This opens up every American to the danger of being taken hostage. This is not an improvement in foreign relations. It proliferates groups such as Daesh. It is privatizing the State Department. What is a Secretary of State suppose to say, we don't pay for hostages, but, check with the Christian organization that will.
June 23, 2015
By Will Dunham and Roberta Rampton
The U.S. government (click here) will no longer threaten to prosecute families who try to pay ransom to win the release of American hostages held overseas, and the United States will directly negotiate with militants holding them but will not pay ransom, officials said on Tuesday.
The policy, to be announced by President Barack Obama on Wednesday, changes the way the government handles cases in which Americans are taken hostage by groups like the Islamic State and al Qaeda. The announcement follows a six-month review prompted by sharp criticism of the Obama administration by some victims' relatives, who said they had been threatened with prosecution if they tried to raise money to pay a ransom....
This problem for the US really does belong to "W." The proliferation of Christian non-profits occurred under his administration. The break down of the wall between church and state. It was a political paycheck to the right wing. The number of non-profits responding to humanitarian calls have increased and there exposure of Americans to these very dangerous lands and people has increased.
January 15, 2009
While Torie Osborn (click here) makes a case in this issue of Blue Avocado for the fresh start she thinks nonprofits can and should make in the wake of the Obama campaign, Carol Stone argues that we would be well served to appreciate nonprofit strides made since 2003 under President George W. Bush. What do you think?...
Ah, yes, a thousand points of light. A Bush legacy. The favorite excuse for Republicans is limiting public programs within the USA, including food stamps, is volunteerism and 'deep pockets' donations.
...In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush issued a challenge to all Americans to make time to help their neighbors, communities, and our nation through service. He called on each person to dedicate at least 4,000 hours – or two years – to service over the course of their lives.
Today the nation’s 350 volunteer centers encourage people across a given community to work together to meet local needs. The centers reach out to those concerned with a wide scope of issues and dedicated to many types of activities.
Americans have answered the president’s call to service and more Americans than ever before are volunteering both at home and abroad....
The USA has humanitarian programs called "The Peace Corps" (click here) and "AmeriCorps." (click here) They are sanctioned by the government and provide a platform in areas of the world that are far more safe than the Middle East.
There is a limit to the ability of non-profits to carry out missions in other countries. They have become a real problem for Russia. There is the risk of being picked up as spies and all sorts of issues. Why go there? It makes no sense to defy US policy as if to say, "I told you so." Faith organizations can be a real dilemma for the USA in foreign policy when they leave the standard precautions of the State Department. There is no policy for NGOs from the USA that states, "Missions to Syria are sanctioned by the USA." That is crazy and causes more problems than it solves.
While NGOs from the USA go where no one else dares, the USA military doesn't! The failure of the Special Forces speaks eons to this foolishness.
The other agency the USA sanctions is USAID.
Mandatory federal cuts (click here)
Like other federal agencies, the U. S. Agency for International Development has to cut its budget as a result of sequestration. The four-percent USAID must cut will reduce its foreign assistance, but many ongoing projects will not be affected immediately since USAID provides funding up to two years in advance.
Even if the budget cuts for USAID and other U.S. aid and development programs remain small, they will affect the health and the lives of real people, says George Ingram of the Brookings Institution.
"The area that will be impacted the most is health, and that because it is the biggest part of the development budget. And the cuts that will be taken on health are almost $400 million, which is a large amount of money,' Ingram explained. The second is humanitarian assistance, which will be cut by about $200 million. Both cases are very serious hits because in both of these accounts we are talking about life and death situations."
NGOs from the USA most probably receive government funding. So the hostage payments will be coming from the US Treasury. Unless an NGO is completely autonomous they are going to be paying for hostages with US Treasury money. There has to be a complete separation of US Treasury funding and any ransoms and that means no government funding for NGOs with ransom funds. They can't have separate accounts like 403 C or D. There has to be no ransom funds affiliated with the group and it's members.
NGOs that work in dangerous lands that are not recognized by religious leaders should not be in the region. I think it is the Red Crescent Society recognized by religious leaders in the Middle East. They are somewhat guaranteed influence through the United Nations. I do believe there was a cease fire in Syria that provided for an opportunity for the Red Crescent to do their work and even bring women and children out of danger. That is the dynamic recognized by regions mired in religious conflict. The USA has no place in those regions.
The US government should not be in the business of backing any religious group. It makes for very messy foreign policy.
Realize the Americans executed in Syria were captive for at least a year. Their deaths were expected by those holding them. The reason the deaths were not carried out sooner was because the Daesh regime didn't want to alarm the greater powers before they were better established and it was obvious they were going to kill large numbers of people.
Daesh didn't wake up one day and say let's take Americans hostage and execute them on yoU-Tube. There is a very good chance they would have been executed anyway to influence people within the Iraqi military. There are no guarantees when dealing with these very dangerous people. Ransom payments should not be allowed. It provides treatment of human beings as chattel.
I haven't relied on this publication for accuracy, but, it is perspective.
October 31, 2013
...Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (click here) has a long track record of extorting ransom payments in the millions of dollars. Many countries, including France, Spain, Canada and Switzerland, have paid ransoms to secure the safe release of their citizens. France also has attempted hostage rescue operations to secure the release of kidnapped citizens, although such missions have not been successful. For example, a hostage rescue operation in Mali in 2011 resulted in the deaths of two Frenchmen. The failed attempt also caused al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to change its kidnapping strategy and hold hostages in multiple locations.
If roughly $27 million was indeed paid for the four hostages, it would be in line with previous ransom payments made to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The group received an estimated $19.4 million in July 2012 to release three aid workers kidnapped in southern Algeria in November 2011. Stratfor estimated that the payment could have funded the group through May 2013....
The people I worry about are newspapers/news media and it's journalists. Many news outlets have marginal operating budgets. There has also been some companies purchasing news organizations, such as "The Boston Globe," " The Washington Post." This creates a big problem from my perspective simply because these are global organizations and they are automatically thrust into such a dynamic.
This creates a far greater danger to journalists and their organizations don't necessarily have funds to bring them home. It was really wrong to do this.
It opens up the debate is this just another Millionaire game. Even millionaires may not have enough money to return a family member home. It was necessary to bring the idea of millionaires into this entry. Millionaires should not be in the practice of discussing their fortunes or the people they love. It is just that kind of environment.
As a matter of fact, some of these folks may want to take privacy very seriously and sue whoever publishes their personal holdings to the public. It will grow to be a problem and there should be protections before it gets to be a problem. Discussions of wealth and being wealthy has been a problem for the USA for a long time, now would be the time to get away from it. The struggle of the Middle Class and the impoverished is far under represented in the public domains. Political campaigns are not stationed in foreign countries.
June 23, 2015
By Will Dunham and Roberta Rampton
The U.S. government (click here) will no longer threaten to prosecute families who try to pay ransom to win the release of American hostages held overseas, and the United States will directly negotiate with militants holding them but will not pay ransom, officials said on Tuesday.
The policy, to be announced by President Barack Obama on Wednesday, changes the way the government handles cases in which Americans are taken hostage by groups like the Islamic State and al Qaeda. The announcement follows a six-month review prompted by sharp criticism of the Obama administration by some victims' relatives, who said they had been threatened with prosecution if they tried to raise money to pay a ransom....
This problem for the US really does belong to "W." The proliferation of Christian non-profits occurred under his administration. The break down of the wall between church and state. It was a political paycheck to the right wing. The number of non-profits responding to humanitarian calls have increased and there exposure of Americans to these very dangerous lands and people has increased.
January 15, 2009
While Torie Osborn (click here) makes a case in this issue of Blue Avocado for the fresh start she thinks nonprofits can and should make in the wake of the Obama campaign, Carol Stone argues that we would be well served to appreciate nonprofit strides made since 2003 under President George W. Bush. What do you think?...
Ah, yes, a thousand points of light. A Bush legacy. The favorite excuse for Republicans is limiting public programs within the USA, including food stamps, is volunteerism and 'deep pockets' donations.
...In his 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush issued a challenge to all Americans to make time to help their neighbors, communities, and our nation through service. He called on each person to dedicate at least 4,000 hours – or two years – to service over the course of their lives.
Today the nation’s 350 volunteer centers encourage people across a given community to work together to meet local needs. The centers reach out to those concerned with a wide scope of issues and dedicated to many types of activities.
Americans have answered the president’s call to service and more Americans than ever before are volunteering both at home and abroad....
The USA has humanitarian programs called "The Peace Corps" (click here) and "AmeriCorps." (click here) They are sanctioned by the government and provide a platform in areas of the world that are far more safe than the Middle East. There is a limit to the ability of non-profits to carry out missions in other countries. They have become a real problem for Russia. There is the risk of being picked up as spies and all sorts of issues. Why go there? It makes no sense to defy US policy as if to say, "I told you so." Faith organizations can be a real dilemma for the USA in foreign policy when they leave the standard precautions of the State Department. There is no policy for NGOs from the USA that states, "Missions to Syria are sanctioned by the USA." That is crazy and causes more problems than it solves.
While NGOs from the USA go where no one else dares, the USA military doesn't! The failure of the Special Forces speaks eons to this foolishness.
The other agency the USA sanctions is USAID.
Mandatory federal cuts (click here)
Like other federal agencies, the U. S. Agency for International Development has to cut its budget as a result of sequestration. The four-percent USAID must cut will reduce its foreign assistance, but many ongoing projects will not be affected immediately since USAID provides funding up to two years in advance.
Even if the budget cuts for USAID and other U.S. aid and development programs remain small, they will affect the health and the lives of real people, says George Ingram of the Brookings Institution.
"The area that will be impacted the most is health, and that because it is the biggest part of the development budget. And the cuts that will be taken on health are almost $400 million, which is a large amount of money,' Ingram explained. The second is humanitarian assistance, which will be cut by about $200 million. Both cases are very serious hits because in both of these accounts we are talking about life and death situations."
NGOs from the USA most probably receive government funding. So the hostage payments will be coming from the US Treasury. Unless an NGO is completely autonomous they are going to be paying for hostages with US Treasury money. There has to be a complete separation of US Treasury funding and any ransoms and that means no government funding for NGOs with ransom funds. They can't have separate accounts like 403 C or D. There has to be no ransom funds affiliated with the group and it's members.
NGOs that work in dangerous lands that are not recognized by religious leaders should not be in the region. I think it is the Red Crescent Society recognized by religious leaders in the Middle East. They are somewhat guaranteed influence through the United Nations. I do believe there was a cease fire in Syria that provided for an opportunity for the Red Crescent to do their work and even bring women and children out of danger. That is the dynamic recognized by regions mired in religious conflict. The USA has no place in those regions.
The US government should not be in the business of backing any religious group. It makes for very messy foreign policy.
Realize the Americans executed in Syria were captive for at least a year. Their deaths were expected by those holding them. The reason the deaths were not carried out sooner was because the Daesh regime didn't want to alarm the greater powers before they were better established and it was obvious they were going to kill large numbers of people.
I haven't relied on this publication for accuracy, but, it is perspective.
October 31, 2013
...Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (click here) has a long track record of extorting ransom payments in the millions of dollars. Many countries, including France, Spain, Canada and Switzerland, have paid ransoms to secure the safe release of their citizens. France also has attempted hostage rescue operations to secure the release of kidnapped citizens, although such missions have not been successful. For example, a hostage rescue operation in Mali in 2011 resulted in the deaths of two Frenchmen. The failed attempt also caused al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to change its kidnapping strategy and hold hostages in multiple locations.
If roughly $27 million was indeed paid for the four hostages, it would be in line with previous ransom payments made to al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. The group received an estimated $19.4 million in July 2012 to release three aid workers kidnapped in southern Algeria in November 2011. Stratfor estimated that the payment could have funded the group through May 2013....
The people I worry about are newspapers/news media and it's journalists. Many news outlets have marginal operating budgets. There has also been some companies purchasing news organizations, such as "The Boston Globe," " The Washington Post." This creates a big problem from my perspective simply because these are global organizations and they are automatically thrust into such a dynamic.
This creates a far greater danger to journalists and their organizations don't necessarily have funds to bring them home. It was really wrong to do this.
It opens up the debate is this just another Millionaire game. Even millionaires may not have enough money to return a family member home. It was necessary to bring the idea of millionaires into this entry. Millionaires should not be in the practice of discussing their fortunes or the people they love. It is just that kind of environment.
As a matter of fact, some of these folks may want to take privacy very seriously and sue whoever publishes their personal holdings to the public. It will grow to be a problem and there should be protections before it gets to be a problem. Discussions of wealth and being wealthy has been a problem for the USA for a long time, now would be the time to get away from it. The struggle of the Middle Class and the impoverished is far under represented in the public domains. Political campaigns are not stationed in foreign countries.
