Does NT negotiate with terrorists?

[Bokaza]

First off, this isn't a response to any particular incident or a attack on the playerbase. It's more a critique of a concept and offer of a simple solution to a widespread problem with how hostage or hostile situations are handled.

First off, what is a terrorism and a terrorist. Terrorism is in the broadest sense, a the use and a threat of violence as a means to achive a political, ideological or a religious aim. In that definition, a terrorist is a person who uses or threatens to use violence as a means to achive a political, ideological or a religious aim. Using this definition, you can automatically cross the antags who don't specifically state their goals from the list. Of course, reasonable assumption follows that anyone trying to blow the station or murdering people on mass is likely a terrorist, despite a wide array of other possible causes most prominant being corporate sabotage and mental illness. It's reasonable that such entities are dealt with violence regardless.

However, when someone threatens to do it, the response tends to be the same. I think it's unreasonable. It's effectively a hostage situation. Even if it is actual terrorism (synth supporters, anti-NT, rebels) spouting statements like "We don't negotiate with terrorists." leads to only one possible solution: Violence. Having a stance assures destruction of either party effectively stops any negotiation from being meaningful. I would never give command or sec a benefit of the doubt they would honor their agreement if I agreed to their terms. The primary goal is an effective resolution. You can say that having Sec successfully rush the hostage takers or potential bombers with non-lethals is an effective, non-violent solution, but the potential for violence is there. Hostage can still die in such situation, a bomb can blow, sec can get hurt. The potential risk does not even assure it being an effective one, as the loses from negotiation can be outweighted by the potential damage. A peaceful resultion, even though secondary, can be very effective in some cases.

Now, the reason why the statement "We don't negotiate with terrorists." has weight even though not being law, is because it's a moral or ethical stance on terrorism, not one of pure practicality. Leaders don't do it because it makes them look spineless and bad, that they can be bullied into submission by threats of violence. Of course, unreasonable demands are still unreasonable and would not be followed through regardless of their moral ambiguity. However, NT is a corporation. Despite its political aims, it's not a political entity, it's an economic one. It leads itself with a moral or lawful compass, but a serious of carefully calculated risks and gains. A strict stance on terrorists would be highly atypical of NT especially considering it manipulated a government into co-opting its independence, its coverups and business ethics. It's unscrupulous, greedy and pragmatic. Why would its unofficial stance on terrorism then be "Fuck no, you criminal scum.". If their station or personnel were at risk, they would likely try to negotiate it, then try to stop any political fallout.

[Depandio]

Personally, I always try to negotiate with terrorists. This is one part me being an unrobust coward, but mostly because hostage negotiation is fun! Most importantly, it doesn't result (directly) in a player being taken out of the game, which is what I think we should all try to avoid.

[canon35]

It honestly does depend on the players in question, but normally it leans towards "We don't negotiate with terrorists.". It can be pretty annoying for hostage takers and hostages when it goes that route, because rather than try to talk it out and make a deal where both parties leave happy, people would rather try to kill them and rush the game, Personally, I prefer negotiations as ERT/Sec and antag.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

There is nobody that "doesn't negotiate with terrorists". That is just a public claim made by people to look strong on terror. Even if they use an intermediary to keep from doing it officially.

NT it depends. If the demands are reasonable then you should consider them. It's up to command if the demands outweigh the consequences.

[UnknownMurder]

I think some people are getting this some sort of a thinking or American Policy from United States. George W. Bush Jr. first said this quote, I believe?

[Conservatron]

private business negotiates with terrorists all the time

[Guest]

There is nobody that "doesn't negotiate with terrorists". That is just a public claim made by people to look strong on terror. Even if they use an intermediary to keep from doing it officially.

NT it depends. If the demands are reasonable then you should consider them. It's up to command if the demands outweigh the consequences.

 

This.

I was the Captain once, and a raider team asked for a bunch of stuff in exchange for the Quartermaster back. I talked to the rest of Command staff, and we agreed that a quartermaster, with the limited job-knowledge and management experience required for the job, was not valuable enough to exchange technology and money for, so we tried to shift the bargain more in our favour.

Basically, NanoTrasen will not stick their neck out to negotiate with terrorists, but Station Command should be willing to discuss fair deals/exchanges.

[Nikov]

It was Reagan in 1985 who codified "we don't negotiate with terrorists". Until Obama, this was the go-to US response for international hostage taking for the era of time in which terrorism was largely over land claims in Israel, imprisoned members of terror cells, and straight money demands. Anymore terrorism is a means to its own end; dead kuffars.

The nominal reasoning behind not negotiating with hostage-takers and bomb threats is that negotiating with a terror cell of five people with three of your citizens hostage is basically saying that any time a couple guys grab one of the 300 million Americans, they can make some money or get their buddy sprung out of prison. Conceding to demands from five guys with guns when you have five military branches each with their own counterterrorism special forces a helicopter ride away is also ridiculous, as it implies you have no will to actually fight. Airline hijacking for ransom or political prisoners was uncomfortably common on American airlines before this policy was announced, and afterwards there have been only three incidents in US civil aviation. Declaring that the US will not entertain ransom demands and will instead send men with guns steered hijackers to other nations.

Nanotrasen would do well to have a formal "we do not negotiate" policy, but allow the command staff to behave otherwise. It could be interesting to see how a loyalty implanted Captain handles his subordinates willfully violating company policy.

[Bokaza]

There is nobody that "doesn't negotiate with terrorists". That is just a public claim made by people to look strong on terror. Even if they use an intermediary to keep from doing it officially.

NT it depends. If the demands are reasonable then you should consider them. It's up to command if the demands outweigh the consequences.

Yes, thank you for re-stating the obvious. You're wrong, though, I've heard this one used by Security planty of times on Aurora, so it must be a rule.

 

Nanotrasen would do well to have a formal "we do not negotiate" policy, but allow the command staff to behave otherwise. It could be interesting to see how a loyalty implanted Captain handles his subordinates willfully violating company policy.

I mean, yeah, sure, formal policy is good for PR, but actually subscribing to it in full extent would be highly atypical of NT, especially since it isn't suppose to be handling kidnappings and terror threats on its own. As for the implants, Captain and HoS would likely be informed over what the actual policy is. It never made sense that they are kept in the dark, especially considering they are the people tasked with most of the NTs dirty work on the station.

[rrrrrr]

its unrelated to the topic at hand but the RD once said to not attack syndicate nukeboys because it would "violate first contact protocol"

don't be like that

don't confuse red suited men for aliens or believe they're aliens, thanks

[Guest]

^

Furthermore, the classic American stance on terrorism is indeed for appearances, at the very least it is not the current MO practiced given President Obama as the current incumbent. He's known to constantly stick his neck out in the event a hostage situation occurs, and terror elements all across the world have exploited this time and time again so they can receive a check in the mail.

I tend to take the middle road in terms of dealing with hostage situations or terror elements when I am the head of security. If said terror elements have killed people maliciously and in cold blood, it is incredibly unlikely that we will be making deals of any sort to the offending parties, as there is not enough trust between the negotiators.

You wouldn't give a hostage taker 100,000 credits if they'd just off the hostage and then yakkety sax away, would you?

As a result of certain situations gone rather sour in terms of negotiation, I've generally just went the route of focusing more on strategizing hostage rescue efforts (a la HRT methodology and advanced unit tactics) rather than focusing solely on appeasing terrorists and pretending diplomacy is low-risk. Cases depend for every instance, naturally.

Your number one goal as either command/security staff is to minimize casualties, risk and loss whenever possible and when possible, negotiate for the best possible outcome that benefits the company, not the enemy.

[Bokaza]

That is the point, you are not minimizing potential loss with intensive use and reliance on security. You only think you are because you're likely to be succeed and have everything swept under the rug. And don't be ridiculous, the lack of trust on the culprit's side is reasonable, in my two years on this server I've never seen you resolve a situation peacefully. You don't even try.

[Guest Marlon Phoenix]

It was Reagan in 1985 who codified "we don't negotiate with terrorists". Until Obama,

 

Isn't that something? Again, negotiating with terrorists is something everyone tries to do. Imagine the negotiations going on we don't know about! And NanoTrasen isn't even a sovereign nation trying to project strength, it's a cold, calculating mega-corporation. It's incredibly common for similar entities to just pay off the bad guys than deal with the headache.

[Guest]

That is the point, you are not minimizing potential loss with intensive use and reliance on security. You only think you are because you're likely to be succeed and have everything swept under the rug. And don't be ridiculous, the lack of trust on the culprit's side is reasonable, in my two years on this server I've never seen you resolve a situation peacefully. You don't even try.

 

Because it rarely works. Hostage takers rarely have that kind of control to bring an entire station/country to their knees. Their mortality is much more obvious.

Keep in mind: Antagonists sit upon the threshold of the station homefront. The antagonists are not the ones with the starting advantage, the station is the one with the power. If they want to make their demands in seeking their own personal objectives and goals, they need to be able to have the means to subjugate.

I've threatened to detonate the nuclear bomb and had the means to do so as a nuke op before. I made my demands, they were fulfilled, I left the bomb and the disk as I went home with my squaddies with our riches.

If you know exactly how to edge station authority out of its comfort zone, you can easily get what you want.

But some people know better and are shrewder negotiators than others.

[Nikov]

It was Reagan in 1985 who codified "we don't negotiate with terrorists". Until Obama,

 

Isn't that something? Again, negotiating with terrorists is something everyone tries to do. Imagine the negotiations going on we don't know about! And NanoTrasen isn't even a sovereign nation trying to project strength, it's a cold, calculating mega-corporation. It's incredibly common for similar entities to just pay off the bad guys than deal with the headache.

 

1980, 1983, and 1985. I gave a date for a reason, Jackboot. It is possible that chronology will suggest a trend in the past that isn't carried forward in the future, presumably as bad ideas in theory are revealed to be bad ideas in practice. Furthermore I will remind you it was state actors negotiating with state actors. Negotiations with Hamas were only conducted by Iran, while the United States, Israel and Iran negotiated in an attempt to repair the rift brought about by the fall of the Shah.

Nanotrasen is in the position of King Cotton or the East India Company; it is not difficult to believe they can start wars if they see money involved. See the British conquest of India and the Opium Wars. With so much influence, it is perfectly reasonable to dot he cold and calculating thing and simply refuse to ransom your employees back, and instead keep a few retired Sol admirals and politicians on payroll. A known expense to have the Navy command channels willing to hear your plea for an anti-terrorist action is better than the unknown expense of paying millions in ransom payments. Beyond high-level employees, we're just not worth the hassle.

That is a cold, calculating megacorporation.

[Wesmas]

Recently I was part of an ERT that had to get a cargo tech back from hostage takers. I negotiated the price from 100,000, to roughly 20,000. We got the crew member back, nobody else was hurt or caught, and we were sucsessful. I had to fight constantly though. Most of the security officers wanted to fight it, though the HoS was very sensible about it. Its about a sensible arangement though, you are not going to give the nuke disk, because it could endanger more lives.

[Skull132]

My view on it: NanoTrasen negotiates and cooperates with terrorists as long as it is within their interests to do so. Simple as that.

Oh, and company policy is quite different from a co-worker's view on the situation.

[Guest]

Recently I was part of an ERT that had to get a cargo tech back from hostage takers. I negotiated the price from 100,000, to roughly 20,000. We got the crew member back, nobody else was hurt or caught, and we were sucsessful. I had to fight constantly though. Most of the security officers wanted to fight it, though the HoS was very sensible about it. Its about a sensible arangement though, you are not going to give the nuke disk, because it could endanger more lives.

 

I personally thing that 20,000 for a lowly-trained Cargo Tech (very replaceable in terms of NT's 400 million employ), is far too much. I've been Captain and refused a 5000 credit bid and a cyborg exosuit for a cargo technician before. Unless someone is from Medical, Engineering or Science or god forbid Command, I'm probably not going to give up too much for them. Civilian personnel are arguably very replaceable and cheap to hire, xenos even moreso. And Security personnel are already treated as disposable by the corporation as they're priority of self-safety is after company assets, not to mention being an officer is just a month long course, and it pays decent.

[Guest]

The bottom line is:

Act like a traitorous, violent antagonist that is incredibly unstable and untrustworthy, and it's unlikely command will want to cut deals with you. Especially when said antagonists do not know the weight of the bargains they are demanding for.

[Bokaza]

Well, I said that demands have to be reasonable. I just think the players in command are too stingy, usually prefering the violent resolution.

As for a price tag on a life, life is cheap, because of cloning. A kidnapper can effectively rander the victim inclonable, which means NT is likely bound to pay reperations to the victim's family, due to a 'work accident'. Else, I people start to fucking wonder where people are disappearing. That's bad PR, bad PR eventually grows to horrible PR, which makes the stocks plummit. Despite it being a mega-corporation that can survive a PR hit no issue, having their CO's and human resources be openly mental across the universe is something they cannot afford.

The US government doesn't really give a fuck about the individual person taken by the terrorists, they try and get them back because they must.