In a crisis situation involving terrorists with hostages, what would you do if the terrorists demanded access to the media in order to negotiate or communicate a message(s) to the public? What are some of the issues to consider?
In an event of a terrorist initiated hostage situation there are many issues to consider and one of them is the power of the media. Terrorists often call for to communicate a message to the public in exchange for the release of a hostage or hostages. Lives hang in the balance as the hostage negotiators draw up plans for such a request. But is such a request often granted?
Firstly, according to Goldstein (2007) and White (2006) “we” (the U.S.) don’t negotiate with terrorists. This is a heavily scrutinized policy as the family members of the captured fear for the lives of their close ones the most. What makes this policy even more barbaric to some is the fact that there is often a very good chance to win the negotiations but the government will not succumb to the terrorists’ requests. It leaves everyone in an undesirable circumstance, except the terrorists who have the bargaining power measured in human lives.
Another aspect to consider is the geographic proximity of the negotiations. Is the hostage crisis in a house on Elm Street, where hostage negotiators are close by? Or, are the same events happening oversees in an undisclosed location; in a terrorist sponsoring state; somewhere in a terrorist camp? A hostage crisis with proximity of a few hundred yards versus few thousand miles may mean a great difference in what the negotiations will entail, including the use of media to propagate a message to the public.
Theodore Kaczynski, also known as the Unabomber, was on a clandestine mission to preach his views which were later published in a form of a manifesto in newspapers nationwide. Although he was not directly involved in a hostage crisis situation, he held the American public, especially certain institutions and individuals as hostages (The Sacramento Bee, 1998).
The reason I bring this point up is to illustrate that under certain circumstances there should be some room for negotiations, even if it meant media access. However, this would have to be provisioned under the surrounding events of the crisis, the knowledge of the terrorist group (infrastructure, members, ideologies, other factions, and etc.), and the level of “confidence” and “trust” that is emitted by the negotiations.
Resources
Goldstein, D. (2007). Week 5: Issues in Modern Terrorism – Policy, Liberty, Security, and the Future. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from Boston University, Vista Online Learning Web site: http://vista.bu.edu/webct/
No Author (1998). Unabomber – Timeline. Retrieved on April 10, 2007, from the Sacramento Bee Web site: http://www.unabombertrial.com/timeline
White, J.R. (2006). Terrorism and Homeland Security (5th ed). Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth.
You might also like:
- Terrorism: The Media and The Fear Factor
- Terrorism: The Four Force Multipliers
- Modern Terrorists More Violent Than Terrorists in the Past?
- Crime Interest and Media Emphasis on Crime
- Terrorism: Frederick Hacker, Three Types of Terrorists
- Terrorism: Theodore Kaczynski a.k.a. The Unabomber
- Terrorism: Jerrold Post and Behavioral Patterns of Terrorists
{ 0 comments… add one now }
Recommend Criminal Justice Degree, College, and Career Blog to Your Friends