 Welcome, everyone. So I'm Peter Bergen. I run the International Security Program at New America, which is hosting this webinar. We are hosting the webinar to basically to mark the release of the new report commissioned by the James Federally Foundation, the 2020 report bringing Americans home. We have a very good group of people to discuss the report, starting with Diane Foley, the president of the James Foley Foundation, the author of the report, Cindy Lercher, and also the primary researcher on the report, Lisa Monaco, who is a senior fellow at the NYU School of Law, and also, of course, the former assistant to President Obama for both Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and finally, Rachel Briggs, who's the executive director of Hostage U.S. So let me start by handing it over to Diane, and she's going to make some opening remarks and then hand it over to Cindy. Thank you. A warm welcome to our distinguished panel and to all of you who are taking time to join us remotely today. The coronavirus is currently holding us all hostage here in the United States and around the world, keeping us away from dear family and friends. Many of us, most of us are unable to travel, many unable to work or even go outside. This is just an inkling of what it is like to be taken hostage or wrongfully detained, in which case all freedoms are taken away. The 10 public cases of long-held Americans hostages listed on our website are the faces of our citizens currently suffering this ordeal. But they are just a fraction of the hundreds of Americans who are taken hostage or wrongfully detained every year. This confidential report is about actual U.S. citizens struggling to survive in captivity and their families desperately trying to bring them home. This 2020 Bringing Americans Home Report is offered in memory of two brave Americans who tragically died in captivity this year. It is offered in memory of Robert Levinson, a dedicated FBI agent who was held captive in Iran for 13 years, and to Mustafa Qasem, a proud Egyptian American held captive for seven years in Egypt. This work is dedicated with deep gratitude to our esteemed colleague, Rachel Briggs, the Executive Director of Hostage US who joins us on the panel today. Thank you, Rachel. Though a British citizen, Rachel saw our desperate need here in the U.S. and had the moral courage to leave her country in 2015 and spend the last five years in Washington, D.C., building the nonprofit Hostage US, which is a nonprofit to support families of American hostages and returned hostages. We are indebted and forever grateful to you, Rachel, for your gift of time and talents to all of us here in the United States. And before we begin, I must thank Cindy Lurcher, the researcher and committed author of this report and New America's Peter Bergen, David Sturman, and their wonderful team at New America, without which none of this would have been possible. Thank you all. So, Cindy? Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Lurcher, and I first would like to thank you, Peter Bergen and David Sturman, and New America for their continued support and for launching the Second Bringing Americans Home report. It's also a great privilege to discuss these findings here with Diane Foley, Lisa Monaco, and Rachel Briggs. But before we begin, I'd like to share one thing about how difficult it was for families before the implementation of the current hostage policy, Presidential Policy Directive 30, known as PPD 30. Before the implementation of PPD 30, the current former hostage policy was NSPD 12, which was an entirely classified document which lacked family engagement and other components to support hostages and their families. PPD 30, in executive order 13-69-8, issued by former President Obama, created institutions to take rapid coordinated action in support to take hostage-taking event by standing up the hostage recovery fusion cell, which I'll refer to as the HRFC during this this talk, and the Office of the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs, also known as the SPIHA. The HRC and the SPIHA office has been essential for bringing Americans home and has been an incredible source for support for these families. All of our participants expressed their gratitude for having these resources and underscored the importance of continued support from the HRC and the SPIHA's office. This year's report, Bringing Americans Home 2020, was written from the perspective of former hostages, former wrongful detainees, and families of current and former hostages and wrongful detainees. This report includes 25 interviews conducted between 2019 through February 2020, and all of our responses are representative of their experiences during the year of 2019. This study represents eight hostage cases and eight wrongful detainee cases totaling 16 separate cases. So next I'll go over some of our findings and our results show that the hostage participants interacted with the HRC and the SPIHA's office while wrongful detainee participants typically worked with the SPIHA's office only. Wrongful detainee participants also interacted with the Bureau of Consular Affairs, especially when a detention was not classified as wrongful by the US government. Therefore, we included consular affairs in its examination of the experiences of wrongful detainees. So next slide. Participants were asked whether the HRC, SPIHA's office and consular affairs were accessible to them, and where a majority of hostage and wrongful detainee participants agreed or mostly agreed. Most hostage participants agreed that they can reach out and call the HRC at any time of the day. However, some expressed a decrease in accessibility with the HRC for reintegration purposes. For example, how long do former hostages have access to the HRC after their return home? Access to the SPIHA's office for wrongful detainee participants was solely dependent on whether participants' case was considered a wrongful detention. Participants shared that they remained working with consular affairs until their case was classified as a wrongful detention by the government. Additionally, several wrongful detainee participants expressed their concern over not having access to the SPIHA because they believed that their case was really a hostage situation because their loved one was being held as a political pawn. One participant shared, at some point working with consular affairs is not enough because they need a diplomatic solution to their case. Next slide. Participants were then asked if they understood the roles and responsibilities of the HRC, SPIHA and consular affairs office. The majority of the hostage for respondents agreed and had a clear understanding of the HRC's role. However, responses were a little more mixed regarding the SPIHA's office. A common frustration shared by hostage participants was over confusion about whether the HRC or SPIHA's office was the lead agency in charge of their case. In some cases, there was confusion within the organizations themselves. According to one participant, neither the HRC nor the SPIHA's office was clear on which organization should be leading their case. This occurred when an individual was suspected to be held by a foreign government, but the foreign government had not acknowledged their detention. These cases are usually viewed as unacknowledged detentions and are treated as hostage cases by the U.S. government. This type of confusion with the hostage recovery enterprise was upsetting for hostage participants who were frustrated that the bureaucratic confusion was hampering efforts to secure their loved one's release and potentially extending their loved one's captivity. Wrongful detainee participants had a general understanding of the role of the SPIHA's office in consular affairs, stating that consular affairs was responsible for visiting their family members in prison, checking on their overall wellness, as well as determining if their loved one is being fed, receiving legal representation, or are being subjected to inhumane treatments such as torture and or solitary confinement. What remains unclear for some of our participants was if consular affairs was responsible for engaging with foreign governments in a more diplomatic manner. Also, while wrongful detainee participants generally understood the role of the SPIHA's office, there was some confusion about what tools the SPIHA had to secure their loved one's release. For instance, one participant asked, can the SPIHA make concessions? Can they provide aid to a foreign government? Arrange prisoner swaps. Specifically, what can the SPIHA legally do? Next slide, please. Participants were then asked to what degree they were satisfied with the rate they received information regarding their loved one's case from the HRFC, SPIHA's office in consular affairs. Hostage participants in general responded favorably to both the HRFC and SPIHA's office, but still remain concerned about the level of completeness of the information they received. Some hostage participants found that there's important information they received right away, especially from the HRFC. Other hostage participants were much less satisfied with the US government's information sharing, where one participant said that they felt that the government shared insufficient information regarding their loved one's case. This left many feeling as though they did not have all the details and that they had no choice but to just trust the US government blindly. Regardless of the hostage response and satisfaction with the government's information sharing, most brought up frustrations with the lack of declassification of information. Participants expressed a desire to have increased access to information surrounding their loved one's cases, including complete full and timely access to all information and activities. Several participants requested that the government create a mechanism through which they could receive an interim, limiting security clearance in order to allow them to view the classified material pertinent to their case. On the other hand, wrongful detainee participants were generally dissatisfied with the level of communication with the US government related to their case. Similar to hostage participants, one of the main concerns wrongful detainee participants shared involved classification issues as well. Another frustration raised by wrongful detainee participants involved a lack of interagency coordination and information sharing. For instance, one participant shared that they have to have to be the one to go from department to department to share information, not only for their loved one, but for the efforts of the departments and agencies as well. Next slide, please. Next, participants were asked if they agreed or disagreed in if the return of their loved one was a priority of the US government. Overall, hostage participants generally agreed that the US government considers their case a priority, whereas wrongful detainee participants had negative responses similar to those of families of hostages prior to the implementation of PPD 30. One of the main issues hostage families raised was their concern that the HFC and the Speedhouse office do not have enough authority to push their case to the priority level they think is required to achieve resolution to their case. One family member commented, if they don't have a seat at the table, meeting the National Security Council deputies committee or principals meeting, it's a lot harder to have hostage issues as a top priority. Some participants responded favorably to the former's fee hop, Robert O'Brien becoming the national security advisor. For from their perspective, this potentially raises a priority level of their loved one's case. Some wrongful detainee participants shared that by not having the highest levels of government highlighting their case shows a lack of priority the US government places on their case. Another participant shared that it would show that their loved one is a priority if the president, secretary of state, or national security advisor would publicly address their case. Next slide please. Now I'm going to discuss key concerns that were raised amongst hostage and wrongful detainee families. The first being recovery efforts shared with hostages and wrongful detainee participants. This study found that there are concerns over coordination between the HRFC and the Department of Defense. Some participants shared their concerns that the Department of Defense was withholding information from the HRFC and acting unilaterally without notifying the HRFC about details and the current status of their case. Some participants argued that the HRFC standing within the US government should be increased in order to prevent the Department of Defense from bypassing the HRFC. The next issue that was raised was over the impact of definitions between a hostage and a wrongful detainee. The US government classifies individuals as either hostages or detainees based on the identity of the group holding them whether it is a non-state actor or a state actor. Criminal and terrorist kidnappings are violations of US law and in these cases the FBI will open up a case either using material support for terrorism or criminal kidnapping statutes. As a result the HRFC is able to access funds from the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 to support hostage family members. When the when US nationals are detained by foreign government and those governments acknowledge that detention no US laws are broken since governments generally have the authority to arrest and detain individuals within their own borders. This then creates a challenge for supporting families as they do not qualify for the Victims of Crime Act funding the way that hostage families do. Further the Department of State does not have a funding mechanism for providing a similar kind of support for wrongful detention cases. Another key concern that was raised was about wrongful detainee access to the hostage recovery fusion cell. PPD 30 states again the hostage policy states that in dealing with cases where foreign government confirms that it has detained a US national the department of state may draw on the full range of experience and expertise of the HRFC is appropriate including the HRFC's family engagement coordinator. It is unclear however what it means to draw upon the full range of experience and expertise of the personnel at the HRFC. Do the HRFC's personnel serve as advisors to individuals within the Sfiha's office? Does the HRFC become actively engaged in these cases? If so does state retain its status as a lead agency for the case? Also does the HRFC become responsible for funding support to these cases? Even if these questions were answered who determines which cases are authorized to draw upon the HRFC's resources? The lack of clarity on when and how the Department of State is able to draw upon support from the HRFC has created a significant level of confusion about which organization is responsible for their cases among the families of acknowledged wrongful detainees. Additionally wrongful detainee participants have expressed a need to better understand how and when their cases can receive support from the HRFC. Receiving this clarity would help wrongful detainee families better understand where to place their efforts and advocating for their loved ones. So what makes a difference? What makes a detainee a wrongful detainee? In addition to the lack of clarity of how wrongful detainees access the HRFC, there is confusion over what makes a detention case wrongful thereby gaining access to this Fihau's office. In general families have expressed concern that these guidelines are not that these guidelines are classified and are not shared. Currently there is no unclassified publicly available definition of what makes a detention wrongful. This ultimately limits resources and available experts expertise to help bring resolution to their cases. Another concern that was raised was over the vacancy of the Fihau. Overall most families commented that the differences in working with an appointed Fihau and enacting Fihau were substantial. In general families noted that progress in their cases overall and specifically diplomatic efforts to resolve their case slowed significantly during the vacancy. Additionally participants noted that during this time frame there were a number of vacant positions within the office normally held by career diplomats. On a happy note that the current administration has announced the nomination of a new special presidential envoy for hostage affairs Robert Carson's to fill the role. The last concern that I will mention before I conclude was access to senior policy makers. Families expressed concerns that hostage and wrongful detainee cases do not have the appropriate standing to influence the very various agencies within the U.S. government involved in resolving hostage and wrongful detainee cases. Participants shared that they feel as though their cases are missing top level engagement within the U.S. government. Participants are often told that particular issues related to their cases are going to be decided at the deputies committee within the national security council. In both administrations however neither the director of the hrfc nor the Fihau was a member of the deputies committee. Both hostage and wrongful detainee participants stated that former Fihau Robert O'Brien's assumption of the national security role was helpful for increasing the priority of their cases further highlighting the need for a voice within the White House to address hostage and detainee concerns. So as I conclude overall the changes made to the U.S. government's hostage recovery enterprise has improved the experiences of the families of hostages and to a lesser extent wrongful detainees. There have been significant improvements since the implementation of PPD 30. The creation of the hostage recovery fusion cell and the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs continues to be viewed as a successful mechanism for increasing the accessibility of the U.S. government to the families of both hostages and wrongfully held detainees. In general the restructuring of the U.S. government's hostage recovery enterprise has had a positive impact and has largely been successful. The efforts of the hrfc in the Fihau's office to secure the release of Americans held abroad should continue to be a priority of U.S. foreign policy. Additionally responsible changes to policy should be considered to expand support to the families of those U.S. nationals wrongfully held by foreign governments. Before I conclude I strongly want to encourage you to take a look at the appendices A and B of bringing Americans home 2020. There you'll find an extensive list of current needs and recommendations shared by our hostage and wrongful detainee participants. And finally hostage taking by terrorist groups and wrongful detentions of Americans will continue to be a pressing concern as militants and adversarial governments continue to seek ways to find leverage with the United States. In this increasing hostile environment the recovery of Americans and the provision of support for these families should continue to be a priority of any administration seeking to place its interests of Americans first. Thank you. Thank you Cindy. So now we'll hear from Lisa Monaco. Thanks very much Peter. And thank you in particular to Diane Foley and to the Foley Foundation for commissioning this report. The second of its kind and to Cindy for the tremendous work you've you've done on this. I am very grateful to be a member of the Foley Foundation's advisory council. So it's wonderful to see this work getting done. Thanks to Peter and New America for sponsoring this and to Hostage U.S. and my fellow panelist Rachel Briggs on whose board for Hostage U.S. that I'm privileged to serve. It's terrific to see this dedication to Rachel and her terrific work and of course the wonderful and I think appropriate dedication to Robert Levinson and Mustafa Kasim. So let me do a few things if I could in my comments here and obviously we'll welcome questions both from the from the participants in this as well as from the my co-panelists. I want to step back a few minutes and talk about the reasons behind the 2015 hostage policy review because I think it's a good way to frame the important work that the 2020 report that we're here discussing has done in evaluating the efficacy of those reforms. And then I'll make a few comments on some of the select a few select recommendations that I want to pull out from the report and comment on. With regard to the 2015 policy review and the results of that review as has been noted in the report that we're discussing today that 2015 review and the recommendations that came from it grew out of tremendous tragedy. And frankly the failure of the U.S. government to do right by the families of U.S. citizens held hostage abroad. As President Obama said at the time in June of 2015 when the results of the review and the reforms were announced there were times when our government frankly let down the families of Americans held unjustly abroad and that we needed to do better. And I think he very appropriately quoted Diane Foley at the time saying that we as Americans needed to do better. And so that was the reason behind the 2015 review. I at the time in 2014 after the horrible tragedies suffered Jim Foley's death Peter Kasig Steven Sotloff Kayla Mueller I recommended to President Obama that we conduct a wholesale full and comprehensive review of hostage policy. And the president directed his national security team and frankly his government to engage in that review. It became clear very early on that the hostage policy that we had been operating under and frankly the structure of our government was built for a different time and frankly for a different problem than the one that we faced in 2014. It was not set up our government was not set up and our policy was not aligned to deal with stateless actors operating in in ungoverned spaces or with non-existent governments. We were a sprawling intelligence and law enforcement and policy apparatus engaged in frankly an outmoded approach to hostage issues and issues confronting unlawful and wrongful detainees. So the review was directed by President Obama and the review really engendered a very hard and painful look at what the US government had been doing and what it frankly had not been doing appropriately. When that review got underway a tremendous professional in the National Security Council staff Jen Easterly known to many of you came to me and said there were two and she was quite quite pressured about this. She said there's two things we absolutely have to make sure we get done in this review. We have to be transparent in how we're conducting it and we absolutely have to be guided by and informed by the families of those held unjustly abroad and be informed by and learn from their experiences. So the families have to be included in this review and under the leadership of General Bennett Sokolic at the National Counterterrorism Center he led a team to conduct the accounting and the review that did include discussing at length with families and returned hostages and what we what that review revealed as has been documented was silos of information disorganization lack of transparency and information sharing with families and at times a lack of appropriate focus and I say that notwithstanding the tremendous good work and good intentions and hard work of professionals across the government but we were not operating in a way that reflected the problem that we were facing. So the result was the reforms of that the result of that review was the report that came out in January in June rather of 2015 that was shared first with families of hostages as well as returned hostages it was shared with the public it resulted in the executive order that Cindy mentioned and a new policy PPD 30 as has been referenced and that policy and those structures and that executive order directed a new governmental approach and frankly a new orientation all of which was designed to put families at the center of our hostage enterprise and our focus and the other thing I think it's very important and it is what brings us in many respects here today which is the fact that we made a conscious decision to do something unusual with regard to executive orders and documents like PPD 30 which is to say we made them deliberately unclassified we made them public documents and the reason we did that and it was very very conscious we did it so that we could be having this discussion today we did it precisely so that future administrations future gatherings of families and returned hostages future journalists future members of non-governmental organizations would be doing exactly this would be having this discussion talking about and evaluating the efficacy of the reforms that were put in place in 2015 and frankly holding the government's feet to the fire that is what we as citizens should be doing it's what journalists should be doing and it is something that the government should welcome and we we put in place we made these unclassified documents and frankly put in place a requirement for a report from the government that the government conduct a report and a review as well to gauge the effectiveness of implementation of these policies so so kudos of course to the Foley Foundation and New America for engaging in this accounting and holding our our collective feet to the fire so the three areas of review and policy change that I just want to mention in terms of the the results of the 2015 review because I think they're important to come back to as we evaluate how how well we are doing as a nation in terms of addressing the challenges and and the gaps that we were trying to fill in 2015 the three areas I always come back to when I try and gauge how we're doing on this is the structure and organization of our government in terms of addressing hostage issues and unlawful detainee issues second our policy orientation and how well we are implementing the changes in policy and third is the how well we are doing at reorienting our focus and our sense of priority and here I mean placing families at the center and being and viewing families as partners in the hostage recovery enterprise that's how we kind of organized the review in 2015 and the results of it and as has been mentioned the structure changes we put in place in 2015 as a result of the review were many but I'll highlight three of course the hostage recovery fusion cell that Cindy mentioned which is envisioned as the central operational hub sitting outside the White House outside the National Security Council the place to be the central hub for all information and intelligence to come into from across the government importantly as a that information goes to the hostage recovery fusion cell to be evaluated by all the relevant people in the government focused on hostage issues who sit side by side from across the different agencies in the government to focus on these issues and importantly it's also the role of the hostage recovery fusion cell to evaluate that information on a regular basis to be shared back out with hostage families and the families of wrongful detainees that was explicitly envisioned as a role and a mission a part of the hostage recovery fusion cells mission and so I think it's something we should come back to as we evaluate how well they're they're doing on that mission the second structural change was also mentioned by Cindy which is the creation of the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs at the state department a senior diplomat this was a specific recommendation of the review coming from Diane Foley from David Bradley it was absolutely an important and prescient recommendation and so the creation of that senior most diplomat at the state department was a specific structural change but there was also another structural change that Cindy didn't mention that I think is very important and is at the root of some of the gaps that the 2020 report identifies the very important creation in the 2015 review was the hostage response group this was the group created inside the national security council to be led by the special assistant to the president for counterterrorism issues at the time Jan Easterly later succeeded by Josh Gelzer Chris Costa the person leading the hostage response group inside the national security council reported directly to me in my former role as homeland security advisor and had a direct line to the president in that in that role the hostage response group was created to be the coordinating point the place that the senior most levels of the government come together to ensure that there is prioritization and a championing of hostage issues and the issues of unlawful detainees inside at the senior most levels of the government so I want to come back to that when we talk about some of the gaps and the recommendations identified because that was envisioned as the place to coordinate and have the the priority setting and issues to get resolved inside at the senior most levels of the government when it comes to to policy issues of course the pbd 30 reoriented our policy around making sure families as I said we're at the center and we're partners in the enterprise and of course the hrfc reflected that in the creation of the family engagement coordinator role excuse me so having a dedicated person within the hrfc to serve as a as the main source of and point of contact and continued in regular contact with families and returning hostages to ensure that families are getting timely and accurate information and that information and intelligence is being shared with them and that families have a voice within the government importantly the family engagement coordinator and the in the family engagement team housed at the hrfc was always envisioned and this is laid out in the original documents always envisioned as including both the fbi's office of victim affairs their office of victim assistance excuse me as well as the state department's consular affairs so as we talk about the disparity between how detainees wrongful detainees and their families are being treated and hostages we should remember that the original conception of the family engagement team and that function in the hrfc was envisioned to include both family engagement for both sets of hostages and detainees and their families so let me just go quickly to because I know we want to get to questions to my reaction to a few of the recommendations that I will comment on first all credit to Cindy and the work that was done and the people who participated in this report it's incredibly valuable as I said to continue to hold us all accountable for the continued efficacy of these reforms but I must say as I was reading it I was concerned because I detected some themes that were eerily reminiscent of some of the issues many of the issues that we identified in the original 2015 review and that we sought to remedy and address with the reforms that we've just discussed and I'll pull out three the disparate treatment between hostages and wrongful detainees and the and the kind of slippage between left hand and right hand when it comes to the government dealing as between the State Department and the FBI that was a recurring theme before the 2015 reforms the second issue is silos of information and irregular communication with families and a dissatisfaction and frankly frustration that came through in the 2020 report was very reminiscent of the same views that I heard and that we all heard in conducting the 2015 review when it comes to dissatisfaction with the level of information being shared with families and third this lack of a central coordination and prioritization point that is something that we heard before the 2015 reforms and something of course as I said we tried to remedy both with the hostage response group seating that at the National Security Council and frankly in the role that I performed as the Homeland Security Advisor to the President who had direct responsibility and viewed it as my job to coordinate and make sure our reforms were getting implemented and to be a source of constant communication quite frankly with families and and then taking those views and those concerns in my daily and meetings with the president and I met with him every morning and raised hostage issues with the president every morning in those meetings so those were three themes that came through in the 2020 report gaps in all three of those areas that frankly says to me that we've got some warning signs here of slippage in terms of how well we're doing on making sure these reforms are continuing to be to be implemented when it comes to the disparate treatment between hostages and wrongful detainees as I mentioned the HRFC was envisioned to address both that's precisely why the HRFC was constructed to include leadership from the State Department as well as the FBI as well as the Department of Defense so one question is how is that being done is has the State Department designated and staffed a senior person to be a part of the leadership at the HRFC if not they should be and again the HRFC was designed and intended to benefit both wrongful detainees as well as hostages there is an appropriate distinction as we've discussed between those two classes if you will of of hostage and wrongful detainees when it comes to the FBI leading investigations to find where a hostage may be held and what their circumstances are and when it comes to a wrongful detainee to lead the diplomatic strategy to deal with the government that we know is holding that person they're differently situated but it doesn't mean they should have any less coordination and communication and care coming from the federal government so when it comes to the the specific recommendation in the report to have a family engagement team at the State Department I worry about that as a recommendation because I think it creates it recreates a left hand right hand not knowing what each other is doing just like we had before the 2015 review I would like to see the original conception of the HRFC being that common central hub on all of these issues and the agencies that were supposed to dedicate staff and leadership to that HRFC doing so last last few points when it comes to information sharing and the and the frustrations that were expressed and revealed in the in this report that we're discussing today in terms of the gaps that families feel that they're not getting information and they're they're not getting information declassified etc here again the HRFC was envisioned as I said as the central hub for information gathering and where all the intelligence about particular hostage issues should go and it also was given the mission to ensure that information gets declassified and shared back out with families the reforms if we go back to the executive order and the ppd we specifically created a role and a job something called the intelligence manager for hostage issues in the intelligence community I may have missed it I didn't see that referenced in the report one question I would have for the current director of national intelligence is who is the mission manager who is the intelligence manager for hostage affairs is that you know what is that what role is that person performing there were created in the executive order and it is a role that should be staffed and it should be one of its jobs is to identify information that can be shared back out with families we made an explicit reference in the reforms in 2015 to doing one-time read-ins right for families so that they could get classified information how is that work being performed is that getting done finally when it comes to coordination and prioritizing and leadership at the White House it will surprise no one to know that my view is when it comes to really fixing some of the gaps we're talking about to make sure that policy that has been articulated by the White House is getting implemented across the government that is the job of the White House that is the job of the National Security Council and it was envisioned as part of the role that the hostage response group plays and to the extent that's not getting done that strikes me as something that needs to be happening at the White House so the hostage response group again was set up to serve as that senior coordinating point to ensure that all agencies are fulfilling their roles and if that's not happening it's the job of the White House to make sure that it happens but that can only happen if you have a senior accountable individual who is who is making sure that happens so when it comes to the recommendation that there should be an increase in the standing of the hostage recovery enterprise within the US government and an increased priority of hostages and wrongful detainee issues I couldn't agree more the the uh recommend the specific recommendation that there be a new position at the national security advisor level uh to champion hostage and wrongful detainee issues I would make a friendly amendment to that recommendation and my friendly amendment is not to create a new position but rather to reinstate uh the old position um and here I will show my evident bias my job as the Homeland Security Advisor and Counterterrorism Advisor to the President was exactly what this report lays out to ensure and be a champion for hostage issues inside the White House unfortunately we no longer have an empowered Homeland Security Advisor as far as I know who operates at the national security advisor level in other words holds the rank of assistant to the president which is the rank that I held so I think my friendly amendment would be is the hostage response group should continue to operate it should be run by the senior director or the special assistant to the president for for counterterrorism issues in the in the national security council but that person needs to have a direct report to somebody who is focused on these issues who reports directly to the president and so we can we can get into questions about and debate about that particular recommendation but I just want to close by thanking Cindy for the tremendous work that you did to Diane and the Foley Foundation for commissioning this work and for New America for holding this panel uh Peter you muted yeah thank you Lisa and uh you know we wouldn't be having this discussion in many ways if without your leadership and during the Obama administration to really try and fix the system um so thank you uh Rachel um you're up next thank you and um it's a pleasure to be here with everybody um I want to first open by of course also thanking Diane her colleagues at the Foley Foundation New America and Cindy for what is a really really important piece of work and I'm glad to see it happening for the second time annually and I really hope that this is now an annual regular thing on the calendar because review is important it keeps all of us on our feet and for those of us who care so deeply about hostage affairs standards should keep going up and and not go in the other direction so I thank you um I should also say as well that um Diane was characteristically very modest in her description of hostage us and I should say that um I wouldn't be here hostage us simply wouldn't exist if Diane hadn't fought fearlessly for the concept for the funding for the access and I thank you so much for being a fearless champion for hostages and their families and I've said it to you many times I'll say it again now publicly in this forum it's one of the proudest achievements that I will ever have serving Jim's legacy and that's what hostage us is so my deepest heartfelt thanks to you and your family um five years on we're um we're here reviewing where we've come and I think the first thing I want to say is that we did really well um now I know how difficult it is for my teeny tiny little government in the united kingdom to change um the US government is a much bigger beast and so to bring about the kind of pivot that we saw pretty much overnight in 2015 and into 2016 is quite extraordinary and I think it does bear dwelling on that even if just for a second to say the change that we have seen really has been wholesale it's been extraordinary and the fact that notwithstanding Lisa's um very pertinent um challenge to us all to make sure that things aren't slipping at all um nevertheless um the improvements we've seen have been extraordinary so I just wanted to note that firstly um I wanted to um really focus on three issues here um which the reports so uh the first the two of which the report so eloquently describe and then give us some very useful solutions to them so I firstly wanted to talk about uh the situation with romeful detainees specifically uh the situation in the state department right now secondly I wanted to talk about the plight of those returning from captivity and then thirdly um in finishing I just wanted to say something about my and my colleagues experience in recent weeks of supporting families um through this very stressful time with um what we're all facing but but not least what they're facing in the light of COVID-19 crisis so firstly let me turn my attention to the issue of romeful detainees um I have to say that it was um it was fairly painful reading actually um looking at the stark contrast between um the much more positive reflection from hostage families and what the report showed with the experiences of detainee families over over this period and I can absolutely say that it does it is uh it chimes exactly with our experience working with families and return detainees as well so I I would absolutely echo those findings that's exactly what we're seeing as well um and I just wanted to call out um the problem here at state department um you know I was shocked I mean of course there's turnover of personnel we know that's always a feature of government um we know that there is a there's been problems filling positions in the state department and we sympathize with that but hearing from families things like we're experiencing infighting within the state department um I am not getting my full 30 minutes of a phone call with state department officials I mean 30 minutes I mean if you can't give 30 minutes to somebody whose child husband loved one is is is facing a perilous fate um the the person who talked about not having their phone calls and emails answered for five months and then individuals talking about the fact that their feeling is at least that their case is not taken seriously until it gets some congressional interest and um you know Diane challenges us she has this wonderful phrase that she uses which is moral courage she challenges us to have moral courage and call things out when changes need it and I'm I'm calling this out and it's not good enough it's unacceptable and times are always difficult but we've got to solve this problem and if we could do it in 2015 and if we could bring about the scale of the change that we saw pretty much overnight we have got the means we've got the talent we've got the good ideas and we've certainly got people with enough heart to solve this problem and I absolutely 100% endorse every single one of the report's recommendations about solving that and I would absolutely endorse the idea that there needs to be a proper and full-scale review of what's happening to those families and we need to turn that situation around we can do it so that's the first point I wanted to make the second is I just wanted to um again touch on another issue which the report handled really well which is the plight of people after release now of course our first most important priority is getting our people home um our next important priority is of course making sure that they come home to a life that is full that is one of recovery and is one of prosperity and um we know we know that hostages suffer in all sorts of ways when they come home whether it's their physical health their mental health and well-being the fact that their credit ratings are short and they can't get a credit card they can't rent an apartment they can't buy a car um they face isolation they have been through a very extraordinary situation that many just simply can't relate to and and it brings about great feelings of loneliness often on return um and there's this takes years I mean this is not something that you bound back from overnight in weeks in months it takes it quite literally takes years and um my organization works really hard with people in that situation to with through the amazing partnerships we have with hospitals with lawyers with financial advisors wonderful support and I know that Diane's organization also does amazing work with those who are coming back and need support I think it's time for us to coordinate it's time for us to really focus our attention on that challenge every single hostage or returning detainee needs what I would call a roadmap to recovery they need that piece of paper so to speak that says here's what's available here's where you here's how you access it here's the how-to on the funds that are available the phone numbers to call my my own organization had the opportunity to to create something like that a number of years ago for a particular individual and and the feedback we got was extraordinary well we need that writ large that needs to be something that everybody coming back from captivity gets their own roadmap for recovery and so we stand ready to work with anybody in this space who wants to be a part of what I think would be a very positive development the third um thing I wanted to do is just um I mean I'm in an incredibly privileged position of in the role that I have of of being able to support folks who are going through as you can imagine uh terribly stressful times and uh layer on top of that what we are all facing now and the the challenges for the families of detainees and hostages are peaked um to say the least right now and I wanted to share with you really three reflections from what we're seeing to give you a sense of just how this situation is makes a bad situation unbearable right now um like many of you I'm sure you are worried about uh family members overseas I know I worried about my elderly parents making sure they're okay um you know swap for that as the situation that you're worried about your loved one in location unknown held by people who have um really bad motives and likely not going to have any access to healthcare you may have seen a statement which was released last week by the families the wheeling family poor wheeling is being held in in Russia he his family had gone as far as to deliver PPE equipment to his prison and their request to have it delivered was denied I mean at the prison gates they had to leave masks and and sanitizing wipes and so on um families are desperately worried about um their own health but particularly worried about the health of their loved ones who simply don't have the luxury that we do that there's a hospital down the road should should the worst happen um the second uh the second challenge is uh for returning hostages um the folks that we work with are hugely reliant for many months and and often longer after they return to hospitals to psychiatrists to social services um they're simply closing their doors right now and so there is there is a category of person right now there's a cohort of people right now who are at various different stages of their recovery for whom that support has ceased and times are really really difficult for them um and then thirdly and finally um and this really hammers home the point about how long the the sort of the the long tail of recovery to these situations is I received an email just yesterday from somebody whose loved one was released from captivity 10 years ago and the heightened anxiety anxiety the sense of worry the sense of chaos around this individual had triggered again those PTSD problems um that they had dealt with a decade prior um the this is a dreadful thing to experience as a family um it takes families a heck of a lot of courage to get through it um it takes hostages entertainees a long time um to recover and um I thank again um the Foley Foundation New America and all of you for for tuning in and being interested in caring um because we've shown in 2015 we can make a difference we can change things we can do better um the report highlights that there's areas where we need to keep working and um it's just amazing to know that there's a a bunch of people as talented as we have here um ready to to stand and and fight the next fight thank you Rachel so we've had quite a lot of questions come in on the chat function so thank you for those and I'm going to kind of combine a question I had with two of the questions that came in uh we've talked a lot about wrongful detentions and I am this is a question for everybody but also particularly perhaps for Lisa which is I mean there is a kind of slippery slope problem about defining what is a wrongful detention clearly somebody like Jason Rezion being held by the Iranian regime uh it seems like a wrong is a wrongful detention uh but there are cases which are perhaps a you know when when NATO allies like Turkey are holding a pastor uh he may well be wrongfully detained or he may not uh depending on situation each of these situations so that's kind of the first general question and then we have a question from an anonymous detain attendee who says that uh that they have heard that the state department is choosing which cases to take on in in in this wrongfully detained category and then we also have a question from the sister of Paul Wellin who's just been mentioned who's been held by by the Russian Federation uh the Paul sister said state has not declared him wrongfully detained um and you know her basic question is I need help for him now uh so first of all the high-level question and then the specific questions about does is the state department picking and choosing to the extent that we know and and what about Paul Wellin's case so thanks Peter I'll um try to do those questions justice first on the high-level question um I think it ought to be possible to determine who is a quote unquote wrongful detainee and I think our framework here ought to be um you know are they being held by a government who um whose legal system that we recognize we may not agree with how it's structured we may when we certainly will have different legal systems and the like um but is there some uh fealty to any rule of law concept there right um if an American goes to another country and violates the laws of that country um they may be a quote unquote legitimate or a lawful detainee but we may have real concerns about how their legal system is is addressing uh those uh that particular quote unquote violation and that's what the diplomatic channels should be about talking to um talking to the other government ensuring that human rights protections are being observed etc where somebody is a wrongful detainee it's where they are not being afforded any international appropriate protections for human rights international law being observed um where I suspect we would take issue with the the rationale being advanced by the government for that person's detention jason resigns perfect uh example and I suspect also paul wailin would be a good example uh where we as a government do not agree that they are rightfully being detained um instead they are being detained on trumped up uh or fanciful charges created by a government uh that we believe is not observing the rule of law and is using uh this detention as a way to extract some other type of agenda for our government and here I'll go uh to the next two sets of questions and I'll do it very briefly uh with regard to picking and choosing I don't know what the state department is doing I don't know what approach it is taking I don't know how transparent they're being I suspect that is and I think that's really what's animating some of the findings in the report that we're discussing today but there ought to be an ability to be transparent it ought to be the role of consular affairs it ought to be the role of the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs to answer exactly those questions and to do so on a regular basis for the families of those who are held uh unlawfully abroad um and with regard to mr. Wayland's case um first my um heartfelt sympathies to the family who are enduring um his long detention in my own view I don't understand why we wouldn't be raising his case at every juncture at every level uh from our government to the government of the russian federation uh I I think it would not be too much to say that the president every time he speaks to president putin should raise um the issue of paul wayland and you know why is he being detained what is being done to ensure he is afforded uh human rights protections he is getting uh appropriate visits he can get uh communication uh with his family members he can get that type of PPE given the the coronavirus etc so uh it seems to me uh that there is no reason why our government shouldn't be making a statement uh about his detention and raising it at all levels uh constantly with the russian government any other thoughts on on those questions thank you lisa um here's a question from from from john foley um which is related to this question that cindy raised that you know this question of de-classification that lisa also talked about uh because i'm my you know i as as a sort of somebody who has a surface knowledge about a lot of this my impression what the reforms that came about in 2015 really as you said lisa effectively allowed um de-classification to families who have a very strong incentive not to you know use that information in any public manner um so it's sort of surprising that does seem like uh uh you know kind of a reversal of something that made a lot of sense and and john's question is what approach should be used to better utilize the d and i manager that you mentioned lisa and hfr c to get needed information to families so that's a general question so so i'll start and then um i'm sure uh rachel and cindy may have perspectives on this first uh hello to my friend john uh great to to uh see you out the in the ether so to speak um so i think the first question is who is the intelligence manager um who performs that role i personally can't name that person um i would uh it would be good to know uh who holds that role uh and pose this question uh directly to that professional uh and then go back to the kind of founding documents if you will uh and and hold uh hold the government to to account for this so uh the role as envisioned was to have an intelligence manager who makes sure that information intelligence is being shared with the hrfc and the and the uh agencies all uh who have representatives there and very specifically to review that information to see what can be shared with uh families of hostages and unlawful detainees now the or and this is where the orientation shift comes in um when president obama announced the 2015 reforms we announced at the same time a shift in our orientation that the default would be to try and share as much information as possible as opposed to the default being no we're going to withhold and only parcel things out now the devil is so clearly in the details on something like this but that's why there needs to be a good source of communication within the hrfc and to have a clear uh place of accountability with the intelligence manager peter i might come in if that's okay um absolutely agree with with all of that um just of three three things i would say on the issue of um intelligence information sharing with families as as i have experienced it um the first is to say that um i think it's and i think it's right to acknowledge this that um in certainly in the first couple of years um of of this new regime if you like sort of 2015 2016 ish um i what i saw was a a government trying to come to grips with how to do this and i i could see that from a government perspective um you have a lot of people who are used to particular ways of working particular types of sensitivities and and you're effectively asking them to change how they work so i i did see up close and personal you know very dedicated professionals trying to battle with this um and and working really hard to to exactly get to the point that that lisa is is describing here so i i think it's fair to say that there has been kind of steady steady steady improvement as the people working within certain parts of government has have worked really hard to to make this possible it it's new it's difficult it kind of wrinkles against everything that people have been trained to do but they're working hard to try to to make it happen in in many instances so i think there's been a change over time certainly more room for improvement um and it's something we continue to push on but i have seen a shift in it um the second uh thing that i would say is that i've been working with hostage families for at least 10 years if not 15 and i can tell you from experience um i have never come across a family that has misused sensitive information that they have been given because surprise surprise they are the person in this equation that has the least interest in misusing that information and i have seen in many you know in a number of situations in in many different countries where i've worked government sharing stuff that i was surprised they were sharing and families treated it with the respect that it deserved and um so i think there's a a sort of slightly misplaced worry about this um and and we have to keep pushing against that that kind of cultural allergic reaction to the concept i would say um and then the third the third thing is that um one of the things that we see and i i think we saw this in the report as well was that um government officials can always do a better job of helping families to understand what the limitations of what they can tell them are and why um you know a simple you know i just can't tell you that because of national security says i don't trust you um and i and i'm you know behaving like a robot what what families want to hear is help me understand why help me understand when it becomes difficult help me understand how i treat this information um and what we see um of the families we work with in their interactions of government is when they really really understand the the the why question um there's there's a lot more elasticity in that relationship um and and there's a sort of a too much more of a two-way understanding of that now i always push government to go further i think there is much further that that it can go um but i i don't think you can underestimate the the need for for government folks working on this to really take the time to work with families to so that folks properly understand what the sensitivities are and why and and that relationship works a lot better in that in those situations thank you so um but i just want to thank our 130 participants who are called in and also all the people who've submitted questions we have uh 15 minutes left so we just want to try and get to as many of these questions as possible one question you know does the coronavirus crisis um is it sort of a wedge that can actually produce better outcomes is there any precedent for sort of an international crisis like this facilitating negotiations for release it's a it's a very good question i'm i'm kind of racking my brain for thinking uh to identify any precedent that's on point here given the the unprecedented nature of the coronavirus crisis uh i'm i'm not coming up with direct precedent but i do think it is something that we and our government should be both pointing to using particularly in cases of wrongful detainees so the the very disturbing point that the wheelins make that they tried to get ppe and protection uh to their family member being held in russia and and getting stiff armed that should just frankly be completely unacceptable by our government and um you know the state department should be raising that directly with the foreign minister going direct to now they may be doing that i don't know but then they should be informing it seems to me the family that that's what they're doing and if they're not letting that equipment in to the prison then they should be getting assurances from the russians that um they're taking precautions inside so it ought to absolutely be a direct subject of discussion and and a point that our government raises at the highest levels you have a question here from jason public um and i think he asks two very good questions one the question of accountability it seems that you know obviously uh a lot of these cases there isn't much accountability is there a way to fix that uh is one question and then he also suggests that um there's a fair amount of private diplomacy taking place and sometimes it's you know kind of a cross currents with the usg uh my impression you know certainly prior of private diplomacy the people that we know is that they do coordinate very carefully with usg and tell them everything they're doing uh but is that a fair um question as we are now at year five of this kind of new process so on the private diplomacy piece um i obviously don't know uh much of anything about what's going on now uh and what is being shared with the with the government in my past experience i think there absolutely is a role for private diplomacy um and it can be quite useful and um but as you say peter it's very important that that be um if not coordinated at least informed uh there'll be information sharing with the government about those efforts and that was my experience that um there was uh an effort to coordinate and inform the government about those private diplomacy efforts uh and and they shouldn't be working at cross currents that that would be um to the detriment potentially of the the hostage or detainee and their families and that always has to take priority so there's there is a role in my view for private diplomacy there ought to be coordination and information sharing and if you've got the the right people in the right places to do that discussion i think it can be quite useful uh i'm going to combine two questions one from an enormous attendee um and another from a gentleman nicknamed scott uh the first question from the enormous attendees yeah how can regular citizens help donate to the foundations uh the phony foundation in hostage us i think we can safely say yes to that calling our representatives can you share some practical steps and a kind of related question um is there anything we can take from hostage response in the uk or elsewhere that should be implemented here in united states i i offer the best practices obviously um you know new america has done some work on the question of uh you know countries that do or do not pay ransoms clearly the better outcomes uk and us has no you know has a much more stringent uh policy around that so are there best practices in other countries and what can ordinary people do to help so i endorse your directives or your suggestions to what private citizens can do and hardly endorse donations to hostage us and to the phony foundation um i uh on the question of best practices from the uk um i'm i'll only be slightly facetious here i think we've imported the best practice from the uk and her name was rachel briggs um uh in my experience is part of the review uh that we did in 2015 i traveled to the uk to talk to my counterparts there to gain some lessons learned about how the uk uh was addressing these issues and in that um and on that trip uh and in that meeting with uk officials they asked somebody to join and that person was rachel briggs and uh and she told me about the work she was doing for hostage uk and so i think it is a it's a great credit to her uh that uh there was a real need here in the us for that type of for that type of work so any other thoughts about best practices from other countries that that we can learn from i might just jump in if that's okay um on on the the uk side of things i have to um i'm ashamed to say i'm slightly out of touch with what's going on in my own country right now um but um certainly i think two of the things that um i was always so proud of working in the uk which i'm incredibly pleased that we now have in the us we always had in the uk something called the special cases unit within the foreign office which again our government is much smaller than than yours but it was an attempt to create a unit right at the heart of our our equivalents the state department um that would do that bringing together that coordination um and that was also the unit that does did and and presumably still does the front-facing work with with families run by um really an exceptional human being um and an amazing team so i think that was an important um lesson from there and also i've mentioned it already but the the very trusting open relationships that i just marveled at every time i saw them uh between government officials and families um really the most difficult times as well to see that in in practice is is really something quite special so um i i greatly um some of you may have read um joel simons book um which um take is is another attempt to look internationally at what's happening and and i think the more that we can all share with one another what's what works and what doesn't uh the better and i should also mention a couple of things in terms of how citizens can help one is that i would add hostage international into that bracket of of organizations hostage uk is now hostage international and is working everywhere outside of the us actually to help um citizens from all over the world who find themselves taken um so important sister organizations towards both um and and a point that i was thinking about making earlier which is which is one of narrative and um i don't come across this i think nearly as often as most people would do because of the work i do um but i'm still kind of shocked when um people ask me questions about um the level of sympathy we should have with hostages but why were they there you know why were they in x country that they knew was dangerous and um what we know is that we need journalists we need brave humanitarians we need international trade not much of it happening right now of course but these are all things we need in our world to function and um hostages find themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and one thing that any committed citizen can do as well as all of the above is actually to help ensure we're telling the right story about hostage taking and um to to share share those stories ensure that what we have is a public narrative of sympathy and empathy rather than judgment and criticism um and um i i think that's a really really important thing that ordinary citizens can do to help shape the way that we all understand these issues because if if we don't understand this properly we're not going to get congress to work we're not going to get big bureaucracies to change we're not going to get people to you know think about where money is allocated in the budget each year um so ordinary citizens really do have a an important role to play in in helping to to frame that debate in the right way if i could just jump in i'm sorry i noticed that diane foley unfortunately lost her connection and i just want to uh volunteer myself as executive director of the james w foley legacy foundation to continue the conversation i think that one other point to this question of how can regular citizens help um lobby our members of congress because there is a piece of legislation called the levenson act named for bob levenson um that is in the house and the senate that is supposed to codify the reforms made in 2015 that we've been discussing today but also include a criteria for wrongful detention of americans who are being held by foreign governments which can be incredibly helpful in making that uh transparent and uh applicable to all families who need it um and so that's another way that ordinary citizens can get involved by lobbying their members of congress and saying it's not just when you have a constituent who is being held hostage or wrongfully detained this impacts all of us as rachel said um any american traveling working overseas could be the next hostage or the next wrongful detainee it seems like it impacts a small number of people but it actually really could impact all of us because we live in a global world and we cannot leave our fellow americans behind we we need to care about each other and make sure that our government knows how much we care about our fellow citizens because it's really one of the best ways to uh to push along progress in releasing some of these cases and that's what we're trying to do by raising awareness on these individual cases um and and also trying to engage with actors in the government about what are the things that need to be addressed with the with a few minutes remaining are there any kind of closing thoughts cindy uh since it's your report do you um is there something you'd like to to add to the discussion here i i did want to add something to um what lisa asked and when she was when she was sharing um with base we're going back to intelligent sharing i do want to add that looking at both of our reports from the previous report to this year's report there is a there is an improvement um of information that is sharing uh from what i've what i've observed and the issue manager at that time i don't think she's there anymore it was barbara grows and i know she worked very hard to to get that ball rolling i don't know who's continuing that effort but something that lisa mentioned was do families receive a one-time reading that is occurring however the problem is that family member you know whether it's a spouse or a daughter or you know a child they can't share that information with whoever's working on behalf for them with the case for example if they have a hostage negotiator that information cannot get outside so it's it's it's it's becoming stale if you will and time goes on and it's really impeding progress to bringing these their loved ones home so i just wanted to add that because i think that's very important about information sharing cindy can i also get clarification so and is it that so the family is getting a one-time read-in of what the intelligence uh is uh is that right and you know obviously these cases can go on for years that information then becomes kind of dated yes they are receiving classified information um that they can only share uh with that family member but you're you have a family member that could be sitting in the middle middle of i'm making this up but somewhere in the middle of kansas and their loved ones being held overseas they can't do anything with that information they're not allowed to share it they can't share that information with their negotiators or whoever else is working on their case to bring their loved ones home so it's really breaking and blocking that communication change chain well i think we're gonna have to leave it there i want to thank rachel uh briggs lisa monaco uh cindy uh lurcho for her report the diampholi who unfortunately had some had a drop-off and margot ewin and thank you everybody for for calling in uh to for this important discussion thank you