Thursday, May 19, 2005

Questions On Hostage Taking

There has been considerable media coverage of an Australian-born contractor who has been taken hostage in Iraq, and the attempts to secure his release. This has made evident two questions that probably have not had the ethical discussion they deserve. So, the Editor decided to post them and hopefully commence the discussion. Firstly, can the taking of hostages, in any situation, be justified ethically? Secondly, should the demands of hostage takers be meet?

5 comments:

Editor said...

The Editor requests that discussion of the detention of alleged drug smugglers in countries other than those of their residence be reserved for a different forum. [At present it is intended for Friday - to correspond with the Corby sentencing in Bali].

Anonymous said...

Ming- hmmmmmm....(slightly disaprovingly said)
Cooly- Agree with most said.
Here's how I see it-
Consider Israel and Palestine. How often do we hear Israeli's terrorists? Hardly ever. How often to we hear the Palestinians called terrorists? Mush more frequently. Yet they both inflict violence on the other, at least an equal amount and probably the Israelis even more so, but they do this differently. the Israeli's carry out their violence in the name of retribution (as do the palestinians) with tanks, a strong, instituitionalised army, guns, rank, mortars, planes, curfews, taxes ra ra ra ra ra. the Palestinians, without these things at their disposal, commit suicice bombings, car bombs, attempts at civil disobedience and the famous shot of throwing rocks at tanks. Both commit crimes against the other, and as a result of resources, the Israeli crimes are generally bigger in size (only in size, not making a value judgment). Yet we rarely hear this called terrorism, but we do hear the palestinians called terrorists. So what exactly is a definition of a 'terrorist'? Seems to have to be a not that well of minority who is named by the rest of the world with no power to object to that name. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't make them all lovely. Sorry, tangenting, but heres the point.
FOr us to call some an act of terrorism, and therefore something hugely morally heinous, it is often un-institutionalised (is that a word?), carried out by a relatively small network of people, and seems messier. For some reason though, we are comepletely happy with what is in effect terrorism if it is state based. It doesn't look the same because money and power is involved. Hostage taking is, as Cooly said, the outlet of the powerless. It is no more morally atrocious a crime as many others, but as it is never the people in power who take hostages, and it is the people in power who said the rhetoric of moral standards, hostage taking is painted as the evil cowardly acts of a horrible nation.
I've sort of forgotten the question now, but I think I've said what I wanted. May have rambled so might post of bit of a clarification post later.

Anonymous said...

America, by means of military coercion (war), without substantive reason, effected the sovereignty of a state (Iraq's) by (ii) influencing the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, and therefore an act of terror by their own definition.

Further, the so called international law that was mentioned condemned the actions of america, who is currently holding Sddam Hussein, who should rightly stand trial for crimes against humanity, but is instead being held, effectively as a hostage by the U.S. government, as there seems no legal reason for them to do so. This would mean that (iii) has also been contravened.

And the policy of 'shock and awe' or bombing the crap out of the place indiscriminately amounts to (i).

The AND was exactly what I had considered when I posted it.

Riddle me this: if I repeatedly kicked you in the balls for no reason at all, and then you threw a pebble at me in retaliation, should an ethic encompass my concerns in that I was benefitting at your expense (My pleasure at causing your displeasure) and would like to continue to do so?

If guerrila warfare is a legitimate tactic, then so is 'terror' as what has been labelled terror by the U.S. is essentially the weapons of the enemy, and that is guerrila war.

The war on Iraq was fought because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that went against the legalities of war coming from WWI, but the only side to use Diasy cutters (small nuclear arms that should be considered illegal) was america. But I am not talking about those specific conventions. What I was refering to was in any historical period, there is a dominant military institution dictated (not literally) by the major players, which has traditionally been in the form of pitched battles. Whenever a new tactic/weapon/style of warfare arises, it is often condemned by the military status quo, which currebtly is the americans.

Anonymous said...

What if the laws are wrong??? Isn't there a duty to change them, and, even though I never condone violence, maybe for some that seems to be the only option. How can they act within the laws if it is those laws that are oppressing them. Lets have this chat in person one day. I bet when I call you when you're 40 and you've become a good person you'll feel differently :) hehe

Anonymous said...

Michael said: if enough people want to change the laws they can.

If those people wanting the change are a majority of the wealthy demographic, if they are organised with a reasonable alternative to the said law they are trying to change, if the government allows said people to put forward a bill for change…

In our country for example any change requires kilometres of red tape, millions of trees and lots of frustration. But I suppose if no one tried to change we would be a stagnant society with no beach bathing