wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (03/11/85)
About a week or so ago, there was a story on the news about a couple of
people from the Middle East (Syria, I believe) who:
(1) requested asylum in West Germany;
(2) were refused asylum and were put on a plane bound for Syria;
(3) hijacked the plane and forced it to land in Austria;
(4) were going to be charged in Austria with air piracy, and their
plea for asylum would therefore probably not be seriously con-
sidered by Austrian authorities.
Now, I have been sufficiently repelled by the actions of various and
sundry terrorists that I would normally say that airplane hijacking or
similar action is always 100% wrong. And I don't know the details of
the specific story I touched on above; in particular, I don't know why
said Syrians asked for asylum or why the West Germans turned them down.
But this got me to thinking. Suppose you had the following scenario:
(1) John Doe flees from country X to country Y and asks for asylum.
For whatever reason (political expediency, bumbling bureaucracy,
or whatever), country Y decides to reject his plea and instead
chooses to return him to country X.
(2) Let us suppose that country X is an evil, repressive dictator-
ship with a grudge of some sort against John Doe. As soon as
Mr. Doe is returned to country X's soil, the X government plans
either to kill him on the spot (perhaps via a staged accident
or "assassination" by a third party, perhaps not) or else to
give him a five-minute "trial" and then get rid of him. Hence,
John Doe has no hope whatever of due process or opportunity to
escape certain death if he is returned to country X.
(3) At some point during the "death flight", John Doe manages to
overpower his guards and succeeds in coercing the flight crew
into taking him to country Z, where he feels he may have a
chance to gain asylum.
The question is: Has John Doe committed an "a priori" inexcusable act
by hijacking the plane?
And if you say "yes": What should John Doe have done instead? (The
answer "allow himself to be returned to country X" is, in my view, not
worthy of serious consideration.)
Various other illegal acts could undoubtedly be substituted for air
piracy in the above; I chose air piracy in my example because it seems
in normal circumstances to be one of the most universally condemned of
modern crimes.
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rich Wales
University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA)
Computer Science Department
3531 Boelter Hall
Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Phone: (213) 825-5683 // +1 213 825 5683
ARPANET: wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA
UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!wales
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond) (03/15/85)
If the destination country has plans to kill John Doe the instant he gets
off the plane which he'd been forced onto, then of course he has no choice.
(In the two scenarios originally given, I also agree he has no choice.)
But I can promise you that the passengers on the plane do not enjoy having
their own lives at risk either. Their risk is identical -- unless it can
be assumed that Doe is bluffing, in which case the plane is not really
hijacked.
If someone points a gun at me, and says he will kill me unless I kill you,
then I do not have a choice either. Would you (or your relatives) excuse me?
--
Norman Diamond
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/17/85)
> The question is: Has John Doe committed an "a priori" inexcusable act > by hijacking the plane? > > And if you say "yes": What should John Doe have done instead? (The > answer "allow himself to be returned to country X" is, in my view, not > worthy of serious consideration.) > Why do you think that saving John Doe's life warrents putting in jeopardy the life of everyone else aboard that airliner? -Ron
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/18/85)
Given the situation as it has been structured, the person involved has no other honorable choice than to kill himself, preferably publically, as an act to shame the government that denied asylum. He has no right to endanger or involve others, though I would not blame him for managing to kill or harm members of the security forces of either of the countries involved in the process of his suicide; this would be considered revenge or retribution for the way he had been treated. Whether he chose to exact such revenge would be up to his personal moral code; it is probably more effective to harm only yourself in such a situation, and become a martyr (such as the Buddhist monks who protested in Vietnam by self-immolation).
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (03/19/85)
Isn't this just another question of the type "Is it moral to commit an evil act in order to avert an even more evil event?" ie, stealing food if you're starving. Many people would probably condone the guy's action if he were an innocent victim of a government we disapproved of--suppose someone on the run from the Iranian government hijacked an aircraft (it has happened, more than once)? Does that make a difference? Could it be that we have different reactions to escape attempts by someone we see as "innocent" versus someone who is "guilty"? Here's another case for you: a few years ago, an East German border guard defected to the West--not an unknown occurrence--but in this case he shot two of his comrades on the way. The East Germans said he's a murderer, send him back, but he said since the guards had orders to shoot him, he was justified in shooting them first. The dead men hadn't attacked him, but if he tried to escape they would have done so, a claim of pre-emptive self defense. Unfortunately, I don't know what the West Germans did in this case. John Purbrick decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/20/85)
> Isn't this just another question of the type "Is it moral to commit an evil > act in order to avert an even more evil event?" ie, stealing food if you're > starving. Many people would probably condone the guy's action if he were an > innocent victim of a government we disapproved of--suppose someone on the run > from the Iranian government hijacked an aircraft (it has happened, more than > once)? Does that make a difference? Could it be that we have different > reactions to escape attempts by someone we see as "innocent" versus someone > who is "guilty"? No, the difference in the analogy between the starving person stealing the loaf of bread and the hijacking of the airplane is that in the example you show, petty theft is not a heinous crime. It is wrong, but does not endanger the life of the shopkeeper. Consider what would happen if a thirsty man went and stole water from the limited reserves of a community that required all its water to survive, like in the dessert, or on old ocean going vessels. -Ron
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (03/21/85)
< Isn't this just another question of the type "Is it moral to commit an evil < act in order to avert an even more evil event?" ie, stealing food if you're < starving. > No, the difference in the analogy between the starving person stealing the > loaf of bread and the hijacking of the airplane is that in the example you > show, petty theft is not a heinous crime. True, but if my life were on the line, I'm not sure that I'd think very deeply about the "right" thing to do. And if I heard that an innocent person had saved himself by jeopardizing the lives of other innocent people, I'd have at least some sympathy. On the other hand, if he were guilty, then his escape attempt would make him all the more guilty. Unfortunately everyone decides for themselves whether they are guilty or not. An "innocent" hijacker has to persuade people that he is ready to kill them, but not actually do so. But in the case of the unfortunate Syrian, he may well have achieved his object even if the Austrians put him in jail for a few years. It's a pretty good bet that he'd be killed if he were sent home, while by the time the Austrians let him go the Syrian govt might well have forgotten all about him.