I don't think so. Once we start paying criminals for their crime there's no end in sight. Their crime will escalate and the numbers of their victims will grow exponentially. Sure, there is tragedy involved, but paying off the bad guys isn't a viable option.
I think it is easy to say we don't negotiate with terrorists and all that jazz, is fairly easy, until it is one of our relatives or ourselves stuck in a predicament of that nature. I wonder if the legislators and politicians that say this would feel the same then.
A very great question, but one that has a myriad of great answers, sometimes even ones that contradict others just as good.
The obvious answer is NO across the board because it is the scab mentality that does not allow Management sympathizers to cross the Strike line when a strike is going on. I am doing a comparison between strikers and bargaining with terrorists. Hang in there, it makes sense in the end.
First, breaking a strike: That is a transgression that is a valid wrong. Meaning, if one breaks the strike, it tells the other side that the strikers are weak. That is a betrayal against the brotherhood of strikers, oftentimes Union workers. But.... This holds true on any playing field where there is a tribe.
Secondly: On a tribal grand scale, we of the Free World are telling the entire world that we as a brotherhood (and sister) will not cooperate with terrorists for any reason. I think that this is the code of the entire free world. We do not as a whole, cooperate with terrorists because it would get out of hand. We cannot let the terrorist ever dictate any command to us. We have to cut our losses and ignore their demands. When they see us as an unbending unit, they see that they are risking life and limb for nothing, unless their goal is to goad and embarrass us. Which often is the case.
I am not privy to how many circumstances of terrorists actually making good on any promise even exist. It is a joke. It is like dealing with Serial Killers. They LIE. So, why BOTHER?
Third: Any reason at all to obey terrorist commands to rescue a kidnap victim? I see no viable reason for ever paying a ransom unless there was proof of life and there was a sound reason to believe that the bargain would be honored; and it was a personal matter between two persons and not a government situation as in a serviceman or woman. I don't think the government should ever bargain. It is a tough but necessary policy. I think it saves lives in the end.
Benedict Arnold 