I wasn’t singing it, afterall. Sounds bad in what way? Perhaps you are reading it in the one way you would want me to say it? I was projecting into the equation the fact that a Muslim-American might reflect a different public opinion–an insult to those who would think so. I might have also said, “It makes no difference to me if he is ultra-wealthy and can afford ransom, he is still an American.” Because as you know, the article loudly dropped the hint he was rich. How many articles end with the phrase, “He attended Exeter Academy…”? It was a loaded piece against the hostage. They made sure we knew he was no missionary.
Marc,
As you know, rational means something here. It implies a rational demand. Have we so nicely stereotyped a terrorist here that they can be both rational and evil? (Also, what about the carpet bombing of Cambodian villages by B-52’s?) Irrational violence is always terroristic, but rational violence is more akin to self-determination or revolution, and dictators will try to demonize these as terrorists. For example, if they chose to ban atheism, or even freedom of religion, and make me a slave in a camp, I would then be a terrorist too. Do you see the circular reasoning of assuming identity here? A terrorist is not “bad” because he/she is a terrorist, he is bad because his demands are irrational (a bankrobber holding hostages, for instance, or the bombing of a federal building in Omaha, or a Nazi bombing a gay bookstore). The test here is that the violence should make no sense to a free society and must be dealt with not as a predictable act, or that would partially contradict the idea of terrorism. When a country labels their marginalized opposition as terrorists, this seems purely Orwellian to me.
If the government came and arrested you and held you for no other reason than to extort money, or get a third party to do something, then yes, that would be terrorism. If the government imprisions you for breaking a law, however unjust the law may be, that is not terrorism.
So it is only kidnapping if it involves ransoming you to a third party?
The government imprisons innocent people all the time. Terrorists often take bad people hostage. Are you just going by percentages to determine which one is rational? But you said being rational or having valid demands isn’t a basis for a moral justification here. I agree with you, but you are making a bold statement.
It sounds bad because the implication of “he is an American and his life should be taken into consideration” is that non-American lives can safely be ignored.
The operating assumption, from the beginning, was carpet-bombing “terrorists”. Nobody questioned the logic of killing innocent villagers, but I was suggesting by implication that using American taxpayer equipment to kill the American hostage before the fact, out of retaliation, is treasonous and unethical. Tom, in which post did you object to the idea carpet bombing again?
I did not object explicitly to the idea of carpet-bombing, though I think it would be wrong in this case (and in pretty much every case I can think of). My objection is based on the fact that it would involve the loss of innocent life, yours on the ground that it would involve the loss of American life. To paraphrase Bentham, the question, for you, seems to be not “Can it think?” but “Is it American?”
If you read my first post in this thread, you will see that I believe that negotiating with terrorists can be a productive strategy.