Ransom For Kidnapped Family Members

[Big Guy]

Recently, a Canadian was kidnapped in the Philippines, was held for ransom, the ransom was not payed and his head was found in the street.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/head-found-on-philippine-island-as-ransom-deadline-passes-for-canadian-hostages

The official reaction was that when dealing with terrorists, the only safe way is to NOT negotiate. The reason given is that the money will be used to kill others and the act will just encourage more kidnappings.

My first reaction, that of the mind, is that governments must make a stand and the kidnapped should be considered dead when kidnapped.

Then I considered what my reaction would be if it was my spouse, child and/or parent was the victim. I probably would do everything in my power to free them or negotiate to a point where I might be able to gather the funds.

Then I considered just how close a relationship to the victim would require me to change my attitude. An in-law, a cousin, a co-worker, a close fired, a neighbor a ....?

I would appreciate any serious views on this quandary.

[Bonam]

I think the official stance of governments to not negotiate with terrorists is correct. On the other hand, if private individuals want to try to raise funds to ransom their loved ones, that is their own right.

[BubberMiley]

I think the official stance of governments to not negotiate with terrorists is correct. On the other hand, if private individuals want to try to raise funds to ransom their loved ones, that is their own right.

Nobody has the right to fund a terrorist organization. It's a difficult situation but paying ransoms will only lead to more kidnapping.

[Hal 9000]

Nobody has the right to fund a terrorist organization. It's a difficult situation but paying ransoms will only lead to more kidnapping.

I think what Bubber is saying is that rewarding bad behaviour just leads to more bad behaviour and I concur.

However, that doesn't mean we should sit back and do nothing. I think we should unleash hell (to use a cliche) on these people. If it means grabbing a few ISIS dudes (or gals) and publicly executing them - so be it. The high road doesn't work with these people.

[Bonam]

Nobody has the right to fund a terrorist organization.

And yet many western individuals as well as some western governments do pay ransoms. The whole debate of what it really means to "fund a terrorist organization" or to have the right to do that is a bigger one. What of all our trade with and aid to Saudi Arabia, which is one of the main actors responsible for spreading the most fundamentalist versions of Islam which are at the root of a lot of terrorism?

I agree with the idea of "unleashing hell" on terrorists that kidnap Westerners, but the reality is that Western governments are already doing (or not doing) all that it is politically viable for them to do, and one extra kidnapping will not significantly alter this political reality.

[dre]

I think the official stance of governments to not negotiate with terrorists is correct. On the other hand, if private individuals want to try to raise funds to ransom their loved ones, that is their own right.

Not sure if it IS their right. You're not allowed to do business with terrorist organizations.

I agree with the idea of "unleashing hell" on terrorists that kidnap Westerners, but the reality is that Western governments are already doing (or not doing) all that it is politically viable for them to do, and one extra kidnapping will not significantly alter this political reality.

Unleasing hell on folks over there is one of the biggest reasons for the terrorist threats we face in the first place.

Edited April 26, 2016 by dre

[eyeball]

Not sure if it IS their right. You're not allowed to do business with terrorist organizations.

Unleasing hell on folks over there is one of the biggest reasons for the terrorist threats we face in the first place.

Private individuals should be every bit as encouraged to go after western governments and corporations that unleash it.

[Guest]

I agree with those who are against paying ransoms. It is unfortunate for those kidnapped, but paying will only encourage more kidnapping. If there was no chance of a payment, one would assume that eventually the kidnappings will stop.

I'm onboard with the "unleashing hell" option.

[eyeball]

Then you should have a contingency fund in place for the consequences.

[Guest]

Then you should have a contingency fund in place for the consequences.

I do. Taxes.

[eyeball]

What's the name of the fund that's dedicated to compensating Canadian victims of western inspired terrorism? Who signs the cheques they receive and how big are the payments?

[Hal 9000]

Not sure if it IS their right. You're not allowed to do business with terrorist organizations.

Unleasing hell on folks over there is one of the biggest reasons for the terrorist threats we face in the first place.

And what's the reason that gays are being hacked to death (the fashionable thing these days).

[eyeball]

And what's the reason that gays are being hacked to death (the fashionable thing these days).

Religious maniacs - who were disappearing like they're still disappearing here. Unfortunately our policies have contributed to retarding and limiting their society's natural progression towards the same enlightened state we take for granted.

[Shady]

I think the official stance of governments to not negotiate with terrorists is correct. On the other hand, if private individuals want to try to raise funds to ransom their loved ones, that is their own right.

I agree. It means less Canadians targeted for ransom in the future.

[Guest]

What's the name of the fund that's dedicated to compensating Canadian victims of western inspired terrorism? Who signs the cheques they receive and how big are the payments?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant the fund for dropping bombs on people who need bombs dropping on them.

[Big Guy]

I agree. It means less Canadians targeted for ransom in the future.

May I assume then that if your family member - your spouse, your child or one of your parents - was kidnapped by a terrorist, that you would be comfortable with them taking charge of the "case"?

[eyeball]

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you meant the fund for dropping bombs on people who need bombs dropping on them.

No you didn't.

If there was no chance of a payment, one would assume that eventually the kidnappings will stop.

There would be a better chance of that happening if there was a proper accounting of the grievances caused by arming and unleashing dictators and warlords in the region. Then there is the cost of the cocked up attempt (dropping bombs) to clean up our mess which IMHO should include compensation to survivors of unwitting victims of blowback.

Of course if it can be shown that a victim supported the policies leading to the blowback that killed them then compensation would be unwarranted.

[Guest]

No you didn't.

Oh yes I did!

I assumed your:

Then you should have a contingency fund in place for the consequences.

was in response to my:

I'm onboard with the "unleashing hell" option.

Edited April 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

Dre implied the biggest cause of terrorism is our "unleashing hell". I followed with the suggestion unwitting victims go after those who were/are "unleashing hell" for causing the terrorism (blowback) that killed them, hence a contingency fund for these consequences.

I assumed you were capable of keeping up. My mistake.

Edited April 27, 2016 by eyeball

[Guest]

I didn't realise we were already unleashing hell in the Philippines.

But if we have to, I'm okay with them using my taxes, as I said.

We all make mistakes. Don't worry about it.

Edited April 27, 2016 by bcsapper

[eyeball]

Ignorance is no excuse. You should be worried.

[Guest]

Ignorance is no excuse. You should be worried.

I am, but mainly about ants I see around my shed.

[betsy]

Recently, a Canadian was kidnapped in the Philippines, was held for ransom, the ransom was not payed and his head was found in the street.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/head-found-on-philippine-island-as-ransom-deadline-passes-for-canadian-hostages

The official reaction was that when dealing with terrorists, the only safe way is to NOT negotiate. The reason given is that the money will be used to kill others and the act will just encourage more kidnappings.

My first reaction, that of the mind, is that governments must make a stand and the kidnapped should be considered dead when kidnapped.

Then I considered what my reaction would be if it was my spouse, child and/or parent was the victim. I probably would do everything in my power to free them or negotiate to a point where I might be able to gather the funds.

Then I considered just how close a relationship to the victim would require me to change my attitude. An in-law, a cousin, a co-worker, a close fired, a neighbor a ....?

I would appreciate any serious views on this quandary.

There's no guarantee you'd get your loved one, even if you pay the ransom! And I agree with Trudeau on this one.

You don't negotiate, and you don't pay any ransom.

There's another option that nobody talks about: doing it, the Israeli way.

Rescue mission - even if the lives of the hostages are on the line! Work with the Phil government.

If they get rescued, horay! If things go bad.....they're good as dead anyway. Imagine the torture they endure at the hands

of their captors.

Go there and make sure to wipe them (terrorists), all out! Even if we have to hire mercenaries to do it for us.

Money well-spent. You send the message that you don't mess around with Canadians.

200 - 400 Abu Sayyaf members - take them all out - take no prisoners - and do the Philippines a big favor.

Edited April 27, 2016 by betsy

[PIK]

I hope trudeau sees the light now on what is going on. It is time to lead and quit travelling around the world hanging out with young college girls. Time for him to stand up and say I have changed my mind because of these events and am sending 18 bombers back over to finish the job.

[Big Guy]

There are a few critical issues that I do not see addressed here. There are a number of countries who do, as a state, pay ransom for kidnapped individuals. At one time, the American government had a position where they warned that they would prosecute Americans who negotiate on their own, pay the ransom required and bring their relative home. That warning or policy no longer exists.

Most international corporations have a clause in the contracts with its executives, as part of their contract, that they will negotiate and try to satisfy kidnappers to get their executive employees back. All kinds of companies have paid ransoms to the Somalians to get their ships back which had been hijacked and held for ransom.

There also seems to be an association between the reason and method of the kidnapping and the paying of the ransom. The young Canadian who decides he wants to hitchhike through Syria and Afghanistan, knowing of the dangers, and gets kidnapped gains little sympathy for Canadians for his plight. The missionary who walks into deepest Africa to convert those terrorists and is kidnapped also gets little sympathy from Canadians. On the other hand, a Canadian soldier or a diplomat, kidnapped by terrorists while performing their duties has the sympathy of Canadians and would receive support for payment (or some other negotiated settlement) for the return of the individual.

Does anybody really believe that the Canadian (or American or ...) do not negotiate and barter the release of people important to that government?

Should the Canadian and or American governments prosecute individuals, or corporations or businesses who negotiate for and pay ransom for kidnapped victims?