Should hostages pay the costs for liberation themselves?

Forums: International News
Email this Topic • Print this Page

After the release of the 14 European tourists held for months by Islamic extremists in the Sahara desert, their is a discussion going on (in Germany) about paying back the costs.

Traditionally, the West German government has taken a hard line against kidnappers' demands. That led in some cases to hostages being killed, such as Hans-Martin Schleyer (picture), the industrial leader kidnapped in 1977 by Red Army Faction guerrillas. Schleyer was shot by his abductors after the government refused their demands to free imprisoned RAF members.

But the German stance shows signs of softening. Newspapers have reported that the German government paid nearly one million dollars in ransom in 2000 for a German woman who was being held in the southern Philippines.

And now, Germany has warned the 14 European tourists released by kidnappers in the Sahara desert last week against selling their stories for profit.
The German foreign ministry said the costs associated with their liberation were considerable and the former hostages should consider signing over fees to the state.

What do you think about this?

links:
Should taxpayers pay for release of Sahara hostages?

Profit warning for German hostages

The price for the hostages' release

Sahara Hostages Freed

German Press Review: To Pay or Not to Pay?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 696 • Replies: 9

No top replies

Er, on the face of it Walter, the idea that the hostages should pay for their liberation seems very harsh.

Do the people who think they should have reason to believe that the people were reckless in endangering themselves, or something?

Somewhat similar discussions come up here in Australia sometimes, in relation to the lone, round the world sailors and racers and such. Their rescues cost the nation huge amounts of money - sending ships huge distances, having aircraft search for days etc. The argument there is that, unlike people travelling by sea in more normal circumstances, these people know that they are risking their lives and that the need for expensive rescues are not uncommon. I guess there is a subscript of a feeling that the are rich, too.

0 Replies

Well, our Ministry for Foreign Affairs didn't give exactly a warning but asked people to evaluate carefully their security and safety before traveling to Algeria.

Generall opinion is that those tourists have been "adventure tourists" and thus ...

0 Replies

Hmmm Walter, this is a tough one. I am totally ambivalent on this. If a person went hiking in the mountains, and got caught in a storm, or their boat swamped, no one would expect them to pay for their rescue.

I might look at it this way. The US State Department publicizes a list of places in the world where they believe that it is unsafe for Americans. If someone went there for an "adventure", and were captured, tough. They were warned in advance, and should be liable for their rescue.

In any other scenario, I would suppose that the government should not expect to be reimbursed for the rescue.

I am still not 100% happy with my "take" on this, and would like to hear other opinions.

http://travel.state.gov/

0 Replies

Well, it's not only the money paid for the rescue teams, but especially the money (although no-one will officially confirm this) paid to criminals/terrorists.

0 Replies

So - it is thought the government has changed policies? But - they naturally do not wish kidnappers to know this...mmmmmm. Tough call.

0 Replies

People are starting to be charged fees for their rescues when they have mountain-climbing, canoeing etc. misadventures. It sort of makes sense to me, as does paying for rescue from the effects of being an adventure tourist in general. I've been debating (internally) where the line should/could be drawn for some time.

0 Replies

What if a government's prior willingness to pay ransom were made out to be the cause of the current kidnapping? Maybe the government has a responsibility to the victums.

Just kidding with a serious subject. New legal theories are fun to invent. I'll have to think about this one.

0 Replies

Isn't this what 'society' is supposed to do? Protect the masses, support the culture, propigate the whole? It's sad to me to think that things might go that way. However, if they turn around and make a profit on the deal, well, maybe the entity doing the saving should recieve a cut - 30%?

0 Replies

I would have thought that each country has insurance for such an exposure such as K&R. After 9/11 terrorism has very much been in the forefront and I know that many companies have gone out and bought K&R coverage where they never did before. I would assume that countries and governments have such insurance with coverage that include kidnapping of their citizens.

On the other hand, I know I would not begrudge my country a share in my profits had they gotten me safely returned and I was lucky enough to be able to sell my story for a decent price.

For a kidnap situation I don't think the victim should be forced to go into debt to defray the costs spent by the government in freeing them but I do think they should show some gratitude if they do benefit financially as a result of it.

0 Replies

Should hostages pay the costs for liberation themselves?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know