Paying ransom to free envoys - Canada not making US happy

[Smallc]

I think this has a great deal to do with who it was that was in fact being held. Obviously, sending in the JTF2 in this case wasn't an option. They are supposed to be one of the few top tier special forces (like Delta Force and Seal Team 6)) in the world.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Smallc

[Sir Bandelot]

Many other allies have also paid such ransoms. Germany, Australia, Italy, the UK. In some cases it is paid by governments, in others by private companies. Such as happened with US owned ship 'MV Panama', 7 million dollar US ransom paid.

There has to be a better solution than paying the ransom, but until then, if it's not paid, people could be killed. If a task force tries to rescue them, people might be killed too, including hostages and members of the task force. So the question remains, do they take the chance that people will die, or pay the money.

My opinion is, pay the money to free the hostages, THEN once lives are not at stake send in a task force, or provide some other substantial security option.

They may have some legitimate claims about certain vessels passing through their territorial waters.

If they are being short-changed for what would normally be considered legitimate claim for a toll, that should be addressed. Just because there is no central government shouldn't justify a free ride for shipping and fishing vessels passing through of making money off of Somalian waters.

Edited September 24, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[William Ashley]

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.

The problem is that they didn't go in after to get the money back.

Funding Al Qaeda and letting them live is the last thing you want to do as part of "the war on terror" unless the goal was to covertly fund that front.

Edited September 25, 2011 by William Ashley

[capricorn]

Many other allies have also paid such ransoms. Germany, Australia, Italy, the UK. In some cases it is paid by governments, in others by private companies.

Do we know for sure that it is the Canadian government who paid a ransom for their release?

Harper singled out the help of the governments of Mali and Burkina Faso which he said were responsible for the release of the men. He also praised Canadian diplomats who've been working for four months to secure their release.

Harper was firm that Ottawa does not pay ransoms or release prisoners but left the door open to the possibility that other governments may have done so.

"A negotiated release of the hostages was preferable to just about ...every other option," he said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/622460

Fowler was in Africa as a UN envoy and not on Canadian government business so it's possible that a country other than Canada paid up. Heck, maybe the UN paid up for all we know.

[Rocky Road]

http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyeshowcase/2010/troublewithpirates/

The issue underlying the problem here is Somalia.

I recently watched a program about the pirates of Somalia, it is a very desperate act.

Here is a video of the famous Somali-Canadian Knaan with his opinion on piracy..

Edited September 25, 2011 by Rocky Road

[Guest American Woman]

Many other allies have also paid such ransoms. Germany, Australia, Italy, the UK. In some cases it is paid by governments, in others by private companies. Such as happened with US owned ship 'MV Panama', 7 million dollar US ransom paid.

"Private companies" and the government are two very different things, so if a ransom were paid by a private company, it wouldn't be "other allies" paying it.

So please list the "many other allies [who] have also paid such ransoms" - with a source to back up your claim. Thank you.

[cybercoma]

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?

That's a good question.

I think we need to look at the difference between being kidnapped and arrested, but particularly how one could make the argument that a lawless arrest is nothing more than kidnapping with government consent. It's interesting that one is a legal detention, but carries many similarities to the kidnapping: arbitrary confinement, ransom in the form of bail, detainees used for political purposes, etc. However, there are some important differences. For instance, States are philosophically justified in their use of force. Very interesting question.

Edited September 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[Guest American Woman]

That's a good question.

I think we need to look at the difference between being kidnapped and arrested, but particularly how one could make the argument that a lawless arrest is nothing more than kidnapping with government consent. It's interesting that one is a legal detention, but carries many similarities to the kidnapping: arbitrary confinement, ransom in the form of bail, detainees used for political purposes, etc. However, there are some important differences. For instance, States are philosophically justified in their use of force. Very interesting question.

I think, though I may be wrong, that the question was rhetorical.

Crossing into a country illegally and being arrested and charged with a crime because of it and demanding bail to be let out of prison pre-trial is not the same as kidnapping random people who have done nothing illegal, aren't in the country illegally, and holding them for ransom with the threat of killing them if the ransom isn't paid.

Demanding and paying bail, which is quite normal after an arrest, is not equivalent to kidnapping and threatening death if a ransom is not paid.

[cybercoma]

They may have some legitimate claims about certain vessels passing through their territorial waters.

If they are being short-changed for what would normally be considered legitimate claim for a toll, that should be addressed. Just because there is no central government shouldn't justify a free ride for shipping and fishing vessels passing through of making money off of Somalian waters.

That don't have any legitimate claim to restrict vessels passing through their waters on their way into or out of the Suez Canal.

[Sir Bandelot]

That don't have any legitimate claim to restrict vessels passing through their waters on their way into or out of the Suez Canal.

If you say so. As I posted, some reports indicate that vessels dumped toxic waste into important fishing areas. Other reports show illegal fishing by foreign ships.

[Sir Bandelot]

"Private companies" and the government are two very different things, so if a ransom were paid by a private company, it wouldn't be "other allies" paying it.

So please list the "many other allies [who] have also paid such ransoms" - with a source to back up your claim. Thank you.

I don't think there is a big difference in terms of the outcome, encouraging piracy and kidnapping. I would think that governments would be somewhat involved in any case when a company pays a ransom of 7 million dollars to pirates. If that creates a threat to security, pirates using money to arm themselves with high-tech equipment, governments should still be concerned about that.

[Sir Bandelot]

Germany accused of paying large ransom to free hostages

Release of French journalists Huge ransom ‘paid to Taliban in Pakistan’

Ransom paid as Somali pirates free Spanish trawler

South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan

Italy 'paid $1m to free hostages'

There's more, such as from Australia, Austria and Great Britain, but there are many denials. There are other methods of paying these ransoms indirectly, by proxy such as asking another country to pay the ransom in exchange for deals on business and aid.

[cybercoma]

If you say so. As I posted, some reports indicate that vessels dumped toxic waste into important fishing areas. Other reports show illegal fishing by foreign ships.

That would be different than charging tolls. I agree with policing the waters for those kinds of issues.

[cybercoma]

I don't think there is a big difference in terms of the outcome, encouraging piracy and kidnapping. I would think that governments would be somewhat involved in any case when a company pays a ransom of 7 million dollars to pirates. If that creates a threat to security, pirates using money to arm themselves with high-tech equipment, governments should still be concerned about that.

If there was a recognized government would we be calling them pirates? Perhaps they would be considered the Somalian Navy.

[Sir Bandelot]

If there was a recognized government would we be calling them pirates? Perhaps they would be considered the Somalian Navy.

That's a good question, as one of these pirate groups calls themselves the "Somali Volunteer Coast Guard". A good reason to show some restraint, I think. But it does not justify demanding for/ paying huge ransoms, whether that be by a company or a government.

Odd that some would think company payouts are more acceptable than when done by governments. Not singling out anyone here specifically, but these ransom payouts by companies don't make for a big debate in the news. Why is it ok for a company that has vested self interest and the capital available to rescue their cargo and crew, but for a private citizen that doesn't have that kind of backing, we feel it's not ok to pay their ransom, and risk letting them be killed? But it's ok for a private person to pay the ultimate price (death), for the sake of counter-piracy ideology?

In some cases, there are companies being created to help come up with the money to pay for individual hostages. They do it by fund raising. They may even get government assistance. When hostages are freed using these methods, government officials praise it as a great achievement, as in the case of two UK hostages. Apparently it's ok for someone else to pay.

Edited September 25, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Guest American Woman]

I don't think there is a big difference in terms of the outcome, encouraging piracy and kidnapping. I would think that governments would be somewhat involved in any case when a company pays a ransom of 7 million dollars to pirates. If that creates a threat to security, pirates using money to arm themselves with high-tech equipment, governments should still be concerned about that.

If a company has the money to pay a ransom, the government can't really stop them - any more than they could stop a parent from paying a ransom for a kidnapped child. The government may recognize that the pirates can use the money in a harmful way, but that its hands are tied. Furthermore, a company can take risks, the employees can choose to take the risk, and only those involved in the company are at risk.

When a government pays a ransom, every citizen of that country is under the threat of being kidnapped. No one is safe. People who are just going about their private business are under the risk of being kidnapped - and the government is under the obligation to pay. Endlessly. If that's the policy the government adopts. And it's much easier to kidnap one tourist/individual than it is to seize a ship, for example; and who knows how each individual company is going to react? On the other hand, if it's the government's policy to pay a ransom, a payout is virtually assured. - What's good for one kidnap victim should be good for all, right? Each citizen should be given the same consideration by their government.

[cybercoma]

If a company has the money to pay a ransom, the government can't really stop ... When a government pays a ransom, every citizen of that country is under the threat of being kidnapped. No one is safe.

This is absolutely correct. However, emotionally it's tough to take that kind of stand.

[Guest American Woman]

This is absolutely correct. However, emotionally it's tough to take that kind of stand.

It's extremely tough. I wouldn't want to be the position to have to make that decision. Ultimately, though, the government has to think of the safety of the greatest number of people. In other words, it would also be tough to know that paying the ransom put money out there to give terrorists the means to kill more people, as it gave them the confidence to kidnap more people, thus perpetuating the cycle, making the situation increasingly worse. It's a tough situation all the way around.

[msj]

I think, though I may be wrong, that the question was rhetorical.

I find it amazing that you are so willing to speculate about BC's question being rhetorical while, in another thread, unable to see the word "grid" being a spelling mistake for "grind" when the context clearly demonstrates as much.

I now not only think of you as American Woman but also Amazing Woman.

To be fair, most woman are amazing....

Crossing into a country illegally and being arrested and charged with a crime because of it and demanding bail to be let out of prison pre-trial is not the same as kidnapping random people who have done nothing illegal, aren't in the country illegally, and holding them for ransom with the threat of killing them if the ransom isn't paid.

Demanding and paying bail, which is quite normal after an arrest, is not equivalent to kidnapping and threatening death if a ransom is not paid.

I agree with cybercoma on questioning this (whether BC was being rhetorical or wryly ironic I won't speculate on).

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

Anyway, some good discussion has been had from this for which I thank all of you for.

Sadly, I only caught a baby trout yesterday and had to throw it back so now I'm going to go to the brother-in-law's empty handed (well, ok, I'll bring a couple bottles of wine but that's not going to make up for anything).

/skunked induced depression.

[Guest American Woman]

I find it amazing that you are so willing to speculate about BC's question being rhetorical while, in another thread, unable to see the word "grid" being a spelling mistake for "grind" when the context clearly demonstrates as much.

I now not only think of you as American Woman but also Amazing Woman.

To be fair, most woman are amazing....

Yes, we are indeed amazing - me, in particular. So you got that right.

Notice that I clearly said that "I may be wrong." There was no such disclaimer from those speaking for dre.

But here's the thing. I wanted to give dre every benefit of the doubt before believing that he was actually saying such an ugly, disgusting, vile thing - saying it about "westerners" - and about children. That it's ok to speak that way about westerners - and that includes me - that apparently people did read it as "grind children up..." and not object (as they jumped on anyone who even hinted at saying anything derogatory about Palestinians) is absolutely, totally, completely, disgustingly, mind-boggling to me. It was beyond distasteful, it was hateful and repugnant. It's unacceptable to me to be as a westerner to be included in such an offensive claim. And that's why I wanted to give him every benefit of the doubt before speaking my mind.

Hope that satisfies y'all as to why I wanted to hear it from him.

Edited September 25, 2011 by American Woman

[msj]

Notice that I clearly said that "I may be wrong." There was no such disclaimer from those speaking for dre.

But here's the thing. I wanted to give dre every benefit of the doubt before believing that he was actually saying such an ugly, disgusting, vile thing - saying it about "westerners" - and about children. That it's ok to speak that way about westerners - and that includes me - that apparently people did read it as "grind children up..." and not object (as they jumped on anyone who even hinted at saying anything derogatory about Palestinians) is absolutely, totally, completely, disgustingly, mind-boggling to me. It was beyond distasteful, it was hateful and repugnant. It's unacceptable to me to be as a westerner to be included in such an offensive claim. And that's why I wanted to give him every benefit of the doubt before speaking my mind.

Hope that satisfies y'all as to why I wanted to hear it from him.

Methinks you need to read "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift and find a sense of humour.

[PIK]

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

I would want the SAS coming for me ,before the americans or french.

[William Ashley]

This is absolutely correct. However, emotionally it's tough to take that kind of stand.

no sorry terrorist financing by private companies is illegal. Canada is a terrorist finacier of al qaeda, should the state department put them on a no fly list and freeze their assets??

Edited September 27, 2011 by William Ashley

[cybercoma]

no sorry terrorist financing by private companies is illegal. Canada is a terrorist finacier of al qaeda, should the state department put them on a no fly list and freeze their assets??

Your kid is captured by terrorists and they demand money, you're going to say, "Nope. Can't send you your ransom because that's illegal in Canada. I'm not allowed to finance terorrists." I don't think so.

[Rocky Road]

CTV had a W5 special on Knaan the Somali-Canadian Pop Star on Saturday night, and it was interesting to see his view of the crisis in Somalia, they went to Mogadishu and they brought a film crew and he is a hero to the Somali people.

It is nice to see that someone can come as a war refugee and make it, live their dream and be a success.

Obviously he is heart-broken about all the starving people there.