I think the German government got this right.

Oerdin · October 20, 2003, 17:09

The German foreign office has told the German tourists who had been taken hostage in the Sahara desert this year by Islamic militants that they must pay for being rescued. The German government says that they had a travel advisory listed and that they had warned all German citizens against traveling in the Algerian desert because of the known risk posed by Islamic terror organizations oppurating there. These tourists ignored their government's warnings and went anyway so now the government is asking they repay a very small portion of the costs associated with rescuing them.

Of course the tourists feel that it is the government's responsibility to bail them out even if they refuse to listen to government warnings. They completely object to being billed 2300 Euros (around $2500) for the military oppuration which rescued them from Arab terrorists who had plotted to kill their captives if a ransom wasn't paid.

Personally, I see this as individuals doing irresponsible acts and who should be forced to pay for their actions. In my mind this is very similar to the lazy fat slob who hasn't gotten off the coach in 20 years and who thinks he's going to day hike the Grand Canyon without any water bottles. When the idiot gets into trouble he should be billed for the expense of a helicopter coming to pick his fat ass up. These idiots should be glade their government was willing to save their bacon when they were to pig headed to listen to advice and they should think of the 2300 Euro charge as being the costs of learning things the hard way.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3208138.stm

notyoueither · October 20, 2003, 17:13

I'm sure the bill will be what enlightens them.

DanS · October 20, 2003, 17:13

I think this is a dumb fight for the gov't.

Jack_www · October 20, 2003, 17:15

I agree, someone who ignores warnings and puts themselves and the people the rescue them at risk should pay some of the cost invovled.

Here in the LA country(United States) I think the Sheriffs department charges people who they resue by helicopter out of the woods or other places in the middle of no were. I forget the exact details or if they do it at all anymore.

Oerdin · October 20, 2003, 17:17

So you think the tax payer should pick up the tab for people who act stupidly? I'm thinking if you're warned but you do it any way then you are doing it at your own risk and your own cost.

DinoDoc · October 20, 2003, 17:17

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
I think this is a dumb fight for the gov't.

Why?

Hueij · October 20, 2003, 17:19

The German government would be right if together with the warning, they would have told that people have to pay for their rescue. Not after the fact.

DinoDoc · October 20, 2003, 17:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Hueij
The German government would be right if together with the warning, they would have told that people have to pay for their rescue. Not after the fact.

Other tourists have been asked to pay in the past, I don't see why these people should be any different.

dannubis · October 20, 2003, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
So you think the tax payer should pick up the tab for people who act stupidly? I'm thinking if you're warned but you do it any way then you are doing it at your own risk and your own cost.

Iraq ... anyone ?

DanS · October 20, 2003, 17:28

Quote:

Why?

Because it's bad press, doesn't have much detterent value, and the invoicing probably costs more to administer than is recovered.

General Ludd · October 20, 2003, 17:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
So you think the tax payer should pick up the tab for people who act stupidly?

dannubis kind of beat me to it, but isn't that what taxes are for?

rah · October 20, 2003, 17:35

I have no problem with this. They ignored the warning and should pay the price for their stupidity/stuborness.
It's not like they asked them to pay full price. 2500 isn't that much to pay for being saved.

chequita guevara · October 20, 2003, 18:34

If they don't pay, they could hand them back to the kidnappers.

germanos · October 20, 2003, 18:43

IIRC, it was an advisory, and German citizens were NOT forbidden to go to Algeria. The distincton between the two should be made.

There was also a dutch guy among the hostages, and the day they were freed, this question popped up in the press here, as it was raised in Germany before.

The Dutch goverment rarely puts out restrections for dutch citizens to travel abroad, and they usually only go as far as telling people there are risks involved travelling to other countries, not outright banning them to go.

As long as my government doesn't ban me to go anywhere, but merely states there are (great) risks involved going to that country, then I will expect from my government that they wll do anything in their power to get me out, and I expect to receive regular consulatory (is that a word? well, it is now

)services.

Obviously, many governments don't go as far as banning travel to certain countries, as it would 'persuade' many people to cancel the trips they booked, and all the insurance companies would have to pay up to either the transporters or customers who take the 'annullement' clauses in the contracts.

Bottomline:
The German and Dutch government rather not burn their fingers on such tricky subjects, and now for once they have blisters on their hands: tough for them!

Germany

germanos · October 20, 2003, 18:46

@ chegitz: sig material

Spiffor · October 20, 2003, 18:59

I think the German government should have warned beforehand that it may not rescue the group, or that it may have them pay a fee. If such warning has been done, I think the German gov is right. If not, I think it is wrong.

Oerdin · October 20, 2003, 19:06

Hueij: I like your old avatar better (the one of the girl with her legs in the air). Your current pin up girl looks like she's trying to take a dump or something.

Ted Striker · October 20, 2003, 23:51

**** that

Even if the government gave them warnings, I say Germans should pick them up anyway

So we can all tell the Islamic terrorist cowards to **** off

DanS · October 21, 2003, 00:17

That's just the thing. If the German gov't is paying off these nutfvcks, then I guess the gov't should ask for reimbursement. But if the gov't is doing what it should and sending in the toughs to do a tough job, then it comes under defense, rather, and is non-reimbursable. Germans need to express their preference on what type of response they want their government to give to the nutfvcks of the world.

Dis · October 21, 2003, 00:23

I just don't think it's a good PR move by the goverment.

the muslims must be attacked and defeated. resueing the hostages is secondary

Ted Striker · October 21, 2003, 00:48

yeah

attacked and KILLED

Show those idiots who is boss

DinoDoc · October 21, 2003, 01:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
I just don't think it's a good PR move by the goverment.

The fine should be higher and then they might start to get people to pay attention to the warnings the government puts out and not put other people's lives needlessly at risk when they have to rescue them.

Ted Striker · October 21, 2003, 01:25

nah

i mean i still say we and the eurocoms just make it a policy to cap all these terrorist fools

do it up Delta Force Chuck Norris style

notyoueither · October 21, 2003, 03:04

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
The fine should be higher and then they might start to get people to pay attention to the warnings the government puts out and not put other people's lives needlessly at risk when they have to rescue them.

So tourists through certain American neighbourhoods should also be billed for police and medical services when they get capped?

The fact is that out of 100 million people, someone is gonna do something dumb. We pay taxes so that the government takes care of certain things. Look at it like insurance. Being kidnapped by terrorists would be covered by that, I think.

Chemical Ollie · October 21, 2003, 06:14

Does this mean I can't sue the electronics company for the death of my cat as I tried to dry it's rainsoaked fur in the microwave owen? Will I have to do all the thinking myself now?

Spiffor · October 21, 2003, 06:33

Striker:
I don't know how it is in the US, but in Europe, one of the most important missions of the State is to protect the physical integrity of its people. It is NOT to kill some terrorists abroad (are we only sure they are terrorists and not freedom fighters btw?).

Just a little nitpickabout you saying "rescuing them is secondary".

Q Classic · October 21, 2003, 07:36

it sucks when you're in a position of responsibility when you have to deal with cases of operator error.

you want to kill 'em dumb fcuks, but you can't.

DinoDoc · October 21, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
(are we only sure they are terrorists and not freedom fighters btw?).

Kidnapping civilians and threatening to kill them is a big clue.

Quote:

So tourists through certain American neighbourhoods should also be billed for police and medical services when they get capped?

We already charge them for medical services.

Quote:

Look at it like insurance. Being kidnapped by terrorists would be covered by that, I think.

Think of the money the German government is asking for as a deductible then.

Spiffor · October 21, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Kidnapping civilians and threatening to kill them is a big clue.

Most illegal combatant groups do that. My question would be more precisely: does this group wantonly attack Civilians in the aim of creating a climate of fear, to push their political agenda ? In the current situation, the aim seems to have been money, which is completely different from terrorism.

DinoDoc · October 21, 2003, 10:39

You seem to have a wierd desire to defend something that at best can be decribed as a criminal act.