The Obama administration released its new hostage policy directive Wednesday—PPD-29.
To its credit, the administration reaffirms several long-standing U.S. government policies, such as a government-wide effort to ensure the safe recovery of all U.S. hostages, making no concessions to hostage takers and, most importantly, denying hostage takers the “benefits of ransom.”
Earlier this week on The Daily Signal, we noted the directive was silent on several key issues and did not clearly define or distinguish key terms. Furthermore, administration officials have made statements that seem to contradict the terms of the policy directive itself.
PPD-29 is silent with respect the enforcement of 18 USC § 2339B, the material support to terrorism statute, and its applicability to families who decide to pay ransom to hostage takers.
The president noted in his speech Wednesday that no family has been prosecuted by the federal government for paying a ransom, but he did not go so far as to say no one would be prosecuted in the future for violating the statute.
The Department of Justice issued a statement Wednesday which states in part, “The department does not intend to add to families’ pain in such cases by suggesting that they could face criminal prosecution.”
We have the following six questions for the Obama administration with respect to the new policy:
1) Is it the administration’s policy not to consider prosecution of any family member of a U.S. hostage, under any circumstances, for possible violation of the material support statute?
2) How can the Department of Justice promise not to prosecute someone when there is (1) a federal law that prohibits material support to terrorism and (2) they can’t know the facts of a future case which may warrant a prosecution?
PPD-29 never mentions the word ransom. It is silent with respect to whether the Hostage Response Group or the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell or any other element of the government supporting U.S. hostage recovery is authorized to negotiate or facilitate the delivery of a ransom offered by a hostage’s family. Yet the directive does state unequivocally that it is “United States policy to deny hostage-takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases … or other acts of concession.”
3) Does this new policy allow families to pay ransom to hostage takers?
4) If so, how is this consistent with PPD-29 that expressly prohibits hostage takers the “benefits of ransom?”
5) Does this new policy, in the PPD or its classified annex, authorize the Hostage Response Group, the Hostage Recovery Fusion Cell or any element of the government to act as a facilitator or third-party intermediary between the families and the hostage takers to negotiate and/or facilitate the delivery of ransom monies from the families to the hostage takers?
6) If so, how is this consistent with PPD-29 which states, “ … the United States government will make no concession to individuals or groups holding U.S. nationals hostage?”
We look forward to the answers to these questions.