My Opinion on the U.S. Policy of Terrorism

My Opionion on the U.S. Policy of Terrorism
Prompt: Hijack!
The US’s policy on terrorism isn’t right. If an airliner is hijacked by terrorists who threaten to blow up the plane and all its passengers if your nation does not release from custody certain convicted criminals, I believe the US policy is wrong not to make concessions with the terrorists in all situations. To make a deal with the terrorists would create more a likely chance to save the American lives in certain cases. According to http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/1101/ijpe/pj63policy.htm the U.S. Counter terrorism Policy is:

 First, make no concessions to terrorists and strike no deals;
 Second, bring terrorists to justice for their crimes;
 Third, isolate and apply pressure on states that sponsor terrorism to force them to change their behavior; and
 Fourth, bolster the counterterrorism capabilities of those countries that work with the U.S. and require assistance.



The United States Government will make no concessions to terrorists holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage. It will not pay ransom, release prisoners, change its policies, or agree to other acts that might encourage additional terrorism. At the same time, the United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of American citizens who are held hostage by terrorists. Hostage-taking is defined under international law (International Convention Against the Taking of Hostages, adopted December 17, 1979) as the seizing or detaining and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain a person in order to compel a third party to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the seized or detained person.


It is internationally accepted that governments are responsible for the safety and welfare of persons within their borders. Aware of both the terrorist threat and public safety shortcomings in many parts of the world, the United States has developed enhanced physical and personal security programs for U.S. personnel and has established cooperative arrangements with the U.S. private sector. It also has established bilateral counter-terrorism assistance programs and close intelligence and law enforcement relationships with many nations to help prevent terrorist incidents or to resolve them in a manner that will deny the perpetrators benefits from their actions.

If it was my responsibility to decide how my nation would respond, my decision would be to hear out the terrorists demands. I would depend upon who was on the plane as well as who the terrorist would want released. For example, if the plane only had one American who was not going to live much longer, then I don’t see much point in arranging a deal with the terrorists due to the fact that they were going to die very soon anyway. However, if it was a plane full of healthy people and the terrorist wanted a few prisoners released who weren’t important to us, then I might consider it. In a case where it’s a plane of healthy Americans and the terrorists wanted Osama Bin Laden released, then I feel the US policy on terrorism is correct in its decision not to make concessions or deals with the terrorists. In my opinion, I feel the U.S. policy is wrong because it should not be concrete in all situations. The U.S. should take into consideration the situation and keep the policy as a background. I think moral principles play a huge part in my decision of if the Americans should be helped or not. In most cases, I would say do not let them go. We have counter terrorism teams. The teams have things planned such as:

 Smoking out terrorists from their hiding places,
 Draining the swamp where terrorists find safe haven,
 Pressuring states to stop supporting terrorism,
 Preventing planned terrorist attacks, and
 Bolstering the capabilities of our friends and allies to combat terrorism.



So consider the situation, keep the policy as the background and mostly rely on the policy and the counter terrorism teams.