Should a situation arise when domestic or foriegn terrorists or other kinds of perpetrators take hostages in the United States and threatens to kill these hostages unless particular demands are met by authorities, officials come face-to-face with a very difficult choice. If the hostage takers demands are met by the authorities -- it would encourage similar terrorists that their demands could be met as long as they took American hostages. Meeting the demands of hostage takers would also validate any claims that a terrorist would make. So, on the whole, these are not viable options. What is viable and what is needed is a rescue team that has been trained to a high-level of skill that would kill or disable the hostage takers without harm to the hostages, themselves.
In the United States, this type of mission would fall upon the FBI's HRT. When hostages are taken, it is possible to delay the situation, for a period of time, with negotiations. However, as the clock is ticking, the danger to the hostages increases. Even though it should not matter in the situation, public concern and outrage to the situation would also increase, thus throwing additonal pressure upon the people whose job is to resolve the situation and, in turn, could cause mistakes in judgement. The longer a hostage situation, of this type, with terrorists, continues -- the danger to the hostages does increase.
There is a train of thought amongst law enforcement SWAT or Special Response teams that in hostage situations you wait ... and wait ... and wait ... until Hell freezes over, if necessary. While this may be the proper response to a distraught man who has been overcome by a myraid of personal problems in a short period of time and takes his family hostage and barricades himself in his home -- those same tactics of waiting and negotiating will not work when dealing with the likes of a terrorist team that has received special training at a terrorist training camp in Lebanon.
Most of our allies in other countries such as in Great Britain, France and Germany, have developed special teams trained to deal with these type of situations. I can not speak about Israel, even though I know that such teams must exist -- I know very little about the Israeli teams. These teams in other countries have been developed along military lines.
These special teams have been developed, trained and are equipped to handle well-armed and determined opponents and have a very good chance of being able to minimize the loss of hostage lives. The methods of these teams in resolving a hostage-taking situation are not designed to encourage further acts of hostage-taking by any other group of people who may contemplate such an act in the future. The catalyst for the development of these teams is acknowledged to be the Israelis and their successful 1976 rescue of hostages from Entebbe, Uganda.
The members of the Hostage Rescue Team of the FBI have been well selected, trained and equipped. In a demonstration at Quantico, Virginia, in 1993, two FBI agents sat as hostages surrounded by mock-ups of terrorists in a building. In a matter of seconds, and out of nowhere, the HRT had entered the building and would have surprised, stunned and disabled/killed the terrorists without any harm coming to the hostages. The training exercise was conducted with live ammunition, even though there were "live" hostages present.
The rules of engagement in such a scenario must be different from those of a typical arrest situation. No unnecessary harm should ever come to a suspect. However, in situations in which known terrorists are being dealt with -- the rules of engagement MUST be changed.
Police officers, are generally trained to ask questions first, or identify themselves, make sure that their life or the life of someone else is in imminent danger and then take lethal force, if necessary. This kind of thinking and mentality is not proper in dealing with terrorists because the first one who hesitates ... is dead. A totally different psyche is required. Shoot first and ask questions later, will more than likely keep the rescue team member alive.
It is known that the members of the U.S. Army's Delta Force, who would deal with such situations in a foreign country, if needed, take the attitude of two shots to the head of any terrorist whom they encounter in a raid situation. This attitude was learned from the British SAS. Most people find this kind of attitude, even toward terrorists, as appalling. However, it is necessary because that very attitude WILL save lives. Most police officers, because of their training, are frankly not suited to deal with these situations that require no hesitation in carrying out a mission.
Again, going back to our terrorist hostage-taking scenario, if nothing is done and the clock continues to tick -- there is a very real threat that the hostages will be killed by their captors. If a rescue attempt is anticipated, the hostages most certainly will be killed -- so this requires another skill of a rescue team -- that of concealment and stealth. The normal rules of arrest make no sense in these situations. Forbidding a rescuer from shooting except when immediately necessary to prevent the escape of a dangerous suspect or to defend oneself or others would, in this kind of situation, cost innocent lives.
The equipment and arms of the Hostage Rescue Team is very different from the usual weapons of law enforcement officers on the street. The weapons of the HRT are much more lethal. Automatic weapons and long-range rifles are used. Even the attire that is worn is carefully selected to provide camouflage and even to psychologically create fear when an assault takes place.
For the reasons stated above, it is, on a whole, unwise to use the FBI's HRT team for anything else other than what their name implies -- Hostage Rescue. Their training and their use of a different set of rules of engagement are not appropriate for the purposes of making arrests, even if dealing with armed and/or defiant suspects. Their constant use with TV news stories showing their weapons, attire and tactics plays into the hands of the large number of people who are paranoid and who fear federal law enforcement. This is part of the reason why the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is under such fire. The agency is being portrayed, by many, as Nazi stormtroopers.
As with anything else, there is a cost to this. Maintaining a team whose sole and only purpose is to rescue hostages requires very special people who would be willing to constantly work and maintain skills that most likely will only rarely, if ever, be called upon -- is difficult from a morale standpoint.
Techniques used by military rescue teams to keep morale high would have to be looked at. Secondly, other types of teams would have to be developed, trained and equipped for the purposes of high-risk arrests. It is believed that these costs would be low compared with the loss of citizen support for federal law enforcement in the face of the Waco TX and Ruby Ridge ID situations that turned out to be less than successful operations.