hostages had been moved. Foley was executed weeks later by a self-professed ISIS militant.

Diane Foley said the family believed they knew where their son was being held prior to his execution, but other than the July rescue mission, it didn’t seem like anything was being done.

“But we’re not politicians, we’re not government people, we don’t know,” she said. Diane Foley said the problem was that the family “had no idea” because the government didn’t tell them.

At times, Diane Foley said the family “had to beg” the government for information on their son.

“We were an annoyance, it felt, at some level… They didn’t have time for us,” she said.

Today White House spokesperson Josh Earnest said that government officials were in constant contact with the Foley family and declined to comment on the alleged ransom warnings, telling reporters he’s “not going to be in a position to detail the kinds of conversations that took place so often between members of the administration and the Foley family.”

“It is a long standing policy of this administration, it was the policy of previous administrations that ransoms should not be paid to terrorist organizations,” Earnest said before referring more specific questions about the Foley’s situation to the Justice Department.

**Bromsy**

So, reminding people that giving money to terrorists is breaking the law against giving money to terrorists is a threat?

**LordofHats**

They're saying that they found the official who assured they understood this was callous about the subject.

**Dreadclaw69**

And it isn't as if the US has stuck by their refusal to negotiate with terrorists

**jhe90**

You mean supplying money to a group on terrorist status is illegal and that the act of paying ransom is such.

Pretty obvious

**Howard A Treesong**

Bromsy wrote:
So, reminding people that giving money to terrorists is breaking the law against giving money to terrorists is a threat?

Americans freely gave to the IRA. At least this is coercion through a ransom and not an act of charity.

**Dreadclaw69**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Americans freely gave to the IRA. At least this is coercion through a ransom and not an act of charity.

And the British colluded with, and supported, the Loyalists

**Grey Templar**

I'd like to know why the family genuinely thinks that paying the ransom would actually get their son back? They'd have just taken the money and executed him anyway.

**Hordini**

Grey Templar wrote:
I'd like to know why the family genuinely thinks that paying the ransom would actually get their son back? They'd have just taken the money and executed him anyway.

That's a very fair question, I think. Not that I'm suggesting or condoning it, but if the family could actually raise the kind of money ISIS wanted for ransom and actually knew where their son was, they'd probably have a better chance of getting their son back if they had used that money to hire some tier 1 mercenaries to try and bust him out of there.

I'm not saying that their chances of success would he high, but anything is better than the 0% chance of ISIS actually just giving him back after the family forked over the money.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
I'd like to know why the family genuinely thinks that paying the ransom would actually get their son back?

Distress and desperation.

**Sigvatr**

Hordini wrote:
Grey Templar wrote:
I'd like to know why the family genuinely thinks that paying the ransom would actually get their son back? They'd have just taken the money and executed him anyway.

That's a very fair question, I think. Not that I'm suggesting or condoning it, but if the family could actually raise the kind of money ISIS wanted for ransom and actually knew where their son was, they'd probably have a better chance of getting their son back if they had used that money to hire some tier 1 mercenaries to try and bust him out of there.

I'm not saying that their chances of success would he high, but anything is better than the 0% chance of ISIS actually just giving him back after the family forked over the money.

This, exactly. It's what we would do. Never, ever give money to terrorists. Even if the mercenaries fail, they will still kill a few terrorists.

**lord_blackfang**

How easy it is to be a heartless smartass on the internet when it's not your loved ones being tortured and killed. In a thread about lack of compassion, no less.

**Gitzbitah**

I must admit, I didn't see any disrespectful posts in this thread. I wouldn't give anything to terrorist , callous as it is, because they would inflict the same pain on however many hundreds or thousands of others with that ransom. I don't know if the guilt of knowing how much blood was on my hands, and the hands of the loved one I ransomed would be worth it. Imagine seeing the next time this happens, and wondering if your money had paid those thugs.

I do very much like the alternative of hiring a mercenary unit though. Letting a loved one die when you could have done something would be terrible- if that something killed a few dozen terrorist and then they perished... it would still be terrible, but at least they would have had a fine send off.

**Hordini**

lord_blackfang wrote:
How easy it is to be a heartless smartass on the internet when it's not your loved ones being tortured and killed. In a thread about lack of compassion, no less.

What are you talking about?

**Relapse**

jhe90 wrote:
You mean supplying money to a group on terrorist status is illegal and that the act of paying ransom is such.

Pretty obvious

Kinda like releasing 5 terrorists without consulting congress because the excuse was the hostage exchanged for them was going to die.

**Bromsy**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Bromsy wrote:
So, reminding people that giving money to terrorists is breaking the law against giving money to terrorists is a threat?

Americans freely gave to the IRA. At least this is coercion through a ransom and not an act of charity.

Is this a two wrongs make a right kinda argument or what? I didn't give money to the IRA and I think it was wrong for Americans to do so. I would argue that from a nationalistic perspective giving money to ISIS - as an American is much more harmful than giving money to the IRA - but I personally condemn them equally.

**Relapse**

When Obama illegaly ransoms a hostage who became one by deserting his post, there's a Rose Garden speech with the hostage's parents by his side.
When Obama interferes with the parents of another hostage in their attempts to ransom said hostage who then gets horribly murdered, the president goes golfing.

**Orlanth**

Cash starving ISIL is a sound strategy, also if you pay ransoms you get more hostages taken.

With this type of hostage taking you have two options.

1. Apply diplomatic pressure through a well respected neutral. That works when the Pope gets FARQ to hand over hostages, but wont work with these viscious morons, there is nobodty they would listen to.

2. Send in special forces. This only works if you can run an operation.

**Relapse**

A rundown of those illegally released as ransom by Obama in order to get back a deserter:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376

**d-usa**

I didn't realize he had his court martial yet.

**Relapse**

d-usa wrote:
I didn't realize he had his court martial yet.

It seems like the Obama administration is doing all it can to cover and supress the accusations. Until then, let's say accused deserter.

That aside, it seems Obama has no objections to paying illegal ransom himself, yet with holds that from others trying to save the lives of their loved ones.

**Jihadin**

I thought it was the US Government does not negotiate with terrorists....

**Hordini**

That's what everyone else thought too.

**Relapse**

Jihadin wrote:
I thought it was the US Government does not negotiate with terrorists....

**Wilytank**

Relapse wrote:
A rundown of those illegally released as ransom by Obama in order to get back a deserter:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376

"The five Afghan detainees who were released from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba Saturday could resume their previous roles as Taliban commanders, according to a terrorism expert-" Nope. Stopped reading right there. This dude is probably not a terrorism expert. If anything he's a guy in a suit who works in an office.

**Jihadin**

Think one of them are back to fighting

**Relapse**

Jihadin wrote:
Think one of them are back to fighting

Surprise, surprise. And after Obama promised they wouldn't.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wilytank wrote:
Relapse wrote:
A rundown of those illegally released as ransom by Obama in order to get back a deserter:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bowe-bergdahl-released/who-are-5-guantanamo-detainees-swapped-exchange-bergdahl-n119376

"The five Afghan detainees who were released from the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba Saturday could resume their previous roles as Taliban commanders, according to a terrorism expert-" Nope. Stopped reading right there. This dude is probably not a terrorism expert. If anything he's a guy in a suit who works in an office.

Be a good idea to do a little research on the man you dismissed as a suit who works in an office.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Kohlmann

http://nymag.com/news/features/69920/

**OgreChubbs**

Well giving them money would give a better chance of getting him back then trusting their gov did.

**Grey Templar**

Sure, zero chance vs less than zero chance.

The terrorists would never have released him.

**Bromsy**

As far as I can tell it's US government "policy" to not deal with terrorists... until they want to. It's not illegal, it's something they say, but has no real standing. They can, have, and will deal with terrorists when expedient. This is not illegal, just shady as F.

It's just straight up illegal for private citizens to give money to terrorists.