As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Hostage victims - their pleas vs. society's needs.
fleggett
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
I must be in one my moods again, but after the whole Euna Lee/Laura Ling situation and ultimately happy conclusion (all other things being equal), my head must be attuned to these poor people that get captured and thrown down a dark hole while some sort of ransom is demanded.
The latest one that I think we'll start to see more airtime on US media outlets are Canadian journalists Amanda Lindhout and her co-worker, Nigel Brennan, who were kidnapped 28Km from Mogidishu on August 23, 2008. That's in Somalia. Yep, probably one of the most lawless places on the planet, where everyone who thinks they've got a few Saturday Night Specials and a small army of clueless teenagers is the head of the legitimate government. They even threw off the yoke of the good ole U. S. of A. using hellaciously effective guerrilla warfare.
A third man, Abdifatah Mohammed Elmi, was also kidnapped with Lindhout and Brennan, but has since been released.
Today marks the 369th day of Amanda and Nigel's captivity. They have only been seen once in a video broadcast by Al Jazeera (no audio) and there have been several horrifying phone calls made to various media outlets from someone claiming to be Lindhout. There have also been reports of rape and that Lindhout has given birth to a child whose father is part of the group holding her and Brennan (Amanda is EXCEEDINGLY attractive, so some form of sexual battery was probably inevitable).
According to experts, this kidnapping case is very unusual due to its length. Most last for only a few weeks or months. To have one last for longer than a year is unprecedented and very, very worrying.
Some experts claim to know the precise location of where she and Brennan are being held and are lobbying to send in a strike force to free the hostages. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has adopted a "loose lips sink ships" stance.
I really, really have to wonder about what the "proper" responses are to bleak situations like this. When you're 90% certain of locations and perpetrators, and are equally certain a strike force would hit no friendlies, I really like that option, as 007-ish as it sounds. And I can see that happening in a place as fractured as Somalia.
In the case of Lee and Ling, though, that was, effectively, state-sponsored terrorism (and please, no trolls about how they were "legitimately" convicted of a crime and should've gone to a labor camp - that's just horse manure). No extraction would've been possible (however justified) due to the ensuing loss-of-great-life. We had to parley with a creep who dabbles in terror tactics, or else they would've never been seen again. And NOW the DPRK is practically begging for unilateral talks with the U.S. because we now "owe" them (yet more horse manure). KJI and the rest of his ilk just make me bonkers.
Anyway, that's getting on a tangent. What do you think should be done in situations like the one Lindhout and Brennan now find themselves in? Pay the ransom and hope they're released? Wait it out until the perps make a mistake and can be caught without engaging in the whole "rewarding for bad behavior" angle? Plan and execute a risky extraction that will end lives (but hopefully the lives of the perps). Canada is adopting a hardline "we don't deal with terrorists" stance, which is laudable as a mission statement, but many are saying this treatise will eventually get these two killed.
The entire concept of abducting people to use as bargaining chips makes me physically ill. If I had the gangleader of the Lindhout and Brennan kidnappings in front of me in shackles and someone gave me a machete, I could not be responsible for my actions.
The latest one that I think we'll start to see more airtime on US media outlets are Canadian journalists Amanda Lindhout and her co-worker, Nigel Brennan, who were kidnapped 28Km from Mogidishu on August 23, 2008. That's in Somalia. Yep, probably one of the most lawless places on the planet, where everyone who thinks they've got a few Saturday Night Specials and a small army of clueless teenagers is the head of the legitimate government. They even threw off the yoke of the good ole U. S. of A. using hellaciously effective guerrilla warfare.
A third man, Abdifatah Mohammed Elmi, was also kidnapped with Lindhout and Brennan, but has since been released.
Today marks the 369th day of Amanda and Nigel's captivity. They have only been seen once in a video broadcast by Al Jazeera (no audio) and there have been several horrifying phone calls made to various media outlets from someone claiming to be Lindhout. There have also been reports of rape and that Lindhout has given birth to a child whose father is part of the group holding her and Brennan (Amanda is EXCEEDINGLY attractive, so some form of sexual battery was probably inevitable).
According to experts, this kidnapping case is very unusual due to its length. Most last for only a few weeks or months. To have one last for longer than a year is unprecedented and very, very worrying.
Some experts claim to know the precise location of where she and Brennan are being held and are lobbying to send in a strike force to free the hostages. Meanwhile, the Canadian government has adopted a "loose lips sink ships" stance.
I really, really have to wonder about what the "proper" responses are to bleak situations like this. When you're 90% certain of locations and perpetrators, and are equally certain a strike force would hit no friendlies, I really like that option, as 007-ish as it sounds. And I can see that happening in a place as fractured as Somalia.
In the case of Lee and Ling, though, that was, effectively, state-sponsored terrorism (and please, no trolls about how they were "legitimately" convicted of a crime and should've gone to a labor camp - that's just horse manure). No extraction would've been possible (however justified) due to the ensuing loss-of-great-life. We had to parley with a creep who dabbles in terror tactics, or else they would've never been seen again. And NOW the DPRK is practically begging for unilateral talks with the U.S. because we now "owe" them (yet more horse manure). KJI and the rest of his ilk just make me bonkers.
Anyway, that's getting on a tangent. What do you think should be done in situations like the one Lindhout and Brennan now find themselves in? Pay the ransom and hope they're released? Wait it out until the perps make a mistake and can be caught without engaging in the whole "rewarding for bad behavior" angle? Plan and execute a risky extraction that will end lives (but hopefully the lives of the perps). Canada is adopting a hardline "we don't deal with terrorists" stance, which is laudable as a mission statement, but many are saying this treatise will eventually get these two killed.
The entire concept of abducting people to use as bargaining chips makes me physically ill. If I had the gangleader of the Lindhout and Brennan kidnappings in front of me in shackles and someone gave me a machete, I could not be responsible for my actions.
fleggett on
0
Posts
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
France and other countries have had success in paying ransoms to get their citizens released from hostage situations.
Rewarding bad behavior by paying off kidnappers leaves a cold pit in my stomach. But not paying them off and seeing the bodies of the abductees lying in a ditch somewhere leaves an even colder pit. It truly is the lesser of two major, major evils.
There's broken logic at work with either modes of thought and behavior. Don't deal with terrorists? Then you've got about a zero chance at getting abductees back. Deal? Your odds rise to probably around 50/50, but that's better than zero. Think these cretins will recognize and honor your zero-deal message? Doubtful.
The ultimate solution, of course, is for these people to not get into these situations in the first place. I would NEVER EVER EVER dream of reporting about anything in Somalia. It would be like asking someone to step through a minefield. I realize stories NEED to be told about Somalia, but not at the price of the people doing the telling getting kidnapped and sometimes never seeing them again.
Even a signed waiver with the harshest, direst, most final terms possible wouldn't work, as no one would take them seriously. And journalists eat and breathe on hot stories.
I suppose my own solution would be to pay the ransom. If the victims are recovered or if they're not recovered, it doesn't matter - still go after the kidnappers with due haste and much prejudice, using whatever means possible. To me, what sends the best message is that, okay, we'll pay to get our people back, but we'll hunt you down like the sewer dogs you are. If you returned the victims relatively unharmed, it'll be a mitigating factor in your defense. If you didn't, then no punishment will be severe enough.
That's what I think is missing - the whole punishment follow-through. Many of the stories where ransoms are paid simply end at that, especially if the victims are returned, with the abductors slinking away into the night. When you make it clear to these people that, sure, they can enjoy their millions, but they better do it quick, as the authorities are coming - that's when the landscape will change. Sacrificing kidnap victims on the altars of ideology leaves me cold.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Frankly if anyone ever attempts to kidnap you, you are better off fighting to the death than going along with them. If they shoot you in the street they are going to get the hell out of there afterwards, once you are back at their prepared location you are pretty much shit out of luck.
Used to make a lot of money in NW Africa out of this kind of stuff.
Once you've grabbed a hostage, it should be made clear that you're just a step or two shy from endgame. And I mean CRYSTAL CLEAR. Even if we can't find the bastards that bankrolled you or can't touch them for "diplomatic" reasons, you yourself will be going behind bars, preferably for life, and will certainly get the chair, noose, or firing squad if any of the hostages wind-up dead on your watch. Super due process can kick in all it wants, but the end result will be the same. You will die.
If I were a part of a group who had taken hostages, apart from needing my head severely examined, I would do everything in my power to keep those hostages alive. Make sure they have a warm place to sleep, clean water, nutritious food, access to medicinal agents, etc. And when the authorities finally nail you, you can have your case mitigated (to some degree) via the treatment you provided while holding these people prisoner. Make no mistake, you're still getting prison time, but it may be five years instead of fifty.
It's a high-stakes game of cat and mouse. You have to let these people >think< they're going to get away with this vile and despicable act by paying the ransom and let them play with their ill-gotten money for awhile, but then run them up against a high wall at the very moment the sun is shining and birds are chirping.
To me, this is the most humane way to attack the problem. You have to focus on getting these people returned - you just have to. Suspend their passports and whatnot once they're back, but you can't discard them like common political trash in order to advance your however well-meant ideology. As a government, you're ethically, morally, and legally committed to protect your citizenry against being victimized in this manner and it's part of the social contract you have with your populace (IMO, at least - others would argue that's not true given certain circumstances, but I don't believe this is one of those circumstances).
That said, the true teeth of your ability to combat abductions is the capture of the wrongdoers and punishment follow-through, even if it costs millions and much political clout. If you're not willing to do that, then your only other option is to simply not deal with terrorists on any level, which will only get innocent people tortured and killed. Meanwhile, the rest of the journalistic community and the population as a whole paints you as callous, unthinking, and uncaring.
If the Canadian government doesn't get these two returned, it will be a disaster for them, especially since they have good location intel and a company specializing in hostage rescue missions is just waiting to be given the word to go into action.
I'm not saying the proportional form of punishment for kidnapping should be death, or even life in prison. A year per week of imprisonment seems like a good starting point, with aggravating and mitigating factors playing consideration. This is the reason rape isn't a capital offense, otherwise every rapist would kill his victim, even if she doesn't "see" him (and actually, with modern investigative techniques, visually identifying an attacker is getting obsolete).
I tend to agree. I think all journalists working in these areas should be required to carry a gun as part of obtaining their media licenses. This should be applied to everyone involved in the reporting of a story in a dangerous area of the world (even that poor schmuck that holds the boom mike).
The bottom line is that kidnappers need to realize they can't get away with this crap and this realization needs to come in the form of swift, certain, and proportional punishment. This isn't holding up your local seven-eleven with a baseball bat. This is serious shit and needs to be dealt with appropriately.
That said, economy should never trump justice (though I know it frequently does).
You, personally? ;-)
(And in Mexico and Central and South America.)
Obviously security detachments are preferable, but not even particularly practical in many situations.
Wouldn't it be fair then to say that as a citizen you're ethically, morally, and legally committed to not travel to the middle of a fucking warzone?
I'm reminded of the story of “Civis Romanis." I am a Roman citizen. The story goes that so great and universal was the fear of retribution from Rome that any Roman citizen could walk anywhere in the known world and have but to speak those words to safely see himself out of harm. True? Not likely. Inspiring? I think so.
I believe that the only appropriate response from a government in a kidnapping situation is to hunt down the perpetrators and dispose of them permanently. Ignoring the issues of funding, manpower, and international law, I guarantee that eventually people would start getting the message that not only will kidnappings not make them a profit, but it will end up being the last thing they do with their miserable lives.
Well, never engaging in dialogue with them yourself is the best way to go about with it. Keeping your emotion out of it yields the best success rate.
And me personally in a round about way. I worked for a private security firm for 13 years. Did quite a bit of this kind of work.
That is an extremely long list of factors that you have to ignore before you get to a workable outcome.
I'm not trying to blame the rape victim here, but that's exactly what it's going to sound like when I say that if you don't want kidnapped don't go running about foreign countries. How often do you hear about people being kidnapped and held for ransom in their own country? Not nearly as often.
Because you prefer the greater of two evils?
To me, this is one of the basic responsibilities of an honorable and respectable government. I know Detharin disagrees with this vehemently (and it sounds like you do, too), but being kidnapped deprives you of your personal liberties without due process, of which the government is obligated to protect. You might argue that it doesn't apply outside of the border, especially in a place as completely fucked up as Somalia, but I think it does. Maybe that's my bleeding-heart liberal mentality coming out.
It is inspiring. It's too bad Rome was just as corrupt and barbaric as any other during that time.
(And I think that is somewhat of a true story. How effective the statement was in reality is debatable. And plus, anyone who could've mouthed the words could've used it.)
My sentiment is with you. I just see the practical problems inherent with this. I do agree, though, that they should be punished to the fullest extent that the law provides.
There was an episode of the West Wing where they go over this.
So you give them what they want so that they set the hostages free, right? It's not much to give and you save the hostages.
And the next day they kidnap some more people and demand free cable. Fuck that's banal, do it, bring them back alive.
And the next day they kidnap some more people and demand the keys to the White House Situation Room.
Obviously there has to be a line, so where is it? When is saving the lives of the hostages not worth it?
In a single case, yeah maybe saying the hostages living is worth their petty demands. But long-term it's not. Terrorists continue activities even though it doesn't work like, ever. If it started to work imagine how much they'd do it, let alone the normal kidnappers.
Running away as fast as possible is certainly a good idea, but taking a few pot shots at the attackers while you're at it sounds even better (to me, anyway). Would (or should) make them think twice about carrying through with the kidnapping. If your chances of actually surviving an abduction are close to nil, why >not< carry a personal firearm? What could it hurt? You either die now or you die later (or you die MUCH later if you languish for years in captivity, all the while being miserable).
Or it will make the people who will probably soon have you tied up, helpless, and only care about keeping you alive and in one piece enough to get paid really mad at you. So you're running, you completely miss anything but shoot a few bullets, then get tortured constantly because you shot at them. Much better.
But when it starts to happen, what then? "Winning" a kidnapping plot doesn't mean massacring the perpetrators, it just means getting away. If a gun helps to do that, why not?
Because what if it doesn't work?
I'm not saying don't resist and try to get away, but taking a few potshots that obviously aren't going to prevent the kidnapping, and if you're trying to get away probably not going to hit anyone and almost definitely not going to kill anyone is going to at best not interfere with your getting away and at worse get you instead of kept in horrible conditions until they kill you or you are freed for whatever reason, tortured in horrible conditions until they slowly kill you or you are freed for whatever reason.
Yeah I don't know what you're thinking about this sort of thing, but we're not talking about a guy in an alley or a thief in your house.
You know what is one of the worst ideas on the planet? Carrying a little pocket knife to whip out if someone on the street tries to mug/assault you. Why? Because there's absolutely no chance you're going to stop the criminal by basically sticking a pin into them, they're probably going to be more experienced with using knives than you, and the most likely outcome is they'll get angry and you'll get far worse than you would before.
That's not to say that when you get mugged/assaulted the correct thing to do is say "Pleeeeze Mr. Kidnapper, I'm not resisting, you can have me any way you want me." But doing shit that serves 0 purpose other than to get your fingernails torn out and you beaten the fuck up when they take away your pea shooter and still capture you for thinking you are some rambo is the stupidest shit
The US Navy and every major international maritime nation, NGO and IGO are opposed to arming merchant marine vessels and civvies, because it's going to make deaths more common. Having a weapon, unless you also have a battalion behind you, isn't going to keep you safe, and will be counterproductive.
You can't really do journalism with an army platoon at your side, nor can you do international humanitarian relief; that's why red cross tends to withdraw volunteers rather than start shooting at the populations they're trying to help.
There are defensive things they can carry that would have a high chance of helping and a small chance of hurting.
But carrying a handgun to a country to shoot back at kidnappers just has so tiny of a chance of helping and so massive a chance of just pissing them off it'd be horribly stupid.
You know who's really fucking good at taking out kidnappers? Hostage rescue teams. You know who's not? Joe Random at the Washington Post.
Jack: "Shoot the hostage.""
Harry: "What?"
Jack: "Take her out of the equation. Go for the good wound and he can't get to the plane with her. Clear shot"
Harry: "You are deeply nuts, you know that? 'Shoot the hostage'... jeez..."
It's super shitty what they are going through but I don't think the government should be held accountable, they can pay out the ransom, or fuck even split it with Australia but there is no assurance that they will get them back. Then what? Pay for every citizen who is kidnapped? What about people who are kidnapped or held hostage within our boarders? It's a slippery slope because the outcry of, well why didn't you pay for us and you should pay for this guy too etc. would be all over the place. What about other forms of ransoming? Should the asshole in northern B.C get his/her way because they are blowing shit up and the cops can't catch them? What happens when someone dies due to the bomber's retardation, does the government step in then and make the oil companies submit to the bombers demands?
It isn't just about money either, what happens when my nephew goes to Eastern Europe this winter and someone gets the idea to kidnap his ass, because they might get a payout? Or anyone else on vacation abroad? The world isn't the safest place to begin with, but when you add a potential payoff to your head it gets a lot less safe.
That said I think the kidnappers should be shot in the gut and left to die.
Like smokin' sexy.
I think this warrants another one of bill's escapades.
That said, I don't think we'll see any people in here arguing that the people who are tricked into mine slavery by the promise of gainful employment should be left to die in a pit by anyone's government. Why is there so much less sympathy for westerners/foreigners who run into trouble? Many of them are aid workers, or people otherwise trying to help improve a region.
There was also a lot more sympathy for people who got taken hostage by pirates - the same somalis were involved, but somehow sailing past the country on a boat means you get more sympathy?
Consistency fail, people.
Holy inappropriate, Batman!
The Canadian Government does not negotiate with terrorist groups, so she's left to be raped to death. It's horrible, but it's the just decision and will ultimately save lives overall.
This sounds and is unbelievably callous, but seeing as most people can't even imagine themselves or a family member taken hostage, what needs to be done is to de-politicize and objectify the entire issue so that it becomes a matter of pure economics. That way, the government can take an unwavering approach and when people start demanding that their feelings be sympathized, politicians can point to the numbers and throw their hands up, then move on to do their jobs instead.
Can we afford to create an increase in hostage-taking and kidnapping by having a default "all right sheesh here's your money, douchebags"-approach? How long would it take for the freed hostages to "pay back" their ransom in taxes, thus making the approach self-financed? What limit of ransom money paid per year will force the government to end the approach. Should the ransom be paid immediately or should it depend on a risk-assessment of the hostage situation by the police at the scene? Et cetera.
If it is possible to quantify the fuck out of the factors, thus eliminating sensitivity to plebeian opinion by providing an economical justification for one approach over the other, by all means.
The mistake here is believing that you can change the amount or intensity of kidnapping in the world through paying or not-paying ransom. Our 'rep' really doesn't come into play at all.
Kidnapping *entirely* depends on weak states. Make them stronger, and the problem goes away. Make them weaker, and the problem gets worse. Making a deal to get people back doesn't 'embolden' terrorists, and not-making-a-deal doesn't 'scare' them. They've lost nothing!
There's obviously a difference between good negotiation and bad negotiation. Giving away the farm doesn't solve anything either. But pretending that 'no negotiation' is a reasonable long-term strategy is really more of an emotional response than it is a practical one.
I can only imagine there is some kind of Jabba the Hutt palace thing going on with her in a metal bikini and the other guy playing C-3P0s part.
Being kidnapped like such is horrible and a hell for the victims but I'm also in the camp that you don't give into thedemands. It goes with that saying of the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one or few I think. It will only encourage that this is profitable and get you what you want.
If anything you take out the group and not allow them to ever try this method of terrorism again. Then again I don't really see any redeeming qualities of Somaila if the first place so leave them to eat each other away. No other country really has no reason to go there and helping them has proved pointless if they can't help themselves.
And I know I'm going to be eaten alive by the D&D elite in here for saying this...