Why doesn't the United States government negotiate with terrorists and/or criminals?

How many people would you like dead? Pretty good way to generate that outcome.

Ah, this question is a little confuseing for me, but I know “Bones” is not a reliable source.
Oh, and I like “Fringe” more ;)

Because we’d have to give them something.
I don’t think we should give terrorists anything because when you give in to the terrorist demands, you’re only showing terrorists that their tactics work and thus you will only ensure more frequent terrorist attacks and hostage situations.

If you set a value on a hostage, they will collect hostages to get what they want.
It’s better to just consider any hostage as dead, and hunt down and kill the abductors.

@Captain_Fantasy @filmfann: I do understand that but it seems to me that the lives of the hostages are a bit more important than that. Why not do both? Pay the ransom to get the hostages back alive and hunt down the criminals?

It’s like feeding an Alligator meat…he’s gonna come back for more food, and he doesn’t care if you’re it.

Because our dicks might touch.

@kevbo hahaha

It grants them a degree of legitimacy.

And the U.S. cannot condone bartering with innocent human lives; it would not be an act of war, it would be cold blooded killing.

It’s a matter of long term thinking and forethought. Authorities can’t set a precedent whereby the demands of any group are given into under threat of violence because the incidence of copycat crimes increases exponentially as an example of any successful campaign in this regard. This creates further instability in society and paves the way for anyone with an axe to grind to use this methodology.
I think that the continual use of non lethal means to subdue violence is the answer though and hopefully in the future rather than body parts we’ll simply having hostages and their captors covered with webs like Spiderman or stunned with noise.

Giving in just encourages them. If a kidnapper knows that the life of the hostage is of no value, I would imagine, if they have any sense at all, it might make them think twice before taking the person. I would think the equation is something to the effect of, the life of the victim is secondary to the need to ensure it doesn’t become open season on others.

You can’t play be the terrorists rules.
At the same time, contrary to FilmFann’s opinion, you just can’t abandon the hostages to their fate either.
What you do is stall the terrorists with fake negotiations that you have no intention of ever making good on. Then you mount your rescue effort.

Keep in mind that once you give the terrorists what they want, they have no reason to kill their hostages. In fact, it is more advantageous to the terrorist to kill their hostage since that removes a potential moment of vulnerability in the exchange.

These are not honorable people and you have no reason to think a person desperate enough to take hostages and kill, is going to keep their word on anything.

Never give in to terrorist demands. Ever.

It does. You are listening to propaganda if you think it doesn’t. It just can’t be trusted at all so even if you are prone to believe it the hostage taker must con himself to believe he is being negotiated with in good faith.

Because the day they do, they put a price on every American’s head.

Because in the long run more american lives will be in danger. If you knew that your enemies weak spot was going after any citizen then you are putting a bullseye on every citizen. Lets say we have a terrorist that is necessary for future plans to hurt other americans. Do we simply hand him over to save one life?
Not only that. What is to say they will be reliable in following through. Or that the citizen captured isn’t a spy for their side or hasn’t been converted? Too many variables that lean on it not working out, so its best not to play the game.
You have to wonder that if it is someone else they want back than its going to be for an extremely important reason. If its for money than banks everywhere would go broke.
Either way, whether they do it for politics, or cash or what have you. It would give license for future caos that extends past one life and may injure many more in the process.

Its simply the lesser of two evils.

Look at what is happening with the pirates off the coast of Somalia. They just keep coming back for more. I think pirates should be summarily hanged. I cannot understand turning captured pirates loose or sending them to some country for trial. It just a waste of fuel to take them back. Dead pirates don’t steal or kidnap.

I am ex-Navy so maybe I’m prejudiced but I see no reason to anything other than kill terrorists or pirates. The more a country negotiates, the more they kidnap and threaten.

I think it has something to do with the “Bigger Dick Foreign Policy” as described by the late, great George Carlin, who once said,

“Me? I look at war a little bit differently. To me war is a lot of prick waving,
ok? Simple thing, that´s all it is, war is a whole lot of men standing out in a
field waving their pricks at one another. Men are insecure about the size of
their dicks, so they have to kill one another over the idea.

That´s what all that asshole jock bullshit is all about. That´s what all that
adolescent macho male posturing and strutting in bars and locker rooms is all
about – it´s called, “dick fear!” Men are terrified that their pricks are
inadequate, and so they have to compete with one another to feel better about
themselves, and, since war is the ultimate competition, basically men are
killing each other in order to improve their self-esteem.

You don´t have to be a historian or a political scientist to see the “Bigger
Dick Foreign Policy” theory at work. It sounds like this:

“What? They have bigger dicks? Bomb them!”

And, of course, the bombs and the rockets and the bullets are all shaped like
dicks. It´s a subconscious need to project the penis into other people´s
affairs. It´s called, “FUCKING WITH PEOPLE!””

I’m pretty sure that the same theory applies here. If we were to negotiate with terrorists, it would be like admitting they have bigger dicks.

I miss George Carlin.

Because if both sides talked about it a lot of people on both sides would get found out about all the crimes and stuff that both sides were doing…It’s why criminals don’t call the cops on each other both would get sent to jail.

Would you want to negotiate with a pedofile or a murderer?

@PhillyCheese if he had my child

@dalepetrie
The only problem with that logic is that we should be bombing Africa.

@SeventhSense – true, but Carlin did leave out one important part of the argument….they have to actually have something we want to take to make it worth our while to bomb them. Seems like the only thing of value for us to “take” from Africa became illegal to take about 150 years ago, so what’s the point?

@dalepetrie I am appalled.
I was tempted to flag this but I’d rather other flutherites saw it and had a chance to respond.

@anartist – I too am appalled at our history, I was taking an ironic jab at our country’s history as well as it’s current policy. I am in no way condoning slavery, in fact, just the opposite, lighten up.

@dalepetrie
Kind of silly of course. We should negotiate with terrorists for fear of being seen as insecure with our masculinity? I think George being the little guy he was probably had some baggage from high school along with an enormous….. chip on his shoulder.

Because the men who run our government, especially the last administration, feel that they are too good to explain anything, and they feel that we do people and/or enemies a favor just by acknowledging them.

It is really stupid. The table should be always open, but that can’t happen when kindergartners are elected to be President.