Thanks Alan , can I run with it? For starters....

Scenario 1) Aussie man taken hostage. Kidnappers demand Aussie troops withdraw from Iraq, or man will be excecuted.

Scenario 2) Building containing 100 Aussies taken hostage. Kidnappers demand that Person X be exectued, or 100 Aussie die.

Are these scenarios different? How should we decide these issues ethically? (This probably links to the utilitarianism thread)

Discuss.

-A-

Adam,

Those two scenarios are morally distinguishable because it would be a breach of the sixth commandment for the government to execute that person; whereas it is not inherently sinful for a government to deploy or withdraw troops - it is a matter of wisdom and judgment.

oops, obviously ;)

-A-

ps and scenario 1? Of course its a matter of wisdom, so what is yours?

I think it depends on whether we are pretending to be Alexander Downer or not..

Downer’s ham-fisted diplomacy of late has been quite embarrassing.

In response to Alan’s post here , I don’t think the issue is quite so black & white. If Australia had 22 troops in a domestically unpopular & morally ambiguous conflict that were due to leave in 3 weeks, and as PM you pulled them out early to save someone’s life, who could blame you?

The thing I liked most about Ramsey’s piece was how it cut thru the government’s spin. As Joe Public, it sounded as though the Philippines were pulling out a sizeable force (say, a few hundred to one thousand troops) which were supposed to be there indefinitely to help with reconstruction. Personally I was surprised to learn it was 22 troops who were about to leave in 3 weeks.

The mindless rhetoric coming from the government (& the opposition) that the sky will fall in now that countries have done deal with “terrorists” is getting very tiresome. Its obviously in the government’s interest to keep portraying the hostage taking as the work of terrorists who are obviously keeping the Iraqi’s from enjoying the democracy we’ve bestowed upon them. The reality is quite different (5th post) and far, far more complex.

Unfortunately this is a highly politicized ethical decision, I can’t understand how either party could make a reasonably assessed ethical decision if an Australian was taken hostage, because both parties have painted themselves into a corner with their “terrorists bad. no negotiate with terrorists” mantra.

I think it depends on whether we are pretending to be Alexander Downer or not.. 

Should we take this as whether we have the responsibility of being foreign minister (a very big one at that) or not, and therefore a need to look at broader consequences…
or is it simply whether we aspire to be Alexander, fishnets and all?

It seems that the first option would lead to a more strong desire not to be pressured by militant extremists.

Why not take this thread even further… If the issue wasnt about armies, but about the gospel, would we come to a different way of dealing with the tactics outlined?
Should we ever submit to those who would either directly, or indirectly harm the movement of the gospel throughout any nation, be it Iraq, or Australia?

If Australia had 22 troops in a domestically unpopular & morally ambiguous conflict that were due to leave in 3 weeks, and as PM you pulled them out early to save someone’s life, who could blame you?

The answer to this question is surely.........  we don’t know ?

Maybe nobody.

But if a dozen hostages were taken the following week, in support of another demand to the Australian government - maybe there would be a lot of people blaming you?

The insurgents in Iraq will not be satisfied with getting rid of foreign troops.  The Korean who was killed (a Christian man incidentally, who wanted to be a missionary), died because his government refused to comply with a terrorist demand to pull out all its civilian contractors - people working on projects like power stations.  Korea had no troops in Iraq.

Sure it was maybe an easy decision for the Philippino Government to take to save a life this time.

But what about next time....
And the time after that....
And the time after that....

Suppose Australia were to send troops to Sudan to protect the estimated million refugees from starvation there, and terrorists took some Australian (anyone will do, he needn’t be a soldier) hostage, demanding we pull out?

Would that be right?
If not why not?  Because you think it’s better for us to be in Sudan than Iraq?  Or because it is merely likely folks will die because of your decision to give in to the Iraqis, but inevitable that they will die as a result of giving in to the Sudanese.

I am sorry that everyone has brought this back to the Iraq War, because hostage-taking is as old as mankind.  Just in the last 30 years, the Palestinians took hostages at Munich in 1972; The Hezbollah took hostages in Lebanon in 1982.  In those cases, all the terrorists wanted was the release of certain prisoners.

Almost every plane hijacking (until a few years ago) has amounted to a taking of hostages in support of terrorist demands.  It is because governments have taken the hard decision that it is better for the passengers to be killed; than for future hijackers to be encouraged, that it is largely safe for us to fly today.

Does anyone seriously advocate a different policy?  Perhaps some of us do?  If so, why?

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]Adam,

Those two scenarios are morally distinguishable because it would be a breach of the sixth commandment for the government to execute that person; whereas it is not inherently sinful for a government to deploy or withdraw troops - it is a matter of wisdom and judgment.

Not quite,

the sixth commandment is against murder, not against the taking of life.
Murder is the unjustified taking of human life. Those that support capital punishment would be keen to make that distinction.

Suppose Australia were to send troops to Sudan to protect the estimated million refugees from starvation there, and terrorists took some Australian (anyone will do, he needn’t be a soldier) hostage, demanding we pull out

Excellent question.

Edit: A follow up question to that (off topic though) would be whether it would be our business or place to send Aussie troops to the Sudan in the first place- since the situation in their country has no real direct or potential threat to the stability or peace of our own. But I don’t want to hijack this thread :) So maybe I’ll save it for another thread in days to come

David,
I guess I was assuming that terrorists would not bother to take 100 people hostage in order to demand that a government execute a person who had already been found guilty and sentenced to death.

But I should have been more precise I suppose.

No doubt the terrorists (and their sympathisers) would not consider their beheading of hostages a breach of the sixth commandment, but would justify it as a form of capital punishment in any event.

[quote author="Alan Dungey"]David,
I guess I was assuming that terrorists would not bother to take 100 people hostage in order to demand that a government execute a person who had already been found guilty and sentenced to death.

But I should have been more precise I suppose.

No doubt the terrorists (and their sympathisers) would not consider their beheading of hostages a breach of the sixth commandment, but would justify it as a form of capital punishment in any event.

as a form…

I think it’s more to do with giving the infidel what they deserve, particularly because they are in the Caliphate (to give it it’s widest meaning).