Deadline Passes Again, No Prisoner Swap

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 09:48:28 AM EST
Tags: ISIS (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Update: No swap or release occurred. It should be mentioned that ISIS never said it would free the Jordanian pilot if Jordan released Sajida al-Rishawi. ISIS only said the pilot wouldn't be killed. Big difference. ISIS only offered to swap the Japanese journalist for al-Rishawi. ISIS said both would be killed if Jordan didn't comply by sunset. I suspect ISIS will carry out its threat, and kill both. (The pilot may already be dead, since there have been no photos of him since around the time of his capture.)

It was Jordan that added a condition that the release of al-Rishawi would have to be in exchange for its pilot (a swap), and demanded proof of life, before proceeding further. (Jordanian announcement here.) But that was never ISIS' offer. It only proposed a swap of the Japanese journalist. [More...]

Also, ISIS never said it was holding the two hostages in the same place. The Japanese journalist may not even be in ISIS custody any longer. ISIS could have transferred him to a third party, in anticipating of the prisoner swap.

Japan said it was trusting Jordan with the fate of its journalist. That may have been a mistake, although it's not clear it had other options, since it has no ability to free a prisoner in Jordan.

There's a big difference between swapping a prisoner for a member of the military captured in a war zone, and a journalist. ISIS had to know Jordan would never swap a prisoner for a foreign journalist.

ISIS stood to gain a lot if the deal went through, since by negotiating with ISIS, foreign governments are bolstering its claim to be a state, rather than a terrorist group. But I don't see that ISIS comes out the big winner here if al-Rishawi isn't released, although it may gain some satisfaction from having caused some dissension in Jordan and Japan. The leaders of both countries will face criticism from its citizens when the deaths are announced. The Japanese will say Japan should have taken a greater role and not left it up to Jordan. The Jordanians will blame its leaders for making the offer to free the prisoner in the first place.

Original Post

The new deadline for Jordan to turn over prisoner Sajida al-Rishawiwas sunset, Mosul time -- an hour or so ago. It looks like negotiations failed, because ISIS was only willing to release Japanese hostage Kenji Goto, in exchange for the Jordanian prisoner, Sajida al-Rishawi, and not Moath Al Kasasbeh, Jordan's pilot. Jordan says the prisoner has not left the jail and it has not received proof Kasabeh is alive.

This is Japanese hostage Kenji Goto's last message (audio.)

Jordan issued an official statement saying it would transfer prisoner al-Rishawi only for the pilot. The statement made no mention of Kenji Goto.

An ISIS fighter on Twitter says negotiations were not conducted with ISIS directly, but through the middleman who is holding Kenji.

For those curious. Japan/Jordan will not directly speak with us. So we are using a middle man who is currently holding Kenji Goto.

The media is assembled at the Tal Ahad border.

And here, in Jordan:

< Wednesday Open Thread | Australian Faces 12 Years For Smoking Joint on Bali Beach >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Deadline Passes Again, No Prisoner Swap | 16 comments (16 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

With the proper assurances....OK. (none / 0) (#1)
by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:03:49 AM EST

What does ISIL want with her? The fact that they are demanding her release is just another example of how nutty this JV team is.

It seems generally agreed she is a low-value prisoner, she is not a leader or a tactical strategist, not an expert bomb builder or any other skill. She has no value as a propaganda or recruiting star. A failed suicide bomber.

If the Jordanians can get their pilot back then I'd say go for it.

: The highest value (none / 0) (#7)
by thomas rogan on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:11:30 PM EST

"(CNN)She's remembered as the would-be bomber whose device failed to detonate in a string of otherwise deadly terror attacks at Jordanian hotels in 2005."
A middle aged female, who can be largely incognito and is willing to be a suicide bomber, is the highest value to ISIL. Since past behavior is the best predictor of future violent behavior, one must think that it is highly likely that this woman will attempt another suicide bombing if released. There is no deterrent to a suicide bomber, so someone who once attempted to be a suicide bomber must get life in prison or execution. It's just as well that this deal fell through.

: She's symbolic (none / 0) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Fri Jan 30, 2015 at 02:38:52 PM EST

That's really the only thing ISIL has to keep it going and to recruit, the use of religious symbolism and mythical symbolism.

If there was ever a cause (none / 0) (#2)
by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 11:49:05 AM EST

for a true coalition, these guys (ISIL) are it. Why can't a colossal military force of all the nations so far impacted by these nuts go in and just wipe them out once and for all.

Once in awhile in the course of history, there is good reason to go to war and kill people. Hitler was one. And yes, I'm comparing ISIL to Hitler. Hitler was batsheet crazy and so are these folks. Hitler and his ilk and followers needed to be dispatched from the living and so does ISIL and it's followers/minions.

Now, I also truly believe that ISIL is the result of GWB's colossal stupidity in invading Iraq. Bush and Cheney caused ISIL and they should pay for that. But that's spilled milk. Now the world needs to face the music and clean up their mess.

Yeah... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by lentinel on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:56:25 PM EST

"Wipe them out"?... and if anybody, civilians and the rest of those collateral-damagees get in the way, wipe them out too?

The colossal military force you are speculating about can't exist because, obviously, there is no unanimity in the region about confronting ISISISILIS. You should ask them why.

You might also inquire why the current occupant in the White House is so reluctant to have Bush the Painter and Cheney the Vampire pay for anything. He just thanks them for their service.


It would be so easy... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by unitron on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:34:40 PM EST

"Why can't a colossal military force of all the nations so far impacted by these nuts go in and just wipe them out once and for all."

...because we know exactly where each one of them is, what their names are, and who their families are, and they're always wearing those distinctive uniforms that make them stand out from the rest of the populace.

Makes you wonder why we haven't taken care of this already.


: And once we got them, it would be gone forever! (none / 0) (#10)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 30, 2015 at 05:24:15 AM EST

Yes, why don't we just do that?

Hard sell here... (none / 0) (#3)
by Jim in St Louis on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 12:59:37 PM EST

to pin this one all on Bush and co.
For all his idiocies and mistakes, Bush did articulate a vision that was totally different from the way terror had been fought for the 50 years previously. The idea of `we fight them here in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home'. Bold concept- we choose the battlefield and the time, they provide the corpses. And going by kills, I think Bush has (partially at least ) redeemed himself. But I can understand that you may not feel that way. It is a disapointment to me to see the USA policy going backwards and we are treating terrorists more as a law enforcement issue seems the wrong tack.


Bush did not invade Iraq (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Chuck0 on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 01:40:57 PM EST

to fight 'turrists'. If you believe that, you haven't been paying attention.


That IS a "hard sell" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Yman on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 04:51:58 PM EST

For all his idiocies and mistakes, Bush did articulate a vision that was totally different from the way terror had been fought for the 50 years previously. The idea of `we fight them here in Iraq so we don't have to fight them at home'.

Probably why it was just an afterthought, once the reasons he sold the war in Iraq turned out to be false - link to Al Quaeda/911, WMDs, imminent threat, etc., etc.


: What Bush did (none / 0) (#14)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 31, 2015 at 11:40:05 AM EST

was put a bunch of targets in Iraq. U.S. Soldiers with big fat (doggie painter) bullseyes on their backs.
In other words, Bush provided targets there so terrorists wouldn't seek targets here.
Not his idea, of course. That would have been Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or one of Cheney's sociopathic underlings.

Bold concept, and entirely wrong (none / 0) (#11)
by ruffian on Fri Jan 30, 2015 at 05:29:15 AM EST

Did not seem to work out that way for the French. Or the English. Or the Spanish. Or the people of Boston.

Because obviously creating more corpses 'over there' does not prevent more terrorism, or we would not have ISIL at all.


The Irish Times has the audacty to (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 08:19:33 PM EST

label the captors a "cult."

I feel an attraction to that descriptor (none / 0) (#13)
by Militarytracy on Sat Jan 31, 2015 at 10:23:35 AM EST

Pertaining to ISIL


: I find myself perfectly content calling them (none / 0) (#15)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 31, 2015 at 11:41:02 AM EST

a**holes. That seems to cover all the bases.

BTW, the idea that they would release (none / 0) (#16)
by Mr Natural on Sat Jan 31, 2015 at 11:42:51 AM EST

the pilot, a man who actually had attacked and harmed the ISIL hordes, is ridiculous.

Look at how they treated innocent hostages, reporters, aide workers.