The Value of Hostages
In warfare hostage-taking to secure an advantage from one's enemy was always a recognized expedient. Sometimes the hostages were released, if the demands of the hostage-takers were realized, sometimes the hostages were killed even if the demands were met.Human beings, after all, are notoriously unreliable when it comes to advantage through the stresses of war, and the fate of those unfortunate enough to land in the brutally angry hands of a bitter enemy is always left to the capricious determination of the choice-maker with the upper hand.
In modern society it isn't considered to be quite on to gamble with the lives of innocent bystanders, civilians, and more to the point civilians who make a deliberate choice themselves, to attempt to be of charitable service to people whom they believe are in need of their help. There are instances, for example, of foreigners bringing their medical services to war-torn countries to assist strangers. And themselves becoming pawns in the hands of unscrupulous war mongers who see in their captives some advantage to themselves.
Threats to murder people who have been apprehended and held captive for blackmail of one kind or another - or just to demonstrate that the 'enemy' has no moral conscience or scruples. And sees it as a kind of righteous jab to film the vicious execution of one whom they despise; for example, a foreign reporter of Jewish extraction, a foreign-aid worker dedicated to alleviating the lives of war-ravaged residents, or foreign-born interlopers considering themselves to be peace-makers - are beyond response.
The different 'sides' in the dispute are informed by their cultural traditions, the accepted social mores of the societies from which they stem. Each 'side' considers themselves to be correct in the manner in which they handle the delicate matter of hostage-taking. The hostage-takers feel they're being practical in taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves, and see nothing amiss in expediting the lives of their prisoners to oblivion.
Their antagonists from a Western-liberal democratic background are aghast at the brutality of their adversaries. It's an instance of "moral asymmetry', as some would have it. Terrorists have a distinct advantage over those who challenge them, where the sacrificing of human life is a serious assault on our values. Whereas there is no moral dilemma for terrorists forsworn to achieve an ideological/religious and territorial ascendancy by any means that appear practical and workable.
When faced with a decision about whether to abdicate one's sensibilities relating to moral principles to the expedience of doing whatever it takes to rescue innocent people from death (or, at the very least, one's own nationals for whom a country has an obligation to extend every conceivable effort to secure their release) a true dilemma looms. Accede to the demands of murderers, and by so doing encourage them to repeat their atrocities because they know they will succeed in any future such endeavours?
After all, by refusing to bargain with those capable of the most gruesomely unwholesome violence, we are admitting that they have the capability to mount an attack on our delicate sensibilities; we are unable to equate with their tactics, to equal their loathsome attacks. But by denying helpless victims used as bartering tools, we also surrender our need to protect the helpless, to come to the defense of the vulnerable under dreadful life-threatening conditions.
It's a dreadful conundrum that dedicated fundamentalist jihadists never have to face.
Labels: Terrorism
posted by Pieface @ Sunday, August 05, 2007
<< Home