The hostage crisis in Iraq was yesterday marked by horror and confusion. The horror came with the discovery of the decapitated body of the American Jack Hensley, whose savage murder had been announced on Tuesday. The confusion relates to the fate of Rihab Rashid Tara, or “Dr Germ”, one of the female prisoners held by the US military whose release has supposedly been sought by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his sadistic followers. It has been suggested, and then denied, that she might be transferred to the Iraqi Justice Ministry, which would end her imprisonment.

The notion that Tara could be freed on conditional bail, supposedly for reasons entirely unrelated to the kidnapping of Kenneth Bigley, has been described by some as a “ray of hope” for the hostage and his family. This is, unfortunately, most unlikely. It is wholly understandable that Mr Bigley’s relatives would pay any price to have him return safely. Their suffering over the past week is unimaginable. But all the evidence suggests that the likes of al-Zarqawi are barbaric killers with little sense of human compassion. They will no doubt exploit any indecision as ruthlessly as they treat their captives.

There is now a serious risk that even if Tara stays behind bars, the impression will be left that she became a bargaining chip in a bartering process. It is unclear what the al-Zarqawi group means by “female prisoners”, but it is clear that they will pursue their macho medievalism without concern for hostages or common decency. Their practices are an insult to Islam. If “female prisoners” were released, what next? Any excuse is a good excuse for barbarism. It is important that the release of kidnap victims is politically non-negotiable. If not, the number of kidnappings and the outrageousness of demands will inevitably increase.

To say this might sound cold to the point of callousness, particularly to the Bigley family. It implies that the only options when faced with the prospect of the murder of a hostage in conditions like these are a highly implausible change in attitude by those holding the captive, an improbable escape or successful rescue mission. Painful as it is to acknowledge, this may be the case. For these kidnappings have revealed that the hostage-takers have better intelligence about the whereabouts and vulnerability of potential targets than coalition forces do about where the hostages have been held.

It is right to attempt to contact the kidnappers but not to bargain. The British and US governments have made clear their positions, and the fumbling in Baghdad is likely to be the inevitable consequence of an inexperienced administration confronting the most tragic of circumstances. It is precisely at moments such as this that unambiguous leadership is demanded.

The sad reality is that a consistent approach towards kidnap and terror in Iraq has not always been followed. A number of countries and companies have tried to buy the release of citizens or employees taken hostage. As a result, kidnapping has become a cottage industry. If it were to continue to flourish, the reconstruction effort in Iraq would be badly undermined. The high price of negotiating with terror would ultimately be paid by the Iraqi people. These are hard days for Iraq and tragic moments for Mr Bigley’s family and friends. But it will not be the last time that life is bartered brutally by a group with contempt for life itself.