Should hostages' families negotiate with terrorists? White House changes tune.

In the past, family members who have negotiated with or paid ransom to terrorists to facilitate the release of hostages have been risking criminal prosecution. The White House is expected to change that police Wednesday.

Transforming its longstanding policy on hostage negotiations, on Wednesday the Obama administration will tell the families of American hostages that they can communicate with captors, and even pay ransom, without fear of prosecution.

A broad review of US hostage guidelines, which have been criticized by the families of Americans held captive for being too rigid, will be released on Wednesday. 

President Obama ordered that the policy be reviewed in November 2014 following the deaths of American hostages at the hands of Islamic State militants. The families of some of the American hostages killed complained about the way they were treated by members of the administration, saying they were threatened with criminal prosecution if they pursued paying ransom in exchange for the release of their loved ones.

Elaine Weinstein, the wife of the American hostage Warren Weinstein, who was accidentally killed by a US drone strike in Pakistan, said she hoped the hostage review "was conducted fully and frankly so the US government can have an honest conversation about the areas where it falls short."

Meanwhile, some experts noted that paying ransom is generally more effective than an armed rescue.

“We, the government, rely too heavily on the military to provide a rescue. The most dangerous time for a hostage is during a rescue mission. They are rarely executed for lack of payment,” Gary Noesner, a retired FBI negotiator told the Monitor.

Several people familiar with the review said there would be no formal change to the law, which makes it illegal to provide money or other material support to terror organizations. However, the administration will make clear that no one has been or will be prosecuted for paying ransom.

The policy change was first reported by Foreign Policy magazine. Those familiar with the review confirmed the details on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly ahead of Wednesday's release. 

This report includes material from the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.