I was reading about kidnap insurance some wealthy people buy, and how they may hire small military units made of ex-intelligence officers and ex-special forces soldiers to extract someone who is in a hostile situation (maybe caught in a war zone, or a kidnapping victim).
I am sure it varies from country to country, but I also watched the movie All the money in the world about J Paul Getty and his grandson’s kidnapping.
If Bill Gate’s kids get kidnapped and held for ransom in some country (say France), can he just hire a bunch of ex commandos to go rescue his kids, or do the commandos face serious risk of arrest for doing so? THe impression I got from the discussion about kidnapping insurance is that lethal force can and is sometimes used in these operations. How can a bunch of foreign private citizens come into a country and then kill people? When Dog the bounty hunter tried to arrest a rapist in Mexico he ran into serious problems with the Mexican legal system.
I guess I don’t understand how they are able to do these things legally, but since this is a legitimate business, I’m guessing they have to work out an arrangement with the host country letting them know that lethal force could be used.
I’m gonna say it depends quite a bit on the government of the country in question, how powerful it is, how corrupt it potentially is, and what its diplomatic relationship is to the United States.
When two employees of Ross Perot’s company were imprisoned in Iran in 1978, he hired a retired Army general, Arthur D. Simons, to organize a raid to rescue them, which was successful. Simons had previously led a rescue mission to free American prisoners of war in Vietnam, during his military career. Although that mission ultimately failed to rescue them because the prisoners had been moved to a different location, its tactical execution was successful, which presumably inspired Perot to hire the general.
They are not commandos, they are mercenaries, and in just about every country, they would be operating illegally and would run the serious risk of being arrested as terrorists. In most countries, even killing kidnappers would be murder.
That is not to say it couldn’t happen. In your scenario, Gates would do better to hire some local people to do the rescue, although ASFAIK most such rescues end badly.
The French do have cops. And while IAMNAL, I highly doubt they would want their police operation compromised by some unregaluted mercenaries living out their Jack Ryan fantasy. I would expect the French cops to arrest not only the mercenaries and put them to French court, but - depending on the evidence of the company and details of the law - to sue the head of the company and maybe Bill Gates, for giving the orders of “interfering with police operations, carrying weapons illegaly” and so on.
They can, but they usually can not do legally. The question of how much illegal it is, how effectivly the local police can catch them, how corrupt the local police or court system is, how much diplomatic or PR pressure Bill Gates can put on the other country … obviously varies from country to country.
Do the companies say that they will work in every country legally? Or do they promise only to work in one country (e.g. USA) where the legal situation has been cleared?
Do they have local partner companies in other countries, who have cleared the legal situation?
It depends upon how strong the rule of law in the country happens to be. If the situation is in a country like France where the rule of law is strong, then it’s best left to the authorities, perhaps with a helpful telephone call or three. If the situation is in a country like Somalia then they just go in and rescue and shoot anyone who gets in the way.
BTW the way of the UK police is, “We try to bore them into surrender.” (But remember the Iranian Embassy siege.)
So far as I am aware, the consultants who are hired to deal with kidnapping and extortion in various countries are often folks who have a background in the military or police, and most often simply facilitate communication (including with authorities), make logistical arrangements for the freed person to be transported safely, and give advice.
To the extent that such individuals seek to kick down doors, shoot people, and so on, of course that’s generally illegal. And a US person who sponsors violent crime in a third country is very likely subject to extradition, just like a drug dealer who sponsors violence in another country would be.
Not quite the same thing, but in the early 80s a couple of US bounty hunters came to Canada, captured a guy who was wanted in the US, and tried to smuggle him across the border at Buffalo.
All three were returned to Canada: the Canadian was set free without facing charges in the US and the American bounty hunters were convicted in Canada of kidnapping.
WAG, as soon as a crime is committed or suspected, law enforcement is empowered to step in an take control of the crime scene, so would have the authority to obstruct any effort by private police agents.
But that isn’t, strictly speaking, a difference in laws of the countries, but of practical lack of enforcement.
It may be that Somalia actually doesn’t have a law that forbids private foreigners from taking matters in their own Hand if the Police can’t Keep up (because they never got around to that when writing their laws, or changed the law).
Or maybe they do have a law that forbids that (because they copied their law wholesale from the last colonial power at that time), but they currently can’t prosecute foreigners who break the law.
If it’s illegal for paid mercenaries to shoot Kidnappers in Country X, and it’s also illegal in the US to hire People to break the law in Country X, then even if Country X can’t prosecute Bill Gates, an eager US attorney out to make a Name for himself might start prosecuting Gates in the US for breaking US law.
After all, several countries passed laws allowing prosecution of their own citizens if they had child sex in Thailand (and other countries) specifically because Thailand couldn’t/ wouldn’t Keep up with prosecuting all the foreigners, and everybody agreed that child sex was bad, mkay?
I think this misses the issue. For one thing, the US can prosecute anyone who has sex with a “minor” according to US law (under 18), but that doesn’t oblige any country for prosecuting Americans who do not violate their own Age of Consent law, which may be 12 or 14, and in any case is under 18 in nearly every country in the world, including some 40 US states. Second, it’s not a matter of keeping up with the case load. Last I heard, the US had prosecuted only one or two people under that law, and has failed to get a conviction.
I only used it as reference to an existing law where US (and some other western countries) deliberatly passed a law to prosecute crimes done in another Country/ jurisdiction.
Generally, each Country can only prosecute crimes done in their own jurisdiction, because prosecuting crimes done in another Country violates that country’s sovereignity.
So this is an interesting precedence of basically taking matters away from foreign countries - “You are too incompetent/ corrupt/ understaffed to protect your own citizens against criminals, so we will do it”.
Second, the question of practicality is that if some famous Person - like Bill Gates - is kidnapped / has somebody Close to him kidnapped, and pays Mercenaries Inc. for rescue, that is surely going to make a lot more Headlines than John Smith going to Thailand for underage sex. More Headlines = more evidence + more Impetus for some attorney eager for fame.
If John Smith gets kidnapped in Somalia, but has insurance through mercenaries Inc., it’s more likely he gets away with it, both because Somalia won’t prosecute, and because there won’t be Headlines in the US.
If John Smith gets kidnapped in France, and has insurance, he or at least the mercenaries, will more likely get into Trouble with French Police and French Courts.
I wonder how the These contracts are worded in case of state-sanctioned Kidnapping:
Erdogan has imprisoned several journalists, not only Turkish ones, but also foreign nationals (Deniz Yücel - Wikipedia), along with human rights activists from other countries (Peter Steudtner - Wikipedia), under trumped-up charges. Every objective observer knows that basically he is Holding them hostage to get concessions from their respective governments, but on paper, the Police arrested them for aiding terrorism.
Would the “insurance” also get active, or do they only fight against organized crime, not states?
All that I’ve ever read on kidnap/ransom insurance is that it covers things like having an expert advise you on what to do, reimburses you for paying ransom money, covers medical expenses, and the like. I don’t think there’s any standard ‘we will send commandos to rescue you’ policy out there, certainly not in the regular insurance market - they just make monetary payments like most insurance. The Near Impossibility Of Kidnap/Ransom Insurance
The rare rich guy hiring a commando team is not something that’s done with a simple policy that I’ve ever heard of, it’s all going to be one-off negotiations. Anything committed to paper is going to be written by a lawyer for plausible deniability, and a lot of whatever happens will probably have a lot done by local intermediaries. Commandos attempting to invade a country with a solid military and functioning that has diplomatic relations with the US, like France or India are going to have a really bad time, and it’s doubtful you can find anyone willing to do that outside of experienced criminals, and they’re probably going to get caught and arrested. You could, however, work with a private security firm in the country, talk to local law enforcement, bribe local law enforcement (depending on country), all of that is completely legal, and could easily be exaggerated into hiring a team of commandos. In lawless areas like Somalia, countries that the US doesn’t like like Iran or areas that are a mess with semi-legitimate government like ISIS territory in 2015-16, you can get away with a lot more, since there is no one to really catch you, and the US is unlikely to hear any complaints if they figure out where you’re from. There your guy might just put together and send in a commando team of some sort, though you probably still make sure not to officially ‘know’ about what he’s doing.
Thanks for that Information, that makes a lot more sense.
That, too, seems more plausible. A big, professional “security” Company will have legitimate Connections to professional security companies in other countries, who might have contacts to shady informers, who in turn might be able to find some mercenaries for cash only. Orders are passed down through several Levels, where “take care of that Problem” turns into “recover by Shooting”, but nothing is written down, so plausible deniability, and cash payments can’t be traced.
Looking at the practical side, in real life, the Jack Ryan Fantasy of US-based commandos is the worst possible solution: they don’t speak the language, know the culture, or have contacts, so how could they help? Contacting a Company in that Country, who have contacts with the Police to bribe to share Information, would work much better.
The assumption seems to be that foreign Police won’t do anything in a Kidnapping case, which might be true in some rare circumstances - I read an account of a specific South American Country where Kidnappings went according to an established protocol, and as Long as nobody broke the informal rules, nobody was harmed. (Similar to how hijacking of airplanes was handled before 9/11 - give in to the demands, nobody is harmed). In that case, using Police or commandoes would break the rules and actually cause more harm than just paying.
That however does require detailed local knowledge.
If on the other Hand the Kidnapping is motivated by specific reasons, and it’s a modern Country, then the Police will be on it, and the commandoes Need that Information before they can storm the hideout and rescue the hostage. But if the Police have that Information, they will use their own SWAT Teams to storm.
From what Little I hear about western tourists (or Aide workers) kidnapped in Somalia and similar regions, it’s local clan chiefs wanting to earn extra - in which case, diplomats and/or local respect persons start negotiations about the Money.
If it’s ISIS or similar with a violent intent, you still Need local knowledge - guides, informers, etc. - to find the place.
The bottom line, I suspect, if that if you’re kidnapped in a an area without the rule of law, paying the ransom is a far more certain and effective way of getting released unharmed than hiring a bunch of mercenaries - local or foreign - and attempting a rescue by storming. Plus, insurance companies will be much more comfortable about funding a ransom payment than about funding a private army.
Even if you’re taken by people who are motivated by, um, political rather than commercial considerations, payment of money offers far better prospects of release unharmed than a commando operation.
The commando option is only a rational choice where the kidnappers don’t intend to release you at all, and aren’t interested in offers of money.
I disagree: the commando option is the only rational choice if you want to rescue the kidnapped and don’t want any more of your people kidnapped. Remember how no one used to kidnap Soviet personnel? That was because the Soviets took brutal action the first time it happened.
I’m truly surprised people still believe this. It’s mythology right up there with “General Pershing dipped bullets in pigs blood and shot a bunch of Muslim insurgents, and thereby scared all other Muslims into laying down their arms.” Total fabricated nonsense.
Throughout the Cold War, the various groups carrying out acts of terrorism (including kidnapping) generally aligned themselves with the main revisionist power, the Soviet Union. Having various troublemaking groups attacking Soviets makes literally no sense to their broader movement: not only was the Soviet Union generally not their enemy, the USSR was often their patron. Of COURSE attacks on Soviets were not countenanced.
To put it two other ways: Israelis have taken extremely strong action against terrorists who have murdered civilians, kidnapped soldiers, and so on. Has Israel’s military actions stopped the murders and kidnappings? Of course not.
Also, Russia today is known as being absolutely brutal on its opposition, whether we’re talking about former spies being assassinated, or immoral and obscene wars in Chechnya and Syria. Has that stopped the bombings of Russian airliners, murders of schoolkids, and takeovers of theaters? Of course not.
Yes and no. At the time that radical Iranian students took over the US embassy in Tehran, a few days later they also invaded the USSR embassy. The Soviets had a little discussion with government of Iran, and it sent in soldiers to clear out the students. Perhaps, like you suggest, the godless commies pointed out to Muslim fanatics that they were on the same side. Or maybe they said something else.
As for the OP - Mossad agents apparently went through Europe trying to demonstrate to operatives responsible for the Munich massacre during the Olympics why this was a bad idea. Needless to say, the local European countries did not appreciate this although they were apparently unable to catch the perps in the act.
More likely - nobody flies into a random country with a metal briefcase full of high-powered weapons. Presumably any security operation starts with connections with the locals in a position, through training and contacts, to provide the necessary services and deal with any police interactions.
