評論
打印
Through the debates and policy changes, the K&R industry not only survived but thrived.
經過辯論和政策的變化，綁架和贖金行業不僅存活了下來，而且繁榮了起來。
Then came September 11 2001, which changed the terms of the whole discussion.
然后2001年9月11日來臨，這一天改變了整個討論的條件。
Rather than challenging the K&R industry as a whole, governments increasingly sought to draw a clearer distinction between criminal groups,
政府沒有挑戰整體的綁架和贖金行業，而是越來越多地尋求在犯罪集團和恐怖組織之間劃清界限，
to whom ransom could legally be paid, and terror groups, to whom it could not.
贖金可以合法支付給犯罪集團，而不能支付給恐怖組織。
The US and UK governments both maintained lists of Foreign Terrorist Organizations who could not receive ransom payments.
美國和英國政府仍然維持著不能接受贖金的國外恐怖組織的名單。
In industry parlance, these groups were designated as “proscribed”.
按照業界的說法，這些組織被指定為“被禁止的”。
This attempt to draw distinctions between criminal and terrorist organisations raised many tricky questions.
在犯罪組織和恐怖組織之間劃清界限的嘗試引起了很多棘手的問題。
It was clear that K&R policies could not reimburse policyholders who paid a ransom to a terrorist group.
很明顯，綁架和贖金保險不會補償那些向恐怖組織支付贖金的投保人。
But could security consultants handle negotiations? Could they help families to raise and assemble the funds?
但是安保顧問可以處理談判嗎？他們能幫助家庭收集和籌集資金嗎？
And what about the families themselves? Would they be held legally liable for paying ransom to terrorists?
這些家庭自身呢？他們會因為向恐怖分子支付贖金而承擔法律責任嗎？
“It’s all a grey area,” Milne acknowledged.
米爾恩承認，“這都是灰色地帶?！?/div>
Further complicating the process is the fact that kidnappers often try to hide their identity.
使這個過程更復雜的是，綁架者通常會隱藏他們的身份。
Hostage negotiators told me that some terror groups pretend to be criminal organisations so they can collect ransoms.
人質談判專家告訴我，一些恐怖組織假裝是犯罪組織，這樣他們就可以收集贖金。
The opposite also occurs. Criminal groups who are ignorant of the legal prohibitions sometimes pretend to be terror organisations
相反的情況也會發生。不知道法律禁令的犯罪組織有時會假裝成恐怖組織，
in the hopes that the fearsome reputation of these groups will push negotiations along.
希望恐怖組織可怕的名聲會推動談判。
Under the law, the onus is on the insurance company to demonstrate that kidnappers are “proscribed” in order to invalidate the policy.
在法律之下，為了使該政策無效，保險公司有責任證明綁匪是被“禁止”的。
Negotiators working for the victim’s family would sometimes refrain from asking obvious questions about the group holding the hostage.
為受害者家庭工作的談判者有時會避免問挾持人質的組織一些明顯的問題。
They simply preferred not to know.
他們僅僅是假裝不知道。
