英国卫报:绑架为何成了一门生意(6)（打印版）

Through the debates and policy changes, the K&R industry not only survived but thrived.

经过辩论和政策的变化，绑架和赎金行业不仅存活了下来，而且繁荣了起来。

Then came September 11 2001, which changed the terms of the whole discussion.

然后2001年9月11日来临，这一天改变了整个讨论的条件。

Rather than challenging the K&R industry as a whole, governments increasingly sought to draw a clearer distinction between criminal groups,

政府没有挑战整体的绑架和赎金行业，而是越来越多地寻求在犯罪集团和恐怖组织之间划清界限，

to whom ransom could legally be paid, and terror groups, to whom it could not.

赎金可以合法支付给犯罪集团，而不能支付给恐怖组织。

The US and UK governments both maintained lists of Foreign Terrorist Organizations who could not receive ransom payments.

美国和英国政府仍然维持着不能接受赎金的国外恐怖组织的名单。

In industry parlance, these groups were designated as “proscribed”.

按照业界的说法，这些组织被指定为“被禁止的”。

This attempt to draw distinctions between criminal and terrorist organisations raised many tricky questions.

在犯罪组织和恐怖组织之间划清界限的尝试引起了很多棘手的问题。

It was clear that K&R policies could not reimburse policyholders who paid a ransom to a terrorist group.

很明显，绑架和赎金保险不会补偿那些向恐怖组织支付赎金的投保人。

But could security consultants handle negotiations? Could they help families to raise and assemble the funds?

但是安保顾问可以处理谈判吗？他们能帮助家庭收集和筹集资金吗？

And what about the families themselves? Would they be held legally liable for paying ransom to terrorists?

这些家庭自身呢？他们会因为向恐怖分子支付赎金而承担法律责任吗？

“It’s all a grey area,” Milne acknowledged.

米尔恩承认，“这都是灰色地带。”

Further complicating the process is the fact that kidnappers often try to hide their identity.

使这个过程更复杂的是，绑架者通常会隐藏他们的身份。

Hostage negotiators told me that some terror groups pretend to be criminal organisations so they can collect ransoms.

人质谈判专家告诉我，一些恐怖组织假装是犯罪组织，这样他们就可以收集赎金。

The opposite also occurs. Criminal groups who are ignorant of the legal prohibitions sometimes pretend to be terror organisations

相反的情况也会发生。不知道法律禁令的犯罪组织有时会假装成恐怖组织，

in the hopes that the fearsome reputation of these groups will push negotiations along.

希望恐怖组织可怕的名声会推动谈判。

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，为了使该政策无效，保险公司有责任证明绑匪是被“禁止”的。

Negotiators working for the victim’s family would sometimes refrain from asking obvious questions about the group holding the hostage.

为受害者家庭工作的谈判者有时会避免问挟持人质的组织一些明显的问题。

They simply preferred not to know.

他们仅仅是假装不知道。