4 hostages killed by pirates

[kiryan]

Some new information on what happened with the 4 hostages killed by pirates... taken at its word, I have some serious questions...

Apparently 2 pirates came over to negotiate. At some point, the pirates were taken into custody for not negotiating in good faith... We call over to the pirates and discuss some terms, they ask to "sleep on it". At 1am ish, all hell breaks loose and the hostages get killed... possibly in pirate on pirate crossfire, possibly just executed by one faction of the pirates.

My question... how can you justify detaining negotiators... That can't be in the rule book... the only reason I can think of is if they promised to go back to the boat and personally shoot / order the hostages to be shot. I'm sure it will turn out to be justified... but right now it looks like a cluster fuk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/24/world ... ted=1&_r=2

[Corth]

Agree with Kiryan. If you are going to agree to negotiate then you must do so in good faith. From what I read, the soldiers determined that the two pirates that had come to their ship to negotiate were not 'serious' about it, hence the reason they were taken into custody. That might not be the whole story, but if it is, then it sounds like a dumb decision to take them into custody. What do you accomplish by taking two pirates into custody, when there are 17 more holding hostages on that ship? The only reasonable conclusion the remaining pirates could take is that it would be fruitless to negotiate further, and that the full might of the US military would likely be attacking them at some undetermined point. That takes away all the leverage of holding hostages... so why not kill them? If nothing else you at least make them think twice about pulling such a maneuver next time.