Key question for investigators: What kind of bomb was used in Manchester attack? CNN.com

Bergen: Key question for investigators: What kind of bomb was used in Manchester attack?
Peter Bergen
By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
Updated 10:43 AM ET, Tue May 23, 2017

Story highlights
Peter Bergen: Key question for Manchester bombing: what kind of bomb? If hydrogen peroxide (a good possibility) how was it built, concealed?
He says building such a bomb would imply training, as chemicals are unstable, need careful handling

Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.”

(CNN)As investigators look for key clues in the Manchester bombing, one of the most important questions to answer will be: Was this a hydrogen peroxide-based bomb? And if so, where was it constructed? And, how did the Manchester perpetrator learn how to build his bomb?

To recap: Manchester is reeling from the worst terrorist attack in the United Kingdom since July 7, 2005 when al Qaeda-trained suicide bombers killed 52 commuters on London’s transportation system.
The attack in Manchester Monday at the Ariana Grande concert killed at least 22 and was carried out by a suicide attacker, officials said.
Suicide attacks are quite rare in the UK. Indeed, the Manchester attack is the first suicide attack since the London transportation attacks 12 years ago.
Like school shooters, terrorists study previous attacks. The attack at the Ariana Grande concert may well have taken some of its cues from the ISIS-directed attack on the Bataclan theater in Paris, where an American rock band, the Eagles of Death Metal, was playing on November 13, 2015. The ISIS-trained attackers killed 89 at the theater.

The attack in Manchester was also directed at a concert that featured an American pop star and, like the Bataclan attack, it aimed for mass casualties.
There are many questions about the attacker in Manchester. Did he act alone or did he have supporters? Already the British police have arrested another individual in Manchester, though his connection to the attack is still unclear.
Did ISIS or al Qaeda inspire the bomber or was he directed, or even trained, by one of these groups? Or, as seems less likely, was he associated with some non-jihadist ideology or group?
On Tuesday, ISIS claimed responsibility for the Manchester attack, saying that a “soldier of the caliphate” had planted the bomb.

Typically ISIS’ claims of responsibility have some merit, although at this point it’s not clear if this is ISIS opportunistically claiming credit for an attack by an ISIS-inspired supporter or if the group directed or trained the bomber.
Case in point: When Omar Mateen killed 49 at an Orlando, Florida, nightclub on June 12, 2016, ISIS — in a statement issued after the attack — described Mateen as a “soldier of the caliphate” despite the fact that Mateen had had no training or direction from ISIS but was instead simply inspired by the group.
According to the BBC, around 850 militants from the United Kingdom have traveled to Syria or Iraq to support or fight with groups such as ISIS. About half of those have returned to the UK.
As investigators bear down on the Manchester tragedy, a key question they’ll be looking at is what kind of bomb-making materials the Manchester attacker used.
When ISIS and al Qaeda have attacked or plotted attacks in the West in the past decade or so they have invariably used hydrogen peroxide-based bombs because acquiring military-grade explosives or dynamite is nearly impossible for would-be terrorists in Western countries.

Hydrogen peroxide, on the other hand, is ubiquitous since it’s used in hair bleach. Hydrogen peroxide-based bombs were used in the London bombings in 2005; in al Qaeda’s foiled plot to attack subways in New York City in 2009 and also in the ISIS-directed Paris attacks in 2015 and the ISIS-directed attacks in Brussels a year later.
If a hydrogen peroxide bomb was used in the Manchester bombing it would likely have been assembled in some kind of crude bomb factory, as these types of bombs are not easy to construct because the chemicals involved are both toxic and quite unstable.
A hydrogen peroxide-based bomb would also imply some kind of training, as building one of these bombs is generally not something you can do by simply reading instructions off the Internet.
In al Qaeda’s 2005 attack in London, for instance, the plotters rented an apartment to serve as their bomb factory where they mixed up the chemicals. As they brewed up batches, they wore disposable masks because of the high toxicity of the materials and they installed a commercial-grade refrigerator in the bomb factory to keep the highly unstable bomb ingredients cold.
Similarly, when an al Qaeda-trained bomber, Najibullah Zazi, tried to blow up bombs in the subway in New York City in 2009 he rented a motel room in the Denver area to build his devices before driving them in his car to Manhattan. Luckily, the FBI was tipped off by British intelligence just before Zazi left for New York and he was later arrested.

The ‘Legion of Brothers’ that routed the Taliban, CNN.com

The ‘Legion of Brothers’ that routed the Taliban
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst
Story highlights

New documentary tells story of Special Forces group that went into Afghanistan post-9/11 and overthrew Taliban regime
Peter Bergen says film raises serious questions about how much America is asking from these forces

“Peter Bergen is CNN’s national security analyst, a vice president at New America and a professor of practice at Arizona State University. He is the author of “United States of Jihad: Investigating America’s Homegrown Terrorists.” Bergen is a producer of CNN Films “Legion of Brothers,” which opens in theaters in the United States May 19. ”

(CNN)The documentary feature film “Legion of Brothers” tells the stories of the handful of US Special Forces soldiers who, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, went into Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and within a matter of weeks overthrew the Taliban regime.
In the public’s mind, Special Forces are often confused with the “door kickers” of Special Operations Forces — such as SEAL Team 6 and Delta Force — who are the United States’ elite counterterrorism operators.
In fact, the primary mission of Special Forces, in particular the Army’s Green Berets, who are profiled in the film, is to work “by, with and through” local forces on the ground to act as force multipliers. That means that Special Forces embed with local forces and work with them to achieve their common goals.
The Green Berets of US Special Forces 5th Group — known as “the Legion” — who led the anti-Taliban campaign represent a textbook case of a successful Special Forces campaign.
Five weeks after the 9/11 attacks, a 12-man Green Beret team led by Capt. Mark Nutsch was dropped into Afghanistan where they attached themselves to the army of the Uzbek warlord Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum.
Trump mulls options in Afghanistan

Riding horses into battle — in a scene that could have played out during the American Civil War — Nutsch and his team helped lead Dostom’s forces to victory against the Taliban forces in the north of Afghanistan. Together, they rode into the key northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif on November 10 where they were greeted as liberators.
Meanwhile, in southern Afghanistan, Capt. Jason Amerine and his 12-man Green Beret team linked up with an obscure Afghan diplomat named Hamid Karzai.
In mid-November 2001, as they moved toward the city of Kandahar, the Taliban’s de facto capital in southern Afghanistan, Amerine’s team called in airstrikes against advancing Taliban units and more or less obliterated a Taliban column of a thousand men that had been dispatched from Kandahar. It was the Taliban’s final play to remain in power.
The Taliban surrendered Kandahar on December 5 and the same day, Karzai was appointed to be the next leader of Afghanistan.
Few saw then that the United States would still be fighting wars of various kinds a decade and a half later, not only in Afghanistan, but also in Iraq and Syria.

Special Forces continue to play a key role in these wars, in part, because there is no demand signal today from the American public to send large conventional armies into the greater Middle East to fight wars against ISIS, al Qaeda and the Taliban.
This means American involvement in the wars in these countries must be conducted “by, with and through” the local forces on the ground, such as the Afghan army, Iraqi military and Syrian militias allied to the States. And that means a large role for US Special Forces, whose specialty is working with those local forces.
But this raises some serious questions about how much the American public is asking from its Special Forces, who are facing repeated deployments.
In “Legion of Brothers,” Scott Neil, a Green Beret who was part of a sniper team in Afghanistan in the months after 9/11, explains: “You used to go into a VFW and you had one guy who had one tour. You were like ‘Oh, wow.’ You hear one guy had two tours. You’re like ‘Oh, he’s a little crazy.’ Somebody had three tours — they’re out of their minds. And what you see now is people have five, seven, nine, 10 tours. And they’re still going.”
0
This not only puts pressure on Special Forces but also, of course, puts much strain on their families. As Nutsch’s wife, Amy, a special needs teacher and mother of four, puts it: “I’ve had some trying times at home, but managed to get through it. And then I yell at him later, going, ‘This is what I have to deal with’.”
There are no easy answers for how to reduce the pressures on the force and families in an era when there is a great demand for the skills that Special Forces bring to the battlefield.
Special Operations Command — first under Adm. Eric Olson and then under Adm. Bill McRaven, the architect of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden — put in place polices that emphasized more predictable deployments, allowing for more predictable blocks of time for servicemen to be with their families. They also started providing more support services for servicemen and their families.

The real reason Saudis rolled out the reddest of red carpets, CNN.com

Bergen: The real reason Saudis rolled out the reddest of red carpets
Peter Bergen

By Peter Bergen, CNN National Security Analyst

Updated 8:26 AM ET, Mon May 22, 2017
Trump drive them out terrorists sot_00000000

Trump to Muslim world: Drive out terrorists 01:00
Story highlights

Peter Bergen: President Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia could not come at a more opportune time
As the Saudi economy struggles to sustain itself on oil revenue alone, Trump is offering an opportunity to diversify the country’s economic prospects, writes Bergen

Riyadh (CNN)Imagine Houston run by an efficient version of the Taliban, and you get an approximation of what it is like to live in Riyadh, the Saudi capital.
But to understand the significance of President Donald Trump’s visit to Riyadh and his much-anticipated speech on Islam, you must also understand a bit more about the center of Saudi power.

Riyadh is a sprawling city of more than 6 million built by massive oil revenues, punctuated by soaring skyscrapers, stitched together by smooth freeways and surrounded by endless sand-colored suburbs that march ever outward to the empty deserts.
But Riyadh, despite its seemingly shiny veneer, is in trouble. For the first time in decades the Saudi monarchy can no longer rely on the revenues from oil to maintain its position as the leading Arab state and to buy off any aspirations that the Saudi population might have to play a real role in politics.
That’s because the days of $100-a-barrel oil are long gone and are unlikely to return anytime soon. And it is this reality that made President Trump’s trip to Riyadh and his speech on Sunday so important to the Saudi monarchy.
It’s not just that they share a common interest in checking what they both regard as excessive Iranian influence in the Middle East. Both sides also see great value in the almost $110 billion arms deal signed during Trump’s visit, which aims, in part, to bulk up domestic Saudi arms production and create new jobs in Saudi Arabia. And that’s in addition to $55 billion in deals with US companies that were also announced during Trump’s visit.
The rationale for these deals is simple — to jump-start the Saudi economy and bring new jobs to the private sector, as Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir explained at a press conference on Saturday. “We expect that these investments over the next 10 years or so will provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in both the United States and in Saudi Arabia,” he said. “They will lead to a transfer of technology from the US to Saudi Arabia, enhance our economy and also enhance the American investments in Saudi Arabia, which already are the largest investments of anyone.”
What Trump should not do when he meets Saudis
What Trump should not do when he meets Saudis
When oil wealth seemed an endless spigot of gold, the absolute Saudi monarchy created, somewhat paradoxically, a quasi-socialist state: an astonishing 90% of Saudis work for the government and have long enjoyed subsidies for water, electricity and gas. Health care and education are free.
But, in late 2015, the IMF warned that, given falling oil prices, the Saudi government could run out of financial reserves in five years if it kept up its present rate of spending.
With oil prices holding steady at around $50 a barrel, the Saudi government is now cutting government salaries and reducing subsidies. Trump’s visit — and deals — therefore create a critical opportunity in the private sector for Saudis who can no longer exclusively depend on the government.
King Salman — who became King in 2015 and for almost five decades was the governor of Riyadh, overseeing its explosive growth from a city of a few hundred thousand in the mid-1960s to the massive city it is today — has empowered his 31-year-old son, the Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, to also play a role in addressing Saudi’s immediate demands. He is charged with modernizing Saudi society slowly and diversifying the Saudi economy quickly.
The Saudi government calls it “Vision 2030.” The aim is to privatize the education, health care, agriculture, mining and defense sectors and to sell off Saudi Aramco, perhaps the wealthiest company in the world, which is estimated to be worth around a trillion dollars. The Saudis expect the United States to be a key player in all this, particularly given Trump’s expertise in corporate America.
And the time is ripe for the Saudi monarchy to begin to transform its economic base. Its country is both young and incredibly connected — 70% of the population is under 30, and 93% of Saudis use the Internet, far more than in the United States.
The declining role of the religious police
Riyadh sits in the Nejd heartland of Saudi Arabia, where in the mid-18th century the first Saudi King allied with Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab, a cleric who promoted a harsh interpretation of Sunni Islam.
This alliance is a marriage of convenience that has survived for more than two and half centuries and is the key to the political economy of Saudi Arabia in which the Saudis have retained absolute authority — so much so that their family name is embedded in the name of the country — while the Wahhabi religious establishment sanctions the rule of the absolute monarchy and has largely held sway over the social mores of Saudi society.
Until a year ago, compliance with the dictates of Saudi-style Wahhabi Islam were rigorously enforced by members of the feared religious police, known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice (the same name that was used by the Taliban’s religious police when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan).

The religious police patrolled the streets looking for purported malefactors and were given a more or less free hand to do so. In one notorious episode in 2002, in the holy city of Mecca, the religious police prevented girls from fleeing a school that was on fire because they were not properly dressed. Fifteen of them perished in the flames.
But, last April, the wings of the religious police were clipped by King Salman and his son MBS, as he is universally known here. They no longer have the power to arrest suspects and now can only report them to regular police units.
In addition to getting the religious police to back off, the Saudi monarchy has allowed some music concerts to happen, but their biggest ambition, as described above, is to wean Saudi Arabia from its almost total dependence on oil revenues.
The Saudis see the Trump administration as a key to this, and that’s why they rolled out the reddest of red carpets for the President’s visit.
In return, Trump received the perfect platform to give his speech on Islam. After all, where better to make that speech than in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, home to the sacred cities of Mecca and Medina? And who better to convene the leaders of every Muslim country to hear Trump speak than the Saudi royal family?

The speech

In Riyadh, the city where Osama bin Laden was born six decades ago, President Trump delivered his much-anticipated speech Sunday to leaders from around the Islamic world.
The stakes needless to say were high. Candidate Trump had previously opined that “Islam hates us” and had called for “the total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” an argument he has since modified and moderated.
Nonetheless, such rhetoric on the campaign trail made Trump an unpopular figure across the Muslim world. A poll released in early November ahead of the US presidential election found that only 9% of those polled in the Middle East and North Africa would have voted for Trump versus 44% for Hillary Clinton.
After he was elected, Trump had also attempted to ban temporarily travel from a half dozen Muslim countries to the United States, an order that was midwifed by a top policy adviser, Stephen Miller, who now had the unenviable task of also being the “lead pen” for the President’s keynote speech on Islam.

Trump’s speech was billed as a “reset” with the Muslim world, just as President Obama’s was eight years ago when he went to Cairo and declared “I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and respect…”
During the presidential campaign in August, Trump panned Obama’s Cairo speech, castigating Obama for a “misguided” speech that didn’t condemn “the oppression of women and gays in many Muslim nations, and the systematic violations of human rights, or the financing of global terrorism…”
Of course, it’s all a lot more complicated when you are President, and Trump raised none of these issues in his Riyadh speech, instead emphasizing the scourge of terrorism, which is something that pretty much anyone in the Islamic world and the West can agree upon.
Trump did use the term “Islamic terrorism,” which critics assert conflates Islam with terrorism, but his speech, which was received with polite attention from the leaders of the Muslim world, was a largely anodyne account of the need for civilized countries to work together to defeat terrorist groups in the name of our common humanity and — minus some swipes at Iran — could have been delivered by President Obama.\

Speeches, of course, are not policies, and Obama’s initial popularity in much of the Muslim world waned after he ordered a large surge of troops into Afghanistan, greatly ramped up drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen and failed to intervene in any meaningful way to end the Syrian civil war.
The same surely will hold true for Trump. If his administration continues to pursue its travel ban from six Muslim-majority countries in the courts and does little to bring peace to the Middle East, whether in Syria or between the Israelis and the Palestinians, any bump he might get from his Riyadh speech will prove as ephemeral as the sandstorms that occasionally blast through the Saudi capital.
But even if Trump’s speech does not herald any real changes in US national security policies, the business deals that the Trump administration is helping to broker with the Saudis will help move the Saudi economy away from its total dependence on oil.

Legion of Brothers: A Screening & Conversation, 9/11 Museum, NYC

Legion of Brothers:
A Special Screening & Conversation

Immediately after the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government initiated a secret war in Afghanistan.

In Legion of Brothers, acclaimed filmmaker Greg Barker (“Manhunt,” 2013 Sundance Film Festival, PrimeTime Emmy Best Documentary) reveals this unexplored story through interviews with several Green Berets who played pivotal roles in these unconventional warfare missions – from building a coalition with Northern Alliance rebels, to facing off against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

On June 1, join New America NYC at the National September 11 Memorial and Museum for a screening of Legion of Brothers followed by a conversation with the director, producers, and lead subjects of the film about the ongoing national security challenges of the War on Terror.

PARTICIPANTS

Peter Bergen @peterbergencnn
Vice President and Director, International Security Program, New America
Producer, Legion of Brothers

Greg Barker @gjbarker
Director, Legion of Brothers

Tresha Mabile
Producer, Legion of Brothers

Lt. Col. (Retired) Jason Amerine
Featured subject, Legion of Brothers
Future of War Fellow, New America

Green Beret Master Sergeant (Retired) Scott Neil
Featured subject, Legion of Brothers

Green Beret Master Sergeant (Retired) Billy Howell
Featured subject, Legion of Brothers

Legion of Brothers: A Special Screening
Thursday, June 1, 2017
6:30 PM – 8:15 PM ET
National September 11 Memorial & Museum
180 Greenwich Street, New York, NY 10007

Seating is provided on a first-come, first-served basis. Follow the conversation online using #LegionofBrothers and following @NewAmericaNYC.

Support New America

New America is dedicated to the renewal of American politics, prosperity, and purpose in the Digital Age. Our hallmarks are big ideas, impartial analysis, pragmatic policy solutions, technological innovation, next generation politics, and creative engagement with broad audiences.

MISK Tweeps forum, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

The 2017 Aspen Security Forum Preview Event, Aspen Institute, DC

The 2017 Aspen Security Forum Preview Event
Event information
Date
Wed May 23, 2017
5:00pm – 6:30pm
Contact
john.hogan@aspeninstitute.org
202.721.2327
Location
The Aspen Institute
1 Dupont Circle
Washington, DC
Hosts
Homeland Security Program
This event is by invitation only

Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom, Tom Ricks, New America DC

Churchill and Orwell: The Fight for Freedom
RSVP
Photo: Everett Collection/Shutterstock
When

May 23, 2017
12:15 pm – 1:45 pm
Where

New America
740 15th St NW #900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Winston Churchill and George Orwell were two of the most central figures of the twentieth century. Both came close to death in the 1930s: Orwell shot during the Spanish civil war, and Churchill struck by a car in New York City. Despite their prominence today, both were on the outskirts of power in the late 1930s as democracy was discredited and authoritarian rulers ascending. Yet both men re-defined the fight for freedom, and their posthumous influence on today’s struggles is clear. In Churchill and Orwell: The Fight For Freedom, Thomas Ricks examines these two men’s lives, their similarities and differences, and why their legacies will continue to matter.

Thomas Ricks is Senior Advisor on National Security at New America’s International Security Program. He also is a contributing editor of Foreign Policy magazine, for which he writes the blog “The Best Defense.” Ricks covered the U.S. military for the Washington Post from 2000 through 2008. Until the end of 1999 he had the same beat at the Wall Street Journal, where he was a reporter for 17 years. He was part of a Wall Street Journal team that won the Pulitzer Prize for national reporting in 2000 for a series of articles on how the U.S. military might change to meet the new demands of the 21st century. Ricks also was part of a Washington Post team that won the 2002 Pulitzer prize for reporting about the beginning of the U.S. counteroffensive against terrorism.

Follow the discussion online using #WinstonOrwell and following @NewAmericaISP.

Copies of the book will be on sale for check or credit.

PARTICIPANT

Thomas E. Ricks @tomricks1

Senior Advisor, New America International Security Program

MODERATOR

Peter Bergen @PeterBergenCNN
Vice President, New America

Anatomy of Terror: From Bin Laden’s Death to the Rise of the Islamic State, Ali Soufan, New America DC

Anatomy of Terror: From Bin Laden’s Death to the Rise of the Islamic State
RSVP
Photo: thomas koch / Shutterstock.com
When

May 25, 2017

12:15 pm – 1:45 pm
Where

New America

740 15th St NW #900

Washington, D.C. 20005

In early 2011, the Arab Spring shook the Middle East, toppling governments in Tunisia and Egypt with Libya and Yemen soon to follow. From his hideout in Pakistan, Osama bin Laden shifted strategies, focusing al-Qaeda’s affiliates on developing internally while exploiting regional chaos. By May 2011, bin Laden was dead.

Six years later his message remains potent while al-Qaeda’s affiliates are more powerful, widespread, and better equipped than ever. The Islamic State―al-Qaeda’s most brutal spinoff ―may be failing in its effort to restore the Caliphate, but al-Qaeda remains a threat. In his newest book Anatomy of Terror: From the Death of bin Laden to the Rise of the Islamic State, former FBI special agent and New York Times best-selling author Ali Soufan dissects bin Laden’s brand of jihadi terrorism and its major offshoots, explaining how we got here from that moment in 2011 and how the threat could be countered.

Ali Soufan is Chairman and CEO of The Soufan Group. A former FBI Special Agent, Mr. Soufan investigated and supervised highly sensitive and complex international terrorism cases including the East Africa Embassy bombings, the attack on the USS Cole, and the events surrounding 9/11. Mr. Soufan serves as a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. He is the author of The New York Times Top 10 Bestseller, The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al Qaeda. Mr. Soufan is an Honors graduate in International Studies and Political Science from Mansfield University and graduated Magna Cum Laude from Villanova University, where he received a Masters in International Relations.

Follow the discussion online using #SoufanNA and following @NewAmericaISP.

Copies of the book will be on sale for check or credit.
PARTICIPANTS

Ali Soufan @Ali_H_Soufan
CEO, The Soufan Group
Author, Anatomy of Terror: From the Death of bin Laden to the Rise of the Islamic State
MODERATOR

Peter Bergen @peterbergencnn
Vice President, New America

SAS Institute Inc., Counterterrorism and Financial Crimes Forum, Cary, NC

SAS Institute Inc.

Function Name:

Counterterrorism and Financial Crimes Forum

Date:

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Location and Venue:

SAS World Headquarters

100 SAS Campus Drive

Cary, NC 27513-2414

Hotel Accommodations:

About the Organization:

SAS is the leader in analytics. Through innovative analytics, business intelligence and data management software and services, SAS helps customers at more than 83,000 sites make better decisions faster. Since 1976, SAS has been giving customers around the world THE POWER TO KNOW®.

Bringing Hostages Home: Developing Effective American Strategy, New America DC

Bringing Hostages Home: Developing Effective American Strategy

May 1, 2017
12:15 pm – 1:45 pm
Where

New America
740 15th St NW #900
Washington, D.C. 20005
Since 2001, terrorist and militant groups have taken almost 1,200 Westerners hostage abroad, with 90 being murdered. American hostages have been killed at disproportionate rates – accounting for nearly half of those murdered. The failure of US policy regarding hostages has resulted in an outcry from the families of those taken, and the enactment of policy reforms by the Obama administration. How should the United States best ensure the safety of Americans abroad? Should the United States revise its policy against making concessions to hostage takers?

To discuss the future of American hostage policy, New America welcomes Rachel Briggs OBE, Executive Director of Hostage US, a non-profit that supports hostages and their families, and a distinguished researcher and writer on issues of national security; Diane Foley, the founder and president of the James W. Foley Legacy Foundation, which promotes the legacy of her son James Foley, who was taken hostage and murdered by ISIS, and promotes the safe return of Americans taken hostage abroad; Chris Mellon, a researcher with New America and co-author of New America’s report To Pay Ransom or not to Pay Ransom; Theo Padnos, a freelance journalist who was held hostage for nearly two years by the Nusra Front in Syria; and Aretae Wyler, the Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel of Atlantic Media, who has worked to secure the safe return of American hostages.

Follow the discussion online using #HostagePolicy and following @NewAmericaISP.

PARTICIPANTS

Rachel Briggs @RachelBriggsUK
OBE Executive Director, HostageUS

Diane Foley @dmfaprn
Founder and President, James W. Foley Legacy Foundation

Chris Mellon
Researcher, New America Co-Author, To Pay Ransom or not to Pay Ransom?

Theo Padnos @TheoPadnos
Freelance journalist and former hostage

Aretae Wyler
Chief Administrative Officer and General Counsel, Atlantic Media