Showing posts with label ransom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ransom. Show all posts

Friday, June 27, 2014

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

Report:BoweBergdahl’sfatherwasworkingonraising

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

posted at 11:21 am on June 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

So there was a ransom in the works. Fox News heard whispers about that soon after Bergdahl was released. So did the Free Beacon, from an intel official who speculated that a criminal syndicate like the Haqqani Network would have been much more interested in cash than prisoners.

If you believe BuzzFeed, though, it wasn’t the U.S. government that was considering a ransom, it was Bergdahl’s father. And it’s unclear if it was a pipe dream or something he might have actually pulled off.

Robert Bergdahl, the soldier’s father, did not return calls for comment. However, David Rohde, an American journalist who was himself held hostage by the Taliban in 2008, communicates with the family regularly and asked the father about the second channel of negotiations described by the two sources. The father, he said, acknowledges setting up “multiple channels” to the Taliban, because he was willing to try anything to free his son. But the father, a retired UPS worker, insisted that he did not take this effort seriously, that there was never an actual ransom price discussed, and that he never raised money for a ransom

It’s unclear how much, if anything, the U.S. government knew about this channel. One former American official involved in the formal negotiations was dismissive of the father’s outreach. “There was nothing serious about those efforts,” he said. “They were not plausible. There is always background noise in things like this. It wasn’t serious enough to merit attention.”

So it was a pipe dream. Or … was it?

[In the fall of 2013] the Taliban negotiated on both fronts, for the cash on one hand and for the prisoners on the other, as if hedging their bets.

The cash, at least to the two sources familiar with this channel, seemed to be winning out. “These financial negotiations were more advanced then the prisoner talks,” one source said. “They were really close to getting this done,” said the other.

But there were still plenty of unknowns, including how Bergdahl’s father would have raised the ransom money if a deal had been reached. One theory is that a friendly government in the Middle East would have contributed the cash. And even if the deal were struck, could the actual release have gone through?

So it wasn’t a pipe dream? I’m confused. But this is important news if the White House knew about it. One of BuzzFeed’s sources claims that Bob Bergdahl kept his ransom negotiations “close to the vest” — but obviously not so close to prevent a story like this one from coming out. Also, Bergdahl’s parents reportedly had “extraordinary insider access” to the military’s hunt for their son, replete with video conferences involving senior commanders and White House and State Department officials. Hard to believe Bergdahl’s father wouldn’t have mentioned the ransom option to his government liaisons at any point, especially given the potential risk to his son from any miscommunications. If government negotiators had been close to freeing Bowe and then Bob Bergdahl surprised them by swooping in with a ransom offer out of the blue, the Taliban might have gotten confused or suspicious and backed out altogether. It was in his interest to let the White House know.

And if the White House did know, the question arises: Why’d they go ahead with the prisoner swap for the Taliban Five if Bergdahl’s captors would have taken cash from private sources instead? Both are unpalatable options; arguably the ransom would have been harder to sell politically to Americans than a prisoner swap would, since the former feels like pure appeasement while the latter has some military tradition. Apparently, though, it was on the table, and it would have kept five bad actors from returning to the battlefield had it gone through. So why’d they do a trade instead? One possibility, as BuzzFeed notes, is that the White House regarded the swap as a confidence-building measure that would hopefully bring the Taliban around on broader peace talks. But that’s goofy, if true: The U.S. has been reaching out for talks for years and has been rebuffed at every turn. The other possibility is that Obama really was and is hellbent on closing Gitmo, and only a prisoner swap would accomplish that goal. If he (or a Sunni ally) had paid the $10 million, he’d still be stuck with figuring out what to do with the Taliban Five. A straight-up exchange solved his problem while the ransom didn’t. Go figure that the exchange won out.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

Report:BoweBergdahl’sfatherwasworkingonraising

Report: Bowe Bergdahl’s father was working on raising a $10 million ransom for his son

posted at 11:21 am on June 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

So there was a ransom in the works. Fox News heard whispers about that soon after Bergdahl was released. So did the Free Beacon, from an intel official who speculated that a criminal syndicate like the Haqqani Network would have been much more interested in cash than prisoners.

If you believe BuzzFeed, though, it wasn’t the U.S. government that was considering a ransom, it was Bergdahl’s father. And it’s unclear if it was a pipe dream or something he might have actually pulled off.

Robert Bergdahl, the soldier’s father, did not return calls for comment. However, David Rohde, an American journalist who was himself held hostage by the Taliban in 2008, communicates with the family regularly and asked the father about the second channel of negotiations described by the two sources. The father, he said, acknowledges setting up “multiple channels” to the Taliban, because he was willing to try anything to free his son. But the father, a retired UPS worker, insisted that he did not take this effort seriously, that there was never an actual ransom price discussed, and that he never raised money for a ransom

It’s unclear how much, if anything, the U.S. government knew about this channel. One former American official involved in the formal negotiations was dismissive of the father’s outreach. “There was nothing serious about those efforts,” he said. “They were not plausible. There is always background noise in things like this. It wasn’t serious enough to merit attention.”

So it was a pipe dream. Or … was it?

[In the fall of 2013] the Taliban negotiated on both fronts, for the cash on one hand and for the prisoners on the other, as if hedging their bets.

The cash, at least to the two sources familiar with this channel, seemed to be winning out. “These financial negotiations were more advanced then the prisoner talks,” one source said. “They were really close to getting this done,” said the other.

But there were still plenty of unknowns, including how Bergdahl’s father would have raised the ransom money if a deal had been reached. One theory is that a friendly government in the Middle East would have contributed the cash. And even if the deal were struck, could the actual release have gone through?

So it wasn’t a pipe dream? I’m confused. But this is important news if the White House knew about it. One of BuzzFeed’s sources claims that Bob Bergdahl kept his ransom negotiations “close to the vest” — but obviously not so close to prevent a story like this one from coming out. Also, Bergdahl’s parents reportedly had “extraordinary insider access” to the military’s hunt for their son, replete with video conferences involving senior commanders and White House and State Department officials. Hard to believe Bergdahl’s father wouldn’t have mentioned the ransom option to his government liaisons at any point, especially given the potential risk to his son from any miscommunications. If government negotiators had been close to freeing Bowe and then Bob Bergdahl surprised them by swooping in with a ransom offer out of the blue, the Taliban might have gotten confused or suspicious and backed out altogether. It was in his interest to let the White House know.

And if the White House did know, the question arises: Why’d they go ahead with the prisoner swap for the Taliban Five if Bergdahl’s captors would have taken cash from private sources instead? Both are unpalatable options; arguably the ransom would have been harder to sell politically to Americans than a prisoner swap would, since the former feels like pure appeasement while the latter has some military tradition. Apparently, though, it was on the table, and it would have kept five bad actors from returning to the battlefield had it gone through. So why’d they do a trade instead? One possibility, as BuzzFeed notes, is that the White House regarded the swap as a confidence-building measure that would hopefully bring the Taliban around on broader peace talks. But that’s goofy, if true: The U.S. has been reaching out for talks for years and has been rebuffed at every turn. The other possibility is that Obama really was and is hellbent on closing Gitmo, and only a prisoner swap would accomplish that goal. If he (or a Sunni ally) had paid the $10 million, he’d still be stuck with figuring out what to do with the Taliban Five. A straight-up exchange solved his problem while the ransom didn’t. Go figure that the exchange won out.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Friday, June 6, 2014

Senior intel official suspects U.S. paid cash ransom for Bergdahl too

SeniorintelofficialsuspectsU.S.paidcashransom

Senior intel official suspects U.S. paid cash ransom for Bergdahl too

posted at 6:41 pm on June 6, 2014 by Allahpundit

Can’t be true. Ransoms are paid for hostages, and Jay Carney assured me Bergdahl was a prisoner, not a hostage.

This isn’t out-of-left-field speculation. Fox News reported two days ago that a ransom for Bergdahl was on the table inside U.S. intelligence circles as recently as December. The key point to grasp here, writes Lachlan Markay, is that the Haqqani Network, which was holding Bergdahl, and the Taliban are two different outfits. The Taliban are true jihadis, bent on reconquering Afghanistan. The Haqqanis are more of an Afghan mafia, bent on enriching themselves. Both have killed lots of American soldiers but only the Haqqanis are a terrorist organization designed by the State Department. The Taliban should be designated, but if we do that and then keep pressing ahead with “peace talks” with them on our way out of the country, Obama will be accused of negotiating with terrorists. (Like he did here, in negotiating with the Haqqanis.) So, voila — the Taliban technically aren’t “terrorists.”

The important thing to understand is the oddness of trading four Taliban to the Haqqani Network. Why would they want the Taliban’s guys out of Gitmo instead of their own guys? Or, to put that differently, did they want these guys out of Gitmo at all?

“The Haqqanis could give a rat’s ass about prisoners,” the official said, referring to the Haqqani Network, a designated terrorist group in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the five Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were freed in exchange for Bergdahl’s release.

“The people that are holding Bergdahl want[ed] cash and someone paid it to them,” he said…

Only one of the freed terrorists, Nabi Omari, was part of the Haqqani Network. But the presence of other more senior Haqqani prisoners at Guantanamo has observers wondering whether the network’s goal in the exchange was actually the release of Gitmo prisoners.

“One of these things doesn’t belong,” the intelligence official said. “If you were to put one of these [freed Taliban prisoners] with Haqqani in a room together, they’d beat the shit out of each other.”…

Haqqani, he said, “benefits zero from the prisoner exchange. … Based on 10 years of working with those guys, the only thing that would make them move Bergdahl is money.”

“We just funded them for the next 10 years is my guess,” he told Markay, which explains why the White House might have wanted to frame this deal as a straight prisoner swap for a missing POW while omitting any details about a big payday.

But that doesn’t answer the key question — namely, if the Haqqanis didn’t care about prisoners and if they really didn’t care about Taliban prisoners specifically, how on earth did four Taliban bigwigs end up being part of the handover? If you believe that O’s prime motive in all this was unloading some weight from Gitmo in preparation for closing it, you already know the answer. If Markay’s source is right, it may be that the U.S. was more eager to include the Taliban Five (or four) in the deal than the Haqqanis were. Obama wanted them gone but he was afraid of the political backlash if he simply released them to Qatar’s custody having gotten nothing in return. So he constructed a deal for Bergdahl which he knew he could kinda sorta defend using the principle “leave no man behind.” Seeing that Obama was willing to free people from Gitmo as part of the deal, it could be that the Haqqanis asked for some of their own men back first but were rebuffed because those guys belong to a “terrorist organization,” which would be harder to defend than letting Taliban “POWs” go. So they accepted the Talban instead. And maybe, given their knack for ransoming, they got something on that end of the deal too: Imagine what the Taliban might have paid them to negotiate the release of degenerates like Mohammed Fazl on the Taliban’s behalf. All speculative, but all worth thinking about.

Exit quotation from Ben Domenech: “This is more about Barack Obama realizing he made a politically beneficial promise in 2008 without thinking it through than the government pursuing the national security interests of Americans.”


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Report: U.S. considered paying a ransom for Bergdahl last year

Report:U.S.consideredpayingaransomforBergdahl

Report: U.S. considered paying a ransom for Bergdahl last year

posted at 12:41 pm on June 4, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via Guy Benson, who points out that this tends to … complicate Jay Carney’s theory that Bergdahl was a “prisoner,” not a “hostage.”

A military intelligence source also confirmed to Fox News that a second option — involving the payment of a cash ransom for Bergdahl’s freedom — was pursued as late as December 2013.

The source said the goal was to reach out to Pakistan leadership with direct ties to the Taliban, and float the possibility of trading cash, instead of prisoners, for Bergdahl. That option, though, was put “on hold” in December when it was made clear the administration intended to pursue a prisoner swap.

Intelligence officials confirmed to Fox News that the Bergdahl prisoner swap was then on an accelerated track, and no formal assessment of the entire intelligence community was conducted. This made the opportunity to push back against the transfer extremely limited.

How come they didn’t ransom him? One reason, obviously, is Guy’s point. If you’re paying cash for an American’s safe return, it suddenly becomes harder to argue that the people you’re paying are a legitimate army rather than a bunch of terrorists — and of course the U.S. doesn’t negotiate with terrorists. It’s salesmanship, in other words. Obama’s invested in presenting the Taliban to the public as an outfit worthy of sitting across from us at the bargaining table as we negotiate an exit from Afghanistan. A straight prisoner swap preserves that fiction. Paying the danegeld wouldn’t. And really, Obama would have caught almost as much hell for ransoming Bergdahl as he’s getting this week for trading for him. Most of the objectionable elements are common to both scenarios: Bergdahl still would have been accused of desertion, Obama still would have been hammered for incentivizing kidnapping, and he and the White House still would have been branded appeasers in handing something of value to terrorists. The prisoner swap at least lets him hide behind tradition — “the U.S. has always done POW exchanges!” — even if the particulars of it stink on ice.

But there’s another reason, I suspect, they dropped the ransom idea. If I’m right that Obama’s key motive in all of this is getting the ball rolling on closing Gitmo, not getting Bergdahl back, paying a ransom for him makes no sense. That would have forced the White House into two separate transactions, each of which would be judged independently — paying cash for Bergdahl on the one hand and, on the other, releasing the Taliban Five in exchange for nothing whatsoever. Imagine the uproar if O had simply cut them loose, sending them to Qatar en route to the battlefield back in Afghanistan, and offered no defense better than “Hey, it’s time to Guantanamo.” He would have been destroyed over it. The obvious solution was to combine Bergdahl’s release with freeing the Five so that he could frame this as proof that he’s willing to do anything, even make painful concessions, to bring home an American soldier in harm’s way. Bergdahl is just political cover for the White House’s larger, unpalatable goal. Sean Davis makes the same point:

Now, wars are messy things. And P.O.W. exchanges can be even messier. But because the president cared so much about leaving no man behind, he was willing to let some other bad men go in order to return a brave soldier to his family. Yes, those five Taliban terrorists probably deserve to spend their remaining days rotting in a cell, but when given a menu of only terrible options, real leaders make the tough, thankless decisions necessary to preserve the sacred honor of the U.S. armed forces.

That’s how it was supposed to go…

If I had to guess, I’d say that getting Bowe Bergdahl home was not the real priority of the Obama administration. I’d say the real priority was paving the way to the final emptying and closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. And what better way to do that than by freeing its most dangerous inhabitants? After all, if it’s not being used to house the worst of the worst — and make no mistake, that’s how multiple governments characterized the Taliban Five — then what’s the point of its continued existence?

Precisely. The “euphoria” Obama expected after Bergdahl’s release was supposed to be the perfume masking the stench from sending five lethal degenerates back into the jihadi ranks as a prelude to closing Gitmo entirely. Remember, he said in his State of the Union address in January that this was the year he wanted the prison shut down; that was one month after the ransom idea for Bergdahl had been dropped. Having resolved to exploit his lame-duck status to the fullest in 2014 and proceed with shuttering Gitmo, he recognized that Bergdahl would be better used as a consolation prize in handing over Taliban leaders than as part of some dubious ransom deal.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair