That was interesting. Maybe governments should start having their nationals (citizens and subjects) sign a kidnapping waiver when they go to kidnappy places?
Since this is in the NY Times, I assume that they're lying about something. Specifically, I assume that they're lying about the US policy of not paying ransoms, because telling would-be kidnappers "hey, the US will pay $$$ for its kidnapped citizens" is an invitation to kidnap Americans. Getting the message "we don't pay ransoms" out there is a major policy success, whether or not it's true.
re: 2
Yeah, much like Thatcher's 'We don't negotiate with terrorists' stance. Which, iirc, wasn't actually true, however widely avowed.
It is a little evil to accompany it with the message "hey, but the French totally pay ransoms. They may say they don't but they do. Millions of dollars! So, conclusion: kidnap French people."
I read "A House In the Sky" which was a pretty awful account of two journalists being kidnapped by Somalians. ISTM she was Canadian and he was Australian. Those governments certainly didn't cough up squat, and I think after about 18 months, the kidnappers settled on a sum with the families. Spoiler: it's extra awful to be female and kidnapped.
Those governments certainly didn't cough up squat, and I think after about 18 months, the kidnappers settled on a sum with the families.
I'm not sure there's any "certainly" about it. The governments didn't cough up squat according to the published accounts but that's exactly the sort of thing that published accounts wouldn't tell the truth about, either as part of a deal where the government paid the ransom, or because the hostages honestly didn't think the government had paid anything. "If you kidnap a Canadian, you won't get much, because the government won't pay up so you're stuck with what little you can screw out of the families": also a good message to get out there.
Take kidnap and ransom (K&R) insurance, for example; big business, very common in certain parts of the world for expats. And you can, legally, invalidate your policy by publicising either the coverage limit or even just the fact that you have it. A lot of people don't even know that they have it - their employers keep it secret from them.
Good point. It seemed convincing, though - her family actually didn't have access to any money, and it dragged on (according to the public story, of course) because her family was trying to get his family to cover her too. Of course, I wasn't reading the book critically on this point.
Proof by contradiction: let us suppose that the NY Times discovered that the US government was, in fact, paying ransoms, despite protestations to the contrary. Which is more likely:
a) it goes ahead and publishes the story
b) it suppresses or falsifies the story because its Senior Government Sources let it be known that publishing would, I don't know, "endanger American lives" or "jeopardise national security" or something?
Maybe my children really are best being monitored 24/7.
I'd be lying if I said it hadn't occurred to me while in Yemen and Afghanistan that someone might make the stupid mistake of thinking there might be money in kidnapping me. Because there certainly wouldn't be.
Not to mention, I'd totally throw $25 into your GoFundMe page.
Underwriters (and reinsurers) of K&R coverage don't know whom they are covering, either.
13: quite. Not to mention the amount your loving parents (frex) could raise by selling their house. And they would, if the alternative was seeing you beheaded on video.
The US government has certainly paid ransoms in the past - that's what Iran-Contra was about, after all. The US government is actually so determined to pay ransoms, even to the most unpleasant of its enemies, that it will break its own laws to do so.
Another really well-reported story from the Times
Is there an emoticon (or German word) to indicate whether statements like this are sincere or sarcastic? Because it's a hella confusing opening.
It was sincere. The other one I linked was about the handling of a rape complaint at a college. Both are really good work.