Where Does The Government's Responsibility Begin And End For Non-Government Employees Held As Hostages?
If you go off into a war zone as a private citizen -- disregarding State Department warnings -- should the government be financing your rescue and rehabilitation?
I saw a tweet about a hostage taken in Syria who ended up escaping from his jihadist captors. The tweet was an irate one, complaining that the US government did not even pay for the hostage's plane ticket back!
I figured the irate nature of the tweet meant that the government had ignored one of its own. Actually, that wasn't the case. Nancy A. Youssef writes for McClatchy:
WASHINGTON -- The only thing as bad as being tortured for months as a captive of jihadists in Syria was dealing with the U.S. government afterward, according to one former American hostage.Matt Schrier, 36, a freelance photographer held by extremists for seven months in 2013 until he escaped, has told McClatchy that the bureaucracy he endured upon his return home was a second kind of nightmare following the months of abuse he suffered while he was a hostage.
"I never thought it would get this bad," Schrier said.
The FBI never told his father that he had been kidnapped. It waited six months into his capture to produce a wanted poster, and only after his mother prodded. It allowed jihadist forces to empty his bank account - $17,000 - with purchases on eBay, even as the government warned hostage families not to pay ransom so as not to run afoul of anti-terrorism laws.
After his escape, the government made him reimburse the State Department $1,605 for his ticket home just weeks after he arrived in the United States. The psychiatrist assigned to help him readjust canceled five appointments in the first two months. And when he had no means to rent an apartment, FBI victims services recommended New York City homeless shelters.
The FBI declined to comment on the specifics of Schrier's complaints but said in a statement that "When an American is detained illegally overseas, the FBI's top priority is ensuring the safe return of that individual."
"To that end," the statement said, "the FBI provides support services to victims and their families, to include help in meeting short-term exigent needs, and shares information about their loved ones that is timely and appropriate."
There is no way to independently confirm Schrier's version of events, and emails he shared with McClatchy make it clear that his relationship with his FBI handlers was, at best, acrimonious. But his telling of his experience is consistent with the the anger relatives of other hostages have expressed in interviews with McClatchy when speaking of their interactions with U.S. government officials.
"The next time the FBI calls me will be the first time," said Schrier's father, Jeffrey, 67, who lives in Coconut Creek, outside Fort Lauderdale, Fla. "I thank God my son was able to escape, because if he was waiting for the government to spring him he would still be waiting in that hellhole."
Spurred by the recent beheadings of three Americans who'd been held hostage in Syria by the Islamic State, the Obama administration earlier this month said it is reviewing the way government agencies handle hostages and their families.
I appreciate people who go into a danger zone to bring the story to the world, but if they get in trouble, should their backup and exit plan really be the US taxpayer?
Wasn't it Reagan who basically said:
You've got 24 hours, then its your head on a platter.
These guys are out to build a state and credibility. Getting blown to hell as target practice doesn't aid either goal.
Robert at November 29, 2014 12:56 AM
Wasn't it Reagan who basically said:
You've got 24 hours, then its your head on a platter.
These guys are out to build a state and credibility. Getting blown to hell as target practice doesn't aid either goal.
Robert at November 29, 2014 12:57 AM
Are you a citizen, or not?
You spend your entire lifetime supporting the government having jurisdiction over where you live. To suggest that the government has no duty to protect you at all is a mistake.
Radwaste at November 29, 2014 3:18 AM
I have no idea what the policy is, but to me, the following would make sense:
- If you are travelling normally, and get abducted, the country should do whatever is reasonably possible to rescue you. Once back, some initial help - paying your flight ticket, making sure you have someone to stay with for a few weeks, etc., providing some legal support (e.g., if you've been declared dead, undoing that is likely a mess).
- If you travel to an area that the State Department has officially declared "no go", sorry, you're on your own. Buy insurance, or insist that whoever you're working for buy insurance. Granted, it is a bit pathetic to say "go to a homeless shelter"...
a_random_guy at November 29, 2014 3:25 AM
Radwaste, I'm with a_random_guy on this:
If I am abducted by terrorists on the Left Bank of the Seine, yes, my government should try to save my pasty white ass. If I am abducted on the left bank of some river in Syria, not so much.
Amy Alkon at November 29, 2014 6:29 AM
For Radwaste's amusement:
If while living in this country your local police don't have a duty to protect you, why would anyone expect that the country's resources will be put to expedient use to get your ass out of a foreign hell hole, particularly if you voluntarily went there?
Yes, I'm sorry your head got cut off, and it was recorded and broadcast on the interwebs, but maybe that all expenses paid trip to Syria (or Cuba, or North Korea) wasn't your best bet?
I R A Darth Aggie at November 29, 2014 6:56 AM
When you go playing adventure tourist in a war zone, I don't believe the government has the slightest obligation to get you back.
State department travel advisory said "don't go here unless necessary," you went and things went bad? Sorry, that's why the advisories exist.
Not to say "never help" but help for reasons of state rather than sympathy. I'd really hate to be the guy writing death letters saying "sorry, your son got killed rescuing a naive fool from the consequences of his own stupidity."
Now, if the guys holding the hostage were on the list anyway, and this just moved em up a few pegs, go for it and make the rescue as part of it. Or if we decide the national policy will be overwhelming force to respond to any issues with our citizens. But that's not the policy now.
Paul at November 29, 2014 7:12 AM
Like it or not, the courts have repeatedly held that, absent some special relationship, the state has no affirmative duty to protect any individual. As others have pointed out, that pretty much applies outside the country, too.
There are still over 500 American POWs unaccounted for from the Vietnam War. As a practical matter, a government that can forget its own soldiers will probably not care much about a civilian photographer.
parabarbarian at November 29, 2014 7:51 AM
Darth, etc., I am completely aware that the state has no duty to protect the individual. In fact, if you think carefully, you will remember that I have cited this repeatedly.
What those cases do not say is that the citizen has no expectation of benefit for having lived a lifetime of responsible behavior in his country. Just as with police departments, it does not excuse any agency from making the attempt.
Whether you were beheaded in Iran or in a warehouse in the United States somewhere, when that act is the result of American foreign-policy, government does indeed owe you.
Insist otherwise, and take the position that police and military just sit in the office and leave everything to you.
Why in hell do you vote? Are you not insisting that you can vote yourself government cheese, yet have no expectation of performance for your loyal and responsible citizenship?
How can you consider yourself worthless to that degree?
How is the protection of the citizen not "promote the general welfare" when thousands of other, more trivial efforts are considered such?
This is what happens when "citizen" means, "just anybody who can get here". They simply take the view that the government can do nothing good for them, and then actively assist government agencies in abdicating all responsibility.
Radwaste at November 29, 2014 8:29 AM
When you voluntarily put yourself under another government's laws and jurisdiction, which you do as a foreign tourist in a war zone, or anywhere really, you lose the protections of US law.
What you get instead is whatever diplomatic agreements are in force between the U.S and what ever country you get yourself kidnapped in.
If those are nil because you walked into a civil war, or a lawless state, than don't expect rescue at taxpayer expense. You are outside the boundary where the government and you have any obligations to each other.
In my opinion, any US citizen should have to sign a waiver to this effect before traveling to a war zone.
Now, if you are there as an agent of the U.S. Government, different story. They have a duty to try and get you back for at least as long as you are known to be alive.
I personally find it laughable that this guy expected the government to rent an apartment for him in NYC.
How far do you think I would get, if I asked the government to rent me an apartment in New York City just because I had been the victim of a kidnapping overseas?
What happened to his family that was dissuaded from paying this big ransom for him? Do they secretly think he is a fucking idiot also?
Isab at November 29, 2014 10:24 AM
Our government didn't bother to rescue American Foreign Service Personnel in Benghazi; why does this puts expect better service?
Charles at November 29, 2014 5:31 PM
A three-year-old child might be expected to blunder into potentially dangerous situations requiring the parent to extricate them.
However, a person's right to do dumb things with the expectation of being rescued gradually erodes as a person learns to read and comprehend cautionary warnings.
By the time a person is an adult, the general expectation is that if you get yourself into a mess, it's up to you to get yourself out. Relatives may assist at their own discretion.
As for this idiot's depleted finances, rumor has it that Darren Wilson got half a million dollars for his interview with George Stephanopoulos. Surely someone will give him something for his own tale of woe.
Patrick at November 29, 2014 9:24 PM
As a career freelancer, I don't take jobs that send me into war zones. I've been on an assignment once In a scary location (Belfast) and I made sure my deal memo included evacuation.
I'd guess that this guy had no real experience in this place.
kateC at November 29, 2014 10:57 PM
They coulda called his family though
Nicolek at November 30, 2014 12:45 AM
They coulda called his family though
Nicolek at November 30, 2014 12:45 AM
The biggest problem is that naive journalists think that because they are genuinely trying to get people's stories, that that will somehow get them sympathy and a free pass. I'm sorry he had to find out the hard way that they still hate your guts. You're American, end of story, we're going to lock you up and beat you.
I'm just glad he got back. Daniel Pearl didn't.
Ltw at November 30, 2014 9:49 AM
By the time a person is an adult, the general expectation is that if you get yourself into a mess, it's up to you to get yourself out. Relatives may assist at their own discretion.
True Patrick, but there's another side to that rule. I used to work with a couple of British guys who had worked on engineering projects across Europe and in Africa. The companies they worked for took their responsibility to their employees very seriously. We sent you there, if there's a problem we get you out. One was trapped in an African country (can't remember which) during a coup. He got a call telling him to leave his passport at the hotel to allay suspicion, go to the airport, and when the privately chartered jet landed, just run on board. As soon as he was on the jet they took off hell for leather for England.
This guy's mistake was expecting his government to look after him. Oops.
Ltw at November 30, 2014 10:01 AM
There are a few different situations. Military contractors who are taking orders from the chain of command should be treated the same as military: we'll do our damndest to get you out, but if there are multiple situations, civilians have higher priority. Second is people who work in places generally regarded as safe, and follow all the precautions, but get kidnapped anyway. We should do our best to get those people out, not only as an obligation to them as Americans, but also because allowing captors to use them as toys harms morale.
Then there's the people who go off on their own. War tourists, I'd say we have no obligation to; if you get drunk and decide that sneaking into Iran would be fun, that's your problem. There are some gray areas for people who are doing legit work, like media. But even then, as Kate says, you'd better have an agreement with whoever your sponsor is to provide for your security, because in case things go sideways, you're the last priority for the military. And, I get suspicious of journalists who want to off into enemy territory; too often they willingly or unwittingly become propaganda agents for the enemy.
Cousin Dave at December 1, 2014 10:54 AM
Leave a comment