Remember the KGB's ideas of counter-terrorism? Its back!

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 01:24pm

Sieze hostage-takers' families: Russian general
Police faced with hostage crises should have legal authority to seize family members of the hostage-takers themselves in response, Russia's top legal official says.

"Who lives by the sword dies by the sword. We should not engage in diplomacy," Russian prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov told the State Duma.

"I think that if they [hostage takers] commit such inhuman acts, it would be justified to take in their relatives for questioning and show that we too can do the same to them.

"This can help us save people."

General Ustinov calls for new legislation providing for "a simplified judicial procedure, the hostage taking directed at hostage takers, the use of infiltrated agents, the protection of witnesses" and of people infiltrated into terrorist groups.

He also suggests that financial rewards be offered in exchange for information on hostage takers, stressing that these exceptional measures would apply only to hostage takings.

Duma speaker Boris Gryzlov says the chamber would examine General Ustinov's proposal if it is presented as an amendment to existing law.

He says that relatives of hostage takers currently take part in negotiations only on a voluntary basis.

However, General Ustinov's proposal has drawn stinging criticism from the deputy speaker of the Duma, Lyubov Sliska.

Mr Sliska calls the proposal "barbarian" and suggests that General Ustinov quit his job as prosecutor general.

"Each one of us can become a hostage of the proposals made by Mr Ustinov," Mr Sliska said.

"In every family there are people at odds with the law, and everybody should not be answerable for one person.

"This is not a method to fight terrorism.

"Mr Ustinov should make more civilised proposals or else ask himself whether he should remain prosecutor general or switch to another organ."

General Ustinov's proposals come on the heels of a series of measures to hike up security in the country following the Beslan hostage tragedy, which killed at least 344 people, half of them children.

-- AFP

. ABC news

On one hand, I'd love to see the terrorists recieve the ears of their loved ones in the mail. On the other hand, given that this is Russia, this is going to be abused so badly.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-29 01:40pm

Didn't the Russians do that during the siege at Beslan? If not, they should have. If ever there was a time that called for such tactics, that was it.

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-29 02:05pm

that´s insane. capturing people who haven´t done anything = teh 3\/!l_

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-10-29 03:03pm

salm wrote:that´s insane. capturing people who haven´t done anything = teh 3\/!l_

Are you talking about the Terrorists, or the Counter-Terrorists?

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2004-10-29 03:46pm

Yes.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 04:04pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Didn't the Russians do that during the siege at Beslan? If not, they should have. If ever there was a time that called for such tactics, that was it.

Yes

Allegations have appeared in the past that federal forces took as many as 40 people hostage during the Beslan school siege. All of them were reported to be relatives of Chechen separatist leader Aslan Maskhadov.

In another case earlier in the year, several other relatives were reportedly taken hostage and forced to spend days on their knees.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-10-29 04:07pm

I have a bad feeling about this...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 04:16pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:I have a bad feeling about this...

I've had a bad feeling about this since 1999.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-29 05:08pm

LadyTevar wrote:Are you talking about the Terrorists, or the Counter-Terrorists?

guess.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-29 05:46pm

salm wrote:that´s insane. capturing people who haven´t done anything = teh 3\/!l_

It's a tactic, which worked quite well when the Soviets did it, and it proved to be a completely effective deterrent against hostage takings involving Soviet citizens.

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-10-29 06:13pm

Well, if they do that....then where is the difference between them and their enemies? I think they not realize that this is what the terrorists want all over the world, a over-reaction, resulting in their enemy using their methods. In the end there will be the question, who really is the terrorist?

In the end, the state who uses such tactics makes himself equally morally bankrupt, ruthless and brutal to the ones he calls terrorists.

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-29 06:25pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
salm wrote:that´s insane. capturing people who haven´t done anything = teh 3\/!l_
It's a tactic, which worked quite well when the Soviets did it, and it proved to be a completely effective deterrent against hostage takings involving Soviet citizens.

Thank you for showing that it works. Now show how it's right. I don't know about you, but I still have those delusions about not punishing innocent people for stuff their relatives have done...

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 07:17pm

Batman wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:
salm wrote:that´s insane. capturing people who haven´t done anything = teh 3\/!l_
It's a tactic, which worked quite well when the Soviets did it, and it proved to be a completely effective deterrent against hostage takings involving Soviet citizens.
Thank you for showing that it works. Now show how it's right. I don't know about you, but I still have those delusions about not punishing innocent people for stuff their relatives have done...

Sure. The relatives of the terrorists are often terrorists themselves or are sympathetic to their cause. They are often used to contact the authorities to begin negotiations.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-29 07:59pm

fgalkin wrote: Sure. The relatives of the terrorists are often terrorists themselves or are sympathetic to their cause. They are often used to contact the authorities to begin negotiations.

All of which would already be reasonable causes to arrest them anyway. Which I have no quarrel with. The quote in your OP quite explicitely said that family members of hostage takers aught to be legally arrestable BECAUSE they are family members of hostage takers. Call me naive, but I think people shouldn't be arrested for crimes they didn't do.
Furthermore, the'and show that we too can do the same to them' part somehow makes me doubt that taking the relatives in for questioning isn't all that Ustinov guy has in mind.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-10-29 08:27pm

Well, if they do that....then where is the difference between them and their enemies?

The terrorists are the one to initiate the "situation".

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-29 08:37pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: The terrorists are the one to initiate the "situation".

no, the terrorists initiate the situation for the hostages they take.
the government would initiate the situation for the terrorists relatives. their behaviour is exactly the same.

they take hostages which have absolutely nothing to do with the whole thing and blackmail the government to reach a certain goal.

the government does the same.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 08:41pm

salm wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: The terrorists are the one to initiate the "situation".
no, the terrorists initiate the situation for the hostages they take.
the government would initiate the situation for the terrorists relatives. their behaviour is exactly the same.

they take hostages which have absolutely nothing to do with the whole thing and blackmail the government to reach a certain goal.

the government does the same.

Did you ignore my post? The terrorists' relatives have quite a lot to od with the whole thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-29 08:46pm

fgalkin wrote: Sure. The relatives of the terrorists are often terrorists themselves or are sympathetic to their cause. They are often used to contact the authorities to begin negotiations.

That's the worst fucking logic I've ever heard. Sorry, but under current law you can arrest someone for being a terrorist. So your entire "point" becomes completely meaningless.

As for being symapthetic, there is nothing illegal about being sympathetic to a cause, no matter how bad it is so long as you are not actively engaged in support of such a group (which would once again qualify you for arrest under current laws in just about every country there is).

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the taking of hostages that have ZERO responsibility for the original hostage crisis makes any sense at all? That makes the government no better then the people who took the hostages in the first place; they are punishing the innocent in order to achieve their goal. If you believe that this is the system you want to live in, feel free to go live in such a Totalitarian society and tell me how you like it. This is a question of this law getting abused, the law itself IS ABUSE. You are violating due process and even punishing someone you know is innocent because of the crimes of their relatives.

Gee fgalkin, if my cousin was convicted of first degree murder, does that mean I deserve to die along with him?

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-29 08:55pm

fgalkin wrote:
Did you ignore my post? The terrorists' relatives have quite a lot to od with the whole thing.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

oh, i thought that you had read batman´s post with which i totally agree.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 09:01pm

If a tragedy like Beslan could be avoided by picking up a few people and threatening to kill them, I'd do it. They hate us anyway, so its not like they'll hate us even more.

Also, you fal to understand the concept of a deterrent. If the terrorists know their families will die they will be less likely to do anything, thus removing the government's need to take the families in the first place. This isn't idle speculation, either. This policy is the reason why there were no Soviet hostages.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

salm · Post by **salm** » 2004-10-29 09:08pm

fgalkin wrote: Also, you fal to understand the concept of a deterrent. If the terrorists know their families will die they will be less likely to do anything, thus removing the government's need to take the families in the first place. This isn't idle speculation, either. This policy is the reason why there were no Soviet hostages.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

no, i understand that concept quite well. i just place the concept of "unguilty until proven guilty" then miles higher than deterrent.

have fun with your patriot acts.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-10-29 09:13pm

fgalkin wrote:If a tragedy like Beslan could be avoided by picking up a few people and threatening to kill them, I'd do it. They hate us anyway, so its not like they'll hate us even more.

Yes, killing innocent people just for the hell of it. Why not? Do you understand the concept of living in a free society? One of the consequences of such a society is that you simply cannot start picking people up and torturing them when it is convenient to do so. If you want to live in a free society, this is the price you pay. If you want to live in a tightly controlled Totalitarian dictatorship, you can go back and visit Russia.

Also, you fal to understand the concept of a deterrent. If the terrorists know their families will die they will be less likely to do anything, thus removing the government's need to take the families in the first place. This isn't idle speculation, either. This policy is the reason why there were no Soviet hostages.

And you fail to understand what that does to the principles of justice. You are, in effect, saying that you are responsible for the crimes of your family. Gee, sounds like a great way to live eh?

Batman · Post by **Batman** » 2004-10-29 09:16pm

fgalkin wrote:If a tragedy like Beslan could be avoided by picking up a few people and threatening to kill them, I'd do it. They hate us anyway, so its not like they'll hate us even more.

The problem being that threatening to kill them isn't enough. The threat has to be believable. The only way to achieve that is to actually kill them on several occasions. Around my part of the woods that is considered murder .

Also, you fal to understand the concept of a deterrent. If the terrorists know their families will die they will be less likely to do anything, thus removing the government's need to take the families in the first place.

The problems being that
a)as shown above, this doesn't work if you don't actually DO kill some of them (and if you agree with that you're quite simply vermin)
and
b)you basically admitted that the hostage takers have the RIGHT to take hostages. If the government has the right to take innocent people hostage to get what they want, why don't they? Don't give me 'they're the government so it's legal' crap.

This isn't idle speculation, either. This policy is the reason why there were no Soviet hostages.

So? I already admitted that it works. I'm waiting for a reason why innocent people should be allowed to be arrested (and killed) for crimes they didn't commit.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2004-10-29 09:16pm

No, the Patriot Act is "taking people who have nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever and imprisoning them, which has no effect on terror"

Oh, and enjoy the next beheading video when it comes out. I belive a Polish woman is the current hostage of note. Just keep in mind that it could have been prevented if we bothered to find the assholes' uncle, interrupt him from laying roadside mines, and take them into custody.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Tribun · Post by **Tribun** » 2004-10-29 09:18pm

Why do I get the impression that guys like our fgalkin wish back ol' boy J. Stalin? His methods, even if toned down, seem to again become popular in Russia. Good o' S. also had thought, that collective guilt exists, olny in his case, he used the concept on whole ethnic groups. Today they want to do it only on a smaller scale.