Paying ransom to free envoys - Canada not making US happy

[msj]

Well, looks like our Harper (minority) government did pay ransoms to free those envoys from West Africa 2 1/2 years ago.

Or, at least, that's the word amongst the leaked cables.

I'm not complaining though.

After all, I'm the one who asked here a while back about contributing to a trust fund for Amanda Lindhout - the young woman who was kidnapped in Somalia and held for 15 months before her family came up with the money.

I got the usual grief about how foolish it is/was to pay the kidnappers amongst other accusations about my motives etc... it was kind of sad, really.

In the end I went to another forum (athletic related) to find the trust fund to help the family out. Runners are friendlier than political types I guess.

Anyway, what say ye?

Harper did well, no?

Or not so well?

Should he/we have done what the UK did and just let the kidnappers decapitate them like what happened to Edwin Dyer of Britain?

Also, let's get the lying part out of the way now: Harper had to say "the Government of Canada does not pay ransom" otherwise kidnappers might think that our government pays ransom.

And a preemptive note on this - it is a Friday night that this is hitting the news so please no whining about this being a baseless partisan attack.

[Guest Derek L]

If the Wiki leaks reports are indeed true, and the Government of Canada did pay a ransom, in my view, this sets a dangerous precedent and has the potential to make travel to some countries for Canadians very dangerous. Not a good move if true.

[Bonam]

The appropriate response to a kidnapping is to send in a special ops team, kill the kidnappers to set an example, and hopefully rescue the victim.

As for ransoms, paying a ransom is certainly nice from the point of view of the victim and their friends and family. However, it may also increase the risks of future kidnappings and emboldening kidnappers. From an overall perspective, paying ransom is bad policy, but it would be hard to hold that viewpoint if one has any emotional attachment to a particular case of kidnapping. Hence the outpouring of support for Lindhout (a pretty face can give many guys that little bit of emotional involvement pretty quick).

Edited September 24, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest Derek L]

The appropriate response to a kidnapping is to send in a special ops team, kill the kidnappers to set an example, and hopefully rescue the victim.

As for ransoms, paying a ransom is certainly nice from the point of view of the victim and their friends and family. However, it may also increase the risks of future kidnappings and emboldening kidnappers. From an overall perspective, paying ransom is bad policy, but it would be hard to hold that viewpoint if one has any emotional attachment to a particular case of kidnapping. Hence the outpouring of support for Lindhout (a pretty face can give many guys that little bit of emotional involvement pretty quick).

And with reading the story further, as it suggests, a local mayor “has been seen with large sums of cash all of a sudden”. If this is indeed true, this could potentially be some form of strategy to “smoke out” the kidnappers and use said special forces………I tend not to buy that theory, but it’s possible.

Playing devils advocate, perhaps the Government of Canada had no such options for a rescue of the hostages and they took the “easy way out”……….If this is the case, the only way to somewhat right this (IMO) failed strategy, is make it clear to Canadian travelers which countries pose such a threat, with a caveat that future negotiations won’t be made.

In the great scheme of things, very few countries can make a “Delta Force” like rescue in a foreign country……..Aside from the United States and France, I’d question if even the British could repeat their rescue of soldiers in Sierra Leone just over 11 years ago

Edited September 24, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest American Woman]

According to the article:

In November, 2008, a tribesman from Mali’s Tuareg ethnic group approached U.S. diplomats to warn that kidnappings were imminent. Austria had just paid for the release of two of its citizens. From deep in its desert hideaways, AQIM had put out the word – it was investing its profits in bounties, offering $45,000 to anyone who handed them a new Western hostage.

I agree that paying a ransom ultimately puts more people in danger of being kidnapped, so I think Canadians will face a greater danger of being kidnapped once the word gets around. Perhaps they might want to think twice about traveling with a big Maple leaf on their backpacks.

And I feel it's important to point out that it's not just the US that "Canada [is] not making ... happy." According to the article, Canada broke ranks with key allies...

[msj]

As for ransoms, paying a ransom is certainly nice from the point of view of the victim and their friends and family. However, it may also increase the risks of future kidnappings and emboldening kidnappers. From an overall perspective, paying ransom is bad policy, but it would be hard to hold that viewpoint if one has any emotional attachment to a particular case of kidnapping. Hence the outpouring of support for Lindhout (a pretty face can give many guys that little bit of emotional involvement pretty quick).

I guess Harper had a hard on for the envoys faces then.

Anyone have pictures of their beautiful faces?

[Guest American Woman]

I guess Harper had a hard on for the envoys faces then.

Anyone have pictures of their beautiful faces?

I don't think Bonam was speaking of Harper re: Lindhout, but rather of the support she received in general.

[msj]

I don't think Bonam was speaking of Harper re: Lindhout, but rather of the support she received in general.

Oh I know. He accused me of this when I was asking for a way to give to support the family out.

Of course, the reason I wanted to give is because it was getting near to Christmas (and I believe in the X-mas spirit even though I don't believe in any god), my charity budget still had money to be tapped, and I thought about what I would do if I was in the family's situation.

If any one of my nieces (the pretty ones or the plain ones) were kidnapped I would probably pay a ransom too.

But, hey, that's called empathy which is something Bonam evidently doesn't understand.

But this is just it: if people are supporting Amanda Lindhout because she is pretty then exactly why did Harper pay the ransom for the envoys?

I think Bonam belittles the difficult moral questions that are raised with his comment since, obviously, Harper did not pay a ransom for Amanda Lindhout despite her alleged good looks while paying ransoms for envoys who probably are plain.

Either way, I have paid twice - once with a donation to the family and again as a taxpayer of Canada for the envoys.

I'm okay with that even though I would prefer to see the kidnappers brought to justice.

In fact, I'm okay with Harper lying on this issue. It was the right thing to do to deny paying any ransom.

But I wonder where the Harper supporters stand on that?

If it was wrong to pay the ransom then he should lie about it?

I would say yes, although I don't think it is necessarily "wrong" to pay the ransom in the first place.

If it was wrong to pay the ransom then he should have come clean about it?

I would say no.

Then I think about what my attitude would be if I was the one kidnapped.

Would I be thinking "don't pay the ransom on principle and let them behead me" or would I think pay the ransom and try to fight the fight in another way on another day?

Of course, these are just some of the issues as I'm far too lazy to type any more out...

What say ye?

[bush_cheney2004]

[msj]

[snip video link]

She still looks "malnourished, weak and thin."

Good for her to keep doing what she's doing although I'm sure it bugs many people....

-----------------

I'm not surprised that BC_2004 won't even attempt a reply to any of the questions above....

Edited September 24, 2011 by msj

[bush_cheney2004]

She still looks "malnourished, weak and thin."

Perhaps she didn't notice the width of the Somalians.

Reply to what questions? Are you looking for a fight?

Edited September 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[msj]

Perhaps she didn't notice the width of the Somalians.

Yes, everything is relative, isn't it.

Reply to what questions? Are you looking for a fight?

No, I'm looking for interesting opinions.

No worries, I don't have any expectations for you.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, everything is relative, isn't it.

Certainly in this case.

No, I'm looking for interesting opinions.

No worries, I don't have any expectations for you.

I am not familiar with the case or how it was resolved, and unlike yourself, choose not to butt in to this largely Canadian affair.

Edited September 24, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[eyeball]

Good for her to keep doing what she's doing although I'm sure it bugs many people....

It's the forgiving but not forgetting that creeps them out the most.

I'm not surprised that BC_2004 won't even attempt a reply to any of the questions above....

I wonder of he'd vomit laugh or sneer at the sight of the framed official apology from Canada's governments to Canada's First Nations that hangs in the front entryway of every treaty office in my region?

Canada must bug more than a few of our allies, we just don't have the pagan ethos it takes to stay with the program. Too many bleeding hearts I guess.

[bush_cheney2004]

I wonder of he'd vomit laugh or sneer at the sight of the framed official apology from Canada's governments to Canada's First Nations that hangs in the front entryway of every treaty office in my region?

That would be a definite belly laugh...for a very good joke!

Canada must bug more than a few of our allies, we just don't have the pagan ethos it takes to stay with the program. Too many bleeding hearts I guess.

Not at all...I mean c'mon...it's Canada for krisakes.

[msj]

I am not familiar with the case or how it was resolved, and unlike yourself, choose not to butt in to this largely Canadian affair.

Um, you're opinion is just that: an opinion.

Beyond this forum no one really cares and its not like you're going to start any diplomatic incident by offering an opinion on a forum.

Some of the ideas here are universal so the Canadianness of this really isn't relevant, per se.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada must bug more than a few of our allies, we just don't have the pagan ethos it takes to stay with the program. Too many bleeding hearts I guess.

"Staying with the program" in this instance is not paying a ransom that will likely endanger a whole lot more people. Those allies you speak of who disagree with paying such ransoms do so out of the desire to discourage future kidnappings. They believe that in paying the ransom, Canada has put more people in grave danger. If you see that as having higher ethics than your allies - I'm not surprised.

Edited September 24, 2011 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

Um, you're opinion is just that: an opinion.

..and I would expect nothing more/less.

Beyond this forum no one really cares and its not like you're going to start any diplomatic incident by offering an opinion on a forum.

OK...it's just that I don't have an opinion about everything. Even cold hearted bastards like me only have so much time in a day.

Some of the ideas here are universal so the Canadianness of this really isn't relevant, per se.

Except for the policy of paying ransom? My point was more directed at Canadians who opine on American matters without having so much as a clue. Contrast this case with two Americans just bailed out of Iran after their very foolish "hiking trip" to Iraq.

[msj]

Except for the policy of paying ransom? My point was more directed at Canadians who opine on American matters without having so much as a clue. Contrast this case with two Americans just bailed out of Iran after their very foolish "hiking trip" to Iraq.

Oh, did Iran ask for a ransom?

Are you sure that an exchange of some kind hasn't happened?

Maybe we will discuss a wikileak about this in the future.

[eyeball]

"Staying with the program" in this instance is not paying a ransom that will likely endanger a whole lot more people.

I wasn't talking about just this instance.

Those allies you speak of who disagree with paying such ransoms do so out of the desire to discourage future kidnappings.

Our desire to discourage future kidnappings would be better expressed by our withdrawal from our alliances with countries like your's.

They believe that in paying the ransom, Canada has put more people in grave danger. If you see that as having higher ethics than your allies - I'm not surprised.

Our ethics are clearly no better, we'll let a proven liar run our country too.

[Guest American Woman]

Oh, did Iran ask for a ransom?

Are you sure that an exchange of some kind hasn't happened?

Maybe we will discuss a wikileak about this in the future.

Iran didn't kidnap the hikers. The hikers entered Iran illegally. The hikers were arrested and charged with spying. From what I've read, bail was set - and paid.

[bush_cheney2004]

Oh, did Iran ask for a ransom?

Are you sure that an exchange of some kind hasn't happened?

I'm sorry...I will slow things down for you. The two "convicted American spies" were bailed out of Iran for $500,000 each.

Is such a payment equivalent to Canada paying a ransom to Somalian kidnappers?

Maybe we will discuss a wikileak about this in the future.

I don't think so....it's very much a public affair in American media already. This is what I meant about not expressing an uninformed opinion. A Canadian is home with her family, and that's great, but the policy of paying ransom will always invite criticism.

[Guest American Woman]

I wasn't talking about just this instance.

Even in "just this instance" it doesn't apply.

Our desire to discourage future kidnappings would be better expressed by our withdrawal from our alliances with countries like your's.

You best worry about reform within your own country. You know. Heed your own advice? In other words, never mind your alliances, concentrate on Canada's deeds.

Our ethics are clearly no better, we'll let a proven liar run our country too.

Quite right - your ethics are clearly no better. Which leaves me wondering about your previous post ......

[bush_cheney2004]

...You best worry about reform within your own country. You know. Heed your own advice? In other words, never mind your alliances, concentrate on Canada's deeds.

This is very good advice....claiming that "the (American) devil made us do it" just doesn't cut it. Canadians should own their nation's actions.

[msj]

I'm sorry...I will slow things down for you. The two "convicted American spies" were bailed out of Iran for $500,000 each.

Is such a payment equivalent to Canada paying a ransom to Somalian kidnappers?

I don't think so....it's very much a public affair in American media already. This is what I meant about not expressing an uninformed opinion. A Canadian is home with her family, and that's great, but the policy of paying ransom will always invite criticism.

Sorry, I haven't paid much attention to the news lately and am too busy getting ready to go fishing so ... later.