News Should the USA Ever Negotiate with Terrorists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter wasteofo2
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the complexities of the U.S. policy of not negotiating with terrorists, particularly in hypothetical scenarios where a reasonable demand could be made, such as a ransom of $100 for a hostage. Participants explore the moral and strategic implications of adhering to this policy, weighing the potential loss of lives against the risk of setting a precedent that could encourage further terrorism. Arguments are made that negotiating, even for small amounts, could undermine U.S. credibility and embolden terrorists, while others suggest that not negotiating could lead to unnecessary loss of life. The conversation highlights the difficulty in determining the reasonableness of terrorists and the subjective nature of such assessments. Ultimately, the debate reflects the tension between saving lives in the short term and maintaining a firm stance against terrorism in the long run, with no clear consensus on the best approach.
wasteofo2
Messages
477
Reaction score
2
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?

Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's a tough question, no simple answer. It would be hasty to say that no negotiation is necessarily the one best answer, but it has it's pros and cons, and at some point you have to decide on a strategy. In reality, you probably have to just try out strategies and do what works best. Now, negotiating sets a bad precedence. After all, what if the person says, "I want $100 more." Or what if one person asks for 100, gets it, and the next asks for 200, the next terrorist asks for 500, 1000, 1 million, etc. Also, someone might want to look at the pros and cons of terrorism, i.e. the pros are that you might get the ransom, the cons are that you might get killed/caught. A no-negotation policy eliminates any chance that the terrorist will have any pros in choosing terrorism.

However, a terrorist might want to call your bluff. He might say that I have a man hostage, I just want $100. He thinks that you won't really stick to your ideals. Would you be better off having sent the message to terrorists that you won't negotiate with terrorists, and will have lost, say 10 lives, or are you better off with 10 lives, having lost $100 and lost credibility when you say that there are no pros for terrorists? It's hard to just say that the human lives are worth maintaining credibility, but in the long run, credibility might be what saves more humans. Again, on the other hand, despite this policy there is still terrorism. What if every idiot tries to call your bluff? Then, in the name of maintaining credibility, you will just keep losing lives (because some terrorists will not think you're credible no matter what).

So basically:
no-negotiation: maintains credibility which may save later lives, but only works if future terrorists really take your credibility into account.
negotiation: saves lives, this is a key bonus, but loses plenty of money and of course maybe even some lives, allows terrorists to disrupt life and gives them no reason to avoid terrorism.

If terrorists are expected to be reasonable enough (and take credibility into account), then we shouldn't negotiate, if they are not reasonable at all, then we may as well negotiate if the losses are less than the gains. Determining how reasonable terrorists will be is very tough, very subjective, and very complicated, and this is why there is really no clear-cut answer as to what the best approach is.
 
If you say your not going to negotiate with terrorist its obvious that you're referring to tough situations like the one you stated so you should stick by your word. Besides not negotiating will show terrorists not to kidnap your citizens because they won't get what they want. Saving more lives in the long run.
 
Actually the USA government has a history of dealing with those they label terrorists.
 
They don't negotiate with those directly threatening the US or its property or citizens through the use of terror.
 
officially they dont
 
If you give them $100, then they know you can be rolled.

It's like Winston Churchill who wanted to know if a certain woman would sleep with him for a million dollars. When the woman said yes, Winston said that he now knew what she was, all he had to do was figure out the price.

Sorry if I butchered the original story. But I find it directly applicable to the situation.

RE: "no-negotiation: maintains credibility which may save later lives, but only works if future terrorists really take your credibility into account."

You assume a level of reason in terrorists that doesn't exist. They're not looking for credibility in the U.S.'s stance, only weakness. You show them a weakness, and they will try everything to exploit it.
 
We don't negotiate, not even for 100 bucks.

That doesn't meant hat private agents, speaking on behalf of the government, don't go in and try to broker a deal.
However, as we have seen, negotiating at any public or large payoff is out of the question - as it should be.
 
  • #11
You assume a level of reason in terrorists that doesn't exist. They're not looking for credibility in the U.S.'s stance, only weakness. You show them a weakness, and they will try everything to exploit it.

A terrorist with nothing to lose will not care if you show weakness, he will try to make a weakness. You have innocent lives to lose, certain terrorists have nothing to lose, so a no-negotation policy won't help in this case.
 
  • #12
Adam said:
Actually the USA government has a history of dealing with those they label terrorists.

hehehe... good point, retrospectively...

i guess it's all about putting a price on human life... say we were to put a decent price of about 2000$ on a mans head and maybe 2200-2500$ for a woman or a child (remember, it's all about public oppinion)..
how about half a barrel of oil? there seems to be a market for life in exchange for oil and wealth these days...

i think you should check with halliburton to see what the price is up to now...
 
  • #13
RE: "A terrorist with nothing to lose will not care if you show weakness, he will try to make a weakness."

In terms of giving into demands, terrorists cannot make that weakness. Only by caving into demands can the weakness appear.

RE: "You have innocent lives to lose, certain terrorists have nothing to lose, so a no-negotation policy won't help in this case."

But terrrorists operate because they think we can be rolled. And by giving into demands (no matter how small), we will prove them right.


RE: "I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair"

Irrelevant, since the Contras did not attack the US and were not using terror to extort the US. (And I am not sure it would be correct to call the Contras actual terrorists without applying the same label to every Rebel group in the world. Insurgency is a nasty business.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
RE: "i guess it's all about putting a price on human life... say we were to put a decent price of about 2000$ on a mans head and maybe 2200-2500$ for a woman or a child (remember, it's all about public oppinion).. how about half a barrel of oil? there seems to be a market for life in exchange for oil and wealth these days..."

Why do I get the impression that we could talk about water skiing and you would somehow, some way, insert the oil conspiracy argument?
 
  • #15
JohnDubYa said:
RE: "i guess it's all about putting a price on human life... say we were to put a decent price of about 2000$ on a mans head and maybe 2200-2500$ for a woman or a child (remember, it's all about public oppinion).. how about half a barrel of oil? there seems to be a market for life in exchange for oil and wealth these days..."

Why do I get the impression that we could talk about water skiing and you would somehow, some way, insert the oil conspiracy argument?

i have absolutely no doubt, that the war on iraq wasn't for oil related gains, so shut up smartass...
 
  • #16
balkan said:
i have absolutely no doubt, that the war on iraq wasn't for oil related gains, so shut up smartass...

Why should he shut up because of your mere state of belief? Who elected you?
 
  • #17
selfAdjoint said:
Why should he shut up because of your mere state of belief? Who elected you?

I vote that balkan should have position of Official Minister of Truth. After all, he has no doubt, that's more than good enough for me, since I have some doubts. He seems like a strong, decisive leader.
 
  • #18
i have absolutely no doubt, that the war on iraq wasn't for oil related gains, so shut up smartass...

Are you insane? Of coarse it was for oil! Atleast Bush Senior had the fortitude to come out straight with the American people and tell the truth when he first wanted to invade Iraq. Saying we should attack Iraq for the oil, of coarse the American people didn't buy it. So then he changed his story and said: "oh let's go in for democracy!" And the American people bought it. So now Junior is just saving some time and lying to us straight up.

America could careless about the freedom of some colored third world country. If we did care then why did we just invade Iraq only? There are several other countries the US could have attacked that where just as oppressed as Iraq and a far bigger threat to the US, except they didn't contain oil reserves!
 
  • #19
RE: "Atleast Bush Senior had the fortitude to come out straight with the American people and tell the truth when he first wanted to invade Iraq. Saying we should attack Iraq for the oil, of coarse the American people didn't buy it. So then he changed his story and said: "oh let's go in for democracy!"

Refresh my memory: When did Bush Sr. ever say anything about democracy?

RE: "America could careless about the freedom of some colored third world country. If we did care then why did we just invade Iraq only?"

We helped attack Serbia in order to support Muslims that were being oppressed. How much oil does Serbia have? What exactly did we gain out of that ordeal?

I fail to see how the Iraqi invasion was all about oil. Our oil prices are higher now than they were before the invasion. Exactly how much oil did we get out of this deal? And where is it?

RE: "There are several other countries the US could have attacked that where just as oppressed as Iraq and a far bigger threat to the US, except they didn't contain oil reserves!"

I don't know of any country that is/was as oppressed as Iraq. Saddam Hussein was brutal beyond belief. But if you want to offer an example we can argue the point.
 
  • #20
JohnDubYa said:
Why do I get the impression that we could talk about water skiing and you would somehow, some way, insert the oil conspiracy argument?

Well DUH! The government wants you to go water skiing because when you drive the boat that's takes gas and the government wants you to spend all your money on gas! :smile:
 
  • #21
JohnDubYa said:
RE: "I repeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair"

Irrelevant, since the Contras did not attack the US and were not using terror to extort the US. (And I am not sure it would be correct to call the Contras actual terrorists without applying the same label to every Rebel group in the world. Insurgency is a nasty business.)

Ah, so now the mighty "The USA NEVER deals with terrorists!" has become "Well, except for THOSE ones, and maybe a few others..."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
RE: "Ah, so now the mighty "The USA NEVER deals with terrorists!" has become "Well, except for THOSE ones, and maybe a few others..."

That was never the issue. Here, we are considering whether or not it is wise to give into terrorist demands when they have placed something you value in jeopardy. I fail to see any connection between this situation and the Iran-Contra affair.

Now, if the Contras had taken American hostages and demanded weapons in exchange, then the situation would be relevant to this discussion.

Besides, no one has shown yet that Contras were terrorists, or that we knew they were terrorists at the time of the Iran-Contra deal.
 
  • #23
Yay. Semantics.

In short, when gunmonkeys kill innocent people, you are dividing them into: those who the USA has labelled terrorists, and those who the USA hasn't labelled terrorists. Conventiently, the ones the USA deals with are not labelled terrorists. Whether they do the same thing is irrelevent. In fact, it's just fine if those the USA deals with (such as Idi Amin) kill as many people as they like, so long as the USA is the one dealing with them. That makes them good guys.
 
  • #24
selfAdjoint said:
Why should he shut up because of your mere state of belief? Who elected you?

lemme see? because he immidiately generalized me when i mentioned the word "oil"? i merely revealed that his generalization was untrue and quite offensive... read his post, then read my response and then quitcher' whining.

wasteofo2 said:
I vote that balkan should have position of Official Minister of Truth. After all, he has no doubt, that's more than good enough for me, since I have some doubts. He seems like a strong, decisive leader.
i respect that doubt you have, I'm quite sure you have good reasons, but see my response above and quitcher' whining... :wink:

now, to elaborate: i don't think the amount of money the administration could get on the oil from iraq (most of the oil is reserved for the country itself, actually... usa just gets very good deals...) reflects the insane cost of the war itself... the american people will pay for the war of course, but that's another matter...
what i do believe, know actually, is, that since the war, shrubs buddies (some of them are even in office right by his side, go figure... ;) ) have gotten million $ industrial deals in iraq... huge, lucrative business deals...
so i don't believe it's about oil in particular, but i highly suspect that money is involved...

satisfied? :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • #25
JohnDubYa said:
RE: "Ah, so now the mighty "The USA NEVER deals with terrorists!" has become "Well, except for THOSE ones, and maybe a few others..."

That was never the issue. Here, we are considering whether or not it is wise to give into terrorist demands when they have placed something you value in jeopardy. I fail to see any connection between this situation and the Iran-Contra affair.

Now, if the Contras had taken American hostages and demanded weapons in exchange, then the situation would be relevant to this discussion.

Besides, no one has shown yet that Contras were terrorists, or that we knew they were terrorists at the time of the Iran-Contra deal.

Terrorists in Lebanaon, funded by Iranians, kidnapped Americans. Iranian agents, acting as if they were independent negotiators brokered a deal. America would sell weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the hostages.

That the US used the proceeds of the illegal sale to illegally fund the contras is not the point. The point is the US sold weapons to the sponsors of terrorists.

Njorl
 
  • #26
Back to the topic at hand (Adam has led you guys waaay OT. Don't follow him.)...
wasteofo2 said:
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?

Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.
Actually, its a pretty simple question and it has a simple answer: No - even if we do find a "reasonble terrorist" (if that's not a contradiction in terms, I don't know what is), we should not negotiate with them. In fact, the more reasonable, the less you should negotiate with them - negotiation encourages future acts of terrorism by making it succeessful/profitable.

Two examples:

In the 1970s and 80s, there were a lot of airplane hijackings, mostly in Israel. It was the tactic of choice. But it has stopped. Why? The Israelis virtually never negotiated and the terrorists pretty much always ended up dead, without any of their demands being met (generally, the demand was 'release my buddy from prison'). The terrorists learned that it was a bad idea and largely stopped.

Kidnapping for ransom in the US: It used to be pretty big. When was the last time you heard of one? The reason, is the FBI is relentless in the pursuit of kidnappers and they almost never succeeded. Message sent/received.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
Reasonable men are not terrorist. Negotiating with a terrorist organization increases their status and provides them with an excellent sounding board for recruiting new members. Negotiating with terrorist makes a sovereign nation look submissive and emasculated.
 
  • #28
Actually, Israel negotiates with terrorists on a regular basis. They frequently exchange prisoners for their soldiers, or even the remains of their soldiers.

Policy is useful as a deterrent, but it should not be a straightjacket. Pay the $100 if you think it will really get the hostage back. Then, make sure it costs the terrorist organization a lot more than $100. Every recovered hostage is a source of intelligence. If terrorists want to shoot themselves in the foot, we should not let our policy stop them. Yes, giving into terrorist demands encourages more terrorism, but when exploiting terrorist's stupidity outweighs that damage, it should be done. When the dumbass who demanded $100 gets tracked down and captured, he will not inspire more terrorism.

Njorl
 
  • #29
RE: "That the US used the proceeds of the illegal sale to illegally fund the contras is not the point. The point is the US sold weapons to the sponsors of terrorists."

Sorry if I misunderstood the point.

But wasn't Reagan roundly criticized for allowing this deal to take place? Wasn't that because the US was perceived as having violated its policy of not negotiating with terrorists?

I will give another example to russ' point: The terrorist activity we had in this country during the late 60s/early 70s. Groups like the SLA never got what they wanted, and the public never supported them. So these groups pretty much vanished.
 
  • #30
wasteofo2 said:
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?

Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.

What if they gave the terrorist $100, and they still killed the hostage? Then what happens next? :confused:
 
  • #31
russ_watters said:
Back to the topic at hand (Adam has led you guys waaay OT. Don't follow him.)...

Actually I have been 100% ON topic. The topic is whether the USA negotiates with terrorists. They do. Simple. I'll provide a list later if people want it.
 
  • #32
Wrong Adam.

wasteofo2 said:
I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists, but what if there were a really reasonable terrorist? Like another USA soldier or whatever is kidnapped, videotaped, and a ransom of something petty is given, just to see if the USA would bend to their will at all? Say a terrorist wanted $100 for the life of a USA soldier, wouldn't the guy who said "NO NEGOTIATION!" be hated amongst all americans if the hostage was killed because he didn't even want to try giving the terrorists $100?

Of course no terrorist would ask for $100, they all want total troop withdrawl, just a random hypothetical.

He didn't ask whether or not the US negotiates with terrorists. He asked whether or not, in this hypothetical situation, the US should negotiate with these terrorists.
 
  • #33
And integral to the opening post is the part "I know that the USA has a policy of not negotiating with terrorists" which is false. The answer to the question must be based on history, on real world knowledge, not on patriotic mumbo-jumbo. The real world shows us that yes, the USA will negotiate with terrorists.
 
  • #34
That isn't false. The US does have that policy. Whether or not all US leaders have adhered to the policy is another matter for another thread. You still haven't answered his question.
 
  • #35
1) The policy is false.

2) Yes, I have. History shows that the answer is "yes".
 
  • #36
Adam, using your logic no policy could ever be violated, because as soon as the policy is violated it could be said to never exist.

"We have a policy of no smoking in the men's room."

"You have no such policy."

"Why do you say that?"

"I'm smoking in the men's room right now. So no such policy exists."
 
  • #37
Please let me know who provided Saddam with the best weapons in Iran-Iraq war ?
 
Last edited:
  • #38
Saddam wasn't known as a terrorist at the time. And he was fighting the people we considered at the time to be the real terrorists. The lesser of two evils, or so it appeared at the time.

Besides, we had no interest in either an Iran or Iraq victory. We supported Iraq just enough to keep the Iranians from winning.

But the answer to your question is "mostly the French and Russians." I am not aware of any US made tanks or aircraft used in the war, although I have not studied it.
 
  • #39
JohnDubYa said:
Adam, using your logic no policy could ever be violated, because as soon as the policy is violated it could be said to never exist.

"We have a policy of no smoking in the men's room."

"You have no such policy."

"Why do you say that?"

"I'm smoking in the men's room right now. So no such policy exists."

Are you incapable of reading? I clearly said that the policy exists. I also said that it is false, since the government with that policy does not abide by it.
 
  • #40
So the policy exists but is false... right... Let's just keep it at the policy exists and get back on topic.
 
  • #41
JohnDubYa said:
Saddam wasn't known as a terrorist at the time.

Not to the Americans anyway. I'm sure the Iranians could have said a few things about him. A terrorist should be a terrorist to every nation.
 
  • #42
Omid said:
Please let me know who provided Saddam with the best weapons in Iran-Iraq war ?

His tanks were Russian and his jets were French.

Njorl
 
  • #43
jimmy p said:
Not to the Americans anyway.

Ummm, nor the English either sir.
 
  • #44
Adam said:
2) Yes, I have. History shows that the answer is "yes".

The question isn't would the US violate the policy. The question is should the US violate its policy in the hypothetical situation introduced? Do you even have an opinion on the matter? If not, what the hell are you doing in this thread? Aren't there enough threads for you to spread your hatred of the US?
 
  • #45
Adam, if you are going to be blunt, choose your words carefully. A statement like "the policy is false" makes little sense.

Thanks, loseyourname. Expressed my sentiments exactly.
 
  • #46
loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem. My opinion has been stated. And no, I do not hate America.

JohnDubYa: I always choose my words carefully. I said precisely what I meant.
 
  • #47
I always choose my words carefully. I said precisely what I meant.

Then the problem resides in your unclear thinking.

Sorry, but the statement "The policy is false" makes no more sense than "The policy is true." What the Hell is a false policy? A true policy?
 
  • #48
Adam said:
loseyourname: You also must have a reading problem. My opinion has been stated. And no, I do not hate America.

You must have a problem with being a little a-hole with nothing constructive to say. I re-read every post you made to this thread. You continually say that the US does and will negotiate with terrorists. The question is should they in the situation presented, something you have yet to address. Instead you've turned the thread into yet another fight between you and everyone who doesn't hate the US. As if there aren't enough of those already.
 
  • #49
Adam said:
Actually I have been 100% ON topic. The topic is whether the USA negotiates with terrorists. They do. Simple.
No, Adam, rerad the first post. The question was should we, not do we. Besides - most of us will stipulate that at some times we have. It just isn't relevant to the question of whether or not we should.

---------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I couldn't this thread back for you, wasteofo2 - did you read my response?
What if they gave the terrorist $100, and they still killed the hostage? Then what happens next?
An issue I didn't address and another good reason why you shouldn't negotiate with hostage takers. Whether the hostage-takers get what they want or not, a hostage is a witness whose existence is dangerous to the hostage-taker. There isn't much incentive to let the hostage live. The next hostage-taker, seeing this, will follow suit.

Now, you may try to bluff the hostage-taker. That's fine. But you shouldn't ever actually give into their demands.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
JohnDubYa said:
Then the problem resides in your unclear thinking.

Sorry, but the statement "The policy is false" makes no more sense than "The policy is true." What the Hell is a false policy? A true policy?

A policy espoused by a state, which is not adhered to by that state. It's really quite clear.
 

Similar threads

News Is Not Negotiating the Best Strategy in Hostage Situations?
Replies
7
Views
4K
News Is Administrative Detention For Israelis Just?
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Thanks America, we've finally got him.
Replies
2
Views
2K
News War on Terror: Examining the Politics & Morality
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Is a Standing Army Necessary for a Peaceful Future?
Replies
39
Views
6K
News Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
Replies
10
Views
4K
News Is Democracy Worth the Risk of Electing Terrorists?
7
Replies
325
Views
34K
News Troubling Coverage of the Fort Hood Shootings
3
Replies
144
Views
18K
News Nicholas Berg murdered by Americans?
Replies
41
Views
7K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top