Earlier today at Hillary Clinton’s campaign office in Rochester, New Hampshire, a man by the name of Leeland Eisenberg took volunteer Clinton supporters hostage. Strapped with supposed bomb to his chest, Eisenberg demanded to speak to Clinton. Despite the fact that his request was not met, Eisenberg did not harm any of the hostages nor did he take his own life. Instead he freed them separately over the course of five hours. And shortly after the final hostage was released after 6 p.m. Eisenberg surrendered to authorities.
On her official website, Clinton praised her supporters for the courage and coolness under the difficult circumstances. Clinton of course did not speak to Eisenberg for if she had it could have had disastrous results for her campaign volunteers.
While watching the events unfold, the question came to mind of how Hillary, a women looking to be the next president of America, would deal with terrorists. But of course I can’t just single Hillary out; the same question goes for any presidential candidate. Should they at any point make contact with someone requesting to speak with them, someone who is capable of endangering the lives of others?
If contact was made the results could go a few ways.
- Terrorist responds with deadly action due to disagreement.
- Terrorist’s demands are met and citizens of the country turn on candidate or leader.
- Terrorist’s demands are “met” and is instead strategically apprehended.
Of course today’s events show that things can go surprisingly well. So in the event of a possible threat to one’s life like today, would you put your life into the hands of someone you may be voting for? This isn’t a new question; it’s just one being brought back to the table due to today’s situation. Every four years this country elects a person who they feel is right for the job, a person they hope they can feel safe with, any you hope they make the right call. So again, how much trust do you put in the hands of politicians?
