![]() ![]() ![]() Predictably, Republican hawks came after the president in full force. The reactions to the decision to overhaul the policy came swiftly after Obama made the announcement. This was an obvious insult to an already heavy injury that the relatives and friends of US hostages had to endure. France, Spain, Italy and Germany have all reportedly made such payments in the recent past. ![]() Secondly, the US policy has been in stark contrast to some of its European allies, who have regularly engaged in paying ransom to retrieve their nationals. They complained they were being excluded from the process of recovering their family members, and sometimes even bullied and intimidated by government officials. The families of American hostages have publicly criticised the government's handling of their cases. Firstly, the emergence of Islamic State and the widely publicised cases of James Foley's, Steven Sotloff's and Abdul-Rahman Kassig's executions have put the US government's response into the spotlight. The impetus for policy change is two-fold. However, Barack Obama's newly announced presidential directive and executive order make a departure from the previous principle of not communicating and negotiating with captors holding Americans, or helping family members who seek to make concessions. The current US president echoed Reagan today in saying that there will be " no concessions" offered to those who hold hostages. It was Ronald Reagan in 1985 who famously stated, "America will never make concessions to terrorists - to do so would only invite more terrorism - nor will we ask nor pressure any other government to do so."Ī decade later, the Clinton administration issued a fact sheet on international terrorism saying that the US government would not "pay ransom, release prisoners, change its policies or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism". This is a case of art imitating life, given that in the past three decades, successive US governments have tended to broadly subscribe to this principle, albeit with many notable exceptions. It has often been uttered in situations that usually involve government officials refusing to be blackmailed by villains. CHAPTER REFERENCE NOTES, A BIBLIOGRAPHY, AND AN INDEX ARE PROVIDED.President Barack Obama has announced that the US government will communicate with hostage takers, but this is more about increasing transparency than breaking from the past, writes Gorana Grgic.įor anyone who has a penchant for Hollywood blockbusters, the phrase "we don't negotiate with terrorists" might sound very familiar. FINALLY, A CONSIDERATION OF TERRORISM AND GOVERNMENT POLICY LEADS TO SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS ABOUT POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND DOMESTIC CONSEQUENCES: (1) HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS REQUIRE A COORDINATED SET OF PREDETERMINED TACTICS BETWEEN SPECIAL WEAPONS UNITS AND TRAINED NEGOTIATORS (2) THE APPLICATION OF NEGOTIATION TECHNIQUES HAS BEEN MOST SUCCESSFUL IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING INTERRUPTED FELONIES (3) AN OPEN POLICY OF NONNEGOTIATION WILL NOT ACT AS A DETERRENT TO POLITICAL HOSTAGE TAKING (4) TACTICS USED IN HOSTAGE AND BARRICADE SITUATIONS WITH FELONS CAN SUCCEED IN SITUATIONS INVOLVING POLITICAL TERRORISTS IF THE TERRORISTS ARE PRIMARILY INTERESTED IN MAKING A SYMBOLIC STATEMENT AND OBTAINING PUBLICITY (5) THE TYPE OF TERRORISM POLICY A GOVERNMENT WILL BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IS A FUNCTION OF THE POLITICAL CLIMATE A GOVERNMENT CONFRONTS AND (6) THE EXPERIENCE OF BEING A HOSTAGE DOES NOT END WITH A RESOLUTION OF THE SITUATION. THE DILEMMA OF TERRORISM AND THE MEDIA IS REVIEWED COVERING CONSTRAINTS ON A SOLUTION AND PROBLEMS OF MEDIA INTRUSION AND MEDIA DEPICTION OF TERRORIST ACTIONS. ![]() DISCUSSION OF SWAT (SPECIAL WEAPONS AND TACTICS) ENCOMPASSES SWAT'S PHILOSOPHY, RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING, TACTICAL PROCEDURES, PROBLEMS FACING SWAT, AND SWAT AND THE MEDIA. A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROBLEM OF TRANSFERENCE INVOLVES THE PROCESS ITSELF, TRANSFERENCE AS A FUNCTION OF OTHER VARIABLES, THE STOCKHOLM SYNDROME, CHARACTERISTICS OF HOSTAGE TAKERS AND HOSTAGES, HOSTAGE COPING, AND TERRORISTS' DEMANDS. THE CASE OF THE WASHINGTON D.C., HANAFI MUSLIM TAKEOVER OF THE B'NAI BRITH AND OTHER BUILDINGS, IS ANALYZED FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC INFLUENCES, THE POLICE TACTICAL RESPONSE, THE MOTIVATION FOR CAPITULATION, THE VALUE OF NEGOTIATION, AND NEGOTIATIONS AS RITUAL. FOLLOWING AN OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM AS A TYPE OF WARFARE, AN EXAMINATION OF TERRORISM AND DEMOCRACY, AND A DISCUSSION OF TERRORISM AND THE UNITED NATIONS, THE POLICE EXPERIENCE CONCERNING HOSTAGE NEGOTIATIONS IS EXPLORED. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |