Piracy appears to be on the rise in the Indian Ocean. Is it because international law and individual nations are too light on pirates? Bret Stephens thinks so.
By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained."
Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century — a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.
Today, by contrast, a Navy captain who takes captured pirates aboard his state-of-the-art warship will have a brig in which to keep them securely detained, and instantaneous communications through which he can obtain higher guidance and observe the rule of law.
Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above. And in pursuit of a better form of justice — chiefly defined nowadays as keeping a clear conscience — we get (at best) a Kenyan jail. "We're humane warriors," says one U.S. Navy officer. "When the pirates put down their RPGs and raise their hands, we take them alive. And that's a lot tougher than taking bodies."
Does this mean we should return to 18th Century standards? Not at all. An automatic death sentence for pirates could cause violent escalation of confrontations and increase the loss of innocent life, among other things. But it may be time for the international community to take a more aggressive stance against piracy so as to defend freedom of the seas.
UPDATE: This story illustrates the perils of a shoot-first approach to piracy.
A Thailand-based fishing company has claimed that the pirate ‘mother ship’ the Indian Navy destroyed in the Gulf of Aden last week was one of its deep sea fishing trawlers and was being hijacked by pirates when it was blown up by INS Tabar.To be clear, I have no concern for pirates. Piracy is one of the oldest, and most serious, crimes under international law, and should be treated as such. Yet it is important to ensure that anti-piracy actions do not harm innocents -- such as those mistakenly identified as pirates or those victimized by pirates.
In the real world, violence and killing aren't universally bad. There is good violence and there is bad violence. It depends on context. To paraphrase Dirty Harry- it depends on who is being killed and under what circumstances.
Summary execution is appropriate for pirates because:
-the pirates are typically caught in the act of piracy, making determination of guilt uncomplicated
-the pirates are incapacitated by death more effectively than by any other means
-other pirates are deterred (as 19th century practice indicates) far more effectively by execution than by any other means
Simply put- it's fair and it works and it protects innocent life. Other methods get marginally more fairness but trade away almost all the effectiveness.
Criminals are doing bad things and it is by doing them that they forfeit a whole slew of rights that they would otherwise have. Killing people who are on their way to steal from you and probably kill you is self-defense and is entirely appropriate.
Arm some merchant marines or put a team of real Marines on board random ships. Once the word gets out of a couple of pirate attacks with no survivors, piracy will be reduced very quickly. The rule of law is supposed to help prevent us from lapsing into lawlessness, not ensure that it happens.
I've long felt that anyone knowingly involved in paying off a kidnapper should be treated as a co-conspirator to the crime. And this applies to piracy as well.
"Millions for defense but not one penny for tribute".
Bullshit. If you kill all the pirates, there's no "circle of violence."
I think PatHMV and others are underestimating the difficulty of controlling piracy. You're mostly looking for guys in small boats, wielding small arms, across millions of square kilometers. Many countries already have warships in the area, and they are using deadly force on sight. But there just aren't enough warships given how many pirates there are - it's impossible to solve this through enforcement.
The root problem is that there is no real government in Somalia. This won't go away until that is dealt with.
Punishing owners who ransom their ships, crews, and cargoes won't help - someone is going to be willing to buy stolen goods, even if it's not the original owner.
Second, summary execution of pirates is less compelling than the death penalty for domestic offenders, as the deterrence effect seems even more strained. Piracy, especially the type the Somali pirates are doing--in small boats against multiple-football-sized ships--seems extremely dangerous anyway, and the added threat of summary execution, as opposed to detention, possible abuse thereafter, and prosecution seems unlikely to do anything other than satisfy some sort of innate bloodlust.
Find the ports that they use and kill everyone there.
There are no innocents there. If they were innocent, law abiding civilians, they would put a stop to the activities of the pirates. Even under islam, a thief is punished.
I haven't seen any pictures of one handed pirates.
Oh wait, I forgot, our lawyerly masters have determined that terrorists are covered by the Geneva Convention and have a right to a trial.
I just wish that these lawyers and judges would put their lives where their mouths are and take these poor, misunderstood wretches into their own homes for Thanksgiving dinner.
I don't particularly care if we execute pirates, but pretending that there's some kind of deterrent effect is just laughable.
Meaning what? Have the UN pass another resolution condemning piracy?
It has been suggested that the US Navy blockade the Somali coast. The problem with this is that the US Navy has said that to conduct an effective blockade, ships would have to be stationed every 5 to 10 miles -- it's a coast with many small harbors and hiding places. So, a blockade would require about 230 ships on station at all times. The US Navy is about 280 ships now. We could ask other nations to join in the blockade, but the level of cooperation would likely be about the same level as it is now.
I suggest we simply issue Letters of Marque. The government of Liberia is currently doing something similar to catch and discourage illegal fishing in its waters, and has authorized some private groups to do this. At least some of the private groups are former mercenaries. The program seems to be effective. I suspect there are people who'd be willing to deal with Somali pirates for fun and profit. The sale of the ship and cargo of a small freighter full of illegally caught fish can bring a few tens of thousands of dollars in Liberia. The salvage rights for a supertanker full of crude oil or a freighter full of T-72 tanks would be much more profitable, and attract enough people to deal with the problem. Right now, given the fairly small number of naval vessels patroling a very large area, and the restrictions on use of force that result from the domestic politics of the various nations that have sent warships, the risk to the pirates is fairly small. Issuing Letters of Marque would quickly change that.
Still, I have to admit that I don't have a clue as to the due process rights that privateers are required to provide to captured pirates.
If they go out on the seas and don't come back, the desire to become a pirate will be greatly diminished.
Also, has it occurred to anyone that the Thai shipping vessel may have been hijacked earlier and turned into the mothership and that the Thais are just raising this "hijacking in progress" story because they want to hassle India for a payout? I don't imagine the Somali pirates have very deep pockets.
If the US and its allies cared to, they could deploy maritime surveillance air squadrons to Asmara, Djibouti, and Aden (the planes equipped with hellfire missiles, perhaps), along with an increased naval presence.
Sink the pirate ship on sight. Steam away from the wreckage.
</blockquote>
That could turn out to be really embarrassing when you sink a fishing ship that has been commandeered by pirates with innocent lives aboard.
Of course, the pirates should be executed but why exactly do we want to kill the innocent fishermen that had the misfortune to be taken hostage?
That could turn out to be really embarrassing when you sink a fishing ship that has been commandeered by pirates with innocent lives aboard.
Of course, the pirates should be executed but why exactly do we want to kill the innocent fishermen that had the misfortune to be taken hostage?
But I think the idea of naval air squadrons patrolling for pirates is unrealistic - again, millions of square kilometers, looking for speed boats from thousands of feet in the air.
Mark E - Yes, that would really be the final solution to the piracy problem, wouldn't it?
Yes, MCM, it would.
It may take a couple of times, but it will be cheaper than paying these terrorists off.
Or enriching their lawyers since they will probably be able to sue to loss of income in US courts if someone dares to stop them.
Wow.
On the other hand, the legal market being what it is, maybe I should just become one of these pirate-lawyers you seem to think actually exist. Corporate departments are on a bit of a downturn, I'm afraid.
The Somali pirate problem is rooted in Somali culture. Their pirates have been a problem before, and only two solutions have been effective in the long-term, ground occupation, and slaughter of the Somali coastal population. The latter has been the far more prevalent solution, though generally only after trying all lesser alternatives first.
The present Somali pirate problem is also due to the emergence of related financing and facilitating organizations in the Arab oil states of the Persian Gulf.
Messing around only at sea gives the pirates and their associates privileged sanctuaries. Letting them have such sanctuaries guarantees the problem will persist, and get worse until eventually the sanctuaries are attacked along with the pirates' lairs, wherever those are. Which will not be limited to Somalia much longer, assuming they are so limited now, and I tend to doubt that.
I've heard no one, anywhere, argue that "It is important to ensure that anti-piracy actions harm innocents -- such as those mistakenly identified as pirates and those victimized by pirates."
Sorry, you missed the election &will have to wait for a couple of years.
/Gilbert &Sullivan reference
Seriously, where in my post do you see that I suggest that the US govt is doing payoffs to the terrorists / pirates or would pay for cleaning out their lairs?
I'd suggest that it is a better free market excercise by the shipping companies, shippers, etc. and whoever their hired.
All I would ask is that the govt's apply their present rules of engagement (= do nothing unless they actually witness a pirate taking offensive action or their naval vessals are fired upon) to the anti-piracy forces.
(On the other hand paying to actually provide for the common defense and ensure freedom of the seas would probably be more constitutionally valid act that the current spending spree by the Pirate King's Band in Washington)
I'm all in favor of hanging pirates summarily. Killing fisherman that had the misfortune of having their trawler hijacked by pirates, on the other hand, seems civilized only in comparison to the utter barbarity of the pirates themselves.
And Letters of Marque are expressly authorized to counter piracy.
Oren -- Wow.
Disagreement that it will / could happen?
If you are epxressing shock that someone would believe that such a law suit would happen? I'd have expressed similar shock a few years ago that a US court would rule that someone who does not follow the letter or spirit of the Geneva Conventions on Warfare; who was taken in an act of terror on foreign lands; is not a US citizen would have standing and would be granted the same Constitutional protections that I have.
"Seriously, where in my post do you see that I suggest that the US govt is doing payoffs to the terrorists / pirates or would pay for cleaning out their lairs?"
We're not. That's exactly the point. We are spending 0 dollars doing that right now. As an alternative, you suggest that we "Find the ports that they use and kill everyone there," which will cost more than the 0 dollars we are currently spending on pirate ransom.
However, you also said, "It may take a couple of times, but it will be cheaper than paying these terrorists off."
In other words, nothing you are saying makes any sense.
Or, in other words, "wow".
Unfortunately you are correct in that "we" are doing nothing (or little) now.
Do rhwy have to come to the US to sue. I would think that all they have to do is find a lawyer &a judge who are sympathetic. Do you doubt that there is at least one court that would find that they have standing, at least in the preliminary stages?
However, if they do enter the US legally, what would be the deterent for their case?
I also have lost any faith that if they enter the US illegally, that they would be arrested and deported. After all, we just had the situation of the apparant hands off order on the president elect's aunt.
So, for me, the logical question is: Why should the U.S. do anything? As we order how we will use a limited number of military/governement assets and resources, is there a sufficient national benefit to elevate counter-piracy efforts? I don't think so.
Let nations with a greater interest intervene. Or allow the marketplace to adjust through sailing restrictions or hired security. (E.g. Blackwater).
Piracy is merely a crime. And I strain to see the need for our government to volunteer to become the world's coast guard.
It is not possible to avoid harm to so-called "innocents" because there are so few truly "innocent" Somalis. The problem exists because they are true barbarians whose society makes the Afghans' seem effete sophisticates by comparison. The Afghans have tribes. The Somalis have only clans because a tribal culture is too advanced for them.
The Somali pirate problem is rooted in Somali culture. Their pirates have been a problem before, and only two solutions have been effective in the long-term, ground occupation, and slaughter of the Somali coastal population.
Wow. You may want to work out your issues in a less-public forum. There's really nothing that can be added to this.
As Ignatius Riley pointed out, those are apparently not even necessary. Apparently pirates are fair game for everyone.
"Do rhwy have to come to the US to sue. I would think that all they have to do is find a lawyer &a judge who are sympathetic. Do you doubt that there is at least one court that would find that they have standing, at least in the preliminary stages?
However, if they do enter the US legally, what would be the deterent for their case?
I also have lost any faith that if they enter the US illegally, that they would be arrested and deported. After all, we just had the situation of the apparant hands off order on the president elect's aunt."
Yeah... I'm going to stick with "Wow" on this one, too.
Statements that warn of the necessity of avoiding the death or injury of innocents in military operations are, at there best juvenile and, at their worst, meant to hamstring the operations. We've seen the "look at the innocent victims" cry used by jackals often enough to know this.
That's obviously correct. But it serves to illustrate that the deterrent effect arises from the certainty of punishment, not the severity of it. The alternative to summary execution is not some sort of catch-and-release program.
Thank the Supreme Court for turning the military into a bunch of eunuchs.
The pirates wouldn't sue, but their families sure as hell would. And there'd be plenty of lawyers from BIGLAW firms to do pro bono work on the pirates behalf. Of course, not to receive payoffs from their wealthy Arab clients, but just to satisfy their own sense of sanctimonious elitism in defending people who are slime.
"My point is this: no one wants to kill innocents while trying to control and shutdown piracy."
On the contrary, people in this very thread are suggesting:
"Kill them all. Find the ports that they use and kill everyone there."
"Their pirates have been a problem before, and only two solutions have been effective in the long-term, ground occupation, and slaughter of the Somali coastal population."
"Pirates, if seized by any US government ship, would have constitutional rights. They're in the same boat (in a manner of speaking) as terrorists. Hence, any US action against pirates requires them to have the same Constitutional rights that the terrorists now have.
Thank the Supreme Court for turning the military into a bunch of eunuchs.
The pirates wouldn't sue, but their families sure as hell would. And there'd be plenty of lawyers from BIGLAW firms to do pro bono work on the pirates behalf. Of course, not to receive payoffs from their wealthy Arab clients, but just to satisfy their own sense of sanctimonious elitism in defending people who are slime."
While pirates are sometimes captured by the United States Navy, I have yet to hear tell of any pro bono pirate defense.
In any case, I think your bigotry is misleading you here: the "wealthy Arabs" are the victims of piracy here, not the pirates - the MV Sirius Star is owned by Saudi-Aramco.
Except that conditions in an american jail are far superior to those found in somalia.
-3 meals a day
-free clothing
-warm bed
-guards
-no malaria
-guaranteed television with cable
-library, including law books
Hell, an ordinary somali pirate could go into prison and come back as quite the statesman.
The bottom line is that these people don't speak the same langauge as prep school fairies that fear a demerit on their permanent record. Having grown up in the harshest and most lawless environment on the planet, they respect overwhelming brutality and little else.
These guys might respect our laws someday, but it won't be the current generation. We are many steps away from that.
One relevant lesson we can draw. Pirates usually had a town of civilians, not pirates, but people who would buy their stuff and help them spend their gold.
You left out that the federal courts would order the wrongfully accused pirates be released in the U.S.
Also oil. If tankers start getting snapped up we're going to face even more of an energy crisis.
Of course, a relatively low-cost solution has already been mentioned in the form of letters of marque against the pirates. All you have to do is promise to let the privateers sell any pirate vessels they take; you don't even have to pay them. Of course, one must remember also that many of the most notorious pirates in history began as legitimate privateers who either couldn't quit after the war was over or preyed upon the wrong ships. One possible answer to this is to issue bounties - it would be cheaper than using the actual navy to do it (although you would want to involve them as well, I think, for political purposes.)
The intermediaries are located in the Arab oil states of the Persian Gulf. Who also finance the pirates.
IMO the pirates no longer operate solely from Somali bases. I think they are now operating from Yemen also. The problem has mestaticized and will get far worse before anything effective is done.
Of course, then the price of shipping hasn't dropped at all. A freight company whose ship is seized by pirates is not benefited at all from it being seized a second time by privateers. Having to buy back your own ship from the privateers is no better than having to buy it back from the pirates.
Those facts, if true, would indeed change the game. Of course, I have no idea if they are true unless you care to name your sources.
Pacifist is another word for slave.
Spare...spare...spare...innocents.
[Aside, of course, I agree with your sentiment entirely.]
What bigotry? I'm referring to Shearman &Sterling going all pro-bono crazy for the terrorists in Gitmo because they were paid off by their Arab clients. Go read the WSJ for more info on that. That won't be the motivation to defend pirates, instead, the motivation will be your typical left-wing elitism.
Truly you must be some sort of superhuman to be able to discern, at great distances, the exact intent of people on the internet.
I, for one, would like to avoid the loss of innocent life as a general principle of civilized conduct. Concurrently, I'd also recommend that any captured pirates be summarily executed.
Why do I get the impression that people on this blog think terrorists deserve more rights than pirates?
Sorry, but the people I knew at S&S who were wetting themselves over their pro-bono activities for the terrorists were not there to defend goatherders. They were there to defend people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
I really hope that was a joke. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone would consider this a rational solution.
I’m sure they were morally reformed – at the end of a hemp rope.
Ooh, ooh, Marxist analysis of “root cause” alert!
I’m sure you’re right, genius, but the converse is not true: he knows that if he’s captured he won’t be hanged summarily, and may count on some American pussies to bleat about his fate, as opposed to laughing at his frenzied jerking at the end of a rope.
Put it in context: would you cheat on your income taxes if the penalty was confined to paying the difference?
That’s why the crime rate is so high in Malaysia and Singapore. Punishment is no deterrent, obviously.
As long as we’re bringing back hanging …
Place a fairly large number of soldiers with heavy weapons and tracking gear on several merchant ships plying that route.
If the pirates attack that ship, they will get blown out of the water. Pretty soon it will become apparent to the pirates that they can't tell which ships are armed to the teeth and which aren't. This will at least reduce piracy, since it is in many ways a cowardly sort of crime. The pirates are very willing to attack unarmed merchant ships. How willing will they be to risk a vicious and thorough counterattack which will probably leave them all dead?
I'm afraid "rational solutions" are in short supply in this thread.
MCN, of course it hasn't happened yet. The Court only started down this idiotic line of reasoning with their terrorist decisions. But nothing is stopping anyone from doing the same thing for pirates in the future. Just because there has never been a pro bono case for a pirate doesn't mean there won't. Are you seriously suggesting that the left in this country won't try to defend pirates? Of course they will.
RE: Heh...
May as well put Hussein back in power in Iraq, using your ethic.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
It's not practical given the numbers of ships in question.
There are a number of issues: Rules of Engagement or Rules for the Use of Force, flag-state and vessel-owner approval, taking the guise of a neutral actor to conduct a military operation, law enforcement and asylum considerations, insurance-bond restrictions.
And that's not even counting the logistical concerns. Or the political question that I asked earlier: Do we have a sufficient national interest to inject ourselves as the world's coast guard?
"Are you seriously suggesting that the left in this country won't try to defend pirates? Of course they will."
I'm not even sure how to respond to this because it is the dumbest thing I have read in a long time.
Not only I am seriously suggesting that liberals will not defend pirates, I am absolutely sure of it.
[1] Kill every pirate where found.
[2] Their ships will be sunk on sight.
[3] No negotiations for ships and/or crews captured.
[4] All ships captured by pirates will have their propellers and/or rudders destroyed, rendering the ship unnavigable.
[5] All harbors known to be sheltering pirate activities will be destroyed.
P.P.S. Fighting piracy is merely what we did in Iraq in '03, but on the water at the water's edge. It's nothing less than open war.
Me too.
Why? They defend terrorists.
Why are pirates worse than terrorists?
I'm fine with that as a policy for your shipping company but it seems awfully presumptuous to start dictating policy for the entire world.
RE: That Dumb?
Not really.
Look at Jonathan Alder's original item. Pay particular attention to the element I pulled out of it and commented on 11.25.2008 9:41pm in this thread (above).
In other words, Left, Right or Middle, defending pirates has already begun.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
String 'em both up!
Brutal, atavistic, inhumane, impolite, discourteous, not nice, [fill in your own favorite adjective here], but nevertheless true. Grownups already realize this. Liberals are still working on it.
Pirates will often be operating pirated ships. If the pirates do not surrender, sinking is called for. Letting them escape is flat wrong. That would be about the same as letting a rabid dog loose.
If someone is actually a terrorist, no one is actually going to defend him (aside from the occasional Bobby Fischer wacko).
No one, liberal or conservative, is going to defend the actions of pirates.
RE: Okay....
Got a better idea?
And besides, I'm not dictating it to anyone. But when the pirates realize that to take a certain line's or country's ship is a death sentence for themselves, they'll go pick on someone who has deeper pockets and less bloody-mindedness about dealing with pirates.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you come out to 'play', remember, we play for keeps and we ALWAYS win.]
P.S. And about that question by someone about do we have the where with all to Coast Guard the world.
We don't need to cover the world. We just need to cover our ships and those of our allies in the vicinity of the Horn of Africa. And show the world pirate-wannabes what it means to take their life into their own hands.
P.P.S. Besides. I think the US Navy would enjoy a little more action.
Yes, concern for innocent lives is exactly the same as defending pirates. And here I was thinking that it was the pirates that have evinced the most disregard for the value of human life . . .
Those aren't the only two options.
What does a pirate need even more intrinsicly than a bird or an eye patch? A ship. Occams razor suggests rather than hoping to interdict enough pirates to neutralize them, the simplest answer is to assume ever Somali vessel is a pirate and seize and sink them all, down to the smallest rowboat. There are probably enough warships in the region already to blockade the region and systematically tighten the noose down the coastline, scuttling everything that floats. Anybody that doesnt resist can have a nice safe ride to the beach.
Needless to say, this isnt going to happen either. Because not only is modern civilization too civilized to hang pirates, we are too advanced to inflict the kind of massive retaliation that has ended every conflict from Troy to Hiroshima.
I dont have a crystal ball, but history tells us our soft handed approach is going to end up killing more people than a instant, but brief, destruction. My guess is these pricks are eventually going to take something somebody doesnt intend to pay for and they will come get it, and a whole lot more people are gonna end up dead. But at least we'll have nice clean hands until then. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Civilization is based on the simply promise that those acting outside of its rules will be met with violence. That is the underpinning of everything human beings have ever accomplished.
I'm afraid I don't see how you get from:
"The best policy is possibly not automatic death sentences"
to
"I support pirates"
RE: Heh
Well, we couldn't expect the sharks to deal with the lawyers the way they would with the pirates we threw overboard with so much chum.
Something to do with 'professional courtesy'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Lawyer, n., One skilled at circumventing the Law.]
"There are probably enough warships in the region already to blockade the region and systematically tighten the noose down the coastline, scuttling everything that floats."
No, there aren't.
Well, as a practical matter, you can't stop Aramco (or whatever) from paying ransom as they please. So, the "better idea" in that regard is not to pretend like we have a choice about whether companies pay ransom.
As to deterring pirates, like I said in the previous thread: unmanned drones in the air, navy ships in the water and summary execution for all those caught. A month or two of that and we'd be fine. A few well-target surgical operations on the mainland would probably help as well.
RE: I Recommend...
...you switch to a chamomile tea.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you're singing Christmas songs on your neighbor's lawn at night with your church group, it's called "caroling." But if you're doing it alone with no pants on, it's called "drunk and disorderly."]
Shit, why not just nuke Somalia from orbit?
RE: Then....
It looks to me like we are pretty much in agreement. And if you've got the pockets of Aramco, I'm confident your attorney's and negotiators will cheer their full time employment.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I would be loath to speak ill of any person who I do not know deserves it, but I am afraid he is an attorney. -- Samuel Johnson]
It's the only way to be sure.
With unmanned drones, the idea is that you have them loiter around the harbor and follow every little vessel in and out (should only take a few thousand drones, piece of cake). Radio any ship that's got unwelcome guests to steam directly away and you've created enough time to get an escort there.
No we are not.
Are you off your meds? Kalid Shiekh Mohommed has a lawyer who is DEFENDING HIM.
DID YOU KNOW THEY GAVE TIMOTHTY MCVEIGH A WHOLE TRIAL?!!!!
But there are enough to protect the shipping lanes in question over a far wider area? S@#t or get off the pot. If we can blockade the coast we certainly cant patrol half the Indian ocean.
How did the British make a living of doing this kind of thing for a couple of centuries btw? This could be done if there was the political will in the allied nations. Even the Russians might like to get in on something like this. Might as well have some good come of all these joint naval drills we waste so much money doing with the navies of the world.
This is far less complicated than people are making it out to be. And like i said, this soft handedness will escalate the killing.
I'm not the one who's saying that no one is going to defend terrorists. MCM seems off his rocker. I'm merely asserting that the left will defend pirates like they're defending terrorists. It is totally unobjectionable. Yet for some reason, MCM thinks that is so ridiculous that it's not worth a debate. Really.
I may publically identify only one source as to one part of that. Jim Dunnigan of Strategy Page confirmed that the intermediaries who arrange ransom payments are located in Arab states of the Persian Gulf.
And I specifically said that it is my opinion that the pirates are now also operating from Yemen. OTOH, you could stick pins in a map for known pirate attacks and draw the same conclusion. This one is obvious.
RE: Heh
Never heard of a 'Global Hawk'? Or KeyHole satellite?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We have the tools! We have the skills!]
Pirates are notorious for using all sorts of hidden coves, grottos, etc., as anchorages. And many of these pirates are just riding around in speedboats - they don't all use known harbors.
And thousands of drones? What type of drones are you talking about? Predator drones cost several million US dollars each.
Didn't you say you favored summary execution for pirates? How exactly is that "due process"?
Do you seriously think that summary execution would ever stand up today? Honestly. If Bush said, tomorrow: "We're patrolling off the Somali coast, and any pirates we capture will be summarily executed", the entire left and the courts would go insane. They would demand (even more) Bush be impeached, the officers who obeyed such an action should be jailed, and that the lawyers writing the memos defending such orders be disbarred.
RE: MCM
Indeed. And that may explain his odd message to me at 11.25.2008 9:57pm. Wherein he may have said I accused him defending pirates.
Perhaps he was a tad overly sensitive about defending them when I had not accused him of such.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[To learn more about paranoids, follow them around....]
I have it on good authority the ones we have may be otherwise engaged at the moment. How many predators and their expert crews do we want to pull from Afghanistan and Iraq to babysit fishing fleets? For how long? This is getting ridiculous. Sink the stupid ships.
RE: Assets
Capabilities of a Global Hawk are classified information. But I suspect one squadron, working off a carrier could do the job. And it need not be 'forever'.
And in the process, we WOULD sink their stupid ships. Afterwards, a simple destroyer or two could do the job.
Which brings to mind an idea I had left off my previous list of techniques....
[6] Blockade the coast where pirates are known to be working from. No vessels will be allowed to put to sea. They can fish the shallows and starve until all the pirates in their midst are identified and disposed of.
Killing all pirates whenever they seize a ship won't solve the problem - new pirates are born every day, but new boats are not. With nothing to seize, these pirates will have no choice but to turn to more localized stuff, like highway robbery.
Plus, this way no lives are lost, only property damage! And the courts never had to get involved. I expect the liberal SCOTUS would name a pirate President if they are given the opportunity!
Alternate suggestion: Nuke Somalia, and when that doesn't solve the problem, all of Africa! Man, this plan is so practical! Hoowaa!
Collective punishment? I thought the goal here was not to sink that low.
I suspect if that was true theyd be at work already. I do agree with your last technique however.
You've asserted without any evidence that an event that has not happened is certain to happen in the future. It's absurd on its face.
Moreover, summary execution of pirates is legal without any new memos. Of course, if I remember my Constitution, Congress has the authority to make rules for captures on the seas -- if they want to deal with it differently, that's their prerogative.
"Are you off your meds? Kalid Shiekh Mohommed has a lawyer who is DEFENDING HIM."
Which somehow means the left wing of American politics is "defending" him? Find me a single left-wing or liberal commentator (again, other than a nut like Bobby Fischer) who is defending KSM's actions.
Chuck -
Yes, I too read a Tom Clancy novel once. What you're suggesting is completely impractical.
Mark Buehner -
"But there are enough to protect the shipping lanes in question over a far wider area? S@#t or get off the pot. If we can blockade the coast we certainly cant patrol half the Indian ocean.
How did the British make a living of doing this kind of thing for a couple of centuries btw?"
No, there aren't enough ships to protect shipping lanes - if someone decided to attack them. Somali pirates are somewhat limited in that once they capture a ship, they still have to get it back home before they can do anything with it. As someone else already said above, blockading the coast is prohibitively expensive. And if what Thomas Holsinger says is correct, it wouldn't even solve the problem.
And the British were actually paying tribute to the Barbary pirates before the American intervention. Britain didn't "make a living" fighting pirates, they made a living shipping things around the world. Fighting pirates was nothing but a drain on the cost of trade.
Without any evidence? The left scrambled to defend terrorists. They'll scramble to defend pirates.
That's all the evidence I need.
I'm thinking there's something else involved here in your objection. It's like you think terrorists are worthy of being defended for some reason, but pirates aren't. Maybe it's the leftist sympathy for terrorist political goals?
Once, I saw a lawyer defending a guy that DUId and hit a little kid. True story.
As long as we're dealing with foreign enemies...
Mother of god, these are acts of war, or would be if there was a nation-state behind it. How do you think Japanese fisherman and merchants made out in WW2? My god, collective punishment. Yes, it is collective punishment, and the term isnt a dirty one. Find me a war, police action, punitive action, whatever you want to call it that didnt create collective punishment.
The only difference is the collective punishment that will be meeted out once the civilized world gets tired of patrolling the Indian Ocean hopelessly will be a magnitude greater than it would be now.
The good news is every time this kind of utopean nonsense that we can target just the badguys and make them stop with some good ol fashioned law and order (maybe a stern talking to) always ends up in a bloody debacle, and then we stop hearing about it for a few years. There is no such thing as a clean war and the faster you end it the less blood gets spilled. And when thousands of armed men are stealing ships, paralyzing commerce, and kidnapping civilians- you are at war.
My point was that thousands of Predator drones at a few million each means you are spending billions of dollars (in hardware costs alone - add in operating costs later).
At that point it's not even worth it. The status quo is cheaper.
I dont doubt it but destroyers can't do much about interdicting Taliban terrorists in the Khybar Pass. I'll ask again, how many Predators and their crews do you recommend we divert from service in Afghanistan and Iraq to babysit fishing boats? And for how long?
Blockading it indefinately is. Creating a wall of ships and aircraft to herd the Somali ships where they can be seized or destroyed is not. We spent an awful lot of money assuming we could defeat the Soviet navy of several hundred subs and more surface ships before they could break out into the Atlantic. Im thinking the US navy alone wouldnt have too much trouble rounding about a few hundred fishing boats. Otherwise i'm writing my congressman.
Liberals love Sharia law but hate eye patches!!!!!
It's hard to argue with that logic.
Heh. Well, Adler seems avoiding the obvious in this blog post. Why don't we hang pirates anymore? Because we're not allowed to. The courts and the left won't allow it. It's too late.
Terrorists used to be called unlawful combatants, subject to summary execution. That didn't last long.
Assuming we're talking about just Somalia (and not Kenya or Yemen as well), that's over 3000 kilometers of coastline to blockade.
The comparison to the Soviet Navy is irrelevant. We're talking about guys in speed boats, not thousand-ton ships with nuclear reactors.
You'd have to combine it with something like Lloyd's open form for salvage where the salvor gets a chunk of the salvaged ship.
Not to mention the question of how you determine who is actually a pirate without stopping and searching them all, which is impractical.
It was right that Mumia get a fair trial. But the left has him speaking to graduating seniors by tape, writing books, being the poster child for the mean ol' white guys, and insisting that he's innocent and besides, Faulkner deserved it. And booing Faulkner's widow when she shows up to give a talk.
Nope. No indication at all that the left would defend pirates.
Countermeasures to be considered are fairly obvious. Some ships carry weapons, others have used high-pressure hoses, increasing speed, and evasive maneuvers to foil pirate attacks. If the situation in the Gulf of Aden and off Somalia becomes worse, warships can escort individual vessels, or they can travel in convoy (with escort). As with street muggings, it is often easier to allow the pirates to take what they can in the short time they typically spend on board, and let them leave with minimal harm to the crew. Most incidents in the past have been of this nature.
Piracy typically occurs in areas where there is little law enforcement due to corruption and lack of resources (Lagos), failed states (Somalia), or many opportunities (Phillips strait--Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore). In the latter case some pirates are fishermen who supplement their income with the occasional smash and grab. Outside of Somalia, what is called piracy is primarily a law enforcement issue that occurs within the territorial waters of the littoral countries.
Logic and knowledge. Well done!
Exactly.
"privateers" getting a share of salvage for recovering a ship taken by pirates? Hmmm. Given the level of collusion and corruption that already exists in this area, pirates and local authorities wouldn't have to be rocket scientists to figure out ways of gaming the system to get even more money out of the shipping and insurance sectors. Piracy would actually increase.
What I know about privateering is that it was designed to be a kind of commerce raiding without the sinking. Privateers did not take on opposing naval units, nor pirates. Without money in the game, nothing happens.
It was a way to make good money, or lose your butt.
I suppose a nation or a shipping company could propose a kind of bounty for each pirate ship captured or destroyed, but then we'd have accusations that Joe Schmuck the Fisherman and Mrs. Schmuck and all the little Schmucks were actually fishing, not pirating. You know. Like we got all those guys at Gitmo.
So a letter of marque and reprisal isn't going to get us very far by itself.
I think the prophecy was about "walls of wood."
According to the International Maritime Bureau, so far this year, there have been 199 reported incidents with nine confirmed deaths (and 7 people missing and presumed dead).
So, unless we get more news, the Indian Navy has managed to kill about as many civilians as the pirates have. And the Indians haven't even put their carriers and nuke subs into the fight!
In the grand scheme of things, this is a nuisance. It is crime and can be dealt with as such. Fundamentally, if it were worthwhile to shipping companies to fix this problem, they could fix it by improving security aboard their vessels. Any vessel could simply carry twenty additional armed men to keep constant lookout and prevent surprise boardings. They don't do this, so it must not be worth it. Unless there is significant cost to third parties I can't see the point in contributing significant public funds and risking additional lives.
(I thought this was a libertarian blog, government can't solve your problems, I can defend myself better than the police, etc., etc.)
Richard Aubrey:
Posting a bounty for killing/capturing pirates will guarantee that people in the wrong place at the wrong time will be taken. See how well it worked in Afghanistan. Or pirates who do not pay off the local authorities will be caught and prosecuted, while those who do pay them off will be ignored. Win-win...for the bad guys.
Blackwater's Navy
This will undoubtly accomplish a couple things. 1. It will kill pirates. Woe to the first pirate boat to approach a ship which is under BW's protection. 2. It will make useful idiots defend pirates.
Wall is hardly the idea, and its hardly impractical to form a cordon of ships and planes. What exactly do you think our navy does? We've been training to hunt several hundred Russian subs loose in the Atlantic for generations. Driving them to where we want them is EXACTLY what we train for. And with all due respect, you are right, a fleet of speed boats ISNT a Soviet nuclear submarine with a professional crew tasked to slip through NATO SOSUS pickets. Please. You are making this SO much more complicated than it really is. Speedboats dont carry enough fuel to slip a cordon to the open sea. They will return to their 'mother ships' and we can sink those. Or they will go to ground on the coast where we will either find them, or they will be reduced to extremely short range once their mother ships are dealt with. This is hardly the hunt for red october.
Indeed. Reread my post. I suggesting sinking ever vessel we find on the Somali coast. Obviously a few would slip through our net, 100% success is not the requirement. I suspect this will be somewhat less complicated than, say, winning back the Pacific from the Japanese. Notwithstanding the fearsome speedboat menace.
And both are less of a threat than liberalism. What's your point?
"I suggesting sinking ever vessel we find on the Somali coast."
wow.
Some of the posters here seem to think that we can't reduce the pirate population no matter how many we kill. That doesn't happen in the animal world, why would this situation be any different?
Because this situation doesn't involve wild animals?
Forgive me, i'll avoid metaphor in the future since its becoming overwhelming confusing. I didnt literally mean a wall of ships, i suppose touching bow to stern for hundreds of miles? I agree, that would be prohibitively expensive indeed.
I meant a cordon of ships and planes. Kinda like the navy uses to do things the navy does. Like hunting submarines?
I believe war at sea has seen something to this effect in the past from time to time. In this case the ships would be allowed to evacuate and returned to shore, which, i'm told, hasnt always been the case historically.
Creating networks of sonar buoys and tasking groups of warships to stop submarines loaded with dozens of nuclear warheads makes sense, even if it costs billions of dollars.
Using the same means to stop a bunch of guys with AK-47s who have killed 9 people in the past year doesn't make sense. It's stupid.
I suggest you reread it because it says nothing of the sort.
One advantage the Russians have, and the Sovs before them, is that they can get away with a good deal of inhuman brutality before the Professionally Incredibly Wonderful in the West notice. And then the PIW will point to Wounded Knee.
Ah, that's your mistake.
Which, of course, depends on how serious you consider the threat. And how much you will spend indefinately dealing with this problem compared to ending it rapidly.
Except that our navy already exists and trains to do this kind of stuff all the time. Billions? Depends how you do the accounting- theyd be doing the same stuff for roughly the same amount of money somewhere else for no purpose but training. Ultimately this would be good training for dealing with the current naval threats like Iran. Newsflash- the US navy has been in the business of keeping sea lanes open to commerce for decades. This isnt a new enterprise and its probably taken longer for me to explain it to you then it would take a carriet task force to rough up a battle plan. Our navy is trained to do this, its not a big deal for them.
Odd the entire world is riveted on the problem then. Odd we've spent so much time talking about it. 200 tanks being hijacked today, what tomorrow? 100 million in oil? Oh, thats right...
This isnt just about pirates any more than stopping a gang of vandals from trashing the town square is about keeping the window to the barber shop clean of graffiti. Law and order is important. Showing impotence to the (as you say) bunch of guys with AK-47s doing a fine job of driving a siginficant portion of world trade scurrying will have consequences elsewhere. None of them good. You think the Iranians might be paying attention a little bit?
I suggest you reread it because it says nothing of the sort.
MCM, we're clearing living in some sort of alternate universes. Since we can't seem to agree on simple facts, i'm throwing up my hands. Have a good night.
If you think sinking every ship on the Somali coast is a way of "ending [the problem] rapidly", then you have my sympathy.
"Except that our navy already exists and trains to do this kind of stuff all the time. Billions? Depends how you do the accounting- theyd be doing the same stuff for roughly the same amount of money somewhere else for no purpose but training."
Now you're just being downright silly. SOSUS took years to develop and construct. We actually don't go around laying sonar networks just for training purposes. We couldn't even pursue Somali pirate boats into all their hiding places because they have access to shallower waters than warships. Sinking every ship on the Somali coast would require way more ammo and fuel than training. Not to mention we'd have to actually send hundreds more ships there than the few we have right now. And how do you know the ships don't just hide until we leave? So you want to keep doing this over and over until the pirates get tired of watching us waste money?
Honestly I rarely see something so stupid and ignorant as what you are suggesting.
"ltimately this would be good training for dealing with the current naval threats like Iran. Newsflash- the US navy has been in the business of keeping sea lanes open to commerce for decades. This isnt a new enterprise and its probably taken longer for me to explain it to you then it would take a carriet task force to rough up a battle plan. Our navy is trained to do this, its not a big deal for them. "
What does this have to do with Iran? Nothing. Iran has an actual navy that we are already trained to hunt and destroy easily. This is nothing like that. Of course we could just eliminate the Navy and rename it the "Somali Coast Guard" since that's what you're proposing.
"Odd the entire world is riveted on the problem then. Odd we've spent so much time talking about it. 200 tanks being hijacked today, what tomorrow? 100 million in oil? Oh, thats right..."
Which obviously means the solution is for the United States government to spend billions of dollars combating the threat, instead of having Saudi Aramco spend a few hundred thousand dollars on security personnel. Idiocy.
"Law and order is important. Showing impotence to the (as you say) bunch of guys with AK-47s doing a fine job of driving a siginficant portion of world trade scurrying will have consequences elsewhere. None of them good."
A significant portion of world trade? Wow. When the facts don't fit your position, just feel free to change them at will.
"In other words, the Russians plan to go old school on the Somali pirates, and use force to rescue ships currently held, and act ruthlessly against real or suspected pirates it encounters at sea",
instead of relying on "Warships could attempt an embargo of Somalia" to mean "I'm right! Russia will blockade Somalia!"
According to Stephens' piece, the United Nations and Europe won'ttake action:
And don't forget, the enlightened nations of the European Union have banned capital punishment, and want us to ban it too.
Other countries could put a stop to piracy if they really wanted to. They don't. Not. Our. Problem.
It is fun, though, to think about the United States granting letters of marque to privateers. Trouble is, the pirates themselves don't own anything that would reimburse the privateers for the costs of their operations, and the seized vessels are not the pirates' property to be claimed by the privateers.
Perhaps American privateers could be chartered by the owners of the seized ships.
RE: Global Hawk Approach
Well....
....I suspect that the USAF has a lock on GH's. And that the USN has not seriously considered working them from the deck of one of their precious carriers.
The Navy jet-jockeys would probably pitch them overboard as a prank, they being obvious threats to their future; unmanned aircraft, indeed.
I still think the idea of using UMA from naval vessels would be a great idea. Beats the hell out of sending a 'forlorn hope' helicopter out to pin-point an enemy fleet's exact position in order to launch a Time-On-Target missile strike.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. I'll bet Iron Man could handle this problem!
I don't people generally care what is used to crush the flea, just that the flea gets a crushing rather than a stern talking to.
RE: The Crushing of Fleas
Have you ever tried to 'crush a flea'? They're rather impervious to just pushing about. So a hammer, sledge or ball-peen, and a hard surface on which to whack them is a LOT better than you might be aware of.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There are few problems that cannot be removed by the judicious application of a one-pound block of C4. -- US Army Combat Engineer axiom]
RE: Yeah?
How many fighter jocks have you known?
I grew up in the Air Force.....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Take egotism out, and you would castrate the benefactors. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson]
Executing pirates wouldn't perpetuate some mythical cycle of violence. The Somali pirates are reasonably rational actors. They're not going to start offing more civilians because of increased risks. They're going to act in whatever way makes it most likely they will (i) get paid and (ii) don't end up dead. Changing our Navy's ROE doesn't change that calculus.
RE: Hardly
Piracy itself is hardly what any REALLY 'reasonably rational' person would call 'reasonable' nor 'rational'.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[In wickedness there is a strong strain toward rationality.]
Then let's waste to the U.N. first, as accomplices. That'll help to clarify their priorities.
$25 million payout for a few weeks of holding a ship hostage? Even the grunts make out like kinds.
Seems perfectly rational to me.
For all our special needs liberals, here’s how the Soviets dealt – permanently – with terrorism:
In October 1985, Alfa was dispatched to Beirut, Lebanon, when four Soviet diplomats had been taken hostage by militant Sunni Muslims. By the time Alfa was onsite, one of the hostages had already been killed. The perpetrators and their relatives were identified by supporting KGB operatives, and the latter were taken hostage. Following the standard policy of 'no negotiation', Alfa proceeded to sever some of their hostages' body parts and sent them to the perpetrators with a warning that more would follow if the Russian hostages were not released immediately. The tactic was a success and no other Russian national was taken hostage in the Middle East for the next 20 years,[2] until the 2006 abduction of Russian diplomats in Iraq.
Hey, if socialists do it, it must OK, right?
global warming?
"Alfa proceeded to sever some of their hostages' body parts and sent them to the perpetrators with a warning that more would follow if the Russian hostages were not released immediately."
More precisely, Alpha cut the Muslim's balls off, stuffed them into their mouths, which were sewed shut, and returned bodies to their families. Alpha engaged in this mutilation because some (all?) Muslims believe they can't enter Paradise in such a condition. Evidently this worked as Muslim terrorists stopped actions against the Soviets for a long time.
A number of reasons suggest themselves:
1) It's the holiday season. Left wing lawyers are getting ready for their annual war against Christmas.
2) The US Navy may simply release the Pirates in a mean spirited move to deprive leftist lawyers of the pleasure of getting the pirates freed through the legal system.
3) The US Navy may be handing the pirates over to be incarcerated in Kenya or other remote places without trendy coffee shops, good vegan restaurants or decent bars. Traveling long distances to those locations is going to be tedious and will take so much time that it might interfere with the lawyers involved efforts to make partner.
Obviously what is needed is a court order directing the US Navy to transport all pirates captured to New York, Washington, Chicago or Los Angeles where it will be more convenient for progressive attorneys to do their pro bono work.
Because those damned liberals with their "don't weaponize space" crap won't let us have any orbiting nukes, damn them.
We could, however, fire a Minuteman missile from one of the silos in the Midwest. It would be kind of cool to see if those things really worked. That would be a suborbital flight so it doesn't really meet your requirements.
The thing is, to the best of my knowledge no US flagged ship has been captured or even attacked by pirates in this area so it seems a bit excessive to be devoting even the current level of US Navy effort and expense to protecting the ships of a bunch of pissant foreigners who hate us anyway.
I guess that it is good training and a morale booster for the Navy guys who feel left out from the action in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Exactly. Not our problem and you know the EU and UN are just waiting for a chance to jump on us if we make an error. Pull our ships out and tell the UN it is their problem.
SOSUS has nothing to do with this, we DONT NEED SONAR BOUYS TO IDENTIFY AND CLOSE ON SPEED BOATS. I only brought it up in passing as proof that our navy is very good at controlling sea lanes and denying them to the enemy. I know that confused you, and again, i'm sorry for adding a little context as opposed to keeping things obnoxiously simple.
I'll leave it at this: Our navy very good at finding, sinking other navies. We pay big money for same. Speed boats, rickety fishing boats not good navy. Ocean big, yes, but our navy aware of this, have considered it on occasion. No problem.
Now of course the idea of scuttling or seizing a few hundred Somali fishing is going to be viewed by some as the new killing fields, but i suspect the rational among us understand its a benign solution by any historical standards. A few hundred Somalis and their families will have to find a new line of work. Tragic, heart wrenching, i'm weeping bitter tears that this network of pirates and their enablers will lose their day jobs. But in the big picture this isnt exactly Darfur- and moreover it will prevent a much bloodier response by the less scrupulous international entities. It may also deter like minded elsewhere in the world. Great, we save the fishing fleets that moonlight as kidnappers and murderes, but then 5 more coastlines around the world join the fun. That will save lives...
For the record if the Russians decide to sink every 'suspicious' vessel as the article suggests, they are going to sink every vessel they come across. They are all suspicious. You see that's the problem.
Of course they're rational. They're attacking low-risk, high-value targets, principally with the goal of achieving monetary gain. There are countless other targets they could attack (but don't) because, though the value is higher, the risks are unacceptably high. I'm sure that if a group of pirates did an Under Siege style commandeering of a multi-billion dollar aircraft carrier, the hostage value would be through the roof (both because of the value of the equipment, the hostages and the ability to use the weapons systems on board). Of course, because of their lack of Gary Busey-esque expertise, the risk is unacceptably high.
Except for that whole Afghanistan thing, where they eventually beat the Soviets.
RE: Heh
Then why aren't you a member of a pirate crew?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Moral dignity requires no equipment beyond the will to do what is right. -- Alan Keyes]
Even the world wars were, in a sense, organized. Everybody knew where everybody else stood, both politically and geographically. We knew what winning and losing would probably look like, and when the wars were over, things got reorganized, with certain exceptions.
I understand New Zealand has decided not to have an Air Force, or perhaps the recent election will change that.
So what happens when a fast ship, like a renovated trawler, comes highballing into a the harbor of a small town in NZ? Puts a hundred guys ashore shooting anything that moves, loots the bank, blows up the POL storage facility for grins, and kidnaps a few dozen women, and is back over the horizon in two hours?
Pirate movies usually showed us various Fairbankses and Flynns swinging from lines on ships. Piracy's big scores were in taking whole towns. Even threatening North American colonial towns. If you look at a good map of the Atlantic coast of NA, you'll find old forts on practically every entrance to even a small harbor. That preceded the Revolution. It was pirates they were worried about.
So, to my NZ issue. Anybody think of a reason that cannot possibly happen? And if it does, what and who are going to do what about it?
By "stopping actions against the Soviets for a long time" I meant the kidnapping of Soviet diplomats in the Middle East. The Alpha Group action certainly put a stop to that and related practices. In Afghanistan the Soviets came looking for trouble and found it. Unable to pacify the whole country they gave up and went home.
If your point is that extreme measures against terrorists don't always work, then I agree. But a better example is Chechnya. Here the extreme brutality used by Russia against the civilian population was not effective or at least immediately effective.
POL stands for "Petroleum Oil Lubricants," a somewhat obscure term. Did you work at CIA?
I see a similarity here. It seems like almost everyone agrees that the use of lethal force against pirates is certainly justified as there is no doubt of their guilt. Yet lethal force against a home invader is not justified in some places such as the UK. There the government expects the victim to remain passive because he might use excessive force against the intruder and hurt or kill him. The risk burden gets put onto the victim. Is it any wonder that the UK can't seem to deal with pirates?
What's happened to the British people? Why have they become a nation of pussies?
Really, if this happened in the U.S. do you think the Air Force could scramble that quickly (remember what happened on 9/11)? Do you really think that the Air Force would attack a U.S. town from the air without knowing what was going on on the ground?
This of course is what the Coast Guard and police are for.
You guys just don't seem to understand how complicated this situation is. Somalia is completely lawless. These ships run on skeleton crews--that Saudi super tanker had a crew of 25. The owners of the ships don't invest in security because the bottom line doesn't justify it. Even if the crews could be trained to fight back, what possible incentive could a Indonesian cook have to risk his life fighting pirates when he is making a few hundred dollars a month?
J.F. I wasn't hypothesizing an attack on, say, Niantic, CT. But some small coastal town in NZ.
How fast would NZ's forces, whatever they are, going to get to that town? How many cops does this town have? Do they have automatic weapons and RPGs and light armor? Mortars?
My primary question is not about the hypothetical land assault by pirates, but what would or could be done about one in other parts of the world which are both militarily weak and closer to unsettled areas such as backwater Indonesia.
Seems to me the primary reason not to do it would be that the local bank would be presumed to have inadequate currency on hand to justify the effort and there probably isn't any other source of easily portable wealth. But the question is, what if it happened? What would/could be done, considering what isn't being done wrt the waters off the Horn?
Probably because he's not an impoverished Somali.
Seems the obvious wasn't all that obvious.
"A Confederacy of Dunces". Your logging name, by itself, wins this thread.
In an area where there are pirates taking ships and crews for ransom, and there are also warships from nations that sometimes follow the "Shoot first and ask questions later" doctrine, ever consider fishing someplace else? 70% of the Earth's surface are oceans -- lots of room, no waiting.
Perhaps the U. S., France, Saudi Arabia and Britain could work together to construct a prison in the territory and a courthouse for trials on the island. A high court judge could be seconded to conduct trials and appeals could go to the judicial committee of the privy council (perhaps a panel of privy councillors having held judicial office could be sent to the island periodically to hear appeals). It seems a good and quick way to deal with a situation that could get very bad, very quickly; this kind of justice, while perhaps a bit rough, is less rough than a simple hanging from the yardarm.
Also (though this is a stretch considering the anti-death penalty sentiment in the UK), perhaps the territorial legislation against piracy could also provide for lethal injection when a piractical action results in someone's death.
(I've posted this elsewhere, on "Bystander's" magistrate's blog.)
Rantburg has more on the "oops", including photos of what are supposedly secondary explosions, which don't normally happen with fishing boats. I couldn't say how fuel oil would look burning, but, absent some artificial introduction of oxygen, or the fire itself being blown up by some other explosion, the pix do seem to show secondaries.
There are other considerations discussed, as well.
While it's true that 70% of the Earth's surface is water, a considerably smaller percentage of that is suitable for fishing. The majority of the Pacific, for example, is much too deep to sustain fishable populations. The areas that are capable of being fished are generally close to shore (since the reachable bottom provides both room for plants to grow and nutrients to sustain them). The problem, especially in someplace like South Asia, is that there are many, many people and nations laying claim to the fish stocks in a pretty compact area. I can see how going to someplace like Somalia, with its thousands of miles of coasts and the obvious disincentives for most people to fish, would seem attractive given those circumstances.
Off-topic, but a subject I find interesting.
Right. The Grand Banks are tough water, and getting there isn't easy, or wasn't, but they were being fished from Europe from at least 1497 (Cabot) if not earlier. Long way to go. Across a lot of water where it didn't pay to wet a line.
Then, when the pirates go wandering in search of sunken treasure, we can fill them again.
The oceans, I mean.
If Obama comes into office and orders fighter planes to descend on them and blow them to Allah, Obama will be a strong and decisive leader protecting American's children from the threats that would ultimately come to our shores.
It's that simple.
So you took the lesson from the "not so fast" wrt Gitmo, did you?
I think there are some who'd prefer we not actually notice.
The blue water oceans are blue because they are essentially devoid of life. The nutrients sink down below the level which sunlight can penetrate so there is almost no phytoplankton growth and so there is no base to the food chain.
If the anthropogenic global warming cultists actually believed what they were preaching, they would already be doing projects like ocean iron fertilization which would cause plankton blooms in mid ocean areas in order to sequester carbon. One of the interesting byproducts of this, if done consistently, would be a massive increase in fish populations in the newly fertilized plankton rich areas.
With fish more plentiful in areas far away from Somalia, there might well be fewer fishermen in the area causing a richer legitimate target to innocent bystander ratio.
"What's happened to the British people? Why have they become a nation of pussies?"
Personally I blame the Beatles.
RE: Oren the Pirate
Give him a chance! Will ya? He can become the next Obama/Muhammod, once he has the 'authority' at his finger-tips.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Every people gets the governance they deserve.]
Thanks for the background on Somalia.
You don't actually say, but assuming that you're in fact advocating a mass slaughter of Somalis: would you make any attempt to distinguish innocents and treat them less harshly (by oh I don't know slaughtering fractionally fewer children under the age of 8 when convenient)? Or would you just go for it?
I am relating the historical experience. This has happened lots of times before, and the most prevalent outcome is slaughter of the Somali coastal population by the armed forces of neighboring countries. The survivors then have more problems surviving for a while, their enemies don't bother keeping up the slaughter, the Somalis return to piracy, and the cycle starts up again.
The next most prevalent outcome is military occupation of some of Somalia, with the occupying power hiring their conquered Somalis to go bother the unconquered Somalis, genrally by slaughtering them, and so give them the more immediately pressing task of survival to distract them from piracy.
But the conquering powers always leave eventually, because there is nothing of value in Somalia, and the Somalis are impossible to civilize.
So I am not advocating the slaughter of Somalis, but I can state with reasonable accuracy that nothing short of that will change the present unpleasant situation. Sure the slaughter process will be even more unpleasant for the Somalis, but it will also be less unpleasant for everyone else. Tough for the Somalis.
Denouncing those who explain these unpleasant facts, and contending that the bearers of unpleasant information are responsible for it, is irresponsible and juvenile. It is magical thinking, and quite prevalent on the left. Here is an example which was best summarized by James Taranto on his Best of the Web, but he references a wondeful comment, and thread, right here on the Volokh Conspiracy. Take another bow, Fub.
"The Yale Daily News reports that "in the wake of Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech in which a student killed 32 people, Dean of Student Affairs Betty Trachtenberg has limited the use of stage weapons in theatrical productions":
"Fub," a commenter on the Volokh Conspiracy, has a perceptive analysis:
Betty Trachtenberg, do do that voodoo that you do so well!"
Wrt your response to traveler.
It is certainly common of liberals to accuse those who point out certain nasty facts, which have the additional benefit of impeaching the libs' arguments, of actually favoring such nastiness.
IMO, it is not a matter of magical thinking. Libs are kind of out there, but not as bad as university administrators (whose DNA should be compared to that of Homo Sapiens). They know they are lying when they make the accusation. It's a tactic to get you to stop pointing out the inconvenient by making you the villain.
It is not necessary to explain the whole thing to them. It is only necessary to call them on it and demonstrate you are neither fooled nor daunted.
When you say "the Somalis are impossible to civilize" that is historically true but the bluntness of that statement is going to cause it to be rejected by left leaning sophisticates, not the least because they are not all that enthusiastic about civilization since it tends to put limits on their appetites.
They are more likely to accept an analysis that Somali culture has proven remarkably resilient and has so far resisted all efforts to make it more compatible with other world cultural and economic systems for organizing human activity.
They are still unlikely to accept either General Napier's or General Sherman's comments on the clash of cultures.
The only concern is that the more attractive ones look something like Ayan Hirsi Ali, who is a fascist.
But she was in Holland or something.
Well, I mean...I know this is an emotional moment, but let's not make snap judgments. This physical installation had a substantial dollar value attached to it.
Again (for those to whom this must be repeated), thanks for the (informative and truly depressing) background on Somalia.
I am glad to hear that you are not advocating the mass slaugher of Somalis. This renders most of my posting (namely, the part that I prefaced with "assuming that you're in fact advocating a mass slaughter of Somalis..." irrelevant.
If it is unclear to you why I thought that you might be an advocate of the mass slaughter of Somalis, let me know.
If you do reach a point where you believe it a good idea to engage in a mass slaghter of Somalis, I would urge you to consider those manifestly innocent, and in any case to make your proposed policy wrt, for example, young children amenable to discussion.
To Richard Aubrey (&to a lesser extent Mark in Texas): Please read my posting to Thomas more carefully. I made no accusation. Nor am I opposed to the "pointing out of the inconvenient." In fact FWIW I've noticed in myself a tendency to seek out and take pleasure in (and sometimes modify my views or behavior due to) well-expressed views diametrically opposed to my own. The fact that you contrued my posting as implying the exact opposite makes me question a) the extent to which you share this tendency, b) the clarity of my posting.
Go with "c" "I really meant it. Too bad it didn't work."
Sometimes collateral damage is the objective, and sometimes it is even justified. That doesn't make it good, or bad. It just is. The effects on those charged with the task in such a case is then a proper matter of concern, but not the effects on the targets. War is like that sometimes. Military operations against Somalis in Somali is like that rather more often.
When even the unusually laid-back and "minimum necessary use of force" British of the colonial era, as colonial powers went then, said of Somalis:
"Shoot On Sight, Shoot First, Shoot To Kill, Keep Shooting",
it means something. The Somalis haven't changed. What is has happened is that it simply has been too long since non-Somalis conducted enough general massacres of Somali civilians to keep the rest too busy surviving to trouble the rest of the world.
An age-old cycle is repeating itself.
They raided and killed the more civilized folks living around them.
Other than utter liquidation, there was no solution but to allow the surrounding folks to pay a price in blood until the barbs are ground down or converted or something.
Thomas, if your view is really more nuanced than my reading of the above quote suggests (e.g. if you really would have nonzero consideration for the welfare of children in such a situation), please excuse the following non sequitur:
Certain things (e.g. lives of innocent children) don't cease to have value when acknowledging that they do becomes inconvenient. It's true that ugly situations sometimes require ugly tradeoffs, but to deliberately blind oneself to the things being traded off is not just intellectual cowardice; it also leads to morally indefensible acts.
Prove "deliberately blind oneself"
That is a matter of putting some things before other things. There is no indication of being oblivious.
To reverse the importance is to give the battle to those most skilled at hiding behind the innocent.
A semantic nit. Collateral damage is never the objective. That's what the word collateral means. If your objective is to blow up the pirate ship and a bunch of Somalis on the shore get blown up as well, their deaths are collateral damage. If your objective is to tamp down Somali piracy by slaughtering Somalis living by the shore, the dead Somalis are not collateral damage. They are the objective.