Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Germans free one terrorist and arm others
Remember Susanne Osthoff, the deeply confused former German hostage who believes that hostage-taking is just fine so long as the motivation is political? Early reports hinted that she had been ransomed, which reports were disturbingly credible on account of Germany's tradition of buying off the jihadis.
Now, sources inside German intelligence, which apparently can keep a secret no more effectively than the Bush administration, have confirmed that a ransom was paid, in addition to an apparent prisoner exchange:
As horrid as it is that the Germans released the murderer of an American sailor to spring a left-wing archeologist who both sympathizes with the enemy and plans to return to Iraq notwithstanding the pleas of her government, it is worse that they paid ransom to secure her release. If it is indeed "Washington's" position that the problem with ransoms is that they encourages "more kidnapping," may I respectfully suggest that "Washington" needs to think on the subject a bit more deeply.
In a civil insurgency such as the war sputtering along in Iraq, the enemy converts money into munitions, which are in turn converted into dead Marines and murdered Iraqis. Indeed, the money is easier to transport and more broadly useful than weapons per se, so the Germans have hurt our interests more than if they had merely shipped weapons to the insurgents. Forget about encouraging kidhapping. The Germans just killed a bunch of American and Iraqi soldiers. We just don't know who they are yet.
When Angela Merkel visits Washington next week, some clear-thinking reporter with more than the usual courage should ask her to explain herself.
Via LGF.
UPDATE: Yes, I know Osthoff may have been acting as a spy. If so, then she was no innocent victim, but a willing participant. All the more reason not to ransom her, at least not with money. A prisoner-exchange is a time-honored method for recovering spies, and we do what we have to in time of war, especially. But ransom? It is not that the Germans do not understand the consequences -- they know precisely how the money will be used.
Again, the mainstream media can earn its pay for the week by demanding an explanation from Angela Merkel.
Now, sources inside German intelligence, which apparently can keep a secret no more effectively than the Bush administration, have confirmed that a ransom was paid, in addition to an apparent prisoner exchange:
A day after Osthoff's release, the Germans had quietly freed and sent home to his native Lebanon Mohammed Ali Hamadi, a Hezbollah militant serving a sentence for killing a U.S. Navy diver in a hijacked TWA jetliner in 1985. [This diver's name was Robert Stethem of Waldorf, Maryland. Wikipedia entry here. - ed.] Berlin officials denied any connection between Osthoff's release and Hamadi's after serving only 19 years of a life sentence. They said Hamadi had qualified for parole and the decision to free him had been taken by the state government in North Rhine Westphalia, where he was being held, not the Federal government. He was captured in Frankfurt in 1987 for his part in hijacking the TWA jetliner and killing the American navy diver, who was a passenger on the plane. The United States requested Hamadi's extradition, but the Germans refused, and instead tried and convicted him.
But both German sources said the real deal involving Osthoff's release had been the payment of a ransom to her terrorist captors by the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel. The ransom and Hamadi's release could well constitute a double embarrassment for Merkel on her scheduled "maiden" visit to Washington next week. Washington has always opposed pay ransom money on the grounds that it encourages more kidnapping.
As horrid as it is that the Germans released the murderer of an American sailor to spring a left-wing archeologist who both sympathizes with the enemy and plans to return to Iraq notwithstanding the pleas of her government, it is worse that they paid ransom to secure her release. If it is indeed "Washington's" position that the problem with ransoms is that they encourages "more kidnapping," may I respectfully suggest that "Washington" needs to think on the subject a bit more deeply.
In a civil insurgency such as the war sputtering along in Iraq, the enemy converts money into munitions, which are in turn converted into dead Marines and murdered Iraqis. Indeed, the money is easier to transport and more broadly useful than weapons per se, so the Germans have hurt our interests more than if they had merely shipped weapons to the insurgents. Forget about encouraging kidhapping. The Germans just killed a bunch of American and Iraqi soldiers. We just don't know who they are yet.
When Angela Merkel visits Washington next week, some clear-thinking reporter with more than the usual courage should ask her to explain herself.
Via LGF.
UPDATE: Yes, I know Osthoff may have been acting as a spy. If so, then she was no innocent victim, but a willing participant. All the more reason not to ransom her, at least not with money. A prisoner-exchange is a time-honored method for recovering spies, and we do what we have to in time of war, especially. But ransom? It is not that the Germans do not understand the consequences -- they know precisely how the money will be used.
Again, the mainstream media can earn its pay for the week by demanding an explanation from Angela Merkel.
1 Comments:
By 
, at
Tue Jan 10, 12:32:00 PM:
When Helen Thomas asks that question, I will believe in the Tooth Fairy.
Nice job.
