Last night on network television, the movie “Air Force One” was shown, and reminded me of some questions that were raised in my mind when I saw it (not last night, but during the original theatrical release.) I will summarize the plot to the best of my recollection, emphasizing the points relevant to my post. (Since I haven’t seen it recently, I might have made a few mistakes in my summation.)
We see the president of the USA declaring that he would not give in to terrorists, even if they threaten to execute hostages. He then boards Air Force One along with his family for the flight home. Russian terrorists hijack the plane, but the president manages to hide and uses a cellular phone to communicate briefly with the White House. The secretary of defense and the vice-president debate over whether the secretary of defense is in charge (because the president is unavailable and this is a military situation) or the vice-president is in charge (the attorney general argues that since his family is kidnapped, the president is under duress, therefore incapacitated, and when he is incapacitated the VP is in charge.) The terrorists kill a few hostages (including one hostage shot trying to get the president to come out of hiding, but the president does not turn himself in.) The terrorists threaten to kill his daughter (a child) and he agrees to negotiate with them. Of course, everything ends well.
My questions:
[ul][li]In the movie, officials at the White House discuss whether or not to negotiate with the terrorists. The vice-president says “What, would you let them kill the hostages? Including the president?” Why is the president more important than the other hostages? In a democracy, is such a situation morally defensible?[/li](My answer: if the president’s family is taken hostage, he is no longer qualified to make decisions and should be replaced by the VP. The fact that the president is taken hostage should be no more of consequence than if any other american citizen is taken hostage.)
[li]The president does not turn himself in when a member of his staff gets shot, but negotiates to prevent his family from being killed, something that he stated (at the beginning of the movie) should not be done (giving in to terrorist demands.) Of course, no one is perfectly moral, and one cannot really blame him for wanting to save his family. But what would an ideal chief executive do? Is it hypocritical to say “Hostage lives are not a sufficient reason to negotiate”, but then turn around and do the opposite when the hostages are members of your family?[/li](I argue that in this case a president should step down and forego making any decisions.)
[li]From a governmental point of view, I could see that the lives of citizens of the country should be paramount. But from a moral point of view, are we really justified in saying that “Joe Smith’s life is more valuable to the USA than Jane Doe, because Joe Smith is a citizen and Jane Doe isn’t?” What are the acceptable criteria for “ranking” the value of a life for policy, legal, ethical decisions?[/li](I don’t have any easy answers here.)
[li]What is the difference between a guerilla shooting a hostage and a country bombing a civilian target? (e.g. Hiroshima) Is the difference because the guerilla does not have government sanction? What then, if the guerilla is acting with the blessing of his government? Does he then become a soldier, and is the act justifiable by the “rules” of war?[/li](Again, I don’t have an easy answer.)[/ul]
(Geez, still haven’t seen that movie. In a digression, i’ve been so removed from movie news that when I see the top ten box office grosses, I take the name of the film and try to guess what it’s about. It’s not that hard, but I was surprised to learn ‘Analyze This’ wasn’t a John Stagliano movie. Guess I should learn to spell. Anyways.)
In reverse order…
I think most people have concluded that an actual nuclear war would be a terribly immoral thing, not just terrible in terms of loss of people/material/so on. In fact, several weapons judged to be of rather indiscriminant destruction have either been banned or has had its use limited by international convention because it can cause the deaths of innocents. Poison gas is one good example, another one is that napalm is not supposed to be used in situtations where it would cause excessive risk to civilians (but I forget exactly how the treaty draws the line).
Even still, there is a difference in dropping dumb bombs on a city and an individual firing at non-combatants: while the former may be morally questionable, the latter can be generally regarded to be immoral in that a defenseless person is deliberately and exclusively being targeted. If the person aiming the firearm is a soldier, that would be considered murder, not conduct of warfare, and hopefully would be prosecuted in accordance with international law. If the person is not a soldier, he/she wouldn’t be afforded any ‘protection’ (term used lightly) by international law and thus ought to be subject to whatever criminal law applies.
Questions three and two lead directly to the underlying question of whether a policy of non-negotiation (when actually adhered to, not just a statement for effect) is either morally defensible or practical. There have been tons of instances where a policy of no negotiation with (blank) have been covertly disregarded because there was a practical imperative, such as John Major’s secret negotiations with the IRA in the early 90s.
In practical terms, I think it always makes sense to negotiate unless you have a much better alternative. One can hold negotiations so that the other party is not necessarily afforded the status of an equal party, thus recognizing the legitimacy of violence or threats in a conflict. For example, the US does not formally recognize the government of North Korea, but will negotiate with it in an unofficial manner in order to try to get the DPRK to drop its nuclear program. I think that’s a wise move, and since someone will inevitably bring this up, yes, I do think negotiations with Hitler in 1939 was a good idea independent of the way the negotiations concluded.
The first two issues can easily be explained away because they’re from a movie. That is just some screenwriter’s view of what happens when VIPs are kidnapped. Fiction.
Every human life is worthy, in fact this is the reason why that standard policy is not to deal with the demands of terrorists. Kidnapping and holding for ransom something so valuable is just too easy. Of course, terrorists have the upper hand are usually dealt with. I would think the person who decides which lives are worth more in a hostage situation, and allowing the murder of “lesser” people is asking for some serious jailtime.
In a war is there really a non-civilian target? How about the firebombing of Dresden which killed a whole lot more people? Does a draft notice suddenly make you fair game for the enemy, especially from a government you despise? I wouldn't think so, the rules of war are really deigned to protect prisoners-of-war, when each side has something to gain. War is a socially accepted tradition while guerilla warfare and terrorism are largely despised by all governments. Of course, morally they're just as wrong.
Well, Erik Raven and HorseloverFat seem to have differing opinions on how to deal with terrorists, if I read the posts right. Or maybe it’s only a difference in detail. Erik Raven says “try to negotiate”, HorseloverFat says “no negotiations”, but obviously some form of discussion has to take place, if only to say “You’d better release those people now.”
Let me put two hypothetical situations before you.
a) Terrorist group kidnaps mayor of (large american city here), asks that prisoner X be released.
b) Terrorist group kidnaps president of the USA, asks that prisoner X be released.
Should those two cases be treated identically by the government officials that are negotiating with the terrorists? I say yes. Of course, case b) will get a lot more publicity, but in principle it’s the same situation as case a).
Arnold the key issue is “what is the incentive effect of this attitude?” Almost always, it will appear that “giving in” results in an outcome less bad than “not giving in” (otherwise, what is the threat?)
The general problem here is that an history of succumbing to demands encourages such demands. Unhappily, an history of refusing such demands merely invites people to test your resolve in ever more exterem cases.
If you allow terrorists to kill people from your country, they feel that they can get away with it. Then they will take more people hostage. Your country sees that you are not punishing killers. So your citizens decide that if the terrorists can get away with it, so can they. Killing happens, and anarchy descends. Of course, this is all blown out of proportion, but it could happen.
I agree that negotiating with terrorists is counter-productive. I also think that the reverse is true. If I were holding hostages, I wouldn’t negotiate with a trained negotiator. I would only speak to a regular cop, or better yet, a civilian.
If I were forced to make an ethical decision, I might make it based on age. Starting with the oldest hostages and saving the children. If I were forced to choose through some sick joke ( pick 1 or 10 die ). I do not think that my eldars are not valuable. I would merely be basing it on life expectancy saved.
Well, I’m not sure exactly what I would do in this situation, of course.
It’s not clear from your post 2sense, but I’m assuming the decsion-maker you’re envisaging being is the negotiator, not the hostage-taker(!)
Crucial to the hostage-taker is that such choices are available to the negotiator. Crucial to the negotiator is that the hostage-taker knows that such choices are not available to the negotiator.
The ethical choices you talk about are hiding underneath every decision you make. It is not considered polite to talk about them.