SANAA, YEMEN — The abduction of American photojournalist Luke Somers in Yemen’s capital in late September 2013 happened in an unlikely place. The British-born U.S. national had just exited Sanaa’s Al Huda Supermarket, a popular Western-style shopping center, when armed men wrestled him from the crowded sidewalk into an idling getaway car.
It was the latest in a spree of violent kidnappings of foreigners, which took place in the lingering power void left from a 2011 popular uprising that forced President Ali Abdullah Saleh to step aside. His successor, Abd Rabu Mansur Hadi, made strides in rebuilding the central government, but Yemen’s Al Qaeda franchise, known as Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, was also expanding its reach and influence, in part by ransoming foreigners to raise money.
But unlike the Islamic State, which in recent months has paraded a series of orange-clad foreign hostages in front of the camera just prior to executing them, AQAP had never killed any of its foreign captives. At least until 33-year-old Somers and a South African hostage, Pierre Korkie, were killed during a Dec. 6 twilight raid by U.S. commandos on an AQAP stronghold.
The raid followed a previous mission by U.S. Special Forces on November 25, which freed eight hostages, but failed to rescue Somers.
In a statement after the failed Dec. 6 operation to free the hostages, President Barack Obama said he had authorized the rescue mission because Somers’ life was in “imminent danger.”
But according to several sources in Yemen, Somers was not in immediate danger prior to the first raid launched to free him last month. Two of those sources also claim that the United States thwarted attempts by a mediator to negotiate his release by paying a ransom.
The murky world of hostage negotiations leaves few good choices, but Somers’ death highlights the continuing tension the U.S. government faces when dealing with Americans kidnapped by Al Qaeda and its various affiliates and offshoots. It also calls into question the effectiveness of using military raids, rather than negotiations, as the primary tool to free hostages.
The U.S. response to the Somers’ kidnapping was disjointed from the start. In the month prior, the American embassy in Sanaa had been virtually emptied over heightened terrorist threats. Western journalists who knew Somers, rather than the State Department, served as the initial conduit of information.
Local media outlets widely reported Somers’ name and kidnapping, claiming they had received authorization from the State Department, despite what was supposed to be a media blackout. One State Department official expressed frustration over the handling of news about Somers’ kidnapping. “[I]n this bureaucracy I need magical powers, kryptonite — and prayer [to get an answer],” the official wrote in an email to a reporter, when asked to confirm a media blackout.
The family, in the meantime, was advised by the FBI not to raise a public campaign, but was given “very little information” from the U.S. government throughout his captivity, Luke Somers’ stepmother, Penny Bearman, told The Intercept.
“It was absolutely awful, the silence,” she said.
For the next year, Western media largely held to the blackout, as negotiations were conducted between a mediator and AQAP for the release of Somers and Korkie, who had been held since spring of last year, according two sources affiliated with AQAP. Both sources maintain that negotiations broke down in April, however, when the U.S. government blocked the talks.
The negotiations went so far as to reach an agreement on a price for the two hostages, which would be paid by a third party, according to one of the AQAP sources. The source did not identify the third party—and declined to discuss the agreed ransom amount on the record—but in the past the Omani and Qatari governments have served as intermediaries and have paid to release hostages held by the Islamic State and AQAP. The embassies of Oman and Qatar in Washington did not respond to questions from The Intercept.
The National Security Council and the State Department declined to comment on any involvement by a third party in negotiations or ransoms. Asked about a third-party offer, Yemeni government spokesman in Washington, Mohammed Albasha, said he was “not aware of such talks.”
Bearman, Somers’ stepmother, said the family didn’t know about any negotiations. Bearman and Luke’s father, who live in the U.K., had also reached out to British authorities, but they were told the U.S. was handling the situation.
On November 25, U.S. Navy Seals conducted a raid in Yemen’s eastern province of Hadhramaut in an attempt to free Somers. Seven Yemeni hostages and one Ethiopian were freed, but AQAP had already moved Somers, Korkie and other captives to another location. Seven kidnappers were shot dead by the U.S. commandos during the operation.
Following the raid, AQAP released a video message on Dec. 3 that showed Somers pleading for help. “I’m certain that my life is in danger,” he said in the video.
Also appearing in the video, Sheikh Nasser al-Ansi, an AQAP leader, referred to the failed operation in Hadhramaut, and warned that Somers would face his “inevitable fate” in three days if the group’s demands were not met. No specifics demands were outlined, however.
Hoping to re-open communications with the militants, Somers’ brother, Jordan Somers, and mother Paula Somers, released a video Dec. 4, following the first raid. “Please show mercy and give us the opportunity to see our Luke again, he is all that we have,” Somers’ mother said.
In the video, Jordan Somers said they had “no prior knowledge” of the US raid carried out on November 25.
Two days later, on Dec. 6, several dozen U.S. Special Forces loaded onto V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft, and flew to Yemen’s southern province of Shabwah. Backed up by drones and fighter jets, the commandos fought with local tribesmen and AQAP militants before entering a house in the village of Daffar, Abadan district.
Both Somers and Korkie were seriously wounded during the raid, with U.S. officials claiming their captors shot them, and an AQAP source insisting the men were shot during the exchange of fire. Both Somers and Korkie died from their wounds shortly after being airlifted by U.S. forces from Shabwah.
While the U.S. military raids were justified by the threat on Somers’ life, a Yemeni intelligence official, who asked to remain anonymous, said that they had “no information, or intelligence that al Qaeda was about to kill any hostages before the Nov. 25 raid.”
One of the AQAP sources also told The Intercept that the militant group had no plans to kill the photojournalist prior to the first attempt to rescue him. “There was no risk to Luke Somers’ life; his life was not in danger from AQAP before the first US raid,” the source told The Intercept.
In a tragic twist, the Gift of the Givers Foundation, which had been negotiating separately with the militants for the release of Korkie, said the South African aid worker was due to be freed on Dec. 7. In a statement on their website, the disaster response charity said it was in the final stages of preparing logistical arrangements to bring Korkie home.
Korkie was kidnapped along with his wife, Yolande, in May of last year. His wife was released in January due to concerns over her health.
Imtiaz Sooliman, the director of Gift of the Givers Foundation told The Intercept that in the midst of negotiations in early November, tribal leaders informed the organization that they would have to delay a meeting with AQAP, “because some of their members were killed in [a] drone strike.”
The Yemeni government was “not involved in the ‘non-state’ actors’ negotiations with Al Qaeda,” Albasha, the Yemeni government spokesman said.
The State Department says that the U.S. government was unaware of any negotiations for Korkie’s release, and at no point was the U.S. government involved in ransom negotiations.
“[P]aying ransoms would only sustain the very same terrorist organizations that we are working to destroy,” said Jen Psaki, a State Department spokeswoman, during a Dec. 8 press conference. “So nothing has changed on that front.”
Kidnappings have long been commonplace in Yemen, where disgruntled tribes abduct foreigners as bargaining chips to resolve disputes with the central government. Those kidnappings usually end quickly, with abductors releasing captives unharmed, often in exchange for imprisoned family members.
Somers’ abduction exemplified a more recent trend, however, in which mercenary kidnappers sell foreigners to AQAP, which in turn demands large ransoms in exchange for their safe release. A Finnish couple and Austrian student were kidnapped in 2012 and sold on to the militant Islamic group; all three were later released.
AQAP is also believed to be holding an Iranian diplomat and a Saudi Arabian deputy consul, snatched in March 2012; a British oil-worker kidnapped in February this year is also still missing.
While acknowledging its role in ransoming hostages, AQAP has also tried to distinguish itself from the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, whose videos have featured captives condemning U.S. policies, followed by bloody executions. AQAP claims it doesn’t torture its hostages.
On Monday, AQAP released a video of al-Ansi, the AQAP leader, condemning the Islamic State’s use of beheadings as “savage” acts and denouncing videos showing violent executions, calling it “a big mistake and not acceptable.”
Somers’ death underscores what some see as a glaring flaw in America’s policy toward dealing with victims of kidnapping in the Middle East. European captives have often been freed through secretive multi-million dollar transactions, while Americans have languished. Ransoms are credited with sparing lives, but at the cost of enriching Al Qaeda and its cohorts–an unacceptable tradeoff in the eyes of the U.S. administration.
Yet the U.S. government’s “no ransom” policy also limits options for freeing hostages, leaving military raids as the only viable alternative. When successful, the raids can free hostages, depriving militant groups of ransom income, but they all risk the lives of hostages, who have been caught in the crossfire, or killed by their captors in revenge.
“My instinct was that we could have raised a ransom and perhaps worked with another country, but we didn’t know what was going on,” said Penny Bearman, Somers’ stepmother. “My feeling now is that all the strategies [for freeing hostages] seem to be really egocentric around individual government’s policies.”
One of the AQAP sources said that the death of seven of its members in the late November U.S. raid had angered the group, though it’s unclear what the consequence would have been for Somers. Even after the November raid, no decision had been made to execute Somers, the source insisted.
“The group leadership is not, you know, vampires,” he said.
Photo: EPA/Landov; Supermarket: Casey L. Coombs
Paying kidnappers is always wrong?
I don’t know, It’s worked OK for Europeans.
As long as the West invades other countries, or pays other people to do it,
the US should pay ransom for photo-journalists, shouldn’t it?
I would be cheaper than all these military ops.
the US secretly released prisoners from Gitmo, awhile back,
to bring home a soldier.How is that working out?
Gitmo, the place that no one can get out of—-suddenly repatriates
5 men.Quelle surprise…
If you pay them, then you just tell theme to keep doing it. You basically place every single tourist, journalist, aid workers in grave danger because these criminals know they will get money for kidnapping foreigners.
Stop paying Western soldiers going to these places. STOP ATTACKING these places. How hard is that to understand, Steb? Or does God tell you that the NATO axis is a good thing…to use against the bad muslims?
If the authors of this Op-Ed, and the editors that approved its publication as viable investigative journalism, actually believe that such a hapless screed is in keeping with the stated goals and founding principles of THE//INTERCEPT, then there seems to be some confusion in the ranks regarding the distinction between professional journalistic reportage and the ideological sensationalism that often denotes mere opinion.
Even the attempt to present this article as credible reporting by titling it….
…is spurious, and an obvious sophomoric attempt to attract some form of patriotic empathy and outrage in prospective readers; there was no “AMERICAN KILLED IN YEMEN” in this instance. The authors/editors attempt to “walk back” their false headline later in the body of the piece by describing one of the deceased kidnap victims as an “American national” is nothing more than some silly obfuscation meant to lend credibility to their earlier fiction.
“Work is love made visible.” KG
As Usual,
EA
Ah, another pretend patriot. More David Duke that Ethan Allen, methinks.
Frankly, it is more useful for war propaganda purposes if hostages are killed.
Shouldn’t the title to the article be modified by, “According to AQAP sources,…”? No need to take anyone’s word, the US govt, AQAP, anyone. Seems more than a quibble to me — two sources from the same side don’t make it a fact.
MONEY
is more important to the Corporate State of America
(the CSA won the Civil War in the 1980’s)
than any notions about justice or humanity.
Luke Somers is described as a photo-journalist-who employed him? What is their responsibility in all this? Was he a free-lance? If so who bought his journalism? Who encourages people like Luke to be in this area by buying his output? We each must take resposibility for ourselves and our actions. Payment of ransoms is just plain wrong. Would encourage even more kidnappings. Best for people like Luke to avoid the area. News and pictures to accompany news is not all that valuable.
I had considered your point but who will bring light to dangerous places? Do we just wall off parts of the world someone deems too dangerous? You said “News and pictures to accompany news is not all that valuable.” Where does the original news come from?
The simple answer is that original news doesn’t come at all, at least not instantaneously. Over time things will become known but yes a lot will never be exposed. Yes we may be at the mercy of CIA or NSA or “NGO’s” or whatever organisations to provide us with updates to the news, and we all know that means mostly propaganda that we will have to divine as best we can. But is the insatiable appetite by a segment of the public, and I wonder to what extent this actually exists, worth his life?
We get it. You’re just a self-satisfied coward.
Tell that to all the people who gained a real sense of WWII from the pix in Life magazine – tell that to all of us who were galvanized about VietNam when we saw the picture of the flaming child, the bombed wasteland – Your ignorance of the power of photography is self serving and seriously out of touch with history and human nature.
After reading this, I must conclude that AQAP is more humane than the US government, which indiscriminately slaughters people across the world, then wrings its hands as Americans are murdered by their police – many of whom served in its military. The Empire is imploding.
Are suicide bombings more humane and discriminating?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/05/201252175919491219.html
httx://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/05/world/meast/yemen-violence/index.html
Change the second link to “http” [TI doesn’t like multiple links]
I have this feeling that you apply a lot more scrutiny to the U.S. than to AQAP if you’ve drawn such a conclusion.
Neither droning or suicide bombing are humane and discriminating,but I have this feeling that if we didn’t drone ,missile,shoot and blow up the region,and made the Israelis do the right thing,there would be no suiciders.But I have the suspicion you fail to understand reality,and are lost in victimization and myth.
To a large extent it depends on the circumstances. For example, a drone strike or a suicide bombing in a remote area in Southern Yemen could be quite precise and therefore discriminating. As for which is more humane, I think they’re roughly equivalent.
The level of discrimination comes down to intent. Drones have the capability of great precision and ability to track targets, yet there are still instances of blowing up wedding convoys. The rules need to be much tighter and there needs to be more accountability. After all, our military is held to actual standards by the public. AQAP, not at all. Al Qaeda doesn’t answer to its own citizenry, but only to international outcry which they have shown to not really value. Suicide bombings could be discriminating as well in theory, but that’s not typically the reality. Intentionally bombing public places like markets are the epitome of indiscriminate and only aim to instill terror. Take the Boston Marathon bombing as an example. The intention wasn’t to kill enemy combatants; it was to kill whatever poor saps happened to be in the area.
It’s nowhere near that simple. The reason groups like AQAP resort to suicide bombings is because they don’t have the military capabilities of nation states and have to resort to guerilla tactics, which have been around forever. Your notion that if the U.S. just didn’t intervene at all, that all would be swell is easily refuted. One example is the Syrian civil war that further empowered the Islamic State. Regardless of whether the U.S. intervened, IS was committing atrocities in Syria and Iraq.
I don’t understand what this means. What aspect of reality and how am I perceived as a victim and what is the supposed myth I subscribe to? I’m not a mind reader.
It is a tough situation in which there is no good option. If you pay the ransom you enrich the terrorists – perhaps they use those funds to sustain themselves and purchase weapons to kill several people. And even worse, by paying ransoms you legitimize the process and the kidnappings will only continue.
On the other hand, if the government is unwilling to pay ransoms, its options are severely limited. You either do a negotiation such as the Bergdahl exchange (which was a political mess) or you resort to military action. Furthermore, U.S. captives get treated significantly worse, as did James Foley, because the terrorists know the U.S. is least likely to pay.
It’s a shame what happened to these two men.
If idiots like him and the others want to expose themselves to the well-known dangers of working/living/spying in the Middle East, let them do it on their own dime.
Based on the endless “beheadings are worse than torture” comments on Twitter in reaction to the Senate report yesterday, it seems hostages are worth more to the US dead than alive.
And if they make the mistake of being kidnapped by groups that have no intention of beheading them, we have to ensure their deaths with a failed raid.
Some people just don’t get it. You’d think that the Islamic State’s treatment of people like Sotloff and Foley would make them realize the consequences of U.S. using torture and the long-term implications. They don’t. Instead they hold the U.S. to the standard of IS; talk about setting the bar low.
Paying ransoms to kidnappers encourages more kidnapping.
Paying ransoms to terrorists finances terrorism.
I have to agree with Obama on this one.
I have to agree – the top priority is not to give money to the kidnappers. If the U.S. locked onto every hostage taken with a cruise missile and blew them up without a second thought, a few people would die. But if the U.S. paid every ransom then almost every American in the region (and some out of it) would be kidnapped – and when even a fraction were accidentally killed that would be more death than in the first case.
@Mike5000 & Wnt-If this man’s family wanted to pay the ransom nobody should have stopped them. That is their choice to make for their family. This is a big problem in this country, people making decisions for others or not allowing others to make decisions for themselves. This is the kind of stuff that is justifying the loss of our liberties for example, the NSA, the CIA, police as executioners etc etc… In my opinion Luke Somers shouldn’t have been in that region but he wanted to be there. Maybe he loved the people, the culture, the food or the women? Who knows but he got himself in a bad situation and his family was told by strangers in our government, whom their job is to secure our rights, they can’t pay any ransom to secure his release. That is un-American
The two of you have no idea the blood, sweat and tears my family has shed for this country and to be told by a government employee I couldn’t secure another family members freedom because this country doesn’t work with the people we are trying to destroy, in my mind thats a breach of contract. My family went to war(s) in times of need and the government refuses to simply help my family in a time of need is very very bad.
I’m sure you two are nice people but if you were the government employee that stopped me from saving my family member that would be dangerous for you. I’m a lover not a fighter but if need be that would change real quick..
Excellent point, Phil. I wonder if Mike and Wnt would still be saying “we cannot pay ransoms for hostages” if it was they who were about to be killed.
AU: a lot of research is needed to come up with the right response, but I wish people would be more creative than simply to do whatever the terrorists say, and most don’t have millions to hand over anyway. I picture thinking a lot about ‘counterterrorist’ responses at the individual level. For example, al Qaida has strong financial support and bin Laden family links serving pilgrims in Jeddah, so the family member of a hostage might sweet-talk and pay a low-ranking SARS lab technician to hand over original shipping paperwork and report the possible theft of a sample, then use this to threaten al Qaida that if the family member is killed or seriously harmed that contaminated materials will be shipped to unwitting recipients in Jeddah and the hajj will be turned into a veritable ghost town. I have no idea, but with the right assurances that no actual virus is involved I can conceive that some low-level U.S. officials might even be talked into playing along with the story with a small mock investigation.
I am concerned by the implicit forces related to neutrality legislation that have made paying kidnappers seem more legitimate than standing up against them.
Paying kidnappers to ply their trade is not just a personal decision. It affects those taken in future kidnappings by people pursuing that career – whether successful or failing, whether the hostages live or die. If the families had paid suicide bombers to prepare themselves to attack the schools or workplaces of the kidnappers’ children if the hostages were not released, maybe you would say that is a personal matter, and at least then you’d be fair. But it seems unreasonable to say that people are only allowed to hand over their money to terrorists who target Westerners, but not terrorists who target the terrorists who took their loved ones.
Our governments in the west insure that the families do not pay ransoms by denying that a ransom demand has been made. Is this the right way to enforce the policy of non-payment of ransoms?
Supporting despotic dictators in the Middle East, giving 2 billion dollars in aid to Israel, not criticising Israel internationally, never voting against Israel at the UN, droning people, torturing people – they also encourage terrorists to kidnap people and encourage people to finance terrorists. The US doesn’t seem to have a problem with much of that …
But we have good reasons for torturing enemy combatants, and droning people, and holding peop….oh, sorry, these sub-humans, what was my point?