Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: 'No Ransom' Policy Comes at a Cost

  1. #1

    Default 'No Ransom' Policy Comes at a Cost

    This is something that's been on my mind the last few weeks, after one of the worst crimes imaginable.

    Our country is in shock and disbelief after,John Ridsdel, a Canadian was beheaded by a group of terrorists in the Philippines less than two weeks ago. The Filipino terror group Abu Sayyaf released a video showing the gruesome beheading of Ridsdel as well as a second video threatening to behead their remaining Canadian hostage, Robert Hall. There is now a very real fear that Hall will suffer the same fate.

    http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/05/03...eleased-report

    The brutal murder has renewed a debate about whether governments should pay ransom demands to terrorists. Our country's Prime Minister has stated unequivocally that "Canada does not and will not pay ransom to terrorists."

    This sounds like the right moral stance to take, however, there has been evidence that Canada has had some backroom deals with terrorists in the past to secure release of hostages. While the government officially denies they've doe so, cash, development aid, or other concessions are bargained through back channels or third parties.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle29779563/

    Both the UN and the G8 have adopted the directive: We do not negotiate with terrorists.

    Yet, a number of European countries, particularly France and Germany, have found ways of channelling money to militant groups in exchange for the safety of their citizens. In 2014 the New York Times published an investigation that Al-Qaida and its affiliates received at least $125 million from kidnappings since 2008, with about half of it collected in 2013 alone. And having had great success, the ransom demands have escalated.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/wo...as-patron.html

    Abu Sayyef demanded 8 million for each Canadian, and Ridsdel was beheaded after the ransom deadline passed. There's the ethical problem of caving in to the terrorists' demands, with the money going to finance terrorist groups that will use the funds to terrorize and kill thousands of other innocent people.. 8 million dollars would buy a lot of AK-47's. It also makes the world a more dangerous place and increases the risk of increasing the chances of kidnapping while traveling abroad.

    On the other hand, there's not a lot of evidence to support the belief that a "no ransom" policy will deter terrorist groups. Both the US and Britain have hardline, no concessions policies, yet they are the countries most frequently targeted with terrorist demands.

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...ma-and-Cameron

    The strongest argument against paying terrorists is the moral one; by considering where those funds are being directed.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 08-May-2016 at 13:56.

  2. #2

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Starrunner View Post
    On the other hand, there's not a lot of evidence to support the belief that a "no ransom" policy will deter terrorist groups. Both the US and Britain have hardline, no concessions policies, yet they are the countries most frequently targeted with terrorist demands.
    It's not so much that any government expects that refusing to pay ransoms will act as a deterrent to terrorist groups, so much as it is that they believe that paying them will act as an incentive to non-terrorist kidnappers. There's always going to be a hard core of extremists who use kidnap, torture and murder as an instrument of terror. For them, the money is just a bonus. However, if you start paying ransoms on a large scale, you encourage people whose motives are financial rather than ideological, as in Somalia - and there's probably a lot more of them around. Money has historically proven a better motivator than ideology.

    Given the United States' status as the primary ideological opponent of extremist Islamic groups, and Britain's status as one of her closest allies, nationals from both are always going to be prime targets for kidnap and murder. Paying ransoms would just make things worse.

    From my perspective, there is no ethical dilemma at all. Paying ransoms just encourages kidnapping, and paying terrorist ransoms not only encourages, but directly facilitates terror. It's unconscionable.

    EDIT: In fact, given that the most prominent Islamic terrorist groups are, by their own explicit admission, at war with Western civilisation as a whole, surely paying a ransom to them constitutes providing aid and comfort to the enemy - it's nothing less than treason. And if a terrorist organisation is primarily operating within the territory of another sovereign state, then providing funds to them is arguably an Act of War.
    Last edited by Akastus; 08-May-2016 at 13:16.

  3. #3

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Akastus View Post
    From my perspective, there is no ethical dilemma at all. Paying ransoms just encourages kidnapping, and paying terrorist ransoms not only encourages, but directly facilitates terror. It's unconscionable.
    This ^^

    Once you fire up the gravy train, where does it stop?

    Edit re beheading: Never understood the furor attending beheading as opposed to other forms of man's inhumanity to man. While it presents a rather gruesome visual, done correctly its a humane way to end someone. Quick. Same with hanging.
    Last edited by Maxx; 08-May-2016 at 12:48.

  4. #4

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Akastus View Post
    From my perspective, there is no ethical dilemma at all. Paying ransoms just encourages kidnapping, and paying terrorist ransoms not only encourages, but directly facilitates terror. It's unconscionable.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    This ^^

    Once you fire up the gravy train, where does it stop?
    For once, we're in agreement. I think that both morally and practically it makes no sense to pay ransoms to these groups. They might kidnap or kill people anyway and we should do our best to stop them from doing that, but they shouldn't have an extra incentive to kidnap people so that they can gain resources and power.

  5. #5
    MarchinBunny

    Default

    I think Akastus put it pretty well and couldn't have said it any better.

  6. #6
    Misatoismywaifu

    Default

    Absolutely not. If you had the means to make it big and no moral compass what would stop you from deciding to gun down a few innocent people for monetary benefit?

  7. #7

    Default

    The statement by our Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, was the moral and righteous position, put forward unequivocally and in no uncertain terms: "Canada does not and will not pay ransom to terrorists." I truly feel for the families of John Ridsdel and Robert Hall, although I understand we cannot cave in to terrorist demands.

    Our liberal government's response to terrorism is identical to that of its Conservative predecessor. When I looked into past cases of Canadians kidnapped abroad, however, there appears to have been some negotiating and 'compromise' to secure the release of Canadians, thereby undermining their own official position and credibility.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/2662963/ca...-in-captivity/

    Melissa Fung
    A CBC reporter kidnapped in Afghanistan and held captive for 28 days. She was reportedly released without money being exchanged. Instead she was traded for the release of one of the gang's family members.

    Robert Fowler and Louis Guy
    They were Canadian Diplomats who were kidnapped in Niger by Al-Qaida and taken to a remote corner of the Sahara Desert near Mali. They were held for four months before being released in 2009, allegedly after a ransom was paid. The Mali government was quoted as saying the deal included the release of four terrorists from Milan prisons along with a cash payment of several million dollars.

    Amanda Lindhout
    A Canadian journalist kidnapped in Somalia along with Australian photographer Nigel Brennan. The kidnappers demanded 3 million. The Canadian government offered $250,000 which they technically categorized as "expense money" so that each country could maintain its official policy of not paying ransom. The families turned to AKE, a private 'risk mitigation' firm which negotiated their release at the cost of $600,000 for the ransom and about the same for their fees.

    Colin Rutherford
    Taken hostage by the Taliban while on vacation in Afghanistan in 2010. He was released following the intervention of the Qatar government. There is much speculation that a ransom was paid although the government denies it.

    Naji al-Kuwaiti
    A businessman kidnapped in Baghdad in 2004. His kidnappers demanded 1million for ransom. hey reportedly settled for $100,000.


    So, although Canada says all the right things and states unequivocally that we will not negotiate with terrorists, I feel that our record has been somewhat sketchy at best. Our current government has only been in power for six months, and with another Canadian still in the clutches of Abu Sayyaf, its resolve will be tested.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 08-May-2016 at 16:12.

  8. #8

    Default

    The U.S's stance is the same, and yet Obama illegally traded five high value Taliban terrorists for a deserter.

  9. #9

    Default

    And you're just looking at cases where official governments have paid out; there are more cases were families and organizations have paid. There are multiple complications with maintaining a No Ransoms policy. First, not everyone has the moral fortitude to refuse paying for the safety of an employee/close friend/family member. Then there's the fact that the majority of these cases come from one of two groups: organized criminal elements OR radical extremists. One group has no compunctions against killing for profit - it is in fact part of their standard procedure. The other is convinced they're in The Right and therefore they will succeed in what ever they do provided sufficient faith or dedication: all the failures by others (if they're aware of them) are either a lack of faith/dedication or because that group was plain wrong. Lastly, as a briefly touched on, many of the people committing this kidnappings aren't the best educated: yes a policy of not paying could deter them, if they were aware that policy existed. I'd bet that many of the people actually performing these operations aren't aware at all that the nations they've targeted have an official No Negotiation, No Ransom policy.

  10. #10

    Default

    I wished we still had the Airborne. We could have just let them out of their cage for a training exercise and not said anything....much like the story I heard about the Newfies during the Second World War where they crawled through the barbed wire, across no-mans-land, killed all the Germans in a machine gun nest, and crawled back for a peaceful night's sleep. There are some Canadians you don't mess with...sometimes we still need them. It put the right kind of fear into the wrong kind of people.

Similar Threads

  1. River City Ransom Lite Review
    By BabyMitchy in forum Computers & Gaming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18-Dec-2014, 08:39
  2. Cost of 24/7
    By Serif in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-Mar-2014, 11:52
  3. 24/7 cost
    By changeme in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 23-May-2011, 19:28
  4. Is FGI the best policy?
    By mizzycub in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 19-Apr-2009, 05:30
  5. Does this cost too much?
    By ScubaSteve in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 20-Feb-2008, 23:39

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.