Hurray for the President and our Armed Forces!
Captain Richard Phillips jumped overboard, and was rescued by US Navy SEALS. Three pirates dead, the other one in custody. Details here.
Hurray for the President and our Armed Forces!
Captain Richard Phillips jumped overboard, and was rescued by US Navy SEALS. Three pirates dead, the other one in custody. Details here. |
Pour encourager les autres.
Leaving one alive shows the pirates that there is continuing value is keeping the hostages living. Each of the pirates has to calculate that he might be the one pirate the SEALs leave alive.
If the hostage is dead, there is no reason not to blast the pirate vessel to smithereens (and, of course, kill every one of the pirates -- mere "collateral" damage).
OBTW, don't modern navel vessels have yardarms? I'm sure the Navy League would be happy to run a raffle to provide the rope.
The real wonder here is that this guy can float in water without his giant brass balls pulling him to the bottom.
The NAvy SEALs should have waited until more Americans were dead before responding with such unacceptably disproportionate force. I hope that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International will come out with fact-finding reports on their websites soon.
/sarcasm
The fourth pirate was on an American ship negotiating at the time and was arrested after the rescue.
This not a partisan attack. If the same event had occurred a year ago with the same chronology, I doubt anyone would have said, "Hurray for President Bush."
He took the shackles off and let the Navy do it's job? You know how the left and trans-nationalists will howl about this. Zed had it perfectly (and thank you Zed for the sarcasm tag - you might have had me otherwise).
As for Obama, at least he had to good sense to shut up and let the military do its job, and I commend him for that. Of course this is nothing like the Iran hostage situation that Carter faced. He is in an impossible situation that he created for himself.
Even better. Three shots, three kills.
Puts a premium on being the negotiator, doesn't it?
The SEALS were waiting to get the boat in nice and close. Long range snipers aren't of great use at sea--things move. Bringing the pirates in close brings things back into feasibility.
I'm also surprised--pleasantly so, I add--that Obama actually allowed the Navy to act. Very surprised. I didn't think he had it in him.
And, Obama almost certainly had to be the one to give the go-ahead.I would have but that isn't the point. The fact that other people act like jerks or have acted like jerks in the past or even if I myself was the one acting like a jerk is no excuse to act like one today.
Congratulations to all involved in this rescue, starting with the SEALS (and the brave civilian captain) in the water and all the way up the chain of command.
Now it's time to shell the land bases of these miscreants.
But don't credit Obama. He's the President and must be involved in the formulation of strategy with some influence on operational design. He's not, nor should he be, involved in tactics, techniques, and procedures (which prevailed here). Giving Obama credit for this successful outcome is like giving Bush credit (or blame) for the successful (or unsuccessful) outcome of an individual and small-unit engagement in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Certainly, there are examples where Presidents can receive credit for a tactical victory. SUch an argument could be made for the battle of Mine Creek, where approximately 2,500 carbine-armed Union soldiers routed a significantly larger Confederate force. Why? In part because of President Lincoln's insistence, over the advice of his Army logistics generals, to army at least some Union soldiers with the new and innovative repeating rifle. Obama hasn't been in office long enough to make a change of this type, and given the current complexities of military procurement it's doubtful that Obama could or would ever be in a position to make a similar decision.
It may well have been that the Obama's failure to say anything during this particular hostage crisis was a decision born of political opportunism. Frankly, I think it was more of a political maneuver than sound leadership from a commander in chief who has little or no inkling of what our US military can and should (vice cannot and should not) do. Why political? By saying nothing and things going well (which they did) he gets credit from the mass of the uninformed about military affairs. By saying nothing and things go drastically wrong, he distances himself from those that made the decisions on the ground (or water, in this case). It's smart politics, but not decisive military leadership. But again, at least he was smart enough by not making this worse. I guess that's a step in the right direction.
Earlier on two crew members apparently took a gun toting pirate hostage with a simple knife. Men like these would end piracy in a month if they were allowed to carry.
Carpe diem, man!
During WWII we armed our merchantmen with AAA guns and (IIRC) depth charges.
I thought this president was supposed to be about change (and hope).
Why didn't he talk to the pirates?
Why should we praise him? Did anyone ever praise Bush for taking action when needed?
Actually, he surrendered way before shots were fired.
International law does not forbid merchantmen from being armed. Many merchant vessels do indeed carry armed personnel.
Capt. Bainbridge commanded the Essex, the Philadelphia, the President, and the Constitution during the early part of our republic. He screwed up and let the Philadelphia get captured by the Barbary Pirates but later redeamed himself by defeating the British ship Java in the War of 1812.
As to the three kills, hooray! Nothing in international humanitarian law prevents those three kills as all three are military objectives in this setting. From what I have learned of proportionality, the proportionality seems to have been complied with. I do believe that hostage takers have been killed in police actions domestically. You pick up a gun breaking the law and taking hostages, if you do not give up, you can get shot.
Best,
Ben
"Many merchant vessels"? Whence your information?
I've been sailing for over twenty years, and the ONLY vessel with armed personnel I've sailed in was carrying military equipment for the U.S. Dept. of Defense.
In a way I'd love it if we did [carry armed personnel]. It really sucks going completely unarmed into dangerous situations.
Certainly, he'd have been criticized for letting the pirates go . . . but not nearly as much as he would have if the rescue had gone bad. He took a personal-level political risk in order to maintain the credibility of the United States, and that is worth crediting.
Obama doesn't get credit for making the operation work . . . but he does get it for risking the operation's failure.
Obama Approved Special Forces Team
Any proportionality calculation is irrelevant, because military force is only allowed a last resort. And, such a conclusion is hardly forgone here.
I am contacting all of the law firms that represent Guantanamo Bay detainees. Surely, any number of them would be willing to represent the families of these poor soldiers in suits against the United States for this lawless, brutal murder.
Your sentiment is right, but your solution is wrong. Everything is relative. The other pirates died; the negotiator lives. That, not freedom, is his reward.
Suppose four bank robbers stormed a bank and took hostages, and that SWAT killed three of the gunmen in a shootout and arrested the fourth who was busy negotiating w/ the cops. Are you suggesting that the negotiator in that context should be released without any charges? I didn't think so.
Sadly, there are many, many people who would have agreed with every word except the last.
As opposed to the millions spent as ransom?
Like who? Can you identify a single such person?
Obviously deterrence is a good thing at least for now, but I think the impact of it may be somewhat overrated.
On another note, I can't imagine why we would follow Ben Davis' suggestion and transfer them to Kenyan courts. The pirates broke American law by attacking an American flagged vessel and the surviving pirate can happily spend the rest of his life in Colorado, Kansas, or Georgia as far as I am concerned.
As for Navy Seals, the only (former) one I knew personally was in my law school class. I didn't know him well but I will say he is the most intense person I have ever met in my life.
Did he ever. The action reports from that one are a hellacious read.
It's worth pausing to appreciate the dedication and skill of the many people in our military who, like the Navy SEALs here, stand between us and the bad people. Every one of our folks is a volunteer.
Every time I hear some old fart grousing about the "ungrateful selfish youth of today," I point out that this is, instead, indisputably one of the greatest generations of Americans.
Sorry, they're not interested. The prisoners in Gitmo are Muslim extremist Arabs. By representing them, the big law firms curry favor with rich Arab clients.
What's the benefit to be derived from representing some poor black pirate? Even if he is a Muslim, he isn't an Arab, which means that the rich Arab clients look at him as subhuman.
No, this poor bastard is going to have to rely on hate-America hippies to provide his defense. Or he'll have to get free lawyers from Uncle Sam. Corporate America isn't coming to rescue him.
This was a test for Obama. Right up to the minute the captain was rescued.
At that point the standoff became a crisis that had absolutely nothing to do with Obama.
What happened to Obama's vaunted diplomacy? Why couldn't he just use his Super Double-Action Messiah power and talk them into surrendering?
Where are the Euro-lib weenies? Why don't they want to prosecute Obama for war crimes? Those pirates weren't read their miranda rights!
In all seriousness, that it took this long is embarrassing. Those pirates should've been gunned down as soon as the SEALs were on the scene. This negotiating crap is so stupid.
Without presidential authorization, the moment of crisis would have passed without the use of force. To quote another poster:
"Obama doesn't get credit for making the operation work . . . but he does get it for risking the operation's failure."
Current reports, always subject to revision, are that the on-site commander had authority to take any action necessary if there was an indication that the Captain's life was imperiled. He thought so and took action.
The corollary is that if there were no immediate threat to the Captain, the Pirates could have taken him to their mothership, and then to mainland.
Then it would be Tehran hostage situation redux.
What would Jimmy O. do then?
All's well that ends well.
Good point. He probably should be kept captured. Maybe the capturing vs. killing is enough of an incentive.
Don't forget the value of the future-incidents-discouraged when you do your cost-benefit analysis.
I congratulate the Navy Seals and the armed forces on a job well done, but I am a bit confused as to why this rates a "Hurray for the President!""
All partisan, all the time. You assume that Bush/Cheney would have made the same decisions. The fact is that Obama allowed skillful people to do their job as they were trained. Furthermore, several days ago, our new ODS champion Hans Bader attributed the blame for this very incident to Obama. The fact that former president Dennis Haysbert may have taken the Unit to solve the problem is just icing on the cake, along with another excellent performance by the union members of the ship's crew.
I read humble student's comment as sarcasm (just not with a label). Maybe you also are being sarcastic, if so I missed it and apologize.
The sad thing is that my sarcastic comment is all too believable.
Really? Who is saying any such thing?
That was a different time. Besides, we were at war, and anyone who wanted our ships (mainly the Brits and the Russians) were on our side.
LOL! Too funny!
The Jessica Lynch story distortions did not come from the Pentagon; they came from the Washington Post. See here.
I doubt it.
There are a few possible explanations for that: maybe all the liberal groups are in the tank for Obama and will hold their fire. Or maybe there's a big difference between an operation against armed pirates and waterboarding goatherds we collected for ransom in secret prisons, that most people see, except the acolytes of our paranoid former VPOTUS.
Did the sailing ships deliberately fire to hit the masts or were they trying to shred their opponent's sails and maybe get lucky? It would seem that the masts would be a rather small target.
These are the same pirates that had agreed to a prisoner swap for Captain Phillips and reneged...and you're worried about them trusting us?
Adding that the salient distinction, in my view, is how to treat an adversary who is [i]already in custody[/i], versus one who is not in custody and holding a hostage.
I imagine that if the government were to kill or torture the fourth pirate, who is currently in custody, that would be a more apt analogy.
Or maybe there's a big difference between an operation against armed pirates and waterboarding goatherds we collected for ransom in secret prisons, that most people see, except the acolytes of our paranoid former VPOTUS.
A whopping three people were waterboarded. KSM was one, 9/11 mastermind. Abu Zubaydah was two, AQ operative tied to 9/11. And Abd al Rahim al Nashiri was three, AQ guy potentially involved in the Cole bombing. Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/06/nation/na-terror6
While reasonable people might disagree about whether even these folks should be waterboarded, I wonder where the goatherd accusation comes from. Perhaps KSM is a goatherd and a terrorist mastermind? If so, the latter might have been more relevant, no?
This doesn't even get to the full compound of
* waterboarding
* goatherds, i.e., innocents
* collected for ransom
* in secret prisons
I wasn't aware of that.
I assume you have a link for these 'howls of protest'? Because I'm not hearing any around here.
Ariel, to be honest, I don't see the Director of the CIA as an honest source about crimes committed by the CIA.
The Jessica Lynch story distortions did not come from the Pentagon; they came from the Washington Post. See here."
Citing exlusively to Powerline is not sufficient. There is a long record otherwise, that is, the pressure, as with Tillman, came from the White House.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/04/pirates-defeated.html
Just FYI
Here's a link to an earlier piece that tells of the pirates double-cross.
*-The usual suspects have yet to weigh in.
The masts and rigging were indeed targeted; not with just ball, but with grape shot (like a shotgun), and chain which would whirl around like a scythe. Hitting the rigging was very effective in unmasting a ship.
What's more these battles were usually fought in close quarters. Who ever could get the most shots off would more than likely win all else being equal. You couldn't miss. A very deadly form of combat.
I'm sure you have a source that identifies:
* Waterboarded
* Goatherds
* Collected for ransom
* In secret prisons.
I look forward to reading it.
They gave the OK to take action if the hostage was threatened. Did not rely on lawyers in Washington to make the call. That would have been expected and a disaster.
And they consulted with elders and gave them a shot at doing the right thing, which they rejected. Maybe next time they will think give a generous offer some regard.
Congrats to all!
As an aside to all the sarcasm about international law, this is all perfectly legitimate under international law (an arguably the proportionality analysis is largely irrelevant when the targets are fighters, since killing them is not collateral damage, but the fulfillment of military objectives).
Am I really supposed to praise the administration merely for doing what they should have done, kind of like the overeffusive praise you give a child when they doody in the potty instead of their pants?"
After eight years of people who could never seem to do what they should have done, and never seemed to find the toilet, yes, I think that praise would be appropriate.
Projecting much? First, I noted in a later comment that the President did deserve credit for dispatching the Seals.
Second, in your BDS, you seem to assume the confrontation would have been handled differently by President Bush This despite the fact that that virtually the entire chain-of-command is the same from the SecDef down. (I note you sneeringly referred to the prior administration as Buch/Cheney, do you commonly refer to the current one as Obama/Biden?)
He stood up and authorized the Navy to do what was necessary. That is exactly how a President should act. And he got about the best possible result, three dead pirates and one living hostage.
So, he looks less like President Carter than I was afraid of. And I am REALLY glad to see it, and everyone else should be too. Otherwise, it was going to be a damned long 3 1/2 years of a crippled President.
I mean, if the leader of the world's only remaining superpower can't deal with 4 pirates in a dingy, then something is pretty messed up. The strange thing is, since so many are "relieved" that Obama ok'd military action, it's clear that the operating assumption is that Obama couldn't deal with them.
Although, it remains to be seen how much credit there is for saying "Gates, deal with this."
Those attempting to invoke Guantanamo (and slur the lawyers who represented prisoners at Guantanamo) are bringing no glory on themselves. If the United States had responded to this piracy by rounding hundreds of the wrong people, warehousing them immorally for years, botching any worthwhile prosecutions, and torturing some of the prisoners, I could understand the comparison. If those held at Guantanamo were dangerous and radical extremists, those who released them should be tried for treason.
The lawyers who represented Guantanamo prisoners did far more to bring credit to the United States than did those who were directing American policy.
BDS=Living through the last eight years. We do have a record of what was done and how incompetently it was done, from the pre-9.11 perod, through the aftermath of the Iraq invasion (run mostly by Heritage Foundation interns), through Katrina, and so on. "Bush/Cheney" is an accurate summary of how decisions were made; no national security decisions of any magnitude were made by Bush alone. It is entirely possible that they would have taken different steps in this instance. Re chain of command, there is now no Rice, Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfowitz, Haynes, Bolton, et al, anywhere in the vicinity.
Nice to know where your blinders are. Discussing the past 8 years with you would be beyond pointless because your BDS is self-evident.
Since you are blindingly partisan, my original post said "a year ago". One year ago, the chain of command was:
POTUS
SecDef Robert Gates
SecNavy Donald Winter
Chairman, JCS, Admiral Michal Mullen
Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead
Commander U.S. Cental Command, General David Petreaus
Currently:
POTUS
SecDef Robert Gates
Acting SecNavy B.J. Penn
Chairman, JCS, Admiral Michael Mullen
Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead
Commander, U.S. Central Command, General David Petreaus
The only names different are the President and the Secretary of the Navy. The same key players would have handled things exactly the same way if this had happened a year ago, your BDS notwithstanding.
Authorizing a SEAL team deployment into the area (which is probably a standard operating procedure anyway) and letting the commanders on the ground make the decision is fine and dandy, but it hardly rates the kudos many want to give. The President needs to deal with strategy, and though the SEALs (and other Special Operations forces) are strategic assets, putting them at the scene is hardly a decision worthy of such overweening praise.
If you believe this was the expected "test" of the President's commander-in-chief credentials, then you certainly live in a different world than the one I've seen.
He has yet to make any specific and coherent policy statement defining our strategic vital interests vis-a-vis the pirates and the on-going threat they pose in the area. He may have wanted to wait until after the captain was released / rescued in order to not antagonize the criminals that took him hostage. OK, but I'd now expect something a bit more decisive than a call for a world end to piracy.
If we plan to measure this President's national security policy successes and potential on this once incident, then we're taking a short-sighted tactical approach with only rhetoric (position) underpinning our strategic interests. Such an approach will make any operational planning meaningless.
Personally, I think he should put on an oversized codpiece, and have somebody fly him onto the deck of a carrier with a giant banner pronouncing his success.
DangerMouse, it certainly would have been easy to take out the 4 pirates. To take them out, and rescue their sole hostage unharmed, given the close quarters in which he was held, is a skillful achievement. Just ask the French, whose special forces were not as successful in saving their hostages unharmed.
WOuldn't it be nice if the surviving skinny told us about the mothership?
As to his defense, has Lynne Stewart been disbarred yet? Ramsey Clark?
The SEALs deserve our thanks. But if anyone thinks this is a major test of the leader of the world's sole remaining superpower, then the bar has indeed been set low. What's next? Obama invades a middle east power and turns in into a democracy? Oops, that was President Bush.
<blockquote>
To clarify for everyone, DavidN and I are two separate posters--and as far as I know, neither of us is David M. Nieporent.
</blockquote>
So you say.
On the other hand, I have it on good authority that you and "LM" are one and the same.
Which "terrorists" are those? The ones the United States released? Or the ones whose prosecutions were botched? I won't ask about the ones demonstrated to be dangerous terrorists, because among illusory character, today is the Easter Bunny's day.
I thought the current secretary was Georges Rush St-Pierre.
If the author of that comment is your idea of "good authority," I'll be taking what you say with a big grain of salt.
and other absurdities, meant to cater to the ignorant prejudices of many viewers. Couldn't they have made the tiniest effort at informing themselves of the facts over these last few days? Just, wow.
I can see why you were confused. Actually, President Obama has nominated former Mississippi Governor Ray Mabus to be Secretary of the Navy.From your lips to God's ears.
Well if that's how we caught them all then we won't have any problems at the habeas hearings, now will we?
And one more time for the news of the day - U-S-A U-S-A U-S-A! I'm really amped that the guy is free and everything's resolved in our favor, so good for the national psyche.
Then tell me: When, exactly, during this entire episode was Captain Phillips' life not in imminent danger? Why did Barack Obama have to sleep on the decision whether to permit our military commanders on the scene to use their own judgment as to whether to kill pirates who had attacked an American vessel and were holding its captain hostage? If this paragraph from the NYT is correct, then even if our forces had clear shots at all of the pirates simultaneously prior to Saturday morning, they lacked Obama's permission to take them.
Please don't paint this as a presidential profile in courage. He could have been more pathetic, but only by refusing to ever give clearance.
How stupid of you to think that most of our prisoners were "people captured in al Qaeda camps firing guns at Americans." Most of the people in Gitmo were not "firing guns at Americans." That's explained here:
Those claims are well-documented (pdf).
More proof that we locked up innocent people is here.
Thanks for agreeing to engage on the merits of this or related issues. Your BDS citation is an excuse for having nothing to say on the facts and evidence.
In any event, did both Limbaugh (Friday) and Gingrich (today) opine that the union crew, Obama and the Navy would fail to bring this matter to a good ending? Something about hoping for failure?
And what do we do? We're going to circumnavigate in the next couple years, and there's a couple places in the world well worth avoiding (Colombia, Straits of Malacca and the Red Sea/Gulf of Aden. We'll have radar, but not a lot of speed (15 knots absolute max, probably). And we'll be just 2, with very limited defence (even firearms are tough in most places, clearing customs, much less automatic weapons).
I note that the cheese-eating surrender monkeys (the French) mounted an assault recently on a yacht that had been hijacked, killing the pirates but unfortunately with one of the hostages killed as well. Which does happen even with the best laid plans in hostage situations.
What needs to be done is that the nations of the world need to work to eliminate piracy ... and this is perhaps one step on that path, but there's many others that need to be taken: When your only hope of survival is piracy, death (such as the three pirates suffered) is no deterrent.
Cheers,
You're obviously new around here. ODS runs strong in these parts.
Cheers,
Cheers,
Cheers,
Cheers,
Wrong. WP was just feeding us baloney they got from the Pentagon. Among other things, "the Pentagon claimed that Lynch had stab and bullet wounds" (link). That was false.
And after the WP story came out, Rumfeld was asked about it. Why didn't he tell us it was wrong? He didn't.
There is no easy (or bullet-proof, "works all the time") solution to hostage situations. To think so is to be uninformed; each situation is different.
That being said, I don't think it was the wrong thing to attack the pirates here. I think that the policy of always paying off the ransom was not working.
Cheers,
Cheers,
We can either spend $100 million per year paying off ransoms and avoiding fatalities, or we can spend a couple hundred billion dollars and dozens or hundreds of American lives in military action in Somalia proper. Sure, the first option is embarrassing. However, it also saves both lives and money. Pragmatism.
Oh, so just keep losing multiple millions of dollars at a time because the pirates are polite? Yeah, that's a winning plan. That's what kept the Barbary pirates in business for a couple centuries.
Wait. Weren't the Barbary pirates also muslims? Coincidence?
The sooner we eradicate this religion and culture from our planet, the better.
I apologize (to everyone except you) for saying this, but you're a real jerk.
I agree, however as I have noted, I don't think the discouragement is particularly great. It just means a small number of ships are less desirable and other ships are more desirable. Since US-owned cargo may ship on boats from any nationality and run by any crew, it doesn't really impact anything more than ships owned and registered in the US.
It is a small and expensive victory and a bandaid on a festering wound. At some point the world will have to address this situation for real, and the solution won't look likt his. I support this action, but I also think its impact small enough to be nearly meaningless in the larger scheme except as regards some crews on a small percentage of ships.
Wasn't the Inquisition run by Christians? Coincidence?
The sooner we eradicate this religion and culture from our planet, the better.
I have no love for Islam but your show by your comments that you are a thoughtless jerk.
Genocide is the answer? Seriously?
And a big difference is that when one sect or small groups of Christians starts acting up, generally most of the others denounce them. Hasn't happened yet with muslims. The leaders of all the different sects of islam pretty much agree that they should end terrorism when it is used against other muslims, but don't object to killing nonmuslims per se. Yeah, religion of peace, my eye.
I suspect if the worst of the muslim terrorists (oh it's so hard to decide which ones are worst, in the Philipines? Malaysia? North Africa? Persia? Chechnya? Or maybe Somalia? But then, the ones in Saudi Arabia are bad too. So many to choose from.) are sufficiently punished for their behavior, eventually the others will learn to behave better. Then we open up McDonalds and they learn the joys of capitalism and the Age of Reason and forsake their religion of death. They can call it Islam, so long as they stop killing people.
Africanus strongly opposed the complete destruction of Carthage. Maybe you mean Cato the Elder.
264-241 b.c.e.; 218-201 b.c.e.: and 149-146 b.c.e.
This after doing nothing while:
The Iranians kidnap another American
The Norks kidnap two Americans
The Norks launch an ICBM test in violation of the usual toothless UN sanctions
The Iranians brag that they have now mastered all aspects of Uranium enrichment.
The Russians cheer when Obama wants to get rid of all nukes (the Ruskies will keep theirs, somewhere, of course).
POTUS apologizes to the feckless Europeans for America being America.
etc.
Kudos to the SEALS, and to the Captain who was rescued.
Certainly it's true that as a hostage, his value collapsed to zero if he was killed.
But it is illogical -- and ridiculous, bordering on disingenuous -- to argue that he was not in imminent and mortal danger throughout this entire episode.
Nope, I meant Scipio. He's the one that defeated them. Destroying the culture was a political effort after he did the military defeat. Cato is also apt. But I was thinking of Scipio.
If so, which one? What rules of evidence? Was he properly Mirandized?
"Won't help. You need to clear customs in the ports of call, and thats's the problem with carrying arms. I have no idea what "international law" you say prohibits arms on board; it's the laws of the host nation when you enter port. If people start carrying arms, they'll just have hassles on entering port, and nothing that Obama does would change that.... "
I've heard this before, but it doesn't make sense. To avoid this problem simply requires a tugboat or other small vessel to meet the ships just in international waters, 3 miles out or so, and store the weapons while the now-disarmed ship goes to port, unloads, comes back out and re-arms in international waters. Efficient? No. But surely less costly than the $2 million ransom requested, or calling out the Navy for every picayune incident.
We can claim jurisdiction using the "Passive Personality" principle because the defendant's conduct violates our laws, the victim is a citizen of the US, and it doesnt matter where the conduct occurs. The Passive Personality principle has a comon sense limitation that if the crime occurs where it can be responsibly settled by local government, then it should be. You can't have US jurisdiction just because an American gets mugged in London. But since this is on the high seas, there is no other nation claiming territorial jurisdiction. Some authorities don't like this theory of jurisdiction.
Beyond that, customary international law dating from the time of the Treaty of Westphalia held that
William R. Slomanson, Fundamental Perspectives on International Law
So the US has jurisdiction. It probably used to be a lot simpler, but what with all the insane habeus cases going on lately where prisoners in a war are said to have habeas rights, it's best to simply haul him off to some admiralty court in the US.
I doubt Miranda will be much of an issue. As for the Court, I am guessing that venue will be just about wherever the Justice Department wants it to be. Then the pirate can spend the rest of his life as our guest--Florence, Colorado seems to have a pretty nice place for him to take up occupancy.
Yes.
My guess: In whatever district they bring him to. Probably E.D.Va.
The Federal Rules of Evidence.
You do understand Miranda only bars the use of statements made in custody, right? Something tells me they'll be able to prosecute him successfully without using post-custody statements...
You pay people to commit piracy, you get more pirates. What country would be dumb enough to not host pirates when the US and other countries are funding them?
"Millions for defense, not one cent for tribute."
Both reports mention opening fire at 1/2 mile, i.e. either 880 or a little over 1000 yards (don't know what flavor of mile they're using here.) That's within ordinary current-day sniper range, and presumably the ships moved closer after than (even though not as close as Capt Bainbridge wanted.)
Then later, Bainbridge writes, "The Enemies Jib boom got foul of our Mizen Rigging" which makes the vessels seem to be in very close proximity.
Hopefully a real naval historian will come along soon and straighten out the mistakes in what I'm saying here...
He could do plenty to change it, but I doubt he will.
Obama deserves credit for showing he's not just Jimmy Carter part two. Carter cancelled the rescue mission when he realized there would be casualties. Barrack has shown he can push the button which I am sure Collin Powell will say he knew about months ago.
As to what the activist groups will say, its too early to tell. Some of them are still in shock so I say give them a day to find the words. Code Pink is already taking Barrack to task for not withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. One leftwing group on Fox the other night seems about ready to charge him with war crimes.
And as for what will happen to our surviving Pirate; well, like the Gitmo detainees, Barrack will have to decide how to proceed. And he will make that decision within the confines of his earlier statement that we can protect America without violating our principles. Of course he has strayed from many of his campaign promises of late.
Carter cancelled the rescue mission not because he realized there would be casualties, but because there were too many already. They lost 2 of the 8 helicopters to mechanical problems, then a third was failing due to sand. At that point, there would not have been enough room to transport the hostages out and the commander on the ground asked to abort.
A: Continue to pay a nuisance level of bribes, nobody (or at most a very few) dies. Piracy continues.
B: Invade/occupy/rebuild Somalia at a cost similar to the Iraq War in dollars and American lives. Piracy ends.
While ending piracy is preferable to letting it continue, is the astronomically higher cost worth it?
Apart from the principle of paying any amount: what is a "nuisance level" bribe? Is it anything that we are willing to pay? If we pay "nuisance level" bribes, is it more or less likely that pirates will subsequently increase the price they ask? Will this increase in price not continue to rise if we continue to pay it? Two million is not a small reward for a pirate, unless they know they can get more. These pirates not only did not receive 2 million, they were made substantially worse off. For good or for worse, that result is something they will take into consideration in future analyses (asking for less money hoping we will pay it on the assumption that this whole series of actions isn't about the principle of paying even one cent, shooting one hostage immediately and asking for more money, etc.).
Personally, I don't think Somalia can be "rebuilt" by us and I suspect we fundamentally misunderstood//misunderstand the way the country works. That doesn't mean we can't be involved in stopping its slide into a [even more] failed state, but I doubt military intervention is prudent for many reasons. I also don't think it would end piracy.
Being in a position to (hopefully) soon be sailing the deep blue sea ... and be subject to pirate attacks ... I can understand both why some people might want their gummint (or somebody) to bail them out at any cost if held hostage for ransom ... and also why gummints would be best off not doing such for policy reasons. I would prefer that the gummint(s) attack and prosecute (or disable and kill) any pirates that grab me rather than accede to ransom ... but I don't think they'll ask us how we feel about such before they grab our boat. But I'm just saying that now; perhaps I'd change my mind if the real situation did occur. But I don't think we'll really know how you would react to such a hostage situation until it occurred to you either. How would you react to an armed robbery? Would you refuse to turn over your money and jewelry on principle, because doing so simply encourages more armed robbery?
Cheers,
Of course, there are those that think that the Davidians worshiped guns more than they worshiped Jesus, and that in fact this was the big "crime" for which they were persecuted....
Cheers,
1) and 2). You don't know what's being done here. You might wait until it plays out. I'd note that Dubya apologised for the EP-3, and Reagan didn't go in with guns blazing to get the Lebanese hostages released; he gave the Iranians arms in a trade.
3). The launch of a ballistic missile (which this may have been) may be counter to U.N. Security Council resolution, but the resolution provided for no automatic armed response should NK do so.
4). The Iranian "bragging" was WRT completing the 'fuel manufacturing cycle' (that is, pelletizing and cladding the LE product, making it suitable for HW reactors). Which is what they claim as their purpose.
5). Why do you say the Russians will keep nukes?
Cheers,
[zuch]: "Won't help. You need to clear customs in the ports of call, and thats's the problem with carrying arms. I have no idea what "international law" you say prohibits arms on board; it's the laws of the host nation when you enter port. If people start carrying arms, they'll just have hassles on entering port, and nothing that Obama does would change that.... "
I've heard this before, but it doesn't make sense. To avoid this problem simply requires a tugboat or other small vessel to meet the ships just in international waters, 3 miles out or so, and store the weapons while the now-disarmed ship goes to port, unloads, comes back out and re-arms in international waters. Efficient? No. But surely less costly than the $2 million ransom requested, or calling out the Navy for every picayune incident.I was thinking more of
But back to the question: Commercial traffic has many more options for such arms, including prior arrangements with the host country for stowage and return of such arms. I don't think that tenders offshore are needed. It's the small boats that have a real problem ... but for the most part, small boats are not the favourite targets of the pirates.
Cheers,
It would be funny if it weren't pathetic.
what a disingenuous criticism. "Defeat" would be a better word if the pirates had engaged the Navy directly without a hostage. This was not a direct sea battle; it was a delicate hostage situation, perfectly handled all around by the commander on scene and the incredibly trained SEALS. (Hell, just the way they made their way to the boat is amazing, and more than most people could ever do.) The American hostage is a very brave man, and Americans are rightly overjoyed that this ended so well.
Sorry you couldn't see it.
Sheesh, has our country really changed that much that we expect better military skills from our police than from our military?
Eh? They shot the pirates from the Bainbridge while they were towing the lifeboat with an 82 foot line. Then they shimmied down the line to untie the captain.
And interview with the ship's captain indicated they were insured, so they already made perfectly good arrangements to be bailed out in case of piracy.
Insurance: the correct way to be bailed out.
Sure, if I was reasonably confident that I could successfully refuse to turn over my valuables. Otherwise, ineffective resistance does little to discourage armed robbery.
I am also going to give O. some credit for doing his part well sending FBI negotiators, talking to Somali elders about the pirates' arrest *and* authorizing the use of force were all appropriate responses. But still, most of the credit goes to the military, who were able to perform flawlessly, as well as to the captain and crew, who were able to retake their own ship.
But, unfortunately, this situation was pretty unusual when compared to other piracies in the region - there were only 4 pirates, and they were chased off of the ship they tried to take and ended up adrift in a lifeboat. A more common scenario would have been an attack by 10-20 pirates, resulting in them having command of the ship and 10-20 hostages. Under these circumstances, an effective military response would have been much more difficult.
And I think will be more difficult in the future, although I suspect that pirates will think twice about capturing a US flagged ship. (They may still do it, but at least they'll think about it.)
Nope, I meant Scipio. He's the one that defeated them. Destroying the culture was a political effort after he did the military defeat. Cato is also apt. But I was thinking of Scipio.
Scipio Africanus was the victor in the Second Punic (Hannibalic) War. Carthage was destroyed after the Third Punic War. Scipio Aemilianus was the Roman General. I believe he was the adopted son of Africanus.
Cheers,
Just to add to what CDR D said, Africanus was long dead by the time Carthage was destroyed in 146 b.c.e.
Cheers,
No, Carther cancelled the mission when he and the commander on the scene, Col. Beckworth, realized that, as a result of the unexpected sandstorm, there weren't enough helicopters available to be sure of carrying out the mission successfully.
Cheers,
Oh, I see. So worshipping guns is a serious enough crime to warrant you and your children being incinerated. Good to know where you're coming from.
It's just like the claim that guns are substitute penises for men who are overcompensating. Even supposing it to be true, since when was a small member grounds for violating someone's civil rights?
I realize you guys consider rape-porn king Larry Flynt as a constitutional hero, but don't you think it's taking it a little far to say the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to underendowed men?
Cheers,
Not paying the ransom certainly increases the risk to the hostage. But it decreases the risk to future potential hostages.
Cheers,
It was more than just a sandstorm. The helicopters were not properly outfitted for the environment they had to operate in. Did not have properly trained pilots, and fundamentally there were not enough of them. Some details are here. But I think I can add something. As I recall the helicopters were unable to operate in a dusty environment. I think they had the wrong kind of filter in the air intakes.
The important point is that the failure of that mission was not simply bad luck. It was poorly planned and poorly executed.
Is anyone thinking about the families of the three dead pirates? For all we know each may have had 2 or 3 wives and a dozen children. One of those children might have come to America some day and fathered a future president with a co-ed.
Skyler
Wait. Weren't the Barbary pirates also muslims? Coincidence? The sooner we eradicate this religion and culture from our planet, the better.
UGH. Just when I was feeling good about our nation and our government.
Thanks for fouling the water.
Cheers,
P.S.: A Republican-headed inquiry concluded (correctly) that the Davidians torched themselves (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding. The outcome was a disaster, but let's put the blame for the conflagration and mass deaths where it should lie.
Interesting, on a "hostage" thread, that someone pops up to defend the rights of some group defying legally constituted authority....
Are you presuming to speak for others? Do you know that Capt. Phillips would have asked that the ransom be paid? If so, how so?
As for future risk. not quite so clear (albeit I'm inclined to support not paying ransom for philosophical and moral reasons, even if not prudential ones). The Israelis have (or had, perhaps) generally managed a "no ransom" policy, and that worked well in at least some cases. But recently, they have indeed traded hostages as well; are they getting soft? Or just pragmatic...
Cheers,
"UGH. Just when I was feeling good about our nation and our government."
There is much to feel good about in an immediate sense. I'm happy for the captain. I'm happy the Navy had the competence to complete a successful mission-- compare and contrast to Jimmy Carter. I'm happy that BHO didn't somehow manage to screw things up. But let's face it. The capture of an American crew was predictable. The whole piracy problem has been neglected by the whole world. We had to wait until something bad happened. Now we will do the things we should have done years ago. In that sense I don't feel good about our government.
How would you know? Were you in the building when it happened? No, the evidence is inconclusive. The only real evidence the government offered in support for that was a voice recording that they had to "enhance" to make comprehensible, and even then what was alleged to have been said could be interpreted in many ways that do not indicate instigation. On the other hand we have strong evidence that the government injected toxic and flammable gas into the building and also fired incendiary rounds into it, because some were found at the scene that had failed to go off. To add to the plausibility of the theory that the government caused the fire we have a historical pattern of them starting fires to burn out dissidents in other incidents, suggesting it is standard operating procedure.
I have spoken to congressional staffers about this. There seems to be general acceptance that it was a government atrocity but also a determination to sweep it under the rug, because it implicates leaders of both parties. That happens a lot inside the Beltway.
If I were a Somali pirate, the lesson I would take away from this week's episode is: We captured a ship right under the noses of the US Navy, and it didn't even make a gesture to stop us.
This was a defeat of 4 pirates (or 3, depending upon how you count the 'negotiator'). It was not the defeat of Somali piracy. Not even the beginning of one.
And recall, in the negotiations, we offered to return the 4 to Puntland for trial. Yeah, that'll put the fear into other pirates.
Tiny tactical victory, severe strategic defeat.
You're kidding, right?
No. Can you answer the question?
Cheers,
Actually, for political reasons, Delta Force (under Beckwith) was forced to use non-SF Navy choppers when he wanted to use SF army choppers. The result was catastrophe.
by Phyllis Schlafly
Every lawyer knows that if he can control the questions, he can get the answers he wants. The problem with the Danforth interim report on the Waco tragedy was not the answers but the questions. It is clear from Special Counsel John C. Danforth's report that he defined his mission not as gathering all the facts to explain how the fiery disaster happened but as restoring American citizens' confidence in our government. His biggest worry was that "61 percent of the people" believe the government was at fault in the Waco tragedy and that this imperils "the very basis of government." In fact, it is the cover-up of government mistakes and bad judgment that imperils the very basis of government. The public correctly believes that the government has not fully acknowledged its wrongdoing in the Waco tragedy, and the Danforth report only adds fuel to the fire. In a misguided attempt to dispel public opinion that the government was at fault, Danforth deliberately restricted his investigation to the events of April 19, 1993. Danforth boasted in his news conference that he did not look into whether government agents "exercised bad judgment." But the very bad judgment of the government's attack on the Branch Davidians is a key part of the case! Why did the Clinton administration attack a small and pitiful religious group, suspected of relatively trivial offenses, with two U.S. Army tanks, U.S. Air Force aircraft and helicopters, mine detectors, machine guns, 700 men and the secret, highly trained U.S. Delta military force created for use against dangerous terrorists? The picture of the U.S. Army tank ramming the Branch Davidians' buildings will go into history as a pictorial legacy of the Clinton administration, along with the famous photograph of the grabbing of Elian Gonzalez with a pointed machine gun. Those powerful images illustrate law enforcement under Bill Clinton. Danforth declared "with 100 percent certainty" that government agents "did not unlawfully employ the armed forces of the United States." Even if it is true that this large-scale military offensive was within the letter of the law (and it appears to be a gray area), that shouldn't end the analysis. We want to know who gave the order to use military force against civilians who were not terrorists or any threat to others. And if what the government did and didn't do at Waco was all within the law, then the law ought to be changed or, at the very least, heads should roll for such extraordinary bad judgment. To the question, "Did federal agents start the fire?" Danforth answered no. But the FBI spent six hours pouring into the Davidians' wooden structure the poison gas known as CS, which is banned for use in war by the Chemical Weapons Treaty. Even if the Davidians were to blame for the fire, that doesn't excuse the government's actions because both sides could be at fault. Why didn't the government have fire hoses ready to save the children? Danforth didn't ask any questions about why the government conducted a 51-day siege of the Branch Davidians' compound. Nor did he ask why the government cut off the Davidians' water and electricity and tormented them with recordings of animal screams played at a deafeningly high pitch. Danforth reported that the government "did not engage in a massive conspiracy and cover-up." The weasel word is massive. He had to admit that FBI agents and lawyers did conceal information about the pyrotechnic devices the FBI fired, about the videotape proving that an FBI agent authorized the explosive rounds and about the evidence of fired rounds collected at the scene. Danforth also admitted that these FBI concealments "contributed to the public perception of a cover-up and permitted a false impression to persist." If there wasn't a cover-up, why did the FBI, on the day of the final assault, keep newsmen and television cameras on the side of the building where they couldn't see or photograph the military offensive? The Danforth report blames the public for believing that the government was at fault and for ignoring "the contrary evidence that the FBI waited for 51 days without firing a shot." But he didn't ask why the FBI didn't wait 51 weeks rather than initiating an attack that resulted in the incineration of more than 80 people including at least 20 children, most of them younger than age 10. So many questions were excluded from the Danforth investigation because it was limited to events on April 19. For example, why didn't the government arrest Koresh on one of the many days when he went jogging outside the compound? The Danforth report appears to be designed to restore public confidence in our government rather than to discover what happened and why. Unfortunately, this report looks like government people closing ranks to protect each other, and that does not restore our confidence.
Yeah, I know Townhall does a lousy job of paragraphing the article. Oh well.
But at least we can be reassured that it was only "gun worshippers" that died, not people. You know, real people, who experience a full, rich life by sipping latte in Manhattan cafes.
Cheers,
Yes. Russia's conventional forces are pathetic, yet Russia faces China, which has a huge, modern, well-trained army. Furthermore, Russia knows that much of its influence in the world (such as its ability to meddle in Iran) is because of its huge strategic and tactical nuclear force.
They (like us) would be utter fools to get rid of their nukes.
A far more rational approach to dealing with the problem would be negotiating a solution to our current launch on warning situation.
As I write this, US and Russian launch officers are in a position where they will launch their retaliatory strikes if their sensors detect what the leaders think is a first strike. Several times, this has almost led to way - last time under Yeltsin, where the Russian "nuclear football" had been activated and he had three minutes in which to decide.
Most Americans don't appreciate that the chances of nuclear war with Russia are not that much diminished than they were in the Reagan era - that accidental war is the greatest threat. I don't know if it is still true, but until recently, the Russian early warning satellite system (which detects launch heat signatures) was missing a crucial satellite, greatly reducing their ability to detect a launch and hence heightening the probability that they would launch based purely on a radar incoming detect.
In the Yeltsin incident, a scientific sounding rocket, launched in the arctic, was mistaken for a sub-launched decapitation attack. The radar signature was consistent. The Norwegian were supposed to provide notice of the launch, but the Russian bureaucracy simply lost the notice. Hence Yeltsin's information was that radar had detected a missile trajectory consistent with a sub launch, and that there had been no prior notification.
oops.
Trying to negotiate away nukes is a fools errand, so it is not surprising that BHO is doing it. Negotiating us away from a launch on warning status (which would also probably require spending a bunch of money to replace MIRV'ed missiles with single warhead missiles) is a critically needed thing to do, so of course we are not doing it.
Almost all the fault is that of the feds, under both GHWB and BC. When confronted with a paranoid cult, Janet Reno, using a "save the children" rationale, ordered an attack. They could have waited out the cult and the disaster would not have happened. And, of course, ATF should never have raided them in the first place. The Branch Dividians did not have illegal weapons, and Koresh was easy to capture since he regularly went into town (sometimes to have coffee with the Sheriff).
What I took away from the Carter rescue debacle is that since every service wanted to be in on the glory, the teams were left with radios that didn't even operate on the same frequencies.
Dear Zuch:
Why trust the Russians to be any more trustworthy in eliminating nukes than they were in eliminating Bio weapons?
See, e.g., www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JNPA
30-06-1997 International Review of the Red Cross no 318, p.251-265 by Jozef Goldblat
The Biological Weapons Convention - An overview
Cheers to you, too!
Also, some of the IRBM's that they agreed to do away with in return for Reagan removing the Pershings were found in an airbase in Poland after the Poles took over.
Trust the Russians as much as they would trust you. That is the safest way. BTW, the Russians trust no one.
Cheers,
But this is a different Soviet Uni... -- ummmm, Russia. ;-) And Brezhnev is quite dead. Not to mention, we don't have to trust them; we can insist on intrusive verification as well as a condition ... something that is always a good idea for such treaties. As you say:Cheers,
No piracy specific justifications were invoked in how the incident was handled.
Sverdlovsk was not a result of BWR. It was a result of BW production. Did you miss my comment about the enormous BW production and deployment program under Gorby?
The US did defensive BWR as was allowed under the treaty. The USSR had a huge (50,000 employee) BW weapons production establishment. The west didn't know of it until the defection of Kenneth Alibekov, the second in command of the whole thing.
However, I'd point out that the gummint showed a remarkable restraint concerning people that had killed gummint agents. That tends to get the gummint riled.
Uh huh. Tell that to all those kids who burned to death.
Clever of the government to attack a paranoid cult hiding in a large wooden structure, with APC's, on a day of extreme winds, after having cut off any power so the cult would have to rely on fire to keep warm. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
I hear tell that if they just walked out with their hands up before the APCs got there, they would have been given a nice warm cell and 3 meals a day to boot! Oh yeah, and a trial in front of 12 jurors to see about the charges leveled.
Of course, the Davidians might not like the fact that various Federal laws prohibit them from owning some of the weapons they did but I don't like a lot of Federal laws and somehow manage to grudgingly follow them.
How's that working out for Noam Shalit?
After the treaty was signed, the US destroyed all its Bio weapons. It did research allowed by the treaty -- defensive research, which was allowed since Bio is the poor man's nuke, and not every nation was a party to the treaty or the Geneva Protocals which are also directed towards eliminating Bio weapons. The Sverdlovsk incident was not a research accident, it was due to the release of weaponized anthrax.
Now that Russia has gone through another cosmetic do-over (Czarist Empire, to USSR, to Russian Federation), why should I expect a change? Reagan had the second half of dealing with the Russians right (the "but verify" part). Hiding a few hundred nuclear warheads more than the couple of thousand agreed upon is a lot easier than hiding Bio weapons facilities, and the scientists, engineers and technicians who work there. Russia is suffering from a Brain Drain, in that many of their top people are going elsewhere for more pay. It only takes one or two of those to blow the whistle on a Bio weapons program. But, when you're allowed to keep a couple thousand nuclear warheads, it takes much more to verify compliance. So, no, I'm not confident that the current proposal isn't merely a chance at unilateral disarmament in the face of a potential enemy that has broken weapons treaties in the past.
Cheers,
The cargo was going to Kenya, where the US is "intervening" to institute reforms. The current Prime Minister claims to be Obama's cousin. Obama's family is from Kenya and they are from the same tribe.
Was the piracy a coincidence or an attempt to forstall a US coup in Kenya? Is Obama's family involved?
Clever of the government to attack a paranoid cult hiding in a large wooden structure, with APC's, on a day of extreme winds, after having cut off any power so the cult would have to rely on fire to keep warm. Brilliant, absolutely brilliant.I'll say this just once more and them I'm done: How can you say that 9/11 wasn't an inside job? And just think of all those innocent civilians that the Dubya administration killed. That wasn't even carelessness; that was premeditation. </snark> I really have no desire to argue 9/11 conspiracies, but the very same applies to 'arguing' with "Waco Truthers". Capice?
Cheers,
I repeat my original complain: It seems that you said that "[t]he hostages always want you to pay the ransom", no? And since Capt. Phillips was unarguable a hostage (indeed a voluntary one, by all accounts), you said that Capt. Phillips would have wanted the ransom paid. And I questioned your knowledge on this. This is a pretty serious accusation to make of Capt. Phillips, who seems to have acted quite honourably and bravely. If you have knowledge of Capt. Phillips's thoughts here, out with it. If not, wouldn't an apology to him be in order?
Cheers,
Duh. Isn't that what I said. Sheesh. Sometimes the internet is nothing more than people competing to have the most nitpicky points to bring up, whether relevent or accurate.
Scipio defeated the Carthaginians. Pay attention now. Destroying the culture was a political effort. I already said that it took several centuries to do it. It stands to reason that more than one individual was involved, including the rather well known fact that Scipio was in the second Punic war and there were three punic wars. Sheesh.
We were discussing the judgment of the government, not the confused cultists.
Of course, the Davidians might not like the fact that various Federal laws prohibit them from owning some of the weapons they did but I don't like a lot of Federal laws and somehow manage to grudgingly follow them.
And which weapons would those be?
Again, nobody is defending any unlawful behavior of the BD's.
What the government stipulated to in the warmups would have been beyond the imagination of any wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
Just to get the hors d'oeuvres out of the way.
Then they went on to the real SNAFUs.
Cheers,
Having fun erecting straw men?
Part of the coverup was in getting people to think it was only cockups and not callous or deliberately malicious.
It seems the government is congenitally incapable of revisiting its atrocities without digging the hole deeper of loss of public credibility. They aren't even pretending to be believable. It is an exercise in rubbing our noses in it. "We're lying, You know we're lying. We know you know. And you know we know you know. And it doesn't make any difference because we're got the power and there's nothing you can do about it!"
Welcome to OrwellWorld, circa 1993 and continuing.
And that's the last I'll say on that.
Cheers,
The use of the term "want" is always ambiguous when a person is under coercion. You have to use common sense to understand what it means, and you steadfastly refuse to that.
If I point a gun at your head and say "give me all your money", there's a sense in which you want to give me all your money and a sense in which you don't. It's obvious which is which and what they mean.
Cheers,
A: "Because, so far as I can tell, Somali pirates have thus far killed zero hostages. The only hostages I have read about being killed were those killed during military "rescue" operations."
Correction to A: Even if nobody has been killed by Somali pirates so far, hostage taking is an implicit threat to the hostage's life. If the threat to life was not implicit in the act of piracy / hostage taking, then the kidnapping would not be an effective way of generating ransom. Given that a threat to life is implicit in a pirate kidnapping, lethal force is justified to free the hostage.
And, news stories have stated the pirates were armed and that at the moment the SEAL team snipers fired, an AK 47 was aimed at the hostage's back. How is that not a threat of lethal force, which can be answered by lethal force?
GG
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.