From the Office of Terrorist Credentials

And there will be one. There has to be:

The United Nations Security Council Monday passed unanimously its Resolution 2133.

In it, UN member states are urged not to pay ransom to terrorist groups who have kidnapped someone and who intend to use the money to finance terrorist operations. Private citizens or companies are also urged not to pay these ransoms.

Does this mean that if a group is just a plain old garden-variety criminal enterprise kidnapping people in order to pay for a new supply of blackjacks or cement mix for overshoes, the UN says that’s OK? How exactly will kidnappers certify themselves as regular organized crime instead of terrorists? “Sure, we broke a few legs and we burnt a couple of stores what was late on their protection fees, but we didn’t aim for the violent overthrow of the government and established social order or eradication of the state of Israel.” Does the group get a sticker from the U.S. Attorney General? “This seal affirms that the holder is a traditional criminal organization operating according to the standard principles of graft, corruption, extortion, money-laundering and prostitution but has no known affiliations with any politically active terrorist groups and would, if called upon by their government, unhesitatingly make such groups an offer they couldn’t refuse.” The current AG and staff seem to have difficulty keeping track of who are good guys and who are bad guys, so how well would they do differentiating between groups of bad guys?

UN resolutions generally come in one of two flavors: useless posturing that doesn’t cost much, or useless posturing that costs a bundle, much of which the US is expected to pony up. Until the Office is formally established, this qualifies as the former.







4 comments

  1. Roger Green »

    30 January 2014 · 2:33 am

    Terrorists inflict terror. Not sure of the distinction, either.

  2. McGehee »

    30 January 2014 · 7:56 am

    Legislation to require domestic terrorist cells to register as such with the IRS in 5… 4… 3…

  3. Brett »

    30 January 2014 · 8:50 am

    McGehee, I hadn’t thought of that one.

    Thanks for the link, Charles!

  4. CGHill »

    30 January 2014 · 10:12 am

    They’ll probably be tax-exempt, too. [spits]

RSS feed for comments on this post