One comment
About bloody time

We'd do well to imitate them on that subject.

Wait, what?

How does this work? You're not billing an idiot for stranding himself on Everest, but for a hostile act against him?

You WILL rescue a professional, who deliberately inserts herself in harm's way and who has far more access to information, but you leave your hikers to rot?

Let's apply this everywhere. Ship's captain? Rescue is free. Passenger? Here's your bill. Sorry about the hijacking.

The sickest part of this is that the prisoner's own governmental policy probably figures into a kidnapping.

Oh, that's bold, and courageous. Show thugs worldwide that your ordinary citizens are on their own.

The next logical step is to bill you directly for police services. Call cops, get your money out, lady. We don't rescue you for free.

You shoulda known to stay outta Compton.

This law is obviously directed at the French leisure traveler who voluntarily travels near the Somali coast and are captured by pirates. These travelers know the dangers of going any where near the Horn of Africa, but go any way. The kidnappings have been followed by high profile rescues by the French military, sometimes with loss of life. These stories are not widely reported by the American press.

Should the French pass this law? Dax is right. About bloody time.

I think this comes after the Israel-Lebanon conflict from about a year ago. Many governments from Australia to Canada had to evacuate many of their citizens who where stuck in the country. In the end governments spent millions of dollars - renting ships, planes, food, security, and so on. Still many of these governments found that after finally getting this Canadian-Lebanese or Aussie-Lebanese dual or American-Lebanese citizens to a safe place asked for reimbursement and boy could you hear the howls. "It is the responsibility of the government to rescue us!" and please ignore that we have been living back in Lebanon for years or months and in a country that is considered not the safest and who continues to be aggressive towards Israel. It's like whining about getting scratched when you decide to put the family dog and cat in the same room together. What the heck did you expect to happen!

As a Canadian Citizen in Korea. I am expected to register or at the least check with the Canadian Embassy in Korea. (It has a website and I have enough intelligence to at least look at the news daily). Remember Korea is still at war with itself. Once I get here, I am given an onus of protecting myself. So if things start to heat up I am expected to keep care of myself and get myself to safety. The embassy will likely give me some advice of where to go and how to get out. But if I ignore advice and continue to stay and get into serious trouble (Mom! call my member of Parliament please there is a Nork Soldier at my door) why should the government come to my rescue after be warned. I totally understand that I must reimburse the government after they spend time and effort to get me to safety. It is the same with any advice given by my government of anybody who is abroad.

People should seriously read their countries State Department advisories. God how many times do we have to feel sorry for some stupid idiot who decided to break the law by smuggling drugs or doing drugs in some country, get their ass arrested and possibly executed. Yet, their home country is expected to come and rescue them. But please ignore the advisories and warnings that the your government and even the government of the country your visiting gave you. It is the same with any reporter who decides to go to some god-forsaken country or war zone in look of a story yet we have to go rescue them if they get captured or shot.

Common-sense people! Bali-Nine I have no sympathy.

John beat me to the punch wrt what occurred in Lebanon. But there's more ...

Most of the "Canadians" rescued were very much Canadians of Convenience. They had obtained their citizenship in Canada long ago and then soon after returned to Lebanon where they've been living ever since. When war broke out there, not only did they DEMAND the Canadian gov't rescue them, but they complained when said rescue was on rented ships "not to their liking".

Then, to throw salt into the wounds, most of them returned to Lebanon after things had settled down.

And how much did they reimburse the Canadian government (read "taxpayers")? Nada. Nothing. Zero. Zilch

To top it all off, guess how much these "Canadians" living in Lebanon have been paying in taxes to Canada these many years? I'll leave it to the reader to figure out that one!

I have to go with John Paulson and Dax on this one; About bloody time!

I remember the Lebanese crisis and the Lebanese-Canadians asking for a prompt evacuation. I also remember the guy who dint even set foot in Canada for THREE DECADES blaming the Canadian government for his slow and improvised response. Guess what shithead: we are an ocean and a continent away. You don't pay for the boat either so shut-up and enjoy the ride.

I made the vow of never traveling to a combat-zone or third-world country for these explicit reasons. I don't want to get myself into trouble. I am sure the Afghan people are nice as they can be but I rather stay here and keep my head on my shoulders.

There's a little known fact that passengers can travel on freight ships. When they do, it is asked to the traveler to take an insurance, not for you but for the ship's owner. If something goes wrong for you and you need to get evacuated, the insurance will pay for the fuel needed to reach the nearest port.

That's how it should work for everybody: you think you will do something risky when traveling? Take private insurance that cover your activity or, if there's no insurance to cover it, don't do it.

I have to go with Radwaste -- as described it seems unworkable not to mention unfair and illogical.

Besides which observing how other countries treat our people abroad is a great canary in the coalmine/penguins and tiger sharks strategy, and pretty awesome entertainment.

Send the bills to CNN.

I have to go with Radwaste -- as described it seems unworkable not to mention unfair and illogical.

I kindly disagree. I will refrain no-one who desire to play for "Team Darwin" (I.E. Base-Jumping, Extreme Expeditions, Tourism in Warzones) as long as they do it on their own time and money.

A close friend was in a protection unit in Iraq. His job was to provide security for VIPs riding in a convoy around Iraq to and from the Green Zone. So not only did these soldiers face the normal dangers of war, but now they had to go out and endanger themselves when pseudo celebrities wanted to go sightseeing in downtown Baghdad. He did protect Bush when he was there which should be expected, but NFL players? C'mon. I support the USO tours that bring morale to the troops but there were visits that went outside the basic morale boosting reasons. Its not for me to tell someone they can't visit Iraq, but when you are putting someone I love in more danger than needed to protect your curious ass, then yes, I have a problem. In that case, its not just about the money, but the unnecessary danger they create for their potential rescuers.

If they do it, they have to be very clear about a system which states which places qualify and which don't. You could theoretically be kidnapped by a psycho terrorist in Belgium, for example. They need to have a list of place and say, "You'll be charged for any of these places".

It makes sense in general to me for them to differentiate between people who have professional reasons to be there and others. Since they (one assumes) still want to foster international trade and business they don't want to discourage business and air travel to certain areas, without having to bale out loonies whole feel that they have to preach the gospel to North Korea. Diplomats are government workers anyways, so that seems obvious. The only issue would be humanitarian aid workers, which is where you'd have to have the strictest rules about what would be acceptable or not.

The hard part is that a country wants to protect their sovereignty, the extension of that being the protection of their people, and if it’s pay to play then one wonders what the scenario is if one can’t pay. Does the country look weak if they refuse to help out one of their own because they are a farmer and not a super model?

Okay.

You guys just remember: you approve of your government saying that you are on your own.

Sigh. People always think that laws can't possibly apply to them. It's always someone else.

Rad - After the Wolcott decision, we are on our own.

Of course, I meant the Warren v. District of Columbia decision. PIMF.

I have no idea where Wolcott came from.

You make very good points, Rad. The only thing though is that we do pay for our police through our taxes so every time we call them, they are already paid for.
And Brian, I believe you mentioned Wolcott on a different topic so its probably caught in your head, but I think we understood you, or at least I did.

Count me in the 'it's about time' camp. This blank check mentality doesn't work for me. And if I understand France's point, they are not saying "no soup for you!", they are saying that if you take an obviously unreasonable risk then expect your rescue to come with a bill (somebody correct me if I am wrong on that). Yes, it is a judgment call on the part of the government as to who gets billed (always a potentially scary thing), however, to keep letting egregious thrill seekers and highly abnormal risk takers get rescued at no financial cost to that individual is unfair to the general public.

Brian, I had not heard of Warren V DC. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. What a totally unnerving case (on many fronts). Do you know if anyone on the DC force or 911 operations center lose their jobs over this?

"You make very good points, Rad. The only thing though is that we do pay for our police through our taxes so every time we call them, they are already paid for."

Nope. As I am reminded above, Warren v. DC removed any doubt: police are not responsible for defending you.

The case actually holds police harmless for failing to defend you, personally, should you be harmed after notifying them. It acknowledges the plain fact that the operative syllable in the term, "self-defense" is "self" - and that the first lawsuit would bankrupt operations, thus leaving the jurisdiction defenseless.

Do you really think speaking to the Sergeant on shift costs the same as a SWAT deployment? Do you think SWAT costs the same sitting and waiting as deployed? No, they don't. All it takes is to read the paper about your own Sheriff's budget to learn that.

But the distinction is missed, by Brian and others above: the policy they approve will mean that no attempt whatsoever will be made on your behalf without billing you.

It's a trivial thing to produce a risk assessment for anywhere on the globe which will put you on the street for not paying for a helicopter flight. I can show you a list of thirty-plus countries I'm not supposed to go to at any time, and all international travel has to be vetted because of work.

Stay out of bad neighborhoods. You shoulda known better - it was an obviously unreasonable risk for you to expect to travel through there unharmed. Here's your bill for being hurt and needing to be rescued.

Pay up.

And take this lesson: your government is not in business to protect and serve you.

And this is totally OK with some people.

Again, Rad, you make very good points and I agree with what you are saying. I am just a little confused though as far as the poice protection. I haven't looked up the case, but is it possible that it just protects the cops from lawsuits in the event that something goes wrong or does it actuall say that they can do nothing?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on this but I do recall my ex-husband and brother being told by the PBA that they would be indemnified in the event that they got sued and lawsuits in NYC are pretty common. They are less common in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, but people still sue the police. Obviously there are all kinds of lawsuits, but I do wonder. I know that the motto of the NYPD is "To Protect and Serve." I would think that defending citizens would be covered under the protect part of that motto.

but is it possible that it just protects the cops from lawsuits in the event that something goes wrong or does it actuall say that they can do nothing?

It doesn't say that can do nothing. It says that they aren't responsible if something bad happens because they did nothing. Or if they did the wrong thing.

I know that the motto of the NYPD is "To Protect and Serve." I would think that defending citizens would be covered under the protect part of that motto.

Subterfuge. The purpose of the cops is to pick up the pieces after a crime, find the perpetrators, and turn them over to the justice system. They exist solely to enforce the laws of the state. The state does not have any laws requiring that the populace be protected.

You are responsible for your own defense.

You are responsible for your own defense.

Always keeping in mind the civil suit that awaits just around the corner when you do. :)

I had rather be tried by 12 than carried by six
is still operative even in NYC. Check out the merchant in Harlem last week.