Andrew Brown is the latest columnist to express some dubious morality – it does appear to be catching. Janet Daley suggesting that torture is okay, and now we have Andrew Brown pontificating in the Groan, suggesting that actually, after all, it isn’t so bad to ransom captives. I really cannot help wondering if the earth’s magnetic field has just switched, affecting all those moral compasses. This isn’t so much moral relativism, as a complete loss of the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, to be drifting without a tiller in a fog bound Atlantic – indeed with cases such as this, the difference is so easy to depict, it beggars belief that people can even consider it okay – even for an intellectual exercise.
Brown’s driving thrust for this is that it has a long history – it was normal in medieval times to hold prisoners for ransom during times of war. Well, yes, it was. However, I would like to think that we’ve moved on a bit since then. These days we don’t simply slaughter the common men at arms when it isn’t necessary, we take prisoners of war and treat them according to the Geneva convention. But, then, the Chandlers were not prisoners of war, were they? They were victims of piracy on the high seas – and if we are going to get all historical about it, the way the Royal Navy dealt with pirates didn’t involve talking nicely to them, it involved rope and a scaffold.
Ransoming prisoners – a practice in the news now because of Paul and Rachel Chandler – has been so common in so many societies that it is odd that we now regard it as immoral.
It is not odd at all, it is immoral. We now realise that keeping slaves – something Brown moves onto in his article – is immoral, but people used to so it. That people used to do it does not change the morality. What has happened is that we have realised that it is inherently wrong and stopped doing it.
Brown’s comparison of the exchange of prisoners of war and slaves is something of a strawman, as what has happened to the Chandlers is neither of these things. They were taken by criminals and kidnapping innocents for a ransom is not the same as taking prisoners who have deliberately put themselves in harms why by taking up arms. That said, yes, the Chandlers were to an extent the victims of their own foolishness. They sailed into a piracy zone, when common sense would have dictated a different course, but that isn’t the point. They are not prisoners of war and they are not slaves. What happened to them was the execution of criminal behaviour.
The ransoming of slaves and prisoners of war can be distinguished from straightforward kidnapping for ransom, which seems always and everywhere to have been despised. But was it necessarily immoral?
Yes, and I’m appalled that someone could pose the question in all seriousness.
The modern objection is that ransoming prisoners is wrong because it provides incentives to the kidnappers.
This is not a moral argument, it is a pragmatic one. The Chandlers release has sent a message to the pirates in Somalia and that message has pound signs plastered across it in bold letters. Despite the family saying that they were not well off, that they were not part of a large corporation and that they did not have the wherewithal, they came up with the moohlah and as such, the pirates will now assume that any Briton passing through the area is a ripe target, despite not being well off. So, yes, damn right it encourages more of the same, and the Chandlers’ release is tempered with that knowledge.
As the article draws to a close, there is some real fuckwittery. Try this, for example:
But it is precisely the fact that ransom is a mark of your individual worth that makes it so heartening for a prisoner, or a slave. The grimmest part of slavery is dehumanisation and the loss of personhood. This is, I think, the deepest reason why slaves and prisoners are in favour of being ransomed. But there is also a much less woolly reason. If a prisoner has no cash value, he might as well be dead, or worked to death.
It isn’t because the slave would prefer to be free, then? I would have though the lack of liberty was the grimmest part, not the fact that someone isn’t paying a ransom to get you back – and, presumably continue the enslavement.
I found it easy enough to agree with your stance on torture without much soul searching.
Torture is always wrong.
Is there a time when it is right?
nope.
That guff about rationalising kidnapping doesn’t even make any sense. It’s like a small child trying to form an opinion.
Did you know that Italy prosecutes and imprisons the relatives of kidnap victims who pay the ransom? Personally, anyone who tried to stop me paying the ransom to release a loved one, had better hope that God has mercy on him, for I surely won’t.
Following the “logic”, theft and anti-social behavior are now so common in our society that it’s odd that we consider them to be immoral.
Brown will be thrilled to know that I’m losing the will to live…..
Paying the ransom. Easy for governments to take a hard stand, but it’s seldom a relative of a member of government that’s being held. One of those things that’s easy to agree with in principle.
First time I was in Mindanao I was worth $2,000,000 to abu sayaf, so I took care to stay in the largely catholic areas as I don’t know anyone who could raise even a fraction of that amount.
If the Americans ever take up piracy, expect to see Brown hollering for the Royal Navy, nuclear submarines, hell, probably an air strike…
Stephen, I didn’t know that, you learn something new every day.
I don’t think it is the place for the state to pay the ransom (for obvious reasons) however, it isn’t their place to actively stop relatives from doing so either. That said, every ransom paid by distraught relatives condemns another victim.
Mark Stein wrote a piece a few years back following the spate of hostage taking n Iraq. His advice to potential kidnap victims was basically, don’t get taken alive. Pack heat, learn how to use it and take as many of the bastards with you as you can. The outcome means no ransom demands and losses to the kidnappers. Harsh, but he had a point. I would not want to have people trying to raise a ransom for me if I was taken. I would much rather a rescue attempt even if it did mean a risk to my life. Indeed, if I was to travel to a kidnapping hotspot, I’d probably follow Stein’s advice and go armed.
“First time I was in Mindanao I was worth $2,000,000 to abu sayaf, so I took care to stay in the largely catholic areas as I don’t know anyone who could raise even a fraction of that amount.”
Hell, Maaarrghk, all your friends and family don’t have a cent between them, that’s rough, maybe you should go into the ransom business.
The issue of paying ransom is a bit like the death penalty. The government should be not involved (in anything) but if someone took away those I hold most dear then they can look forward to a long and painful death if I get hold of them. Similarly, I’d do anything I could to get back those I love and if that includes breaking laws against paying ransom, so be it.
But I’m not a criminal Doc.
Regarding going armed and taking as many out as one can, that’s very dependent on the terrain. In a jungle/woodland enviroment there would be a rifle trained on your head from amongst the the trees from the moment your vehicle was stopped. In open sea however you would probably stand some chance of escape by firing on them.
If captured, I would probably look for chances of escape, particularly if I was being moved around, something which the Philippine groups tend to do with their hostages. This actually worked for an Italian Priest last year. He managed to escape while being moved through a crowded market.
The terrain would matter of course. Stein’s advice was relevant to people being snatched from hotels and hostels in Iraq, where a fire-fight would have a decent chance of causing casualties among the kidnappers. That said, even with a rifle trained to your head and killed outright, you deny the kidnappers their ransom and save your loved ones the drawn out anguish of negotiations. This is all from Stein’s assumption that you are dead anyway. In the Iraq situation, that was very much the case. The logical reasoning being that your nearest and dearest are going to have to grieve anyway – might as well be sooner rather than later and at least with the satisfaction of having denied the enemy the opportunity to use you for their nefarious ends.
As for escape, is that not the duty of every Englishman taken prisoner – or was that Colditz? 😉
Paying the ransom. Easy for governments to take a hard stand, but it’s seldom a relative of a member of government that’s being held. One of those things that’s easy to agree with in principle.
Indeed. I was given a security briefing on this very topic by a British security firm two weeks ago, having arrived in Nigeria. Nigeria now tops the rankings of kidnappings per country, thankfully most of them in Port Harcourt and not Lagos where I am.
The advice we were given was roughly as follows:
1. Take steps to minimise the risk of your abduction (these were detailed);
2. Once kidnapped, adjust ASAP and keep your mouth shut. Claim poverty as much as is feasible.
3. Your outside contact, which is the main one the kidnappers will negotiate with, should try to get the price down as low as possible. You should say nothing at all.
4. Agree a price and pay up.
The average demand for 2009 was somewhere in the millions, whereas the average payment was about $10k. The reason is simple: the demand is a pie-in-the-sky figure, it exists only in their imagination. Your offer is real money, and they stand to lose or gain this. This is why the initial demand should not be taken seriously, it is down to the kidnappee’s representative to get the price down and convince the kidnappers that this is all that’s available.
He told us that 98% of kidnappings in Nigeria ended with release of the prisoner, and most lasted 2-3 days. The idea is to not get yourself into the situation, once in you need to get out and if that involves paying, so be it. Just minimise it. Surprisingly, most of the brief was aimed at the locals not expats, as we tend to stay in the safer areas and are better protected. In Lagos, the locals working for the oil companies are the biggest targets, and we had one pinched last year.
The kidnapping in Port Harcourt is a worry, I’ve been here only a month and there have been three boats attacked and hostages taken since I’ve been here. And the head of the Exxon school in Port Harcourt was kidnapped a few weeks ago, her bodyguard and driver being killed in the process. Worrying stuff.
One of my erstwhile clients is trying to fill an audit manager’s job in Lagos. I don’t know if they’ve filled it yet, but certainly earlier in the year there were no takers. Wonder why?
Excellent advice and information from Tim.
LR, I can only speak with any degree of knowledge for the Southern Philippines.
Abu Sayaf – you’re dead so I would hope to be brave enough to take your preferred path.
MILF – you’d have a good chance of getting released alive after paying a ransom, so I’d look for chances of escape.
NPA (Communists) – hang out with them and try to convince that you are a bit of a lefty – they usually only take hostages for publicity and seldom kill. Often hostages are released without ransom being paid.
Trouble is, you have no idea really which group is trying to abduct you until they have actually done so.
I think the Colditz thing only applied to RAF air crew – they took far more to train than the PBI.
Interesting point is that Boris Johnston, Mayor of London, in the SAME NEWSPAPER, is violently disagreeing with Daley, and saying torture is wrong.
Daley is just a fuckwit, because on previos occasions, she has gone on about moral certainties – involving religion, OF COURSE …
‘Nuff said
Just been speaking to a chap whose son is an Engineering Officer on a Royal Navy ship in Somali waters. Interesting.
Apparently, we do not use live ammo on pirate vessels, only water cannon.
If we catch any, the gang usually consists of a leader in his early 20’s and half a dozen lads in their mid-teens. They usually ask to be put in one of our nice English prisons, but generally just get dropped of in Mogadishu and told to be good little pirates in future.
Apparently the Navies tactics are now to locate pirate vessels, ask any Russian Navy vessels in the area for assitance and then take a “circular” route to the pirates location.
The idea being that the Russians get there first and blow the buggers out of the water.
Well, we can’t just go around soaking pirates with our water cannon willy nilly. Getting them wet could violate their human rights.
Best just let Ivan handle it.