Capture Operations

What kind of militant methods are justified when using defensive political violence? There are several, but which can be successfully accomplished without hurting innocent people or getting caught by the police? Here we will mention only one: capture operations.

A capture operation can in some way be compared to kidnapping. But it is basically different from kidnapping because kidnapping is illegal while a capture operation is normally based on the legal and ethical requirements of necessity or self-defence. In other words, it is not illegal, and consequently it can not be identified with kidnapping.

The operations can be conducted in the following way under the condition that the better arguments in a public debate shows that it is defensible to use them as a method to force the world’s richest capitalists to give money to poor people who are dying of starvation or diseases. 

First, a group of militant activists should equip themselves with explosive belts or vests that will go off if fired upon. That will keep bodyguards or the police from shooting the activists, because the captured capitalist will then also be killed.

The activists can just walk up to a multi-billionaire and his bodyguards, and show them the explosives. That will force the guards to back off. The activists can put an explosive collar on the capitalist, and use stun batons if he refuse. Or they can scratch his skin with lethal poison, so that he must follow them in order to get an antidote.

They can then drive to the nearest airport. The police will watch them, but they can’t interfere, especially if the explosive collar is linked to a pulse meter which will ignite the explosives if flash-bang grenades or the firing of submachine guns makes the capitalist’s pulse increase considerably.

The activists should demand a jet plane that is suited for parachuting. A tandem parachute can be used to bring the captured capitalist down safely. The activists can either jump out over a country that hasn’t an extradition agreement with the state where the capitalist was captured, or land in a country with a neutral judicial system that has good laws regarding self-defence and necessity, Norway for instance.

The capitalist should be given new clothes and shoes, because they can contain GPS chips that can be tracked by the police. He should then be held in captivity without water until the danger of dehydration forces him to transfer at least 100 million dollars to aid agencies which operate in catastrophe areas in developing countries. It does not take many weeks to bring in tons of food, water, and medicine in such an area. Hostile military forces may be a problem, but they can be bribed if necessary. Activists can then release the billionaire after media like BBC and CNN have shown that the lives of thousands of children have been saved. If the activists get arrested, they will, in theory at least, have a good chance to win in court when they use the defence of necessity to argue that saving the lives of several thousand children justified the capture of only one individual.

This method is in theory so easy that everyone with a lot of courage (or self-sacrifice) can do it. The major advantage of the method is that calm and competent persons can rescue many lives without killing anyone.

Some may argue that terrorists and organised criminals can misuse this method. But that will probably not happen because police authorities will never allow that millions of dollars are transferred to such groups. They would rather let a kidnapped capitalist die than pay al-Qaida money that will be used to finance more terror. This is not a problem with defensive political violence because all the money will be transferred directly to aid agencies. The capturers will not get a dime. The authorities will have full control over the money, and media will monitor its use, so everyone will see that it is actually used to rescue people.

A capitalist will not be a popular man if he tries to take his former money back from dying children after he is released. But if it happens, other capture operations will follow and each will then last until all the money is distributed. That will not be pleasant for captured capitalists. They will experience the same thirst and starvation as the children they ignore to help.

But keep in mind that capture operations are only justified if a public debate, where all arguments for and against defensive political violence is presented, clearly shows that defensive political violence does not cause more harm than good.

It can be objected that it is irresponsible to publish information about capture operations, but there are two reasons why we choose to do this.

Firstly, academics and non-violent NGO’s have formerly been invited to present their arguments against violence in the discussion forum of the now closed down Research Center on Political Violence and Sabotage. Almost none chose to participate. Norwegian academics have had over eight years to present arguments against defence political violence, but nearly all of them have just ignored the question. The University of Tromsø in Norway has even been asked to let a Ph.D. committee assess a thesis which presents arguments in favour of political violence, but the university refused to take a look at it. The information presented here about capture operations will hopefully make academics and others realise that this debate should be taken seriously.

Secondly, and most importantly, around 10 million children die each year because of poverty. That is over five times the number of people killed in Auschwitz. This horrible situation certainly justifies a public discussion about which methods to use in the fight against poverty.

But kidnapping with the intent of forcing the authorities to release jailed activists should be avoided, because that will always be associated with terrorism. Activists should not even think about it.