17 Burst results for "Joel Simon"

"joel simon" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

Radio Free Nashville

07:34 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on Radio Free Nashville

"News just immediately of eleven years before climate change. Servers. If you don't take the necessary measures over eleven years, we will end up without a planet, want to my life on this planet, as well as the survival of mice and all of the other species that live on it. And those are some of the headlines this is democracy now democracy now dot org. The Warren peace report, I made me Goodman, in an unprecedented move. The Justice department has indicted, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, unsettling teen charges of violating the espionage act for his role in publishing US classified military and diplomatic documents exposing US war crimes in Iraq, and Afghanistan, the documents were leaked by army whistle blower, Chelsea Manning. The espionage act of nineteen seventeen has never been used to prosecute a journalist or media outlet, the new charges come just over a month after British police forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuadoran embassy in London where he took asylum in two thousand twelve initially the Trump administration indicted Assange on a single count of helping manning hack a government computer but Assange faces up to one hundred seventy years in prison under the new charges ten years. For each count of violating the espionage act press, freedom advocates have denounced, the new charges then Wizner of the American Civil Liberties union said, quote for the first time in the history of our country. The government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks journalism, and a direct assault on the first amendment. Joel Simon the head of the committee to protect journalists said, quote press freedom in the United States and around the world is imperilled by this prosecution. The legendary journalist Seymour Hersh told the New York Times, quote today Assange tomorrow, perhaps the New York Times and other media that published so much of the important news and information Assange, provided, unquote, Assan just being held in a British jail, but faces extradition to both the United States and Sweden where thirties have reopened investigation into sexual assault. Charges later in the broadcast. We'll be joined by Pentagon papers whistleblower. Daniel Ellsberg who was charged under the espionage, and nineteen Seventy-three and the award winning national security journalist Jeremy Scahill of intercept. But first, we go to London where we're joined by Jennifer Robinson, and Turney for Julian Assange, first gen can you start off by talking about these new charges? The possibility that if Julian Assange were extradited to the United States he could face one hundred seventy years in jail. As you said, these unprecedented charges since two thousand and ten we've been warning about these very possibility. The bomber administration open this criminal investigation, two thousand and ten and we've been warning since then that any prosecution under the espionage. That would be a direct attack on the first amendment, and all media relations in precent that could be used against journalists and publishers everywhere. Since the Trump administration came to power, the more aggressively, pursuing the investigation, and the outcome is this indictment. I've not it is a grave threat to press freedom, and should be calls for concern for journalists and publishers every way because, of course, join us on is American everything that he did was outside of the United States. This is a concern for journalists and publishers anywhere in the world who publishing truthful information about the United States. The United States has the death penalty. What does this mean for signs, and what greement the Ecuadoran government make with the British authorities in who removed Julian Assange from the embassy, where he had political asylum for the last almost seven years? Of course, the reason join what into the embassy in the first place was to protect him. So from extradition to the United States to face prosecution not in relation to the death penalty. But the asylum that was was to protect him from this very outcome. It publishes publishing. Truthful information should not be facing criminal prosecution asshole, the government has given an assurance against extradition to the death penalty. The UK does not typically extradite to the death penalty in any event, but that sure doesn't cover off. He's extradition to the United States. And that's what we've been asking for a long time. It is not right. Or appropriate that publishes should face criminal prosecution in this way. And one hundred seventy is certainly a very long time in prison is for publisher who was won journalism awards. He's on the Sydney pays prize journalism awards, the world over for having revealed. Government wrongdoing human rights abuse war-crimes. This is a direct attack on the press. And on democracy itself. Can you explain what espionage means? What exactly Julian Assange faces? Well, if you look at the indictment, while it is the espionage act, it's publishing cuss. What information damaging to the United States? But if you look at the indictment and the way in which it's being described effectively, what this is, is a journalist and publisher having conversations with a source about what information is available and discussing with outsource publishing information. This is what journalists do investigative journalists do all the time. It is criminalising the investigative journalism process, and we'll place, a massive chill on national security journalism in the United States and around the world. I wanna turn to the late Michael Ratner who served for many years as an attorney for Julian Assange, she was the former head of the center for constitutional rights. This was Michael speaking to democracy. Now in two thousand twelve about the espionage act. There's a serious question. Whether someone Julian Assange, who is not a US citizen can be indicted, under the espionage, yet what duty does Julian Assange over the United States of these the, the espionage act if I if I tomorrow surface documents that had to do with the Soviet Union or Russia, rather, and what it's doing in Chechnya that were classified could could Russia, actually get my extradition from the United States because I put out classified documents boy into to Russia. I don't think so. But that would be if they if they actually have an indictment, and if they go after Julian Assange, and the way that so far they've indicated they want to that will certainly be an employee important issue. What duty that Julian Assange to the United States? I want to turn now to an interview I did with Julian Assange in two thousand twelve I visited him in the in the Ecuadoran. And this is when he was speaking on Skype to us when he talked himself about the espionage act, the new interpretation. That the Pentagon is trying to have a really to the legal system in which the department of Justice is complicity. Would mean the end of nestles acuity journalism in the United States, only the United States because the Pentagon trying to apply. Extra-territorially. Why would it be the end of national security journalism? Because the interpretation is. Any documents. The US government claims to be classified is given to journalist. Any public.

Julian Assange US government Trump administration publisher Pentagon Chelsea Manning Ecuadoran embassy Michael Ratner London American Civil Liberties union New York Times Goodman Daniel Ellsberg Justice department Seymour Hersh Jeremy Scahill WikiLeaks
"joel simon" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM

Progressive Talk 1350 AM

13:45 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on Progressive Talk 1350 AM

"Every continent on earth today, including two strikes an anti Arctic. This is nineteen year old activist Marta, Matthew from Madrid. Spain is fan news eleven years before climate change. And if you don't take the necessary measures over this eleven years, we will end up without a planet in my life in this planet, as well as the survival of mice and all of the other species that live on it, and those are some of the headlines this is democracy now democracy now dot org. The Warren Patia report, I'm Amy Goodman, in an unprecedented move. The Justice department has indicted, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, seventy charges of violating the espionage act for his role in publishing US classified military and diplomatic documents exposing US war crimes in Iraq, and Afghanistan, the documents were leaked by army whistle blower, Chelsea Manning, the espionage act of nineteen seventeen. Has never been used to prosecute a journalist or media outlet, the new charges come just over a month after British police forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuadoran embassy in London, where he took a Silom in two thousand twelve and initially the Trump administration indicted Assange on a single count of helping manning hack government computer but Assange faces up to one hundred seventy years in prison under the new charges, ten years for each count of violating the espionage act press, freedom advocates have denounced, the new charges Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties union said, quote for the first time in the history of our country. The government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism, and a direct assault on the first amendment. Joel Simon the head of the committee to protect journalists said, quote press free. In the United States and around the world is imperilled by this prosecution. The legendary journalist Seymour, Hersh told the New York Times, quote today Assange tomorrow, perhaps the New York Times and other media published so much of the important news and information Assange, provided, unquote, Assan just being held in a British jail, but faces extradition to both the United States and Sweden where thirties have reopened investigation into sexual assault charges later in the broadcast, we'll be joined by Pentagon papers whistleblower. Daniel Ellsberg who is charged under the espionage, and nineteen Seventy-three and the award winning national security journalist Jeremy Scahill of intercept, but first, we go to London where we're joined by Jennifer Robinson, and attorney for Julian Assange, first gen can you start off by talking about these new charges? The possibility that if Julian Assange were extradited to the United States, he could face a hundred seven. Twenty years in jail. As you said, these unprecedented judges since two thousand and ten we've been warning about these very possibility. The Obama administration open this criminal investigation in two thousand and ten and we've been morning since then that any prosecutions the espionage, that would be a direct attacked on the first amendment, and all meteoroid donations precent that could be used against journalists and publishes everywhere since the Trump administration came to power, the bay more aggressively, pursuing the investigation, and the outcome is this indictment overnight. It is a grave threat to press freedom, and should be for journalists and publishes every way because of course, join us on is American everything that he did was outside of the United States. This is a concern for journalists and publishers anywhere in the world who publishing truthful information about the United States. The United States has the death penalty. What does this mean for signs, and what greement at the Ecuadoran government make with the British authorities in who removed Julian Assange from the embassy, where he had political asylum for the last almost seven years? Of course, the reason join went into the embassy in the first place was to protect himself from extradition to the United States to face prosecution in relation to the death penalty. But the song that was was to protect him from this very outcome. It publishes publishing information should not be facing criminal prosecution asshole, the UK government has given an assurance against extradition to the death. Penalty does not typically expedite the death penalty in any event, but that sure doesn't cover off. He's extradition to the United States. And that's what we've been asking for a long time. It is not right. Or proper that a should face criminal prosecution this way. And one hundred seventy is certainly a very long time in prison is for publisher who was won journalism awards. He's on the Sydney pays prize journalism awards, the world ova for having revealed. Government wrongdoing human rights abuse war-crimes. This is a direct attack on the press. And on democracy itself. Can you explain what espionage means? What exactly Julian Assange faces? Well, if you look at the indictment wallet is the espionage act. It's publishing custody information damaging to the United States. But if you look at the indictment and the way in which it's being described effectively, what this is, is a journalist and publisher having conversations with a soul about what information is available and discussing with outsource publishing the information, this is what journalists do investigative journalists do all the time. It is criminalising the investigative journalism process, and we'll place, a massive chill on national security journalism in the United States and around the world. I wanna turn to the late Michael Ratner who served for many years as an attorney for Julian Assange, she was the former head of the center for constitutional rights. This was Michael speaking to democracy. Now in two thousand twelve about the espionage act. I think there's a serious question. Whether someone Julian Assange was not a US citizen can be indicted under the espionage act, what duty does Julian Assange, the United States of these the, the espionage act if I if I tomorrow surface documents that had to do with the Soviet Union Russia, rather, and what it's doing in Chechnya that were classified could could Russia, actually get my extradition from the United States because I put out classified documents boy into to Russia. I don't think so. But that would be if they if they actually have an indictment, and if they go after Julian Assange, and the way that so far they've indicated they want to that will certainly be an employee important issue, what duty that Julian Assange, oh to the United States. I want to turn now to an interview I did with Julian Assange in two thousand twelve I visited him in the in the Ecuadoran. And this is when he was speaking on Skype to us when he talked himself about the espionage act interpretation. Of ESPN object that the Pentagon is trying to have a really to the legal system in which the department of Justice is complicit. Would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States, only the United States because the Pentagon, his reply. Extra-territorially. Why would it be the end of national security journalism? Because the interpretation is if any documents. The US government claims to be classified is given to journalist who then makes any of the public journalist has commuted. And the person who gave them the material has committed the crime, communicating with the enemy. So that was Julian Assange speaking to us a few years ago. This is John Denver's the head of the Justice Department's national security division briefing reporters on Thursday, about the new charges against Julian Assange, she said, quote, some say Assange, journalist, and that he should be immune from prosecution for these actions. The department take seriously, the role of journalists in our democracy, and we thank you for it. It is not an has never been the department's policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist. He said your response, Jennifer Robinson. If the department of Justice is concerned about journalism than they ought to be concerned about the priest this sets and the impact will have an all American journalists Michael Raton, was absolutely correct in making the points that he made. And I think that is the concern. It's not even just a concern about journalists in the United States. What these president says about the department of Justice exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction of journalists and publishers outside of the country for having published this information as Michael Rodley, pointed out, what would it mean Russia China was starting to seek the extradition of American journalists for having published Chinese or Russian secrets? This is an incredibly serious president and for the department of Justice suggests that these won't be used by the Trump administration against other media organizations and journalists, I think is naive at best, Jennifer Robinson Ecuador has ceased. Some of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, possessions left behind when the British authorities took an out of the. Embassy. Wikileaks says that Ecuador is allowing US prosecutors to help themselves to assign just belongings this the case. The Ecuador did receive a request from the United States to seize control of WikiLeaks property, that was inside the embassy jillions property inside the embassy equa has provided that we have very concerned both about the fact that Ecuador has allowed the MC stuff to be questioned by US prosecutors now handing over this material in circumstances, where there is no China custody. We don't know who has been into the embassy and who's access that room access the belongings. So raises serious concerns about our ability to defend ourselves and defend him in this case and serious concerns about the Nitra of the evidence in the process by which was obtained. Now what about Sweden also reviving a reopening, their case, they're ellegation of rape against Julian Assange, when they had dropped all of the charges both of sexual assault. And rape before what does this mean sw? Sweden calling for the extradition also of Julian Assange. I, of course he's never been charged in Sweden. And this is the third time that a different prosecutor has reopened this investigation after has been closed. It was I close in two thousand and ten because the first prosecutor said there wasn't there wasn't evidence of any crime. It was reopened, again, by prosecutor who dragged it out for years spy out office to cooperate after finally questioning join inside the embassy that case was dropped in time outta was dropped again. And now we have now that he's in prison here. A third prosecutor reopening the case over a decade. This is by any stretch an abusive process. He has always been willing to answer those allegations. He's given his testimony and it's time that matter is determined once and for all, of course. Now, there is a serious question that will arise here in the UK as to which of the requests, if Sweden does seek his extradition, reopened the criminal investigation, and we'll have to make a decision about whether to seek his extradition. But if they do it raises questions about which tradition requests. We'll take precedence as you can see join us on just going to be in a, he's in very difficult position with respect to both extradition requests and which one takes precedence US or Sweden, and if Sweden Wirt extradite him and, again, you just said, he actually has never officially been charged even now with rape or sexual assault. They are reopening the investigation, and that's been going on for years if he were extradited to Sweden, his original concern was that he would then be extradited to the United States. Do you fear still fear this? Of course that was the reason he sought asylum in the first place is that we were seeking assurances from Sweden if he went to return to Sweden to face any potential process. They with respect to those allegations, he would not be sent to the United States Sweden refused to give that assurance trailing government. He's in a straight into dozen refused to request that assurance, the Ecuadorian government wants he go asylum. The embassy also sought that assurance from Sweden, and they refused to give it now we're in a situation where we have an indictment on the record from the United States, and it will be a metaphor. The home secretary to determine if Sweden also requests his extradition, which of those cases will take precedence. We are, of course, concerned about the risks that he will face if he goes back to the United States. And that's it will rise messy free speech questions irrespective of whether he goes to Sweden. I will not Jennifer Robinson. How is Julian doing in person he was in the Ecuadorian embassy for almost seven years? Taken out by British authorities where is he currently jailed? And how is he? He's currently prison in Bill mosh prison in southeast London, which is a high security prison here in the UK. We were very concerned about his health at the time he was forcibly removed from the embassy he'd been denied medical treatment for more than seven years. We concerned it's had a permanent impact. Ponies health. We've recently had a.

Julian Assange US Sweden Jennifer Robinson Trump administration government prosecutor publisher Wikileaks department of Justice Pentagon Ecuadoran embassy UK Justice department assault London Ecuador Spain Amy Goodman
"joel simon" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio

Democracy Now! Audio

13:49 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio

"Three hundred fifty separate strikes every continent on earth today, including two strikes and dark. This is nineteen year old activist Marta Mathie from Madrid. Spain is the name was just immediately of eleven years before climate change is servers, and if you don't take the necessary measures over these eleven years, we will end up without a planet, want to defend my life on this planet, as well as the survival of mice and all of the other species that live on it, and those are some of the headlines this is democracy now democracy now dot org. The Warren peach report, I made me Goodman, in an unprecedented move. The Justice department has indicted, WikiLeaks, founder Julian Assange on seventeen charges of violating the espionage act for his role in publishing US classified military and diplomatic documents exposing US war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, the documents were leaked by army whistle blower, Chelsea Manning, the espionage act of nineteen seventeen. Has never been used to prosecute a journalist or media outlet, the new charges come just over a month after British police forcibly removed Assange from the Ecuador embassy in London where he took a silent in two thousand twelve initially the Trump administration indicted Assange on a single count of helping manning hack government computer but Assange faces up to one hundred seventy years in prison under the new charges, ten years for each count of violating the espionage act press, freedom advocates have denounced, the new charges then Wizner of the American Civil Liberties union said, quote for the first time in the history of our country. The government has brought criminal charges against a publisher for the publication of truthful information. This is an extraordinary escalation of the Trump administration's attacks on journalism, and direct assault on the first amendment. Joel Simon the head of the committee to protect journalists said, quote press freedom. In the United States and around the world is imperilled by this prosecution. The legendary journalist Seymour Hersh toll the New York Times, quote today, Assange tomorrow, perhaps the New York Times and other media that published so much of the important news and information Assange, provided, unquote, Assan just being held in a British jail, but faces extradition to both the United States and Sweden where thirties have reopened investigation into sexual assault charges later in the broadcast, we'll be joined by Pentagon papers whistle blower, Daniel Ellsberg, who was charged under the espionage, nineteen Seventy-three and the award winning national security, journalist Jeremy scale of the intercept, but first, we go to London where we're joined by Jennifer Robinson, and attorney for Julian Assange, first gen can you start off by talking about these new charges? The possibility that if Julian Assange were extradited to the United States, he could face one hundred seventy. Three years in jail. As you said, these on president Ajaj is since two thousand and ten we've been warning about this very possibility. The bomber administration opened this criminal investigation two thousand and ten and we've been warning since then that any prosecution. The espionage act would be direct attacked on the first amendment, and all meteoroid in a precent that could be used against journalists and publishes everywhere since the Trump administration came to power, the more aggressively, pursuing the investigation, and the outcome is this indictment over, not it is a grave threat to press freedom, and should because for concern for journalists and publishes everywhere. Because of course, join us on is not American everything that he did was outside of the United States. So this is a concern for all journalists and publishers anywhere in the world who are publishing truthful information about the United States. The United States has the death penalty. What does this mean for Sandra, and what agreement at the Ecuadoran government make with the British authorities in who removed Julian Assange from the embassy, where he had political asylum for the last almost seven years? Of course, the reason join went into the in the first place was to protect himself from extradition to the United States to face prosecution not in relation to the death penalty. But the asylum that was granted was to protect him from this very outcome. It publishes full publishing. Truthful information should not be facing criminal prosecution at all that the UK government has given an assurance against extradition to the death penalty. The UK does not typically extradite the death penalty in any event, but that assurance does not cover off his extradition to the United States. And that's what we've been asking for for a long time. It is not right. Or appropriate that a publisher should face criminal prosecution this way. And one hundred seventy is certainly a very long time in prison is for publisher who was won journalism awards. He's on the Sydney pace prize journalism awards, the world over for having revealed government wrongdoing human rights abuse war. This is a direct attack on the press. And on democracy itself. Can you explain what espionage means? What exactly Julian Assange faces? Well, if you look at the document while it is the espionage act publishing cost information damaging to the United States. But if you look at the document, and the way in which it's being described effectively, what this is, is journalist, and publisher having conversations with the source about what information is available and discussing with outsource publishing the information, this is what journalists do investigative journalists do all the time. It is criminalising the investigative journalism process, and we'll place, a massive chill national security journalism in the United States and also around the world. I want to turn to the late Michael Ratner who served for many years as an attorney for Julian Assange, she was the former head of the center for constitutional rights. This was Michael speaking to democracy. Now in two thousand twelve about the espionage act. There's a serious question. Whether someone Julian Assange, who is not a US citizen can be indicted, under the nausea, what duty does Julian Assange, oh, the United States. These the, the espionage act if I if I tomorrow surface documents that had to do with the Soviet Union or Russia, rather, and what it's doing and Chechnya that were classified could Russia, actually get my extradition from the United States because I, I put out classified documents boring into to Russia. I don't think so. But that would be if they if they actually have an indictment, and if they go after Julian Assange, and the way that so far they've indicated they want to that will certainly be an employer partnership, what duty that Julian Assange, oh to the United States. I want to turn now to an interview I did with Julian Assange in two thousand twelve I visited him in the in the Ecuadoran. And the CEO, this is when he was speaking on Skype to us when he talked himself about the shocked the new interpretation of the espionage act that the Pentagon is trying to have reading to the legal system in which the department of Justice is complicit. Would mean the end of national security journalism in the United States not only the United States because the on his trying to apply. Extra-territorially. Why would it be the end of national security journalism? Because the interpretation is, if any document the US government claims to be classified is given to a journalist who, then makes any positive public journalist, as committed espionage, and the person who gave them the material has committed the crime, communicating with the enemy. So that was Julian Assange speaking to us a few years ago. This is John Denver's the head of the Justice Department's national security division briefing reporters on Thursday, about the new charges against Julian Assange, she said, quote, some say Assange journalist, and that it should be immune from prosecution for these actions that department take seriously the role of journalists, and our democracy, and we thank you for it. It is not and has never been the department's policy to target them for reporting. But Julian Assange is no journalist. He said your response, Jennifer Robinson. If the department of Justice is concerned about journalism than they ought to be concerned about the precent this sets and the impact will have an all American journalists. Michael Ratna was absolutely correct in making the points that he made. And I think that is the concern. It's not even just a concern about journalists in the United States. But what these president says about the department of Justice exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction of journalists and publishers outside of the country for having published information as Michael Rodley, pointed out, what would it mean Russia or China starting to seek the extradition of American journalists for having published Chinese or Russian secrets? This is an incredibly serious president and for the department of Justice suggests that these won't be used by the Trump administration against other media organizations and journalists, I think is naive at best, Jennifer Robinson Ecuador has ceased. Some of WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, possessions left behind when the British authorities took him out of the. Bassy WikiLeaks says that Ecuador is allowing US prosecutors to help themselves to Assange just belongings this the case. The Ecuador did receive a request for me, not at states to seize control of wikileak's property, that was inside the embassy jillions property inside the embassy equa has provided that we are very concerned both about the fact that Ecuador has allowed the MC staff to be questioned by US prosecutors now handing over this material in circumstances, where there is no China custody. We don't know who has been into the embassy and who's access that room access the belongings. So raises serious concerns about our ability to defend ourselves and defend him in this case and serious concerns about the Nitra of the evidence in the process by which it was obtained. Now one about Sweden also reviving reopening, their case, they're allegations of rape against Julian Assange, when they had dropped all of the charges both of sexual assault. And rape before what does this mean sw? Weeden calling for the extradition also of Julian Assange. I, of course he's never been charged in Sweden. And this is the third time that a different prosecutor has reopened this investigation after it has been closed. It was I closed in two thousand and ten because the first prosecutor said there wasn't there wasn't evidence of any crime. It was reopened, again, by prosecutor who dragged it out for years to spy out offers to cooperate after finally questioning joint inside the embassy, that case was dropped entire Motta was dropped again. And now we have now that he's in prison here. A third prosecutor reopening the case over a decade. This is by any stretch and abusive process. He has always been willing to answer those allegations. He's given his testimony and it's time that matters determined once and for all, of course. Now, there is a serious question that will arise here in the UK as to which of the requests, if Sweden does seek his extradition, only reopened the criminal investigation, and we'll have to make a decision about whether to seek his extradition. But if they do it raises questions about which extradition requests will. Take precedence as you can see join us on going to be in. He's in very difficult position with respect to both extradition requests and which one takes precedence US or Sweden and if Sweden worked extradite him. And again, you just said he actually has never officially been charged even now with rape or sexual assault. They are reopening the investigation, and that's been going on for years if he were extradited to Sweden has original concern was that he would then be extradited to the United States. Do you fear still fear this? Of course, that was the reason he sort of Silom in the first place is that we were seeking assurances from Sweden if he were to return to Sweden to face any potential process, there with respect to those allegations that he would not be sent to the United States Sweden refused to give that assurance struggling government. He's an Australian citizen refused to request that assurance, the Ecuadorian government once he got asylum inside the embassy also sought that assurance from Sweden, and they refuse to give it now we're in a situation where we have an indictment on the record from the United States, and it will be a matter for the home secretary to determine if Sweden also request his extradition, which of those cases, we'll take precedence. We are, of course, concerned about the risks that he will face if it goes back to the United States, and that's it will rise, messy free speech questions irrespective of whether he goes to Sweden, first or not Jennifer Robinson. How is Julian doing in prison? He was in the Ecuadoran embassy for almost seven years. Taken out by British authorities where is he currently jailed? And how is he? He's currently in prison. Bill mosh prison in southeast London, which is a high security prison here in the UK. We were very concerned about his health at the time he was forcibly removed from the embassy he'd been denied medical treatment for more than seven years. We concerned it's had a permanent impact. Ponies health. We've recently had a visit from.

Julian Assange US Sweden Trump administration Jennifer Robinson UK department of Justice Justice department assault Ecuador publisher government prosecutor Ecuadoran embassy WikiLeaks Spain London president
"joel simon" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

08:39 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KCRW

"Police raid a freelance journalist tone to find out the source of damaging league. That's just ahead right now. A look at your roads with Holly atoms. We'll right now in the city of orange. It looks like on the southbound five at the city drive. Stalled vehicle that was blocking the shoulder causing a little bit back up there. And in bellflower, there's a car fire in the right lane on the eastbound ninety one before bellflower boulevard fire department on the scene or so much right now still eighty degrees in Santa Korea, sixty seven Santa Monica from NPR news. This is all things considered. I'm Audie Cornish. And I'm Ari Shapiro. When Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban's visited the White House yesterday. President Trump showered him with praise people have a lot of respect for this prime minister is respected man. And I know he's tough man, but he's a respected, man. And he's done the right thing Cording to many people on immigration during Orban's time in office. He has undermined the free press and the independent judiciary human rights advocates worry that he is a roading democracy and minority rights in Hungary. President Trump is warmly embraced number of -tarian rulers during his two years in office. Here is how he spoke about the leaders of Egypt Russia and North Korea very much behind president el-sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. President Putin was. Extremely strong and powerful in his denial. Then we fell in love. Okay. Now, really he wrote me beautiful letters that was about Kim Jong Hoon. Well, Robin Wright of the New Yorker joins us now to discuss this president support for world leaders who undermine democracy. Welcome to all things considered. Always great to be with you. These leaders come from all over the world from different kinds of political parties. How would you describe what they have in common? The one common denominator is that. They are not great Democrats. They are not great practitioners of human rights. They have abused many of their own people. They are interested in personal power and not in the kind of principles of the twenty first century. So what are the consequences of this kind of praise in these leaders home countries when they go back to Brazil or Turkey or the Philippines? Having had warm words from President Trump. What does that do for them it obviously encourages their supporters and makes it much more difficult for anyone who opposes them? And I think this is the one of the most striking things for the past forty years. There's been talk of whether it's the end of history and the emergence of democratic. Movements. Whether it's the end of communism in eastern Europe, the end of apartheid minority rule in Africa, the end of military dictatorships in Latin America, and we're seeing this sweep now this reversal. Whether it's the populace taking over the thugs autocrats coming back into power. And I think this undermines many of the principles that had defined the post Cold War world and had been the aspirated Republican Democratic presidents before him. But the words of an American president really that powerful. I mean when Trump says or Bonn is respected tough doing the right thing. Does that actually make a difference in Hungary? Well, he was elected in some of these cases, the leaders were elected and they reflect whether it's anti immigration sentiment or sectarian policies reflected the realities on the ground in many of these countries, but it also makes it much harder for any of the opposition groups to be daring to take to the streets to run for office. Many of these leaders feel empowered so that they can act against their own people. You look at president air to one in Turkey, and what he's done in arresting thousands of people. This is this leads to actions that make it easier for auto crats and more difficult for those who are the Democrats. There's a long history of American presidents making alliances of convenience with countries whose values don't necessarily align with the United States and Saudi Arabia, for example is mentally different from that. Well, for a long time the United States because of a Cold War supported autocratic regimes and despots because they were opposed to the Soviet Union. They took our side and that conflict in the post Cold War world, we've had more leverage to push whether it's human rights, nation-building independence movements. And you're right. Saudi Arabia is one of the continent exceptions. But what makes this particular regime in Saudi Arabia? So agree, just as we've just gone through a case where Jamaica Shoji who was living in the United States prominent Saudi journalist was murdered and dismembered, and we know that to be a fact so Rabia is one that has been the constant exception. This particular leader is one that stands out. Trump supporters will say there's a geopolitical strategy here that it is to America's advantage to have some of these leaders feel close to the US and to have a positive relationship there. Do you think that argument holds up? Well, the question really is what you want out of your foreign policy. Do you want to build? Eighty or do you want values, and that's been something that has torn American leaders for centuries and in the post, Cold War world, or is a sense. This was a time to move toward our values. And I think we're moving back increasingly toward those regimes that can guarantees to -bility, even if it means through draconian tactics Robin Wright is a listen center, fellow correspondent for the New Yorker magazine. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. San Francisco police came to the door of journalists home last Friday armed with sledgehammers. They're trying to track down the source of a leak of sensitive information as NPR's David Folkenflik reports. Their actions set off a firestorm over the first amendment as Brian Carmody tells it he woke up on Friday with a thunderous sound and saw that the men outside were wearing blue police windbreakers. They had a search warrant. They said, yes, I opened the door for them. They basically all streamed into my house, the first gentleman immediately handcuffed me Carmody would stay in handcuffs for six hours. He said officers as they came into my home pulled out there handguns, and searched my home at gun point. They searched his office near city hall to Carmody is the kind of freelance journalists who constantly keeps police scanners and local TV newscasts blaring chasing late night developments about crime and celebrities and storms for tips and stories he can sell the local stations the police took videotapes notebooks going back decades. So I'm standing there in the middle of my office with no computers. No cell phones. You know, nothing. I've got the keys of the door. And that's it Carmody story involved. The death of the city's chief public defender. Jeff Adachi back in late February Carmody had obtained a police report and sold it. He says to three stations the. It has set off alarm bells among journalists asking why the police didn't get a subpoena given Carmody a chance to challenge it in court. The LA times says the raid, violates the state law shielding reporters sources, the San Francisco Chronicle calls it an assault on the first amendment. Joel Simon runs the committee to protect journalists. Journalists feel that they are under threat sources are under threat. Their profession is under threat. They're being attacked and undermined at least rhetorically, and then you have cops kicking down the door on the federal level. Simon says the Trump administration's Justice department is putting teeth into leak investigations by expanding use of the espionage act imperilling sources and putting reporters legal jeopardy to it. Creates an impression that the teen essential work that journalists do is being threatened in San Francisco. Jeff Adachi had been a strong critic of the police and some public officials and dotty survivors. Say the department has much to answer for despicable with the police department did to myself. And my daughter releasing police report, Jeff Adachi widow Mitsuko Adachi address, the San Francisco board of supervisors in mid April. It was all over the news. We had no privacy reporter said Adachi died at a bar department. The police photos show the apartment interior, an unmade bed empty bottles of alcohol cannabis Gumy's, and that from San Francisco's ABC seven which reported a woman who later left the scene had called nine one one this from rival KTV's police report includes photos that shows empty liquor bottles, a condom wrapper officials have apologized to the Adachi family and defend the rate is necessary to investigate what they call illegal leak in early April Carmody says two police detectives politely asked him who gave him the report Carmody tells NPR he did not pay for the information, but declined to reveal his source to beliefs as any reporter knows if you earn one source.

President Trump Brian Carmody president Jeff Adachi San Francisco Saudi Arabia Hungary United States April Carmody NPR President Putin Robin Wright Audie Cornish Turkey Ari Shapiro Carmody reporter
"joel simon" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU

90.3 KAZU

08:15 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on 90.3 KAZU

"More at totalwine dot com. From NPR news. This is all things considered. I'm Audie Cornish. And I'm Ari Shapiro. When Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban's visited the White House yesterday. President Trump showered him with praise people have a lot of respect for this prime minister is respected man. And I know he's a tough man, but he's a respected, man. And he's done the right thing. Courting too many people on immigration during Orban's time in office. He has undermined the free press and the independent judiciary human rights advocates worry that he is a roading democracy and minority rights in Hungary. President Trump is warmly embraced a number of authoritarian rulers during his two years in office. Here is how he spoke about the leaders of Egypt Russia and North Korea very much behind president el-sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial. And then we fell in love. Now, really he wrote me beautiful letters that was about Kim Jong Hoon. Well, Robin Wright of a New Yorker joins us now to discuss this president support for world leaders who undermine democracy welcomed all things considered always great to be with you. These leaders come from all over the world from different kinds of political parties. How would you describe what they have in common? The one common denominator is that. They are not great Democrats. They are not great practitioners of human rights. They have abused many of their own people. They are interested in personal power and not in the kind of principles of the twenty first century. So what are the consequences of this kind of praise in these leaders home countries when they go back to Brazil or Turkey or the Philippines? Having had warm words from President Trump. What does that do for them it obviously encourages their supporters and makes it much more difficult for anyone who opposes them? And I think this is the one of the most striking things for the past forty years. There's been talk of whether it's the end of history and they emerge. Of democratic movements. Whether it's the end of communism in eastern Europe, the end of apartheid in minority rule in Africa, the end of military dictatorships in Latin America, and we're seeing this sweep now this reversal. Whether it's the populace taking over the thugs the autocrats coming back into power. And I think this undermines many of the principles that had defined the post Cold War world and had been the aspirated Republican and democratic presidents before him. But are the words of an American president really that powerful? I mean when Trump says or bond is respected tough doing the right thing. Does that actually make a difference in Hungary? Well, he was elected in some of these cases, the leaders were elected and they reflect whether it's anti immigration sentiment or sectarian policies reflected the realities on the ground in many of these countries, but it also makes it much harder for any of the opposition groups to be daring to take to the streets to run for office. Many of these leaders feel empowered so that they can act against their own people. You look at president air to one in Turkey, and what he's done in arresting thousands of people. This is this leads to actions that make it easier for autocrats and more difficult for those who are the Democrats. There's a long history of American presidents making alliances out of convenience with countries whose values don't necessarily aligned with the United States and Saudi Arabia, for example, is this fundamentally different from that. Well, for a long time the United States because of the Cold War supported autocratic regimes despots because they were so opposed to the Soviet Union. They took our side in that conflict in the post Cold War world, we've had more leverage to push whether it's human rights, nation-building independence movements. And you're right. Saudi Arabia is one of the continent exceptions. But what makes this particular regime in Saudi Arabia? So agree, just as we've just gone through a case where Jamaica Shoji who was living in the United States of prominent Saudi journalist was murdered and dismembered, and we know that to be a fact Saudi Arabia's one that has been the constant exception. This particular leader is one that stands out. Trump supporters will say there's a geopolitical strategy here that it is to America's advantage to have some of these leaders feel close to the US and to have a positive relationship there. Do you think that argument holds up? Well, the question really is what you want out of your foreign policy. Do you want to build? Eighty or do you want values, and that's been something that has torn American leaders for centuries and in the post, Cold War world, or is a sense. This was a time to move toward our values. And I think we're moving back increasingly toward those regimes that can guarantee stability, even if it means through draconian tactics Robin Wright is a Wilson center fellow on correspondent for the New Yorker magazine. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. San Francisco police came to the door of a journalist home last Friday armed with sledgehammers. They're trying to track down the source of a leak of sensitive information. As NPR's David Folkenflik reports. Their actions set off a firestorm over the first amendment as Brian Carmody tells it he woke up on Friday with a thunderous sound and saw that the men outside were wearing blue police windbreakers. Yeah. I asked them if they had a search warrant they said, yes, I opened the door for them. They basically all streamed into my house, the first gentleman immediately handcuffed me Carmody would stay in handcuffs for six hours. He said officers as they came into my home pulled out there handguns, and searched my home at gun point. They searched his office near city hall to Carmody is the kind of freelance journalists who constantly keeps police scanners and local TV newscasts blaring chasing late night developments about crime in celebrities in storms for tips and stories he can sell the local stations the police took. Videotape's notebooks going back decades. So I'm standing there in the middle of my office with no computers. No cell phones. You know, nothing. I've got the key to the door. And that's it Carmody story involved. The death of the city's chief public defender. Jeff Adachi back in late February Carmody had obtained a police report and sold it. He says to three stations. The rate is set off alarm bells among journalists asking why the police didn't get a subpoena given Carmody a chance to challenge it in court. The LA times says the raid violates estate law shielding reporters sources, the San Francisco Chronicle calls it an assault on the first amendment. Joel Simon runs the committee to protect journalists. Journalists feel that they are under threat. They're sources are under threat. Their profession is under threat. They're being attacked and undermined at least rhetorically, and then you have, you know, cops kicking down the door on the federal level. Simon says the Trump administration's Justice department is putting teeth into leak. Investigations by expanding use of the espionage act, imperilling sources and putting reporters in legal jeopardy to it. Creates an impression that the routine essential work that journalists do is being threatened in San Francisco. Jeff Adachi had been a strong critic of the police and some public officials and Adachi survivors say the department has much to answer for despicable with the police department did to myself. And my daughter I really seeing a police report. Jeff Adachi widow Mitsuko Adachi addressed the San Francisco board of supervisors in mid April. It was all over the news. We had no privacy reporter said Adachi died at a bar department. The police photos show the apartment interior, an unmade bed empty bottles of alcohol cannabis Gumy's, and that from San Francisco's ABC seven which reported a woman who later left the scene had called nine one one this from rival KTV's. A police report includes photos that shows empty liquor bottles, a condom wrapper officials have apologized to the Adachi family and defend the rate is necessary to investigate what they call in a legal leak in early April Carmody says two police detectives politely asked him who gave him the report Carmody tells NPR he did not pay for the information, but declined to reveal his source to police as any reporter knows if you burn one source the.

President Trump Brian Carmody president Mitsuko Adachi Saudi Arabia San Francisco Hungary United States April Carmody Adachi President Putin NPR Jeff Adachi Robin Wright Orban Joel Simon Audie Cornish
"joel simon" Discussed on KCRW

KCRW

08:12 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KCRW

"Things considered. I'm Audie Cornish. And I'm Ari Shapiro. When Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban's visited the White House yesterday. President Trump showered him with praise people have a lot of respect for this prime minister is respected man. And I know he's a tough man, but he's a respected, man. And he's done the right thing. Gordon too many people on immigration during Orban's time in office. He has undermined the free press and the independent judiciary human rights advocates worry that he is a roading democracy and minority rights in Hungary. President Trump is warmly embraced a number of authoritarian rulers during his two years in office. Here is how he spoke about the leaders of Egypt Russia and North Korea very much behind president el-sisi. He's done a fantastic job in a very difficult situation. President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial. And then we fell in love. Now, really he wrote me beautiful letters that was about Kim Jong Hoon. Well, Robin Wright of the New Yorker joins us now. Discuss this president support for world leaders who undermine democracy welcomed all things considered always great to be with you. These leaders come from all over the world from different kinds of political parties. How would you describe what they have in common? The one common denominator is that. They are not great Democrats. They are not great practitioners of human rights. They have abused many of their own people. They are interested in personal power and not in the kind of principles of the twenty first century. So what are the consequences of this kind of praise in these leaders home countries when they go back to Brazil or Turkey or the Philippines? Having had warm words from President Trump. What does that do for them it obviously encourages their supporters and makes it much more difficult for anyone who opposes them? I think this is the one of the most striking things for the past forty years. There's been talk of whether it's the end of history and the emergence of democratic movements. Whether it's the end of communism in eastern Europe, the end of apartheid minority rule in Africa the end of military. Dictatorships in Latin America, and we're seeing this sweep now this reversal. Whether it's the populace taking over the thugs the autocrats coming back into power. And I think this undermines many of the principles that had defined the post Cold War world and had been the aspirated Republican and democratic presidents before him. But are the words of an American president really that powerful? I mean when Trump says or Bonn is respected tough doing the right thing. Does that actually make a difference in Hungary? Well, he was elected in some of these cases, the leaders were elected and they reflect whether it's anti immigration sentiment or sectarian policies reflected the realities on the ground in many of these countries, but it also makes it much harder for any of the opposition groups to be daring to take to the streets to run for office. Many of these leaders feel empowered so that they can act against their own people. You look at president air to one in Turkey and what he's done in arresting thousands of. People. This is this leads to actions that make it easier for autocrats and more difficult for those who are the Democrats. There's a long history of American presidents making alliances out of convenience with countries whose values don't necessarily aligned with the United States in Saudi Arabia, for example, is fundamentally different from that. Well, for a long time the United States because of a Cold War supported autocratic regimes despots because they were opposed to the Soviet Union. They took our side in that conflict in the post Cold War world, we've had more leverage to push whether it's human rights, nation-building independence movements. And you're right. Saudi Arabia is one of the continent exceptions. But what makes this particular regime in Saudi Arabia? So agree, just as we've just gone through a case where Jamaica Shoji who was living in the United States of prominent Saudi journalist was murdered and dismembered, and we know that to be a fact Saudi Arabia's one that has been the constant exception. This particular leader is one that stands out. Trump supporters will say there's a geopolitical strategy here that it is to America's advantage to have some of these leaders feel close to the US and to have a positive relationship there. Do you think that argument holds up? Well, the question really is what you want out of your foreign policy. Do you want to build? Eighty or do you want values, and that's been something that has torn American leaders for centuries and in the post, Cold War world, or is the sense. This was a time to move toward our values. And I think we're moving back increasingly toward those regimes that can guarantee stability, even if it means through draconian tactics Robin Wright is listen center, fellow and correspondent for the New Yorker magazine. Thanks for joining us. Thank you. San Francisco police came to the door of a journalist home last Friday armed with sledgehammers. They're trying to track down the source of a leak of sensitive information. As NPR's David Folkenflik reports. Their actions set off a firestorm over the first amendment as Brian Carmody tells it he woke up on Friday with a thunderous sound and saw that the men outside were wearing blue police windbreakers. Yeah. I asked them if they had a search warrant they said, yes, I opened the door for them. They basically all streamed into my house, the first gentleman immediately handcuffed me Carmody would stay in handcuffs for six hours. He said officers as they came into my home pulled out there handguns, and searched my home at gun point. They searched his office near city hall to Carmody is the kind of freelance journalists who constantly keeps police scanners and local TV newscasts blaring chasing late night developments about crime in celebrities and storms for tips and stories he can sell the local stations the police took. Videotapes notebooks going back decades. So I'm standing there in the middle of my office with no computers. No cell phones. You know, nothing. I've got the key to the door. And that's it Carmody story involved. The death of the city's chief public defender. Jeff Adachi back in late February Carmody had obtained a police report and sold it. He says to three stations. The rate is set off alarm bells among journalists asking why the police didn't get a subpoena given Carmody a chance to challenge it in court. The LA times says the raid violates estate law shielding reporters sources, the San Francisco Chronicle calls it an assault on the first amendment. Joel Simon runs the committee to protect journalists. Journalists feel that they are under threat. They're sources are under threat. Their profession is under threat. They're being attacked and undermined at least rhetorically, and then you have, you know, cops kicking down the door on the federal level. Simon says the Trump administration's Justice department is putting teeth into leak. Investigations by expanding use of the espionage act, imperilling sources and putting reporters in legal jeopardy to it. Creates an impression that the routine essential work that journalists do is being threatened in San Francisco. Jeff Adachi had been a strong critic of the police and some public officials and Adachi survivors say the department has much to answer for despicable what the police department did to myself. And my daughter, I really think a police report. Jeff Adachi widow Mitsuko Adachi addressed the San Francisco board of supervisors in mid April. It was all over the news. We had no privacy reporter said Adachi died at a bar department. The police photo show the apartment interior, an unmade bed empty bottles of alcohol cannabis Gumy's, and that from San Francisco's ABC seven which reported a woman who later left the scene had called nine one one this from rival KTV's police report includes photos that shows empty liquor bottles, a condom wrapper Elise officials have apologized to the Adachi family and defend the rate is necessary to investigate what they call in a legal leak in early April Carmody says two police detectives politely asked him who gave him the report Carmody tells NPR he did not pay for the information, but declined to reveal his source to police as any reporter knows if you burn one source the rest Evaporating, David Folkenflik. NPR news..

President Trump Brian Carmody president Mitsuko Adachi Saudi Arabia San Francisco Hungary United States NPR April Carmody President Putin Robin Wright Jeff Adachi Adachi David Folkenflik Joel Simon Audie Cornish Turkey
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

12:31 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"This fake news framework that started after he became president and an enemies of people his latest framework for attacking journalists is calling them the opposition. And it's all very dangerous. It's dangerous. I don't think it inhibits individual journalists. And I I think that that that you know, we're seeing a lot of great reporting. But it, but it undermines public confidence in the media, and it has a terrible. And the other thing that concerns me is inspires people online who are threatening and even sending a letter bombs to journalists. But but more importantly, I think it's disempowers autocrats around the world this fake news. Framing is a gift autocratic leaders, and you know, in the Philippines, for example. President territory. There is calling critical journalists, you know, fake news there, there's there's actually trying to get a fake news law on the books there. Basically, the argument there is well, you just talk about fake news. But I'm doing something about it. If you know, I'm gonna put you in jail who published news that idea to be fake. So it's having terrible consequences around the world in terms of strengthening the, you know, the repressive leaders in providing them with a new framework to justify crackdowns on the media. Wanna ask you about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal kashogi? Yeah. Who was murdered of course in the Soviet in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Your group. I believe is suing the yes. As for records, rather talk talk about that. Yeah. So so we're working with the knights center of Columbia would recently joined a lawsuit basically the under US law. The US government has what's called a duty to warn. So if a US person is there's a there's a threat against a US person that the intelligence services become aware of they have to let them know. And we believe based on circumstantial evidence that there was an awareness within the intelligence community of the threat. Two. Jamaica Shoji this includes alleged reports of text messages exchanged between Jared, Kushner and Hamad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia prior to tobacco. She's visit to the consulate in Istanbul where he was subsequently murdered and dismembered. So there's some some evidence that you know. You know, there was an awareness that that he was at risk and he was not worn. So we filed a we're we're we're we're we're potentially suing the US government to compel them to make public. This information to to answer the question of whether they complied with this legal requirement likely is that you think that they will comply? I'm a journalist. I'm not a lawyer. So I'll leave it to the lawyers to to answer that question. I mean, I think we we have a strong case. But I think that really we on one of the reasons you file a lawsuit. Like, this is you know, you hope to win. But you also want to make the point. And so whether we win or not I think it's important that we we we make express concern in this way. You know, one thing I want to mention about the case sort of. Interesting development is the UN a special rapid sure on a force disappearances is actually her name. Her name is kinda Mark. And she is actually in. Istanbul now carrying out a investigation into the crime. So that's good that there continues to be international attention, and we're hoping alternately that the UN secretary general gets behind an international investigation. They're they're not that many clear paths the Justice. But that's a critical step. Got some listener comments here. Richard Wright's sad. But isn't this? Also, the problem of being a citizen of a world superpower, your guests talks about other countries. But those countries are countries, which do not have the same geopolitical position. Yeah. I mean, I think there's there's you know, there's there's a there's a a case to be made. I mean, I think that part of it is that we discussed this with with Cam who called in from India. You know, the US should've geo political posture in the world creates complexities. But again, if you look at the data, and you look at who's kidnapped you realize just how complex this crime is, you know, Turkish citizens are kidnapped and. People from Latin America, and and of course, most of kidnapping domestic so international kidnappings a relatively small set. Of the overall the overall number. But, but you know, it is it is a very complex crime and motivations are very earth. Always variable. Which is why I think it's really critical that we knock it locked into a narrow policy framework, but have the broadest and most flexible policy possible, another comment here listener asks can you speak the hostage exchanges. Good policy for the United States to be in the business of using humans in exchange for other people. Well, this is this is a nasty business. You know? So so, you know, sometimes I kind of at the end of the book, I look at you know, how how do we look at this issue as an ethical issue is it a political issue is it a policy issue and the ethics of ransom payments, and and and and exchanges. It's coercive. It's a course of strategy. So the goal of the kidnappers to compel people to do things that are contrary to their values and principles. So you always have to kind of look at it from that perspective, but I will say the prisoner exchanges under the Geneva conventions are specifically contemplated, and that the US doesn't gauge in prisoner exchanges. When their service personnel are taken captive in the context of an armed conflict, and people may remember the Bowe bergdahl case the soldier who wandered off the base in Afghanistan was taken hostage by the Taliban and the US released five prisoners from Guantanamo for his freedom. And I should point out that if if if you were journalist or aid worker, there would have been known negotiation. The Taleban is a designated terror group said it would have been no negotiation. It's only because he was a service member that there was although the Lear court him. Well, yeah. I mean, the question is not whether he deserves to be punished. Yeah. The question is what is the policy? What how do we gauge when these terrible things happen? You're listening to form Joel Simon from the committee to protect journalists is appearing tonight at the World Affairs Council tonight at six thirty. This is a fundraising period for Katie public radio. For more information about how to support go to key community dot org. I'm Scott Shafer. And let's go back to the phones. Now, Timothy you're next. Welcome. Yes. Mr. Simon mentioning the forty three missing in Mexico makes people think of the alleged story of massad right after nine eleven attacking the congress in Mexico that was just very much hushed up. Some people have said there's a lot of Masada activity in Mexico in that the forty three and many journalists in Mexico were tracked using the massad software Pegasus could you comment on that? And also in DC, the investigative journalist who mysteriously died, Jan j n Moore who is investigating Clinton's sex crimes. Joel Simon you wear that one. No, I'm not aware of that one. There's an I think that's I don't want to comment on it because I'm not aware of it. But I will talk about you know, the. I think I think the the the the point that I certainly can't talk about is the Pegasus software. And so basically, this is a software developed by an Israeli security firm that when it's implanted on your your phone, basically takes over your phone, and we know that the Mexican government purchases the software and used it to try, and and some cases successfully compromise the communication of journalists and other activists as a very powerful tool, but I I would commend to readers a new story today from from Reuters about a new program that was just it's a really it's a it's an important story that was happening in the United Arab Emirates that involved a former US NSA, an NSA employees who were working for the Emirati government using new software that actually all you needed was the phone number. The thing about this. Pegasus software is you needed to click on a link with this with this new software, which is. This is a new development if they just have your phone number. They can basically take over your phone. And so everyone is vulnerable journalists, particularly, and there was a there was a an example in the story. That was published today by Reuters. I'm a British journalist who was a target. But you know, phones are increasingly insecure they're finding new back doors every day. It's a big concern for Oregon station for journalists and for other vulnerable populations. Who who rely on these devices to communicate our apple, and you know, other phone makers of a working it's sort of interfere with that kind of software. Well, I mean, I I think when they become aware of it. I mean, these are these are very very sophisticated. Technologies that are developed by governments for these precise purpose of of of espionage. So, you know, it's a cat and mouse. But I always assume that my phone's not secure and that no not I I try I try and engage in best practice. I worry a lot about this. But at the end of the day, I don't have complete confidence that I can security information on my phone, and I believe that most journalists were doing, you know, high risk kinds of work have share these concerns and Dan's all, our producer puts up. A just short a headline from the New York Times today at reeds apple was slow to act on FaceTime bug that allows iphones which is another. Yeah. That that was even like a kind of that was not developed by some spy agency that was that was detected by teenager who. Mom, tried to try to alert. A alert apple. There was a problem that was a problem and was very slow to act. So imagine how they how they react. When there's when there's a kind of back door created by government intelligence agency, trying to sneak one more call in Dan in Santa Clara. You're next. Good morning have a larger question. Maybe you could help me with the whether there's a correlation between the lack of standing in the American public mine and the Nydia in the media in general, and I'm gonna ask you to be quick because we're coming up at the end of the I'm sorry and the ease with which. Journalists are targeted around the world. And to what degree the media is to blame particularly cable news by becoming infotainment which happened long before Trump. Yeah. Thank you. Joe? I think I'm going to put that into a global perspective because that's my job. And I will say is this, you know, if you look at places like Venezuela. If you look at places like Turkey, if you look at places like Russia, you know, when the media is perceived as a political actor, they're much more vulnerable to systematic government repression. So I would you have a free media when you don't have the government controlling the media, and you have other forces determining what the media does. And you know, there's lots of reasons to be critical, and, you know, I'm not suggesting that the government should somehow intervene at regulate the media, but I will say that media performance in my experience correlates with greater repression because the public has to feel they have a stake in the press freedom battle, and if they don't then the media's more vulnerable. All right, Joel Simon is new book is called we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom. He's appearing tonight at six thirty at the World Affairs Council. Thanks so much for coming in very important topic. Thanks for bringing it to light. Thanks for having me. I'm Scott Shafer here today for Michael Krasny. Thanks so much for listening for participating with your calls and your emails will be back. Funds for the production of forum are provided by the members of E D public radio and the.

US Istanbul Joel Simon Scott Shafer apple Reuters World Affairs Council kidnapping president Philippines Mexico UN Washington Post Saudi consulate Taliban knights center of Columbia India Turkey Saudi Arabia Jamaica Shoji
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

14:34 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Dee dot org. I should mention Joe you're going to be at the world affairs auditorium in San Francisco tonight at six thirty. All right. We're gonna go to the calls and a second by one ask you a question. We were talking about Danny Pearl earlier in that horrific beheading the video. I couldn't watch didn't watch. I've never watched it. But the talk about the the rise of social media phones. How that's changed this conversation completely. What's first of all it's changed the dynamic for journalists because it's someone who you know, was working and somewhat risky environments. You know, and I had some close scrapes in. You know, one of the arguments, you would always make look as if you kidnap me or hard me in any way. No one's gonna cover your story. No, journalists are gonna come. And you know, I'm going to register you about what's happening here. And I'm going to be fair. So let me go and do my job, and you had some weight when you made that argument because they didn't have other ways of communicating they were really relying on on on journalists to mediate the whatever they wanted to the public to now. Now criminal even criminal groups in Mexico, like the drug cartels, you social media. And certainly jihadi groups in Islamic groups have very sophisticated media operations and this began with Al Qaeda, but was obviously taken to a completely different level by the Islamic state. So journalists themselves are much more vulnerable because that argument don't kill me because who's going to tell your story that's been removed. Secondly, the value of these terrorizing videos is so tremendous. I talked about how al-qaeda managed to kill one person a journalist and send this terrorizing message to millions around the world because the murder was amplified by the media itself, but the Islamic state when they carried out these ritualized murders, which of course, we're not just turn on with many many people killed in these public executions. You know, they they were able to disseminate that terrorizing local populations sending a message of refused them. And also they used it for recruitment. This is one of the things I found out that they were basically able to you know, they would post these terrorizing. Videos, and if somebody engaged with with with with them and said, you know, glad you're doing this. They would reach out to them and try and bring them into the fault. So these social media has become a critical tool of of these groups, and these these videos are very powerful. So I would argue that we have a national security imperative of trying to deny these groups victims. All right. Let's go to the phones. Again, the number to call. If you want to talk with Joel Simon is eight six six seven three three six seven eight six and we'll begin with Joe in San Francisco. Welcome. Yeah. It's called us curious as to find out how what's a ransom about as agreed upon. How does that money transfer actually go through your bags? What the typical procedure. Yeah question. Yeah. Well, I talked to a number of security consultants who'd been involved in in transfers, and you know. It varies each each. Every case is different, and they have different strategies. But you know, it's usually cash that's put into a duffel bag, and you know, handed off somewhere or in some cases dropped from an airplane. And so when there's something I write about in my book called kidnapping and ransom insurance. And if you have this insurance, which sounds very strange, but he's pretty commonplace. Among high risk groups that work in these areas, then you will get a professional security negotiator kidnapping negotiator. If you're kidnapped, and they are experts at exchanging money and each circumstances different. But basically it's handed off in cash sometimes to airdrops and sometimes through intermediaries. And what are they negotiating exactly the amount? Yeah, they're negotiating not. They're not negotiating your freedom. I guess it's sort of sort of the same thing. Yeah. I mean, these are these are these are these are kidnappings, and one of the things that that that this this framework helps do is turn kidnapping into economic cry. Fine. And make the demands financial, which of course, as difficult as that is families, and and businesses can come up with money. When the demands are political, you know, and it's released this person and take these political actions that inevitably involves the government. So I think that we're better off as difficult as that is trying to sometimes it's called privatize the negotiation. So I do think that governments need to be involved in supportive, but it's actually better if they're in the background to what extent do they use those money drops or even go she Asians to find the victim and define the gas. Well, that's that's another reason why negotiating the so crucial. And I talked to you know. European. Intelligence people worked in intelligence, and you know, they use negotiation to identify the kidnappers sometimes they can go after them. There have been cases where they've been arrested or lured a Somali kidnappers a famous case in Canada was Lord back to Canada. Then than arrested said the the intelligence gathered through these negotiations is critical. All right. Let's go back to the phones. Eight six six seven three three six seven eight six and Kim your alma Joel Simon and you're calling from Mumbai. On by. District. Now. Now, actually, I'm agenda. News. Offstage situations in Mumbai India and also in Afghanistan. Call me and wanted to make was about US foreign policy. It doesn't matter. They got into the barriers. Endangers the US citizens like myself. I. Being ranking because gotta use the hostage-takers to do it again. The point. I wanted to make was. Foreign policy. Ernestine on midday news, or whatever. Endangers our own citizens and. Because you're gonna. You know, I I'm not saying I absorbed the hostage-takers. Their responsibility. In the cost clubs. Yeltsin give Joel chance. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think one of the things I found is that that is an important variable on one of the ISIS hostages. I talked to a Spanish hostage said, you know, what matters most whether you live or die in these situations is not your hostage policy, but your foreign policy. So they're definitely a lot of groups that are very hostile to the United States. And if you're an American you're you're more vulnerable, and the US is engaged militarily around the world. And and so the US citizens become a target. But the counter argument to that is a talion got kidnapped Germans get kidnapped Swiss get kidnapped people from countries, which have different foreign policies and are not directly engage are also targeted. So I think it's a key variable. I think it's a factor. I American journalists, you know, because of their perceived as representing an obviously don't I mean, that's one of the things, you know, that you keep the prize as a journalist after independence, but there are certain circumstances where it's hard to convince people that you have an independ-. Pendant position and role. Kim, I'm curious your in India and Joel in your book, you mentioned India is one of the countries that imprisons a lot of journalists. You people don't really think of that happening in India so much more Turkey, and yeah, you know, other China perhaps India, the problem in India is increasing problem is more is more violence, and particularly and there actually was was a was a. A murder of a journalist in in Mumbai carried out by by criminal group there. But basically in India's a place where you have a very dynamic, and you know, sort of well funded and well resource media, you know, that that that based in the larger cities, but once you get out into the larger cities into the hinterlands, you know, the the press is extremely vulnerable and their power their their their their malice groups and criminal groups, and and entered at the mercy of these groups, and the government has not been able to protect the more effectively investigate these crimes Kim on curious. What experience have you had as a journalist there? This statement. I days violence against journalists. But again government. Chinese government imprisoning. That's a comment on Twitter. Moby? Well. In fact, more Fargo, I'm not aware of. Yeah. Areas naxalite. Yeah. Kidnap jenny. The body across India. You're more concerned about the government. All right. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm going to have to move along. But I I really do. Appreciate your call and your perspective from India. Thanks so much for for joining us on that some people hearing stories like Kim's, and obviously others who have been killed. Jim Foley, many others. Why did journalists wanna put themselves in the situation? What what is it? What drives war correspondence to be where they are. Well, I think there's there's a there's a wide variety of factors. I mean, I think that journalists are not by a certain public service view of the work that they do that if they're able to cover conflict and report on conflict, the, you know, they're saving lives. They're making people aware of the suffering. They're they're making the public aware of the complexities that that are essential to conflict resolution and public understanding on the form. Relation of policy. So you're serving a larger purpose at the same time. It's an incredibly exciting experience mean part of the danger is is part of the appeal. And so, you know, it's a weird. It's a weird kind of mix of kind of high mindedness and ego that drives, you know. A war correspondents. And and I think you know, I think we have to recognize both parts of this. I don't think we should minimize the excitement. I and and the and the and the kind of purchase personal validation that comes with doing this kind of work, it, it is an important motivator. But but I think we also have to appreciate and and this is this is something that is in short supply. Honestly, you know, the kind of detailed nuance on the ground informed coverage of conflicts that actually helps inform policy making and public engagement. You know, we we're seeing the collapse of Venezuela right now, we're seeing a pull out potential plot. In afghanistan. We're seeing a rapid pullout in Syria. What are the consequences of these actions? You know, we need journalists on the ground help. Explain these things and help us understand. All right. Let's go now to Matthew in Dublin is that Dublin in the East Bay or Ireland. Okay, less. Exotic go ahead. Good morning. I'm an independent voter in. I always say even though I don't agree with Trump. At least I know what he stands for. Whereas President Obama was doing things very quietly behind the scenes and one of those things was he was using the espionage act to lock up journalists. Some of those included Thomas Drake semi labor wit, stuffing, Kim and many others. And I would love to hear the journalist thoughts or interpretation of the situation was Obama justified in doing that and all this year. Thanks very much for the call. I mean, I slightly different perspective. But I, but I find the mentally agree that, you know, the Obama administration had policies that were frankly, damaging to press freedom, and and and in in this country, and one of them was a kind of vision of the threats from from a from leaks. And so they had a very aggressive policy of investigating investigating leaks in a us, this frankly are. Saic legal framework the nineteenth seventeen espionage act, which basically criminalize criminalizes. The dissemination of confidential information and a number of leakers were prosecuted under this law, and and journalists were inspired in those investigations, they were they were subpoenaed. And I it's at a very dangerous precedent. And and the the reason these precedents are important is because the same framework is continuing under the Trump administration. We'll talk about President Trump because he has famously been hostile to the media any reporter who's covered one of his events knows. He often calls out journalists and has called them, many enemies of the people and the enemies of the country what? But at the same time, I think you mentioned in the book that he's very takes these things very personally gets very personally follows them. Very well. I mean, I think I think that Trump has been. Gauged on the issue of US hostages, and that's positive. I think that while Obama was sort of hamstrung to a certain extent by the national security implications of these issues and sometimes lost track of the humanitarian considerations. Trump is the opposite. He sees the political benefit, but is indifferent to the strategic complexities. And has got it. The State Department in gutted the formed understanding he would need to actually make rational decisions, but I want to make obviously make a broader point. You know, we have a a blog posted on our website today. PJ dot org that I would highly recommend that analyzes Trump's history of tweeting, and and has a lot of data. And what what we found is that your Trump has sort of moved from attacks on individual journalists. He moved to this..

US India Kim Joel Simon Trump Mumbai kidnapping President Obama San Francisco murder Joe Danny Pearl Mexico Afghanistan Canada al-qaeda
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

11:11 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Hey, what's intimidated? And and it was a it was a real concern that I had and what they found was that the US government under the Obama administration. Just really fuse did not want to engage with them and help them figure out a way forward. And this was particularly frustrating because they saw that one after one the European hostages were all freed, although ultimately, some of the British hostages, although you UK and US have that same intact, the US and the UK are are the leaders of this no concession camp. That's what I found is a stark division between the US and the and the UK which occupied one corner, we don't negotiate and continental European countries, which do negotiate and and in some cases parents talking with Joel Simon. He's executive director of the committee to protect journalists. He is also a former reporter in Mexico and author of the new book we want to negotiate the secret world of kidney. Napping hostages and ransom. And Joe you just talked about Jim Foley's parents and the families of all these kidnap victims hard to imagine what they go through. What's your experience in dealing with them? You know, it's absolutely overwhelming. It's it's just you know, kidnapping is just the the cruelest crime because you're in the state of perpetual, limbo, and and powerlessness and it can extend in the case of of the the ISIS hostages, one of their cruel strategies. And I see this more frequently now is not to communicate for an extended period of time. So the person is just disappeared. You don't know who has them. It produces this really heightened state of anxiety. When you do finally get the communication the confirmation that proof of life. You know, you're you're in a state of panic, but it's absolutely overwhelming at the most basic level. You know, contrasting I spent a lot of time in Europe talking to families there, and this is even true in the UK. There was a basic structure of support for these families, a recognition that this was absolutely impossible overwhelming for family to deal with and so they needed support from from government. In the US. At this point in time. You know, the families just didn't have that what does the US government or other countries? What do they tell the families to do and not do? Well, they they tell them. So in the case of of of the Foley family. They got a young FBI agent who showed up at their house. They live in rural New Hampshire, and he was not familiar with Syria. Didn't didn't speak Arabic? Didn't really know the situation, you know. He didn't tell the much, you know, they will tell them, you know, sometimes they'll tell them look the official the law under the Patriot Act is that you can't pay ransom. But no one's ever been prosecuted, but they can't really help them. And so so they just feel completely isolated they're monitoring. Maybe they're trying to gather information that they could use for eventual prosecution that unlikely event, but you know, maybe maybe they're providing a little bit of guidance on how to carry out this kind of negotiation, but for the most part families, which don't have professional security advisers, which is something I also get into in the book are really on their own. You mentioned the Patriot Act. How did nine eleven change all of this nine eleven changed. It completely. It was it was a new framework. I talked about kidnappings an occupational hazard for furniture. And also, I also mentioned the Daniel Pearl case while the Daniel Pearl case was a Wall Street Journal, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped while working in Pakistan. Not long after nine eleven and eventually beheaded. And so for journalists at that radically changed the environment because some people don't recall that when bin Laden declared jihad against the United States, he actually did it at a press conference. He engaged with the media. He invited the media to report on him. And while it was dangerous when you were in his in his sort of circle, you know, he would protect your well when Danny Pearl was kidnapped murdered by Al Qaeda. It sent a message to them as groups around the world that journalists were fair and that they were targets that they were no longer intermediaries. They were now targets of of of of terror camp heads, and that that murder was extremely effective because of the media visibility around his case, which I helped participate and generate that media, and I always make this point most people can cannot name a single victim who was killed in the twin towers or the pen. Gone. They know Danny Pearl. So that was one change. The other change was was was the Patriot Act and the kind of reframing of the of the war and terror first of all at empowered repressive governments around the world who justified their repressive action by claiming they were cracking down on terrorists. Journalists were imprisoned and second of all you had the Patriot Act which prevented subsequently families and others who are trying to. Ransom. Their loved ones, you know, created this this possibility of prosecution which had not existed previously. So it almost seems like these terror groups that kidnapped journalists win either way I mean, it sounds like I mean with all the publicity. They got around Danny Pearl. They didn't get any money, but the alternative is they get money to get ransom. So they really it's a win win in a way. Well, I mean, I think that you have to recognize that it's a it is a tactic of war and it exists in every conflict at it is affected in certain circumstances. So it will never go away at it is a risk. You know, we've been talking about journalists, but other particularly civilians who are central who occupy who who operate in conflict zones like aid workers, it is it is it is a risk. So the question is not how can we eliminate it, which I think is sort of the framing one of the justifications of the no concessions policy, which is that if no one ever pays ransom. We nobody will ever be. Kidnapped. Well, I always say if nobody ever gave their wallet to a mugger, then there wouldn't be mugging. But you know, it's a coercive strategy and families and businesses and some governments will always pay so kidnapping will never go away. The question is how do we mitigate the harm? How do we reduce the amount of money that that that go to these terror groups when they do kidnap people how do we reduce their ability to use these horrific murders to disseminate their own propaganda an aid recruitment. But but you have to have a starting what that this is like car-bombing, this is like other tactics of conflict, and it can only be managed to cannot be eliminated. Well, and as you say at the end of the book, it's time for a new approach. No, one should have to die for a policy that isn't working is there any consensus around what a better politics. I don't. I mean, I I said that this was what I wrote the book this is sort of a third rail. No one is talking about this. When when the Obama administration in two thousand fifteen did a review of the policy they made a lot of improvements in terms of. Of you know, providing support for families, but they never put the no concessions policy on the table. In terms of, you know, discussing it or are modifying it so so it remains in place. And you know, what I found I mentioned that it doesn't seem to protect Americans from being. Kidnapped there. Can they doesn't seem to be any correlation between the policy of a particular country and the rate of kidnapping, but it does dramatically reduced survival rate so Europeans who survive at a rate of between seventy five and one hundred percent, depending on your nationality. Americans survive at a rate of about twenty five percent. So many many are killed the, you know, the other the other justification for the policy is to prevent financing for terror groups, which is of course, and obstinately legitimate concern from a national security perspective, we have to find ways of doing that. But I don't think this policy achieves that result either because it creates a dynamic in which these terror groups can kill American and British hostages who have no value as a way of putting pressure on the European countries that pay and actually driving up the ransom. And so they actually get more money. So I think the way forward is for everyone to work together to reduce the amount of ransom paid and have a much more flexible case by case. Pragmatic approach to each case. You talk in the book a lot about France, which does negotiating pay ransom from time to time does that make their journalists more unsafe. Well, it depends on who you ask. I mean, I think that. Most of the French journalists. I talked to said that they have since this is an occupational risk. They would rather have a government who's going to stand up and defend them. And I think the French people when journalists were kidnapped they mobilize actually the media mobilizes people come into the street, and that puts political pressure on the government. The the the paradox about is all that political visibility which puts pressure on the government can sometimes raise the amount that they have to pay France has a sort of very schizophrenic approach to this the more public pressure. You put on the government, the more likely, they are to engage, and when they engage that usually means paying, and they have a whole process in place to achieve this. I looked at another country Spain. Which is less conflicted. And hence to just find a way to pay and rather whether you whether you put whether there street protests are visibility and they have one hundred percent recovery rate. So every Spanish hostage has come home. What sort of an average ransom that they pay? Well, it's you know, they're one of the things I've found in my book, they're professional negotiators, and they can tell you. They can give you a number based on, you know, they're they're kind of Peru profile, the individual, etc. I mean it ranges dramatically, they're really literally. Sometimes it's a few thousand dollars up to multi millions of dollars. You know, it depends on the group in the situation. You know, one of the things I found though, is that a lot of information about ransom payments are inaccurate because they're all sorts of people who have reasons to either exaggerate the amount or minimize the amount, but I will say with some degree of certainty. There are ransoms you know, that that are that are north of ten. Million dollars have been paid. And when you think about all the ways in which these terror groups get their funding. How important is ransom. It depends. You know, one of the things that I found is that it, you know, when when there was this whole debate with the Islamic state hostages in the summer of two thousand fourteen year, there was a lot of concern legitimate concern that ransom payments would be used to find continue to finance their terror activities. But remember that they had taken over the Bank in Mosul in Iraq. They'd sacked the bag they were had access to the oilfields in in northern Syria. They were extorting the population. So they had huge influxes of income. It was significant, but it was not determinative. All right. We're going to continue our conversation with Joel Simon his book is titled we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom. We'd love to hear from you. Give us a call at eight six six seven three three.

kidnapping US Danny Pearl UK Jim Foley Syria Obama administration Joel Simon reporter US government ISIS Mexico Wall Street Journal executive director Europe New Hampshire France FBI Joe Mosul
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

11:02 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Good morning and welcome to forum. I'm Scott Shafer sitting in today for Michael Krasny. And this are we're delving into a question with no easy answer. That is how to help and protect journalists and others were kidnapped and held hostage around the world already this year three. Journalists have been killed in Mexico, Libya and Ghana and some sixty others are missing Joel Simon is executive director of the committee to protect journalists. Sometimes called journalism Red Cross he spent almost two decades with that organization. His new book is titled we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom. Joel Simon welcome to form. It's great to be on. Let me begin to by just asking you to give the big picture here of where we're in the world are journalists most under threat, and how is that changed in the past ten years if at all? Well, there are two sort of leading indicators of threats journalists one is journalists imprisoned around the world and we've seen record high numbers of journalists imprisoned around the world the leading jailer of journalists in the world right now is Turkey. Egypt is another country, which is perennial perennially. Putting journalists in prison. China is another another example in terms of violence against the threat has shifted somewhat. But that generally correlates to places where there's conflict so Syria year after year is one of the most dangerous places. Somalia as well. But we also see high levels of violence in places like Mexico where the threat comes not from the state or armed forces. But criminal groups that are targeting the press. So those are some of the hot spots, and and how do those kinds of situations whether it's political imprisonments a criminal kidnapping, you know, how how are those different in terms of your organization? How you think about? Yeah. Well, I mean, they're very different. I mean, first of all when you're doing, and you tend they tend to be mutually exclusive in other words places where you see journalists imprisoned around the world, you tend not to have high levels of violence and places where you have high levels of violence, you seem you tend to see a week state. So really the question is her journalists working environment, which the state is the primary threat or in which the state is too weak to protect them from the criminal and violent forces that that are targeting them. So the strategy is completely different. You know, when you're when you're engaging with the state, there's a sort of target that you can you can you can push up against. And you can try and apply pressure to get them to free. Journalists from prison a repeal repressive laws when you're dealing with a non-state actor like a criminal or a terror group. There's no sort of central locus of power. And so the kind of advocacy that you do is much more complex and your ability to influence them as much more limited in some of the work is really just about keeping us safe in those environments, and what is generally the goal of kidnappers in places like Syria or Iraq. Yeah. Well, when I when I started this book, I I really didn't know. Kidnappings an occupational hazard for journalists. So it had been part of my work at CPJ. I'd been there for twenty years. I started as a journalist in Mexico where kidnapping something that journalists worry about it's just as an aside mostly drug cartels. Well, that's mostly criminal. So it's mostly criminals had struck cartels. But it's also just common criminals who sometimes they're looking for their call express kidnappings. They'll put you in a taxi, you know, they'll take you to a to an ATM and you'll take out money. So, you know, it's just it's just a fact of life in Mexico that that these this is something that that at everyone has to confront, but what I found when I started my research is that, you know, criminal kidnapping in kidnapping for ransom is the thousands and thousands and thousands of cases around the were no one knows the exact number, but there's a much more limited type of kidnapping that are more politically oriented that are perpetrated by terror groups and the and the and the goal in those instances is sometimes money sometimes for large. Ransoms which can help actually finance their operations. But it's also to coercive strategy sometimes it's used to influence coverage or sometimes choose to gain publicity for the causes that these groups espoused, you're focusing your group focuses mostly on journalists. And I'm wondering over the last several decades have has the focus of these kinds of acts kidnappings murders facination change because it seems like in the maybe in the seventies and eighties. It was more diplomats. Yes. Maybe politicians. Yeah. Exactly what he did the research into the origins of this this this particularly the approach to the the US, which is this no concessions. We don't negotiate strategy. So so basically the issue emerged for the United States in the in the late sixties and early seventies. When US diplomats were being targeted in Latin America, and the US government, you know, started carrying out research, how do they respond? There was this debate about whether they should. Negotiate when these kinds of kidnappings take place, and then there was a major incident that occurred in Sudan in one thousand nine hundred ninety three when a group of Palestinian terrorists took over the Saudi embassy in Khartoum and kidnapped a bunch of diplomats, including two US diplomats and one of the demands for the release of Sirhan Sirhan, the convicted killer of Bobby Kennedy and president Nixon just so happened that the next day he had a press conference planned, and he was asked, you know, how do you plan to respond? To this demand from this terror grip? And he said, we won't negotiate we don't pay blackmail and these two diplomats were immediately executed, and that was the actually the origins of the new of the US, no concessions policy is one of the people who was involved in studying these issues told me, it was a policy born in blood, and and so that was the origins of that policy. But then was applied. Across all kinds of of of kidnappings of Americans around the world. But that was where it started. It seems like the government maybe learned the wrong lesson though in that case, I case you describe because it obviously didn't work it didn't work. I mean, but I think that I think that as as I described it was a policy board in blood. I mean be precisely because it didn't work Nixon became very personally invested in this. It was really it was really a with a natural reaction. And so, you know, part of the research and one of the people who was carrying out the research at the time actually told me that he presented the his conclusion which didn't seem to be any indication that not refusing to negotiate actually reduce the likelihood of kidnapping there didn't seem to be any correlation. But the, but the, but the Nixon administration was quite dug in and they didn't really want to accept these findings. And so it became entrenched. It was definitely something that President Reagan used as as a third political talking point even though obviously he didn't negotiate with American Americans. Taking hostages through the Bush administration, and it was actually a became an official written policy for the first time at the beginning of the Clinton administration and it remains our policy today. Although there's been some risk. There was a reassessment or the Obama administration. Well, isn't there? I mean, there's sort of overt conversations and those sort of back channel conversations in terms of negotiations. I mean, I'm thinking like with the Iran hostage situation during the Carter administration. I mean, I'd be surprised if there weren't some sort of you know, intermediaries or something other countries that had relations with Iran, for example. Yeah. Well, I think that one of the things I've found in my book is the US policy on not. We don't negotiate is not consistent. The US does consistently negotiate with rogue states that take what might be called judicial hostages. So there's some sort of legal process that that is that is the basis for the detention. I understand you had Jason reside. In the Washington Post journalist under show is written an amazing book about his experience. And that was an example where the US found a way to engage. And to eventually when his freedom and there was an exchange. I I'm sure Jason talked about some of some of the. Washed out a little bit. So that was the time when the US and other countries were negotiating with Iran over the nuclear agreement and used him especially because he was in captivity as leverage. Yeah. That was what the Iranians wanted to do the US tried to try to prevent the prevent them from doing that. But it was willing to release several Arabians who were in prison in the United States on sanction violations. And there were some other issues that that that that we're on the table that where the policy applies strictly to terror groups. So the US will negotiate in a lot of different circumstances. Where Americans are taken hostage around the world. But it will not negotiate with terror groups. It's a fairly limited number of groups. And this has come to the fore, particularly for journalists because journalists are particularly vulnerable to these kinds of groups, they're working in conflict environments. They are they have to engage in order to do their job with some shadowy figures and shadowy groups and sometimes they're betrayed and they're kidnapped and their canal. By these these terror groups, and that's when this policy really becomes an impediment. You know, I I became involved in this issue because the the I've been involved CPJ, he'll go back to Daniel Pearl. And some of the Wall Street Journal reporter who was kidnapped and killed in impact. Stan, but this came to the fore in the summer of two thousand fourteen when there was a whole string of kidnappings in Syria at Americans and Europeans and other westerners were disappearing one of them with Jim Foley, a journalist. I knew Jim he was well known to people on our staff and his parents were trying to figure out a way to free him. And the title of my book, we want to negotiate with actually the message that his parents received from the kidnappers, but at a certain point, they realized they weren't getting to kind of help they needed from the US government. And they decided they wanted to try and raise ransom, and they came to me, and they asked for my my help, and I was conflicted. About this for a number of reasons. One is I understood the legal consequences. This money would go to the Islamic state. And I was also worried about paying the paying ransom could actually make it more dangerous for other journalists. Bye bye. Bye bye. Because they'd be targeted. But that was the that was where this question started for me. And that was the origin of the book. And what about the concern there with Jim Foley about you know, sort of going around the Fisher government policy? Well, it was it was very scary. I mean, his his his mother Diane and other American families were explicitly threatened by a member of the national Security Council meeting that they had where this person told them that they could be prosecuted if they if they paid ransom. They got other assurances from other officials in the US government. No, don't worry. No one's ever been prosecuted. But it wasn't even so much. They were concerned because if you think about it, you know, if you go to jail, and your son is free. What what do you care, but everyone who might have come forward to try to help them?.

kidnapping United States Mexico Jim Foley CPJ Iran Nixon Syria Scott Shafer Egypt Turkey Joel Simon Red Cross Somalia Michael Krasny Sirhan Sirhan President Reagan Ghana executive director
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

04:45 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"So if a US person is there's a there's a threat against a US person that the intelligence services become aware of they have to let them know. And we believe based on circumstantial evidence that there was an awareness within the intelligence community of the threat. Two. Jamaica Shoji this includes alleged reports of text messages exchanged between Jared, Kushner and Hamad bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia prior to Jamaica shirt. She's visit to the consulate in Istanbul where he was subsequently murdered and dismembered. So there's some some evidence that. You know, there was an awareness that that he was at risk and he was not worn. So we filed a we're we're we're we're we're potentially suing the US government to compel them to make public. This information to to answer the question of whether they complied with this legal requirement likely that you think that they will comply. I'm a journalist. I'm not a lawyer. So I'll leave it to the lawyers to to answer that question. I mean, I think we I think we have a strong case. But I think that really we on one of the reasons you file a lawsuit. Like, this is you know, you hope to win. But you also want to make the point and said whether we win or not I think it's important that we we make express our concern in this way. You know, one thing I want to mention about the coach you case sort of. Interesting development is the the UN a special rapid tour on forced disappearances is actually her name is onions Calamar, and she is actually in Istanbul now carrying out an investigation into the crime. So that's good that there continues to be international attention. And we're hoping ultimately that the UN secretary general gets behind an international investigation. They're they're not that many clear past the Justice. But that's a critical step. Got some listener comments here. Richard Wright's sad. But isn't this? Also, the problem of being a citizen of a world superpower, your guests talks about other countries. But those countries are countries, which do not have the same geopolitical position. Yeah. I mean, I think there's there's you know, there's there's a there's a a case to be made. I mean, I think that part of it is, and I think we discussed this with with Cam who called in from India. You know, the US should've geo political posture in the world creates complexities. But again, if you look at the data, and you look at who's kidnapped you realize just how complex this crime is, you know, Turkish citizens are kidnapped and. People from Latin America, and of course, most of kidnapping domestic so international kidnappings a relatively small set. Of the overall the overall number. But, but you know, it is it is a very complex crime and motivations are very always variable. Which is why I think it's really critical that we knock it locked into a narrow policy framework, but have the broadest and most flexible policy possible, another comment here listener asks can you speak the hostage exchanges. Good policy for the United States to be in the business of using humans in exchange for other people. Well, this is this is a nasty business. You know? So so, you know, sometimes I kind of at the end of the book, I look at you know, how how do we look at this issue is in an ethical issue? Is it a political issue is it a policy issue and the ethics of ransom payments, and and and and exchanges. It's coercive. It's a course of strategy. So the goal of the kidnappers is to compel people to do things that are contrary to their values and principles. So you always. Have to kind of look at it from that that that perspective, but I will say the prisoner exchanges under the Geneva conventions are specifically contemplated. And that the US does engage in prisoner exchanges. When their service personnel are taken captive in the context of an armed conflict, and people may remember the Bo bergdahl case the soldier who wandered off the base in Afghanistan was taken hostage by the Taliban and the US released five prisoners from Guantanamo for his freedom. And I should point out that if if you were a journalist or aid worker, there would have been known negotiation, the Taliban is a designated terror group. So there would have been no negotiation is only because he was a servicemember that there was although they were court martialed him. Well, yeah. I mean, the question is not whether he deserves to be punished. Yeah. The question is what is the policy? How do we engage when these terrible things happen? You're listening to form Joel Simon from the committee to protect journalists is appearing tonight at the World Affairs Council tonight..

US Taliban Istanbul UN Jamaica Shoji Kushner Saudi Arabia Hamad bin Salman India Richard Wright Jared Jamaica Joel Simon Latin America kidnapping World Affairs Council Geneva
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

16:52 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"I'm Scott Shafer here today for Michael crazzy, and our guest this hour is Joel Simon. He's executive director of the committee to protect journalists. His book is called we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom. We'd love to hear from you. Give us your thoughts about US policy. Should we negotiate? Should we not pay ransom? No, yes. Give us a call eight six six seven three three six seven eight six would love to hear from some journalists perhaps you've worked overseas, and what their experiences have been particularly in some of these. War-torn areas again, eight six six seven three three sixty seven eighty six. You can also Email us forum at KiKi Dee dot org should mention Joe you're going to be after world affairs auditorium in San Francisco tonight at six thirty. All right. We're going to go to the calls in second. But I want to ask you a question. We were talking about Danny Pearl earlier in that horrific beheading video I couldn't watch didn't watch. I've never watched it. But the talk about the the rise of social media phones, and how that's changed this conversation. Completely was first of all it's changed the dynamic for journalists because it's someone who was a journalist working, and you know, somewhat risky environments. You know, and I had some close scrapes. And you know, one of the arguments, you would always make look if you kidnap me or hard me in any way. No one's going to cover your story. No journalists are going to come. And you know, I'm going to read a story about what's happening here. And I'm going to be fair. So let me go and do my job, and you had some weight when you made that argument because they didn't have other ways of communicating they were really relying on on on journalists to mediate the whatever they wanted to the public to now. Now criminal even criminal groups in Mexico, like the drug cartels, you social media, and certainly. Jihadi groups in Islam groups have very sophisticated media operations and this began with Al Qaeda, but it was obviously taken to a completely different level by the Islamic state. So journalists themselves are much more vulnerable because that argument don't kill me because he was going to tell your story that's been removed. Secondly, the value of these terrorizing videos is so tremendous. I talked about how al-qaeda managed to one person a journalist and send this terrorizing message to millions around the world because that murder was amplified by the media itself, but the Islamic state when they carried out these ritualized murders, which of course, we're not just turn on with many many people killed in these public executions. You know, they they were able to disseminate that terrorizing local populations sending a message of you know, that they were fearsome and also they used it for recruitment. This is one of the things I've found out that they were basically able to they would post these terrorizing videos and. Somebody engaged with with with with them and said, you know, glad you're doing this. They would reach out to them and try and bring them into the fold. So these social media has become a critical tool of of these infamous groups, and these these videos are very powerful. So I would argue that we have a national security imperative of trying to deny these groups them. All right. Let's go to the phones. Again, the number to call. If you want to talk with Joel Simon is eight six six seven three three six seven eight six and we'll begin with Joe in San Francisco. Welcome. Yeah. It's calling us curious to find out how what's a ransom about is agreed upon how does that money transfer actually go through. Banks. A typical procedure question. Yeah. Well, I talked to a number of security consultants who'd been involved in in transfers, and you know, it varies each each every case is different, and they have different strategies. But you know, it's usually cash that's put into a duffel bag, and you know, handed off somewhere or in some cases dropped from an airplane. And so when there's something I write about in my book, call kidnapping and ransom insurance. And if you have this insurance, which sounds very strange, but it's pretty commonplace. Among high risk groups that work in these areas, then you will get a professional security negotiator kidnapping negotiator. If you're kidnapped, and they are experts at exchanging money and each circumstance is different. But basically it's handed off in cash sometimes through airdrops and sometimes through intermediaries. And what are they negotiating exactly the amount? Yeah, they're negotiating they're not negotiating their freedom. I guess it's sort of it's sort of the same thing. Yeah. I mean, these are these are. These are these are kidnappings, and you're one of the things that that that this this framework helps to turn kidnapping into economic crime and make the demands financial, which of course, is difficult as that is families and and businesses can come up with money. When the demands are political, you know, and it's released this person and take these political actions that inevitably involved for government. So I think that we're better off as difficult as that is trying to sometimes it's called privatize the negotiation. So I do think that governments need to be involved in supportive, but it's actually better if they're in the background to what extent do they use those money drops or even the negotiations to find the victim and defined the the gas? Well, that's that's another reason why negotiating this crucial. And I talked to European. Intelligence people worked in intelligence, and you know, they use the negotiation to identify the kidnappers sometimes they can go after them. There have been cases where they've been arrested or lured a Somali kidnappers was a famous case in Canada was Lord back to Canada, then then arrested. So the the intelligence gathered through these negotiations is critical. All right. Let's go back to the phones. Eight six six seven three three six seven eight six and Kim you're on Mitchell, Simon and you're calling from Mumbai. Yes. On by India. School district. Founding nationally. I'm John Lewis, huge news. And I would involve in hostage situations in Mumbai in India. And also in Afghanistan. Call me and wanted to make was about US foreign policy. It doesn't matter. Ration- the badge. Endangers the lives of your citizens like myself when reach out. I am not in favor of the government being ranking because. Use the hostage-takers to do it again. The point. I wanted to make wars. Foreign policy. On midday news, or whatever endangers our own citizens and. You had gone. You know, I I absorbed the hostage-takers. Their responsibility. Because. Yeltsin give Joel chance. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think I think one of the things I've found is that I think that is an important variable on one of the ISIS hostages. I talked to a Spanish hostage said, you know, what matters most whether you live or die in these situations is not your hostage policy, but your foreign policy. So there were definitely a lot of groups that are very hostile to the United States. And if you're an American you're you're more vulnerable, and the US is engaged militarily around the world. And so the US citizens become a target. But the counter argument to that is a talion Scott kidnapped Germans get kidnapped Swiss get kidnapped people from countries, which have different foreign policies and are not directly engage are also targeted. So I think it's a key variable. I think it's a factor. I American journalists, you know, because of their perceived as representing an Albacete don't I mean, that's one of the things, you know, that you keep the prize as a journalist independence, but they're certain circumstances where it's hard to convince people that you have an indicator. Pendant position and role. Kim, I'm curious your in India, and Joe in your book, you mentioned India is one of the countries that imprisons a lot of journalists. You people don't really think of that happening in India so much more Turkey, and yeah, you know, China perhaps India, the problem in India is is the increasing problem is more is more violence, and particularly and there actually was was a was a. A murder of a journalist in in Mumbai carried out by by a criminal group there. But basically in India's a place where you have a very dynamic, and you know, sort of well funded and well resource media, you know, that that that based in the larger cities, but once you get out in the larger cities into the hinterlands, you know, the the press is extremely vulnerable in their power their their their Maoist groups and criminal groups, and and at the mercy of these groups, and the government has not been able to protect them more effectively investigate these crimes Kim on curious. What experience have you had as a journalist there? Jacob this statement ID days the games in general. It's. The government the Chinese government imprisoning. The day. That's coming on Twitter against. Moby? And. Fact Moore's far, I'm not aware of. Yeah. Areas bigger and actually. Always. Yeah. Sympathizers? They do Jenny. Joyless across India. You're more concerned about the government. All right. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna have to move along. But I I really do. Appreciate your call and your perspective from India. Thanks so much for for joining us on that some people hearing stories like Kim's, and obviously others who have been killed. Jim Foley, many others. Why did journalists wanna put themselves in the situation? What is it? What drives war correspondence to be where they are. Well, I think there's there's a there's a there's a wide variety of factors. I mean, I think that journalists are motivated by a certain public service view of the work that they do that if they're able to cover conflict and report on conflict, the, you know, they're saving lives. They're making people aware of the suffering. They're they're making the public aware of the complexities that that are essential to conflict resolution and public understanding in the formulation of policy. So you're serving a larger purpose? At the same time. It's an incredibly exciting experience and be part of the danger is is part of the appeal. And so, you know, it's a weird. It's a weird kind of mix of kind of high mindedness and ego that drives, you know. War correspondents. And and I think you know, I think we have to recognize both parts of this. I don't think we should minimize, you know, the excitement I and and and the kind of perched personal validation that comes with doing this kind of work, it is an important motivator. But but I think we also have to appreciate. And and and this is this is something that is in short supply. Honestly, you know, the kind of detailed nuance on the ground informed coverage of conflicts that actually helps inform policy making and public engagement. You know, we we see the collapse of Venezuela right now. We're seeing a out potential plot in Afghanistan. We're seeing a rapid pullout in Syria. What are the consequences of these actions? We need journalists on the ground help. Explain these things and help us understand. All right. Let's go now to Matthew in Dublin is that Dublin in the East Bay or Ireland. Okay, less. Exotic go ahead. Good morning. I'm an independent voter in. I always say even though I don't agree with Trump. At least I know what he stands for. Whereas President Obama was doing things very quietly behind the scenes and one of those things was he was using the espionage act to lock up journalists. Some of those included Thomas Drake semi labor wit, stuffing, Kim and many others. And I would love to hear the journalist thoughts or interpretation of the situation was Obama justified in doing that. And all this year, Eric thanks very much for the call. Yeah. I mean, I slightly different perspective. But I, but I find the mentally agree that, you know, the Obama administration had policies that were frankly, damaging to press freedom, and and and in in this country, and one of them was a kind of vision of the threats from from a from leaks. And so they had a very aggressive policy of investigating investigating leaks in a us, this frankly are. Legal framework of the nineteen seventeen espionage act, which basically criminalize criminalizes the dissemination of confidential information and a number of leakers were prosecuted under this law, and and journalists were inspired in those investigations. They were they were. Subpoenaed, and I it's at a very dangerous precedent. And and the the the reason these precedents are important is because the same framework is continuing under the Trump administration. We'll talk about President Trump because he has famously been hostile to the media any reporter who's covered one of his events knows. He often calls out journalists and has called them enemies of the people in the country. But at the same time, I think you mentioned in the book that he's very takes these things very personally gets very personally follows them. Very well. I mean, I think I think that Trump has been engaged on the issue of US hostages, and that's positive. I think that while Obama was sort of hamstrung to a certain extent by the national security implications of these issues and sometimes lost track of the humanitarian consideration Trump is the opposite. He sees the political benefit, but is indifferent to the strategic complexities. And has got it. The State Department in in gutted the reformed understanding he would need to actually make rational decisions, but I wanna make obviously make a broader point. You know, we have a a blog posted on our website today. See PJ dot org that I would highly recommend that analyzes Trump's history of tweeting and has a lot of data. And what what we found is that your Trump? Has sort of moved from attacks on individual journalists. He moved to to you know, this this fake news framework that started after he became president. And and and enemies of people his latest framework for attacking journalists is calling them the opposition. And it's all very dangerous. It's dangerous. I don't think it inhibits individual journalists. I think that you know, we're seeing a lot of great reporting. But it, but it undermines public confidence in the media, and it has a terrible. And the other thing that concerns me is inspires people online who are threatening and even sending a letter bombs to journalists. But but more importantly, I think it's disempowers autocrats around the world this fake news. Framing is a gift autocratic leaders, and you know, in the Philippines, for example, president territory there is calling critical journalists, you know, fake news there. There's there's actually, you know, trying to get a fake news law on the books. They're basically the the argument there as well. You just talk about fake news. But I'm doing something about it. If you know, I'm gonna put you in jail who published news that I deem to be fake. So it's having terrible consequences around the world in terms of strengthening the, you know, the repressive leaders in providing them with a new framework to justify crackdowns on the media. One ask you about the Washington Post journalist, Jamal kashogi. Yeah. Who was murdered of course in the Soviet in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Yeah. Your group. I believe is suing the yes as for records talk about that. Yeah. So so we're working with the night center of Columbia would recently joined a lawsuit, basically, the, you know, under US law. The US government has what's called a duty to warn..

US India Kim Joel Simon kidnapping Joe Trump President Obama Mumbai San Francisco Scott Shafer murder president Danny Pearl Afghanistan executive director Mexico al-qaeda
"joel simon" Discussed on Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

03:52 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

"It should be pointed out that over the years Ron has paid well over two billion dollars to the United States in similar cases in the in the same courts. But ultimately the money was used only as leverage in the final hours when the Iranian regime was trying to block my wife from leaving the country. So it wasn't money that was intended for my release. But ultimately it played a role in the final moments, and I'm comfortable in the knowledge that the US government wasn't going to let any of these concessions be made to Iran until myself and others came home, and you describe in the book leaving around going to Germany, go from Germany to Bangor Maine on the base os playing and that's the touchdown in the United States. You know, there was a lot of pressure for you to come out. Give interviews the talk and you didn't do that. You took. Time. Tell me about that decision. Because that's about a journalist choosing to avoid the the interview requests from other journalists, including myself. Well, I want to be full disclosure. I asked you about it in person the first time you met, and you you gave me the right to make my own decision. And I always appreciate you for that. I think I might have even said to you that if I were you I would wait to do an interview even though I would love to do it right away. You preface it with don't tell my boss. That's cool. Boss knows now. So I was I was set to do a whole bunch of media appearances about a month after I came out, and I talked to several people one of those people was your friend and mine Anthony bourdain, and he really dissuaded me from from going out and do interviews because he said, look, you're not in in a emotional place right now where you can talk. Coherently about this experience that you've had and also you're gonna learn so much more about what went on. If I was you. I'd I'd seize the reins of your own story. And and write about it. And then go talk about it when when you feel comfortable doing it and Bob Woodward gave me very similar advice around the same time. And I thought to myself if Woodward and and boarding telling me to do this. I should probably listen to them. Lots of other people telling me to do otherwise. But I listen to them and we should mention aboard aim book before board anes death. He created a book imprint and and that's why he's on the cover his names on the cover there. As an Anthony bourdain book, speaking aboard, and you're now with CNN is a CNN analyst. But Jason you mentioned in the book. You don't watch cable news. Well, what I learned to got back about cable news. So I was watching a lot of news from the Iranian perspective while I was in prison. Yeah. That really turned me off to television for a long time. The the final pages of of my book are really an encapsulation of the first few months of my freedom. I watch regularly. Now, I watch your show every Sunday to say that I do I do in our big fans. You don't have to say that. But I appreciate it. I I really think people can learn so much from these two titles can. Learn so much about the as y'all said the octopus gentle hazard of journalism that should not exist. But does thank you both for joining me. And thanks for talking about it. Thanks, brian. Thanks, brian. And again, Jason resigns book is titled prisoner my five hundred forty four days and in Iranian prison, solitary confinement, sham trial high stakes diplomacy and the extrordinary efforts. It took to get me out. That's available. It's on sale now. And so is Joel Simon's book we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom..

Bob Woodward Jason Anthony bourdain United States brian Ron Bangor Maine Iran CNN Germany Joel Simon kidnapping analyst five hundred forty four days two billion dollars
"joel simon" Discussed on Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

03:02 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on Reliable Sources with Brian Stelter

"These are typical tactics in these kinds of situations to really break somebody's morale down and it works, but I had to hold out hope that as a Representative of the Washington Post. I couldn't have disappeared without people knowing about it. And fortunately that was true. I was impressed by how the Washington Post advocated for you starting until them fourteen all the way through eighteen months later in two thousand sixteen when you were free still now, you know, they've stood by me. And and created a an opportunity for me to continue working and continue providing what I believe and what they agree is important contributions to to to our our coverage. You want a newsroom to do in this circumstance to but but but it it's just trying to think about what it's like to be in the prison cell and not knowing what your employer's doing wondering what they're doing. I mean, this is the Washington Post Bezos said bought it bazo was an untested owner at the time. I mean, this was the first time bazo who's a global leader had to deal with something like this that his newspaper. Well, my understanding from my conversations with my colleagues and with Mr. bazo was this was something that matter to him on a personal level. And I've read reports my. My prolonged captivity made him think differently about journalists and the importance of the work that we do and the risk that we take and I can say from my own personal experiences with him that he's been nothing short of fantastic advocate for myself and for press freedom writ large. I mean when I learned about him flying there to Germany to basically pick you up and bring you home. Yeah. That certainly spoke volumes. You told me, of course, toll. We should know that a lot of the journalists find themselves in situations. Like, this are not backed by global news organization, and they don't have the billionaire owner. Absolutely. If only in fact, you know, the the overwhelming majority of journalists in prison and even taken hostage around the world are local journalists working in their own countries. And you know, that's the kind of day in day out work that we see PJ do. But I want to say something else about being an advocate for journalists who are imprisoned and taken hostage and who were isolated. One now Austin Thais we're both wearing a an Austin Thais button because he's been missing in Syria for over six years, and there's been no contact with him. And you know, while I'm in touch with the family and trying to be supportive as best. I can you know, I've heard from I believe a couple of things one is when you're out there talking about these cases, you know, maybe there's something sort of psychic force that just the penetrates, and they become aware that there are people around the world who are concerned about them, and that bolsters them, and I've also seen that even when they can't reach you directly. Sometimes prison guards have slipped up on a percent tone and told people like, you know, all these troubles troublemakers out there famous out there..

Mr. bazo Washington Post Washington Representative Bezos Syria Germany eighteen months six years
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

14:40 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"We wanted to let you know that our week of listener suggested programs continues today's is on the idea of federal healthcare for all. What would it really cost is it feasible? We heard from political healthcare reporter, Dan diamond. He says there's one study so far in New York state that really analyzes single payer or federal healthcare for all. I think there are two important caveats for this entire conversation. Joshua one is when we're talking about these plans, at least in the United States were dealing mostly with theory, not reality, and the estimates that are being produced can wildly vary based on which political group, which partisan interest is weighing in. So listeners might have seen different numbers. Here. I will say that there has been a very close study of a single payer plan in New York state by an independent group called rand that group found that about ninety percent of tax payers in New York state but end up paying about the same if not less toward there. Healthcare, but the rich would get soaked. The top five percent of high earners would end up paying more a lot more maybe fifty thousand dollars more per year towards subsidizing this plan for everyone is that fifty thousand dollars sticker price, or if I was one of those people would that be the frayed by whatever my insurance covered. No that would be fifty thousand dollars more out of your pocket every year Joshua in taxes and other other preventive care dental checkups I tests like that would all end up costing me fifty thousand dollars he wouldn't necessarily be for those tests specifically, you would be asked as a rich New Yorker to subsidize the cost of care for everyone else. That's Dan diamond who covers healthcare policy for politico. You'll find the whole conversation online at the one A dot org. Now to our conversation with Joel Simon of the committee to protect journalists. Let me get back to Michael's comment. And I'd like to get your reaction to that. Joel Michael writes, if you go is an unimpeded journalists or volunteer to war zones where you are just meet on the street. You are a fool, and I do not want my tax dollars to go towards your release, nor should your family spend their money feeding the beast, Joel. Well, look, if you think about America's role in in the world, there are Americans all over the place in very dangerous places. Some of them are oil workers and some of them are eight workers and some of them are journalists, and there will be instances where they're doing responsible important work that benefits our society and their kidnapped. So then the question becomes what do we as a nation Ota? What should we do? How should we respond? And and I think that you can have different views on that. But to think that they should just be abandoned and their families should be abandoned. I personally, I think that's heartless. So I think the question is what do we do what's appropriate? What's the context in which we discussed this? What are the ethical questions? I think a very at the very least you have to knowledge even if you come down with a different side of this. These are hard questions these are questions without easy answers. I think there's also potentially a fault. Not premise in Michael's point. He is presumed. He said, I do not want my tax dollars to go towards your release. It's not clear that these dollars would come from our taxes. No. I mean what I'm arguing is. We have we have a policy now, we do not negotiate. So the question is do you engage and do you support the families efforts and to what extent and other governments around the world, particularly in continental Europe have done the political math and had decided that they can't just leave their citizens behind that. They have to do what they can to bring them home. And remember that in the internet age, there's there's another national security dimension. Which is what is going to happen to these hostages may be killed and videos, uploaded on the internet, you know, that has a terrorizing impact. And so the question becomes what what measures are legitimate that we might take to avoid that outcome. Zach Joe rights when it is advised by the State Department not to enter a country due to security concerns. It's probably not a good idea. To dismiss that advisory for the sake of journalism when journalists aid workers at cetera make a personal decision to enter these hostile areas. The inherently put many other individuals lives at risk if a region is unstable. It's probably not a good idea to travel there of your own accord. This is one of those central challenges Joel of of journalism. I mean, you know, let's just talk about the State Department. Advisories. You'll never leave your house. So I mean, you might as well, just stay home. If you're going to avoid the places around the world where the State Department advises you not to go because there are lots of places that people go on vacation. But let's also think about the role that journalists play around the world and keeping us informed. They must go to places around the world that where there is conflict because that is their job. They're there to report on those conflicts to inform us to make sure that the decisions we make as a country about the deployment of force about our national interests about our national security. We think about the human dimensions of these conflicts, they perform an absolutely vital and essential role. And so I think we should be celebrating that role in supporting them and those efforts and recognizing that we have a stake in ensuring that this inherently dangerous job, which is Dan. You know, it's like it's like saying to a firefighter didn't, you know, they're fighting fires is dangerous and something happens to you. While you knew the fire was was dangerous. You know, we we should value the role that they play and recognize that it's risky, and that there are sometimes bad outcomes. And that we as a society have to decide what is the response. One of the things that Diane Foley mentioned where these private security fence when we asked her what would you do differently? She she said she might have hired an outside company to deal with this. What is she referring to? Yeah. Well, one of the things that's that's really that. I found in my research is there's this whole industry kind of insurance called kidnapping and ransom insurance. Anyone who works in conflict environment or has employees who who worked at a high risk environment is aware of insurance. But average people are not and basically what it does is if somebody is kidnapped at the this insurance will reimburse you for the cost of the ransom. Remember that? Most in both hostage situations are criminal. And the resolved through the payment of ransom. And so these policies reimburse you and many of these companies. As part of the policy provide specialized security experts who do nothing, but these kinds of negotiations all the time, and they are really expert, and they have a very high success rate in terms of pregnant people home, and they have a very good understanding of what the what the what the kind of risks aren't particular environment. And what the ransom payment is likely to be. Did you get more into the details of how these negotiations work? Ethan emailed, everything said during a negotiation impacts, its success or failure. I hope you'll talk about the game theory aspects of saying we never negotiate even if we might. Yeah. Well, that's really important. Even if you have a policy of not negotiating there is absolutely no reason to announce it the outset because the thing that keeps the hostage alive. It's the perception that they have value. So if you declare from the outset that they have no value, you basically signed the death sentence. So absolutely the negotiations are about the one thing the one common interests. That both the hostage taker and the people trying to get them back having communist keeping them alive, and you don't want to undermine that common interest points of connection in these negotiations. We want to resolve this. We want to keep the person alive. We want to bring them home, that's the point of negotiation. So I think it's really, and that's and that's the point that these professional negotiators seek to exploit. So I I absolutely agree. If you're if you even if you if you're going to have a flexible policy when you look at each case individually, which I think is the best approach. Even in circumstances where you choose not to engage and choose not to negotiate. There's no reason to announce that if the outset with regards to Diane Foley story Ileana tweeted, the administration did make mistakes in the way, they treated the family, the initial advice, they gave her however that doesn't mean our agencies were doing nothing many years from now it might be declassified. And then we will know more. It's an interesting point that you raise particularly as it relates to what governments do President Trump spoke to reporters last year after securing the release of three Americans who were held hostage in North Korea. Here's part of what President Trump said at the time right now. Flying back are three what they were calling hostages. We call them. Find people really find people seem to be healthy, they'll be landing at two o'clock in the morning at Andrews Air Force base. And I'll be there to greet them. Mike won't be with me. It will be. A very special time. Nobody thought this was going to happen. And a vendetta would be years or decades. Frankly, nobody thought this was going to happen. President Trump speaking after securing the release of three Americans who were held hostage in North Korea last year, how things change Joel lately. In terms of how say the Obama administration of the Trump administration versus past administrations prior to that have dealt with hostages in negotiations. Yeah, they change quite a bit. And I do want to point out that during the Obama administration. I think Diane's fundamental point is the way that the families were treated and the way that they were sort of shunted from agency the agency that the lack of humanity if you will in the way they were treated, but there was actually an unsuccessful military operation to try recover, the hostage hostages, including Jim that took place in August two thousand fourteen just weeks before they were killed. So it's important to note that after Foley and the other hostages were killed Diane really launched an incredible crusade. To put pressure on the government to reexamine its it's the way it responded to American hostages when they were taken abroad and the Obama administration to its credit heard that and undertook a hostage policy review. One of the things at the outset in my book, I describe this. We'll they took off the table the no concessions policy that was going to remain in place, but they created new structures that allow the families to get more systematic support from the US government, including a fusion cell that's house within the FBI that combines FBI agents sate department intelligence assets. And there's also a special on voi- in the State Department that works on hostage issues that was created under this review. And so when President Trump came into office there was actually one of ill. I talked to people involved in that transition, and it was one of the about the only area where there is a consensus that Trump. Administration actually accepted that this hostage policy review, providing a better framework for grappling with this issue. And actually, President Trump has made this issue a priority and many of the families. I've spoken with have told me they've been pleased with your gates. That they've gotten from the Trump administration. I think the challenge with with the Trump administration though, we're not talking about. For the most part Americans cannot by terra good for talking about Americans held by rogue states. And the question there is what does it give up in exchange? What what is happening in those negotiations? That's something we really know. A lot about before we let you go. We should definitely talk about the state of journalism today and press freedom today. It seems like. If for no other reason than just the proliferation of the internet, the fight against the Islamic state in general has affected the way the journalists do their job and some of the threats to journalists we've mentioned earlier that Mexican cartels us, you know, kidnapings too so fear and terror they also post execution videos online too. So that terror so it seems like the modern media landscape that we are using to expose these these cartels. And these terror groups are also that same media landscape is being used to reimburse them. Yeah. I think one thing that's been interesting is this conversation understandably has been focused on the threat from what are sometimes called non-state actor so criminal terror groups, and that's an important dimension. Because particularly freelancers, and this kind of environment I described journalists are definitely under increasing threat from these groups, but they're also very much threatened by governments. In fact, I would I would characterize governments. It's the primary threat to journalist. Around the world. If you look CPJ every year, the committee to protect journalists, we do this annual census of journalists imprisoned around the world and for the last several years we've seen record numbers of journalists imprisoned around the world countries like Turkey, like China like Egypt are engaged in these sweeping crackdowns. And then we're seeing that even some of the violence committed against journalists, including murders perpetrated by states. So if you look at Jamal showed you the Saudi journalist a columnist for the Washington Post who was murdered inside a Saudi consulate inside Istanbul Turkey that was perpetrated by a hit squad sent directly from Riyadh. The capital. Saudi Arabia four with the intention of carrying out this crime and covering it up. That's an example of another thing we see around the world of states both both repressive action against the media directly participating in these violent crimes. Well, it on top of that Turkey's. Not exactly a friend of the free press. Either. Turkey's president Reggie type air to one who is strongly crackdown on journalists on opposition. So you've got a nation. Saudi Arabia that has its own free. Freedom of press issues involved in a hit in Turkey, which has its own freedom of the press issues, but also has drama with Saudi Arabia right with regards to an American journalist. Like this gets really sticky quickly Saudi journalists were. But yeah, I mean, it gets very tricky obviously Turkey has its own motivation pressuring putting pressure on the Saudis and using this incident to do that. But they have nothing to do with press freedom, but I wanna make another point which is about the US role in this because I get good President Trump some credit for engaging with the families of Americans who are held hostage an unjustly detained around the world. But I have to say his response to the kashogi murder has been shameful..

President Trump Diane Foley President State Department Trump administration United States Joel Turkey Joel Michael Dan diamond Saudi Arabia New York Obama administration North Korea Joel Simon Trump Joshua reporter Andrews Air Force
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

07:19 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"Back now to our conversation with Joel Simon the executive director of the committee to protect journalists. Joel how did you come to work with Diane Foley? Yeah. I want to kind of pick up the story. Basically, I knew Jim I'd met him briefly. And he was very close to some colleagues on on my staff. And so when he went missing in a we we were aware even had not become public. And when Diane talks about that period where she decided she was going to try and raise money to pay ransom. She came to me. She and her husband and asked for my help. And I tried to provide the help I could, but I was conflicted because on the one hand I knew Jim I want to everything I could to bring him home. I run the committee to protect journalists. I felt tremendous sympathy for Diane and our family, but I was worried about legal jeopardy to myself and to my organization, and I was also concerned that by paying ransom. For for journalists. We might encourage kidnapping more journal so actually increase the danger. And after Jim was killed. Diane came to me, and she asked me she sort of challenged me, and you Diana's, very direct person. And she said, honestly, Joe, I think you could have done more, and I told her about some reservations. And she said, well this premise you operate under that if you pay ransom then more people will be kidnapped. How do you know that I said, well, it seems obvious Diane? But you're right. You know, I don't really know it for sure I know that European countries pay and they get their people back. But does it encourage more kidnapping? I said Diane, I really feel I have an obligation as a journalist to look into this issue to travel to the countries to meet with governments to talk to the families to understand the consequences of these policies and to try and use my best judgment to to reach some some some conclusions that could lead to a way forward, and that was the origin of the book. Samari tweeted does this occur as often with students traveling abroad, either for research or study abroad programs? Well, let's make some observations about kidnapping first of all we don't have great data on kidnapping because it's an underreported crime. But we do know a couple of things number one criminal kidnappings are the most common form of Krenek kidnappings by long by vastly more criminal kidnappings and political kidnappings number two. What do you mean by criminal kidnapping? Nothing's crimes while they are crying for summer carried out by criminal organizations like Mexican drug cartels or just common criminals who are looking to extract a little bit of money and some are carried out by political groups, and there's actually a distinction in American law. So Diane was talking about how she got no support from the from the US government because her son was kidnapped by a criminal by a terrorist organization. So under the US Patriot Act. It was actually legal for the US government to provide material support that would. Would result in the payment of ransom? But if you're kidnapped by a criminal group say the Mexican drug cartels, it's legal to pay ransom. And these are terrorizing groups I mean, they're they're making beheading videos. They're terrorizing whole populations. So the US policy is really kind of not very clear. This is one of the things I found is that there's this very important distinction between criminal kidnappings and political kidnappings. It seems a little bit arbitrary and there's one set of policies if you're coming up by criminal grip and a completely different set of policies. If you're cannot by terror group Francesco tweeted, I worked in Mexico when a young is rarely tourists disappeared and after local authorities closed the unsolved case, we soon had visits from his really officials from the embassy following up. They were more like massad agents. It seemed like their government took their missing citizens much more seriously than the US. What about that? I I don't know how much, you know, about Israel per se, but your book focuses in on kind of France and Spain on one side. Side and the US and the UK on the other. Yeah. I mean, the world's sort of breaks down into what are the countries that are sometimes called the concessionaires countries that negotiate and countries that don't negotiate like. The United States and the UK I don't really deal with Israel in my book, but they actually do negotiate. They just drive a very hard bargain. So really the question is do you? Engage. Do you negotiate or do you just walk away in France? What I found the French government is notorious for paying ransom, but it actually has to do with how many people you can break into the street. It's about the political pressure. You can apply on on the government if they're under enough political pressure. Then they will they will feel that. It's there. They have an obligation to bring the hostage home that usually means payment, the the there's a big public display when they pay usually the president goes to the airport and meets the returning hostage. And so that fuels the perception that the French pay, and they they do in some contexts when I went to Spain, which has so you mentioned that the US has a record of about twenty five percent of American hostages kidnapped by terror groups, come home and the rest are are killed in Spain. They one hundred percent recovery rate every single Spanish city. Zain has come home why because they pay a policy to pay until I contrasted those outcomes with the United States and the UK which obviously have a a very low rate of recovery, and they've created an environment in which ironically, I think this these policies may even be giving more money to terror groups because they have the opportunity when they've kidnapped a group to murder the American British hostages because they have no value, right? And the monitor gave no monetary value, whereas the European hostages do and by murdering the American hostages and the British hostages. They get a political benefit, and they're actually able to extract more money from the Europeans. Tom wants to know are there other ways of negotiating without paying a ransom? So I mean, I think I think, you know, basically, what I came to the conclusion that you need you need a more, flexible policy. There are certainly circumstances where national security demands that you not negotiating certainly not pay. But there may be other consensus. Which negotiating and payment, maybe appropriate. And that's people said good like payment that the, you know, there's some suitcases of money your duffel bag of money being delivered, and that certainly happens. But really it's about supporting the families efforts to pay. Sometimes there are other ways of doing these kinds of transactions which are less visible, and and I think therefore much much more appropriate way engaging. But you know, you can there are many forms of negotiating the US negotiates, for example with rogue governments that unjustly imprisoned Americans. So Americans back in North Korea from North Korea, Iran, we sometimes engage. It's only what's quote, unquote, terrorist groups that we refuse to engage Michael writes, if you go as an unimpeded, journalist or volunteer to war zones where you are just meet on the street. You are a fool, and I do not want my tax dollars to go towards your release, nor should your family spend their money fee. Feeding the beast. Now, the journalists in me hates that comment. Because how else are you going to know what's going on around the world unless.

Diane Foley United States kidnapping Jim Joel Simon France Spain UK executive director French government North Korea Joe Samari Mexico Israel Michael Francesco Diana president
"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

KQED Radio

11:06 min | 3 years ago

"joel simon" Discussed on KQED Radio

"A short while ago, along with a message to the United States to end its intervention in Iraq. The victim was freelance journalist James Foley, who is two days after video of Foley's murder was released. President Obama spoke to the nation from Martha's Vineyard, the United States of America will continue to do what we must do to protect our people. We will be vigilant, and we will be relentless. But Foley's death was just the beginning. Two weeks later. Another video dropped American officials confirmed this morning that Stephen had been beheaded Islamic terror group posted the gruesome images yesterday, and then another time it's a forty four year olds from. Scotland by the name of David Haines who was apparently brutally killed he and another. Here we go again. Islam militants have published a video that is said to depict the murder of British convoy, volunteer Alan Henning, this days and another victim of this latest atrocity is twenty six year old aid worker Peter Kasich. He's from Indianapolis, and he was kidnapped in Syria last year Kasa get served in Iraq as an army ranger, and then started his own charity to help the besieged Syrian people is called butter execution. Being condemned around the globe, Connor Powell live with more now from Jerusalem. Hi, Connor from two thousand thirteen to twenty fourteen the Islamic state held nineteen men together in one room that small bunker held fully Hanes heading and Catholic as well. As a Danish photojournalist, a Spanish photographer to French war correspondents, and talion aid worker and more. Now, we already mentioned that those four men were killed, but the. The others were freed, they weren't rescued. They didn't escape their home countries. Paid ransom to get them out when countries pay hostages survive. But at what cost is it worth paying to save one life or two or twenty if your money goes to an organization that leader kills hundreds or thousands. Joining us in studio is Joel Simon the executive director of the committee to protect journalists. His new book is called we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom. Joel welcome to one A great to be on Joe before we dive into this really thorny topic. Tell us a bit more about the committee to protect journalists. Why do journalists need a committee to protect them? Well, they it's a dangerous job, and it's becoming increasingly dangerous UP James been around for over thirty years. We were created by a group of American journal through thaw that. Their colleagues working around the world. Were exposed to repression and violence, and they thought well, if we can mobilize the media on behalf of journalists, maybe we can help give them greater protection. And that's what we do. We've been doing it for thirty years we safeguard the rights of journalists around the world your work with CPJ led to this book. Right. That's right. Absolutely. Unfortunately kidnapping, that's an occupational hazard fraternal. If there's something about the nature of journalism. You put yourself in a very vulnerable position, you have to interact with dangerous people in a certain to a certain extent you have to put your trust in them. And so throughout my career at sea PJ, which has been nearly twenty years I've, unfortunately had to deal with many such cases. And that's really what is the origin of this of this book with regards to the risks of being journalist, one member of the one eight text club rights. I teach broadcast journalism, and I have for decades while teaching values and procedures I've increasingly felt trepidation in reading these eager and hungry young professionals for the dangerous they will face it's not like training for other careers. It's exciting and frightening when you know, these reporters it adds an urgency and realism that makes every move ultra important. I'd love to get your reaction to that. In terms of this increasing trepidation about sending people out in the world to be journalists. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think it's also a step back and think about where we get the news. I mean, we tend to think that these are American journalists James Foley and lake Stevens Satloff stepping out into harm's way. And of course, that's that's part of it. But if you look at the cases that CPA takes up in. Mostly local journalists reporting in their own countries recover covering the news that to inform the public, but they're part of this global information ecosystem, for example, we just had a photographer killed in Libya, and he was informing the world on journalists being killed in Syria and Iraq, Mexico their local journalists, but they're part of this global system that keeps us informed. And if you care about international News International events than we have a stake in protecting them and ensuring their welfare, let's put this into a little more context. Emily wants to know how often does this happen? Meaning how often are American journalists kidnapped abroad, it's it's relatively rare. And one of the things I look at in this in this book is that it's not about pure numbers. I mean, it's something in the back. It's first of all it's a terror crime. So it's it produces tremendous fear and journalists think about this quite a bit. And there are certain environments in which there's there's obviously a high risk, but it's a relatively rare. Rare crime. I think the importance of it is that journalists and other international figures who are kidnapped can be used both to increase the visibility of these criminal and terror groups and also potentially as a source of financing. So you can't just look at the pure numbers. You have to look impact of these crimes, and we're not just talking about. Journalists were talking about aid workers and other absolutely the origin of this book and the origin of my interest in this issue with because I read the committee to protect journalists and journalists are the people that I defend in the people I care about. But when I started on this exploration, I started with journalists, but I quickly expanded and looked at all the vulnerable groups, you know, aid workers even tourists who travel in areas around the world where there's some risk and the book looks broadly, the the vulnerable groups that are that are potential victims. But really it looks at the responses. Of their families governments of the security industry into grapples with this fundamental problem of what do we do when people are are kidnapped. We're speaking to Joel Simon the executive director of the committee to protect journalists. His new book is called we want to negotiate the secret world of kidnapping, hostages and ransom. We welcome your questions and thoughts on this or your stories if heaven forbid you have ever had to deal with the kidnapping a ransom or a hostage negotiation situation. What was that like and how did it resolve itself? And how do you reflect on the way that situation went especially with regards to whatever aid? You may have gotten from the government or perhaps not gotten comments on our Facebook page. Tweet us at one A or Email one A at W A M U dot org. The aid piece of this. Joel I think is very important. I would imagine that some of us having watched a few too many action movies would presume if something happened. There is some office in a bunker somewhere underneath the Pentagon. With a team. That's just waiting to come ride to our rescue, especially if we've been rescued if we've been kidnapped by terrorists. But what your book describes? That's that's not really the case. Obviously there have been rescues. There have been successful rescues and there've been unsuccessful rescues. And so. But what I've found is. It's quite variable. It's sorta depends on who in the US government takes up the case that strategic value. They put place on it the strategic interests. But the, but the issue what I found about military rescues is that they're they're very rarely successful. It's really not a scalable response if you will to this problem because at least fifty percent of these operations someone is killed either the hostage or the people carrying out the rescue. They're very they're very low success rate. So there have been some examples where hostage has been rescued through military operation. There's a certain satisfaction that comes with that. But it's not really. A solution to the problem that we can we can we can we can. Institutionalize on any sort of scale. It can be a very period victory. You may see one example that I found was involved a case in Somalia, this is this is probably one of the best known cases an American aid worker named Jessica, Jessica Buchanan. Danish colleague were kidnapped in Somalia, and there was there was a rescue operation that occurred a US forces went in they actually killed all the hostages and rescued them. And this was President Obama. Congratulated Leon Panetta right before the state of the union address. This was a very successful operation. And at a big deal. But what I found is that the group of kidnappers had also had another American and the price of that for that American went up a lot. Because all of a sudden this group of kidnappers wanted to recover the losses that occurred when the military rescue operation happened. So it just shows the complexity of these of these of these kinds of responses with regards to that complexity Raymond writes, there is no doubt that citizens of countries whose governments regularly pay ransoms are more attractive to kidnappers in two thousand fourteen investigation. The New York Times found that al-qaeda had been paid at least thirty six times between two thousand eight and two thousand fourteen by European governments. And Canada, the group made at least one hundred twenty five million dollars far fewer Americans and Brits were kidnapped by al-qaeda. And none were apparently released by ransom positive it, Joel. But what about this idea that because the US and the UK say, we're not negotiating we're not paying ransom that makes us less likely to be kidnapped over. I think you're you're you're the person road is is is completed in two arguments. So let's deal with them separately. The first argument is that countries that don't pay less likely to be victims. That's really not supported by the data. I looked at the data. There's been a couple of studies and basically go back to the origins of this, no concessions policy. There's very little evidence to suggest that there's a correlation between countries that pay Ed kidnapping. It's a crime of opportunity for the most part. There are some anecdotal evidence to the contrary, but it's not substantiated by the data. The second point though, you're caller or the president wrote that has a very important point. Which is there's no question that these ransom payments do help finance terror and criminal groups, and that's something we can talk about after the break. I do wanna talk more about that. As we continue with Joel Simon from the committee to protect journalists. We also want to share the story of James Foley's, mother Diane who had to deal personally with the Islamic. State even down to getting emails from them. Can you imagine having to send emails back and forth with the people who have kidnapped your son? We spoke to her yesterday. And we'll share some of our conversation with you in just a moment. I'm Joshua Johnson. And you're listening to one A from W A, M, U and NPR..

Joel Simon James Foley kidnapping United States Iraq Connor Powell President Obama president Syria Somalia executive director Stephen murder Indianapolis Jerusalem CPJ Scotland David Haines Peter Kasich al-qaeda