[WikiEN-l] The terrorists have won

[Andrew Gray]

2009/7/8 George Herbert <george.herbert at gmail.com>:

> I see where Ken is coming from on this, but there's not a bright line.
>
> One does not immediately do exactly the opposite of what a terrorist
> demands be done, in order to frustrate the value of them issuing
> demands completely.  One example might be, for instance,
> extrajudicially executing prisoners that terrorists demand to be
> released.

I feel we could also mention the notorious situation of a terrorist
faction endorsing one political candidate over another, as I believe
happened quite prominently recently!

> Doing what terrorists demand, in total, encourages them.  Same with
> criminals.  But when lives are at stake there is usually a large grey
> area of various levels of partial cooperation that increases the odds
> of successful survival of the victims.  In that large grey area are
> usually large swaths of cooperation that nobody really feels are
> unethical (i.e., holding discussions / negotiations with the terrorist
> or criminal), large swaths which are commonly done but sometimes some
> people object to (news blackouts, etc), some which are commonly done
> but feel like giving in (paying ransom).

Mmm.

If someone takes a hostage and demands that you not report they've
taken the hostage, you may well do that because it's not the *point*
of their demands - we figure they're going to ask for a million
dollars and a plane to somewhere unpleasant eventually - and it gets
treated by everyone involved as an integral part of the hostage-taking
to some degree. (In cases like this, the ethical issue then becomes to
what extent people should be trying to ensure that others comply with
that process, and how they should represent it to them...)

If they take a hostage and demands you not report something entirely
unrelated to the hostage-taking, it escalates into a demand in its own
right, something to be treated as such, and responded to
appropriately. But it's really not the same as something which is part
and parcel of the "process".

There's an important distinction here - I'm afraid I might not be
getting it across very well, but I think it holds. The information
suppressed here pertained only "to itself", and I find it hard to
consider a situation where that wouldn't be the case *and* we wouldn't
treat it as something to be rejected.

-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.gray at dunelm.org.uk