This is a constant threat to anyone from the US working for NGO's under any sponsor from US Aid to other private grant NGO's in high threat areas. CTI has worked on these type of contracts from the Gaza strip to South and Central America. No one tells you going in you are not at risk, as I am certain this gentleman was told of the risks going in. In many cases the reason NGO's (Non Government Organization) are used is that it is to dangerous for the US Government to send in Government Employee's. It is very unfair to go into these situations, knowing the risk, and then complaining to our Government when things happen. You take the risk you take the pay, and you really need to know you are on your own. When the wife was advised to offer a very low counter offer, she really should have taken the advice. Her method of negotiation put every NGO working over there in more danger of being kidnapped. She had paid so much more than she could afford, and still the kidnappers only wanted more. They had already watched her counter offer of all she could afford, less than 30 thousand dollars, to expand to over 250 thousand dollars that she pleaded with everyone she knew to give her. That a drone strike had killed her husband was terrible, but not the American Drone pilots fault, it is the risk the brave gentleman had taken gone in. To hold off bombing ISIS facilities until you are 100 percent sure no non ISIS people will die, just puts more people in danger. I think it is a great tragedy that it happen, but to fault the US Government or the drone pilot is a tragedy as well. No one wants innocents hurt, but the reason we have people fighting over there is to protect the innocents at home. 911 happen in part because we waited to long to take out the perpetrators because we wanted a clean kill with no innocents hurt. Terrorists killed Mr. Weinstein, not a drone strike.
from CTI Consulting http://ift.tt/1UisIsA