Hacker News Reader

Comment by ballenf | Hacker News Reader

They don't fail to tell law enforcement after paying kidnapping ransoms and don't consider the perp to be law-abiding person. Also if a kidnapper was ever located domestically there'd be about a 0.00001% chance of the person getting a payout.

View on HN

It's also against Canadian law to pay ransoms for kidnapping, even if you're a private citizen. (Although you'll be hard pressed to find someone who has been prosecuted for this.) The U.S. has a similar "we don't negotiate with terrorists" policy, but I'm not sure if it's explicitly illegal to send money.

>"we don't negotiate with terrorists"

A myth.

Yes, always negotiate. The outcome if worse if you don't.

Here's a book from an ex FBI hostage negotiator. It narrates some real case stories from the inside, it's well written and quite interesting. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Stalling-Time-Life-Hostage-Negotiat...

Refusing to negotiate with terrorists isn’t a strategy designed to produce the best outcome in isolation. It’s to avoid providing incentives for more terrorism, despite the consequences viewed in isolation.

So “outcomes are worse if you don’t” is not relevant. Several times as many terrorism incidents with better outcomes on average is not what most people would consider effective anti-terrorism.

Refusing to negotiate with terrorists is not a real strategy practiced by anyone. It’s just tough PR talk with zero basis on reality.

The discussion went through ransoms, hostages and terrorism. It's inappropriate to reply to all situations with "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com