pageok
pageok
pageok
[Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging, April 22, 2009 at 9:20am] Trackbacks
The Administration's Pathetic Piracy Policy, or Freezing Asses

The attention focused on the arraignment yesterday of the surviving Alabama pirate in federal court yesterday should not divert attention from the absolute failure of Western efforts against Somali piracy. The situation is not likely to improve, given the anti-piracy measures dramatically promised by the Obama Administration.

(In my too-slowly-forthcoming but particularly timely essay, "A Guantanamo on the Sea": The Difficulty of Prosecuting Pirates and Terrorists, 98 Calif. Law. Rev., I predict many legal difficulties with policing and prosecuting piracy, which I argue explains the lack of aggressive action in the field or in the courtrooms. The new anti-piracy proposals are in keeping with this.

In the wake of the sudden public attention generated by the seizure of the U.S. vessel, both the president and Secretary of State Clinton vowed to crack down on the international criminals. But the measures they promised are pathetic. The highlight of Clinton's four-point anti-piracy plan is to "seize pirate assets." I admit when I first heard this I thought it was a joke. Pirates do not have money in London or New York banks. Somalis are more likely to have asses than assets. The pirates put in their booty into mansions, cars, multiple wives and qwat. How will Clinton freeze that?

Apparently "freezing assets" has become part of a rote litany of soft power diplomacy, along with travel restrictions and the like. The problem with such measures — and with things like universal jurisdiction, which often rely on them as enforcement tools — is that they're much more effective against leaders of Western democracies than a variety of Third World thugs. Somali pirates, like the North Korean Politburo, are not signing up for the Grand Tour of Italy, or a trip around England's maze gardens. Such sanctions will be largely ineffective against them.

One can only hope that when such measures are discussed the sanctions against Iran to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is not meant to be such an obvious commitment to do nothing.

I am not being unfair to Clinton's plans. The asset freeze is the most aggressive of her proposals, the rest of which include holding "meetings," a "diplomatic team to engage" Somalia's transitional government; and tasking other officials to "work" with the shipping industry on their self defense measures.

This is not the first time an administration has boldly announced it would put an end to Somali piracy and is not the first time in such announcements would be in vain. Last fall, after the hijacking of a Ukrainian ship, the Faina, carrying dozens of battle tanks, the Bush administration and other nations declared that the pirates have finally gone too far. Secretary of State Rice devoted considerable time and her last months in office working this issue at the United Nations. Yet those pirates got a ransom too, and the piracy epidemic has only increased.

Indeed, as I've recounted elsewhere, since the beginning of the piracy epidemic last summer the United Nations has passed five Security Council resolutions on the subject-- all under its binding Chapter VII authority. No other issue, not even the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (to say nothing of the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka or the ongoing genocide in Darfur) has commanded as much of the Council's attention. Yet the piracy epidemic has only increased apace. In the days after Obama announced that the U.S. would be getting tough on pirates, as if to mock his words several more vessels were seized, including another American ship.

JoelP:

and tasking other officials to "work" with the shipping industry on their self defense measures.


Well, this one has promise at least.
4.22.2009 9:26am
krs:
I love the post title, but I'm afraid it might be a typo. Sounds like a new interrogation method involving liquid nitrogen
4.22.2009 9:39am
aces:
Your headline says "Freezing Asses." What's so wimpy about chucking a Somali pirate in a walk-in freezer for a few days?
4.22.2009 9:39am
Cornellian (mail):
I'm wondering why that Somali pirate always looks so happy in those news photos.
4.22.2009 9:50am
Adam Shostack (mail) (www):
Very nice analysis, thank you!

There's one other problem with asset controls, which is the costs they impose on financial institutions and individuals with names similar to those whose assets are frozen.

Every bank needs to track and manage such lists--there are now commercial services to track the many blacklists for you, and while not expensive, they're not cheap.

The problem is worse for people whose names appear on the list because of a coincidence. Their bank accounts can be randomly frozen, with little effective recourse to ensure it doesn't happen again, and compensation for the trouble of not being able to access ones money seems hard to come by. Who exactly caused the harms?
4.22.2009 9:58am
Eli Rabett (www):
The money has to go somewhere, and somewhere means that it has to go into banks. Moving that amount of cash leaves traces and the purpose of piracy disappears if it can be grabbed. It's not a 100% solution (see drugs) but it does have an effect.
4.22.2009 10:00am
Strict:

The pirates put in their booty into mansions, cars, multiple wives and qwat


Lol. Qwat.

You are an expert on this stuff, really?


Yes, "freezing assets" might be more of an aspiration goal than a realistic approach, but there's nothing wrong with having it as PART of the overall anti-piracy plan. It would be really bizarre if there was nothing in the plan about freezing assets gained from piracy, don't you think?


Pirates do not have money in London or New York banks


Ah, so YOU know where ALL the pirate money is! Are you sure none of it is in Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or Ethiopia?

You characterize nation-building as a "soft approach." I disagree.

Also, in all of your "expert" blogging on this issue, I haven't seen any mention of the widespread illegal dumping of nuclear and other toxic waste on the shores of Somali. The pirates are the frontline [and only line] protecting the shores of Somalia from this dumping by foreign ships, even if this protection comes indirectly from the fear of pirates more than directly from the pirates capturing dumping ships.


since the beginning of the piracy epidemic last summer


Wow. Are you serious? Last summer? Tell that to the crews of the Svitzer, Ponant, Playa de Bakio, el-Khaleej, Victoria...
4.22.2009 10:14am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Ummmm....

ISTM that the only way we can get tough on piracy is to send in the Marines and the Army. I really don't see any good ideas other than live with the problem until we have the free resources to tackle it right at an acceptable cost.
4.22.2009 10:30am
The Unbeliever:
The pirates put in their booty into mansions, cars, multiple wives and qwat. How will Clinton freeze that?
Asking "how will Hillary Clinton freeze multiple wives" sounds like the setup for a joke I am not witty enough to construct.

Back on point:
Apparently "freezing assets" has become part of a rote litany of soft power diplomacy, along with travel restrictions and the like.
This just in from the "elections matter" department: we have been promised a huge shift towards soft power diplomacy by the last 3 Democratic presidential candidates (and, to a lesser extent, by a pre-9/11 Bush during the 2000 campaign). The third won the office, and is acting as expected by all the cynics in 2008.

I would posit that current soft power ideas suffer from severe strategic flaws, while Bush-era hard power suffered from tactical flaws. But that's an argument for another thread.
4.22.2009 10:40am
jviss (mail):
My five point U.S. plan to end Somali piracy:

1. Declare an end to payment of ransom to pirates, and enforce it on U.S. flagged vessel owners and insurance companies via U.S. legislation; enforce it on foreign vessel owners by taking or sinking the ships after ransoms are paid.

2. Conduct military trials and executions at sea for pirates caught in the act.

3. Disregard human shields.

4. Sink captured ships in Somali controlled harbors.

5. Deconstruct Somalia and give the divided territory to neighboring countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti.
4.22.2009 10:43am
Bob from Ohio (mail):

The pirates are the frontline [and only line] protecting the shores of Somalia from this dumping by foreign ships


One man's pirate is another man's environmental hero.
Or something like that.
4.22.2009 10:54am
trad and anon (mail):
I know nothing about piracy prevention, but if Kontorovich is going to call the administration's anti-piracy initiatives "pathetic" I think it behooves him to offer an alternative plan. What does he think the administration should be doing?
4.22.2009 11:22am
...Max... (mail):
My five point U.S. plan to end Somali piracy

My one point plan is to extensively mine the waters off the coast of Somali[a?], preventing anything bigger than a "small craft" from entering international waters.
4.22.2009 11:23am
Steve P. (mail):
My one point plan is to extensively mine the waters off the coast of Somali[a?], preventing anything bigger than a "small craft" from entering international waters.

What are you, a Democrat?

My one point U.S. plan to end Somali piracy: nuke the entire country.
4.22.2009 11:29am
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
As far as I know, there is no legal problem with killing pirates in the course of preventing them from taking control of a ship. Why not, then, concentrate on doing so? It seems like the ships that they go after off Somalia are mostly fairly large cargo ships which the crew, if vigilant, can prevent pirates from boarding for some time both by outrunning them and by using water hoses etc.

I'm no expert on the logistics involved, but I wonder if the various navies couldn't set up a monitoring operation in which they, together with the merchant ships, kept careful tabs on all the boats in the area and detected likely threats. When an attack occurred or was thought likely,
an attack helicopter would be dispatched from a carrier or land base and/or a small, rapid naval boat. The helicopters and/or boats would then attack the pirates, kill them, and sink their ship. No fuss, no muss.
4.22.2009 12:01pm
SeaDrive:

In my too-slowly-forthcoming but particularly timely essay,...


News flash: Pundit unable to compete analysis in a timely fashion criticizes lack of timely response to threat on the high seas....


Yeah, I know, it's ad hominem. Sorry, but talk is cheap and sometimes there is too much of it.
4.22.2009 12:05pm
Tom S (mail):
Between 23,000 and 30,000 ships transit the Gulf of Aden in a year, of which some 60-100 have been attacked by pirates (not all successfully). The shipping industry has put up with similar numbers in this and other parts of the world where piracy exists for literally decades. It is part of the cost of doing business.

Any active shipborne countermeasure will have costs in time and money that the shipping industry may not want to bear (after all they flag out most of their vessels to states that have little regulation in terms of ship safety, crew pay and safety, no unions, and...no navies). A libertarian dream, no?

If it is determined that piracy is indeed such a threat that military action (and the costs therein) should be applied, then a system of convoying shipping through the area, would be the least complicated from a geopolitical standpoint. Any unauthorized vessel approaching a convoy could be attacked without warning, which places the onus squarely on the pirates. Convoy also places naval resources in a good position to take more proactive measures, such as seizing "mother ships," which may be following convoys at a distance.
4.22.2009 12:06pm
Christopher Cooke (mail):
I think freezing the assets is fine, if you can get to them. The pirates do this for the money, after all, so why not try to take that away. Of course, the US may not be able to carry it out effectively.
4.22.2009 12:15pm
Strict:

I am not being unfair to Clinton's plans. The asset freeze is the most aggressive of her proposals, the rest of which include holding "meetings," a "diplomatic team to engage" Somalia's transitional government; and tasking other officials to "work" with the shipping industry on their self defense measures.


You are being unfair. The plan is to do more than send a strongly worded letter to the bad guys.

From the article you are citing, it plainly says "The solution to Somali piracy includes improved Somali capacity to police their own territory. Our envoy will work with other partners to help the Somalis assist us in cracking down on pirate bases and in decreasing incentives for young Somali men to engage in piracy."

Yet you failed to mention this in your characterization of the US plan. A US-led coalition to attack pirate land-bases in Somali territory is more than just "soft diplomacy."

I think Obama is right here - the US *is* getting tough on pirates.
I don't remember any sniping of pirates during the Bush Administration. [There may have been, I just don't remember it.] But Obama gave the green light to snipe.


The pirates put in their booty


You do not know what the pirates put in their booties. That is their own business.

Piracy took off after the collapse of the nation - so I don't see why you'd laugh at nation-building approaches. The two most disjointed nations in the world, Somalia and Indonesia, are home to most of the pirates in the world.


the piracy epidemic has only increased apace.


The other Eugene is the resident expert on word usage, so maybe he could weigh in. I think that things "keep" apace, not "increase" apace. I could be wrong though. :)

Anyway, Professor, any thoughts on the toxic waste dumping?

Should the anti-piracy plan include waste clean-up operations on the Somali coastline? Or compensation to harmed individuals and communities?
4.22.2009 12:26pm
Richard Nieporent (mail):
I think freezing the assets is fine, if you can get to them. The pirates do this for the money, after all, so why not try to take that away. Of course, the US may not be able to carry it out effectively.

Unfortunately it won't work. The NY Times will warn the pirates which banks are being targeted.
4.22.2009 12:38pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Governments are reluctant to return to the original legal practice of recognizing a jurisdiction of ships at sea, both naval and merchant, to convene criminal courts, if they have enough crew to both assemble a judge and jury of 12 and also operate the ship and hold the prisoners. It also would require them to arm ships and crew with weapons sufficient to repel boarders and sink attacking vessels.

Historically, it was not just naval vessels that could try and execute pirates. A ship's captain and crew were also militia with law enforcement and judicial powers. Pirates were usually just killed with no attempt to take prisoners. On the rare occasions in which they might surrender and allow themselves to be captured, a short trial followed by hanging disposed of the legalities.

We could use an international convention requiring ships and their crews to be armed and vigilant, authorizing them to fire on approaching vessels after a standard warning, bullhorn followed by a shot across the bow, and finally the jurisdiction to try and execute pirates at sea. That is probably also the most that the shipping companies would be willing to pay for.

The money acquired by the pirates is undoubtedly spent locally for things like food, medicine, and firearms. It is almost certainly a way to finance factions in their ongoing civil war.
4.22.2009 12:46pm
Blue:
The machinery to make it impossible to deal with these pirates is already in place...you only have to read the stories about the captured pirate ("The last time I saw him he was in his school uniform!") to see how this is going to end.
4.22.2009 12:47pm
Tom952 (mail):
Well, according to Fred E. Foldvery:


In October 2001, Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas, introduced bills H.R. 3074, Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and H.R. 3076, September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. Private U.S. citizens would then be able to hunt down, attack and collect assets from terrorists who have or are planning to commit hostile acts against the U.S. and its citizens. (See Ron Paul's Press Release.)

Sounds like it is work exploring. Where can I apply?

BTW, what is Qwat?
4.22.2009 12:49pm
Strict:

what is Qwat?


There's a thing called qat, or khat, quat, qaat, [and other transliterations], but I've never heard "qwat" before. Maybe that's what "experts" on Somalia, like the Professor, here call it.

It's a drug. A plant that people chew on, like tobacco, coca, or betel.
4.22.2009 12:53pm
Jon Roland (mail) (www):
Tom952:

Well, according to Fred E. Foldvery:


In October 2001, Ron Paul, U.S. representative from Texas, introduced bills H.R. 3074, Air Piracy Reprisal and Capture Act of 2001, and H.R. 3076, September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, to authorize the U.S. State Department to issue such Letters. Private U.S. citizens would then be able to hunt down, attack and collect assets from terrorists who have or are planning to commit hostile acts against the U.S. and its citizens. (See Ron Paul's Press Release.)

With all due respect to Dr. Paul, the Constitution only authorizes Congress to issues letters of marque and reprisal directly, not to delegate the power to executive branch officials. (Yes, I know Congress delegated the power to President Madison in the War of 1812, but they got it wrong.)

In any case, letters of marque and reprisal are only for reprisal against offenses by state actors, not nonstate actors like pirates. No one needs any special authority to deal with those. Just kill them.
4.22.2009 1:26pm
BladeDoc (mail):
qwat gets 16,900 Google hits,
qat gets 1.6 million
khat gets ~9 million
qaat gets 16,200
quat gets 2.4 million

so Khat is clearly the preferred term but the professors transliteration is somewhat more acceptable to the masses as one of your preferred terms you snarky git.
4.22.2009 1:51pm
Strict:

qwat gets 16,900 Google hits,
qat gets 1.6 million
khat gets ~9 million
qaat gets 16,200
quat gets 2.4 million

so Khat is clearly the preferred term but the professors transliteration is somewhat more acceptable to the masses as one of your preferred terms you snarky git.


What are you talking about? Almost none of those Google hits for "qwat" are about the substance we are talking about.

"qrat" gets 45,700 Google hits. Does that meant that "qrat" is "somewhat more acceptable to the masses" to describe this substance? A lot of the hits for "qaat" are actually about this substance, while almost none for "qwat" are.
4.22.2009 2:38pm
The Original TS (mail):
Everyone knows what to do about piracy in Somalia but nobody has the guts to do it. There is no secret. Julius Ceasar understood what to do. So did Thomas Jefferson. Protecting ships at sea is only a band-aid and does nothing to discourage piracy. If you want to stop them, destroy their land bases.

In the ports out of which these pirates operate, everyone knows who they are. They aren't mysterious figures operating in dark alleys, they're community leaders and they spread their money around. Everyone is living off, or at least benefiting from, the ransoms they get. I'm told that there is even an vibrant industry built around providing care for foreign hostages that uses special supply lines to import food, provide medical care, and the like.

If you want to stop piracy, you have to destroy the pirates' land-based infrastructure and make piracy unprofitable for the local support network. If pirates were being chased away by angry locals instead of actively encouraged to set up shop, piracy in Somalia wouldn't last another month

But, for a number of reasons, no government wants to take the responsibility for elminating the pirate bases. We know exactly where they are. We wouldn't even need ground troops. This is one of the few cases where only a simple air assault would be necessary. Piracy isn't about religion or idealogy, it's about making money. So if the locals suffer $20 in damage for every $10 in ransom, piracy stops.

If you want to be sensitive and modern, you can give the locals a few hours of warning so they can get out of the area before you flatten it.

But the U.S. is too spineless to do this. This seems weird to me. We launch air assaults on Pakistani territory when there is only semi-decent inteligence about the location of suspected terrorists. Why we are squeemish about launching similar attacks in a failed state against a place that has giant "Welcome, Somali Pirates!" billboards plastered all over it, I cannot understand.
4.22.2009 3:08pm
Strict:

Why we are squeemish about launching similar attacks in a failed state against a place that has giant "Welcome, Somali Pirates!" billboards plastered all over it, I cannot understand.


The US is not squeamish about doing airstrikes in Somalia. There have been many US airstrikes in recent years. Dhusamareb was in 2008.

The Clinton plan mentioned strikes within Somalia.
4.22.2009 3:39pm
Arturito:

Somalis are more likely to have asses than assets. The pirates put in their booty into mansions, cars, multiple wives and qwat. How will Clinton freeze that?

I can't comment on the accuracy of this , but Eugene Kontorovich is got to be a shoo-in for the "funniest statement by a guest VC blogger ever" award in the next VC awards ceremony.

Freezing asses (or booties, as the case may be) will be the result if we send sun-loving Somalians to prison in upstate New York. Freezing qwat may be how they save for a rainy day in Somalia (unless EK meant the Urban Dictionary definition, in which case I'd rather not think about it).
4.22.2009 3:43pm
davod (mail):
The suggestions from some, including the administration, that more international co-operation is needed to counter the piracy is misleading at best. The implication is that the the laws are not sufficient. The Dutch Navy's refusal to detain the pirates it captured and NATO's anemic response also feeds into this meme.

The laws, US domestic and international, are in place to conduct anti-piracy operations, both in international waters, where by definition - piracy occurs (Piracy is a high seas crime. Anything within a country's boundaries is considered robbery), and in Somali waters.

I could continue to add my own comments but would prefer to link to and qoute from "Piracy, Policy, and Law",by By Commander James Kraska, JAGC, U.S. Navy, and Captain Brian Wilson, JAGC, U.S. Navy in the December edition of Proceedings

I would however finish my contribution by saying it is quite likely, considering the USN's response to the 2006 piracy incident [see below] not involving US persons or even a US Flagged ship, changes in USN and the DOD leadership are responsible for the initial USN response to the latest incident.

"…Less than a year later [2006], a dhow plying the ancient trade route between India and Africa was taken over in international waters by ten Somali pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades and AK-47 assault rifles. Fortunately for the 16 Indians on board, there was a U.S. warship nearby. When the USS Winston S. Churchill (DDG-81) encountered the besieged dhow, her immediate mission was clear: gain control of the vessel and detain the pirates.

…Once the pirates were in custody, the way ahead became less clear as the destroyer's commanding officer, and more broadly, the American government and the international community confronted the myriad diplomatic and legal challenges of piracy suppression in the 21st century. Who would investigate and prosecute the case? Where would the pirates be held, and by whom? What about the Indian crew members, all of them witnesses to the crime, and what would happen to their ship and cargo?

The successful interdiction by the Churchill sparked a global effort to develop a modern playbook for confronting piracy. In the United States, the Bush administration began to develop a policy consistent with national maritime strategy, which culminated in a comprehensive piracy policy governing diplomatic and legal action and signed by President George W. Bush in 2007. This establishes a framework for warships that encounter or interrupt acts of maritime piracy and armed robbery at sea, as well as for agencies charged with facilitating the prosecution of perpetrators and the repatriation of victims and witnesses. But because much of the ocean's surface is beyond state jurisdiction, effective piracy repression demands international action and coordination…

Decisive U.S. Action
The wide-ranging policy signed by President Bush—the broadest presidential articulation of U.S. policy toward international piracy since the time of the Barbary pirates—was developed through the National Security Council by Navy judge advocates in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Strategic Plans and Policy, Joint Staff. It establishes seven goals, each an important component for addressing piracy…

…Dramatic Action
Perhaps most significant, the UN Security Council took historic action against maritime piracy this past summer. Resolution 1816, which was decided under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and therefore legally binding on all states, called on them to cooperate in counterpiracy actions off the coast of Somalia. The resolution authorizes operations inside Somalia's territorial waters to deny that area as a safe haven for pirates who operate outside the 12-mile limit. It also provides for disposition and logistics of persons-under-control detained as a result of counterpiracy operations.

The resolution encourages states to increase and coordinate their efforts to deter acts of piracy in conjunction with the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, a weak ruling authority inside the fractured state. It also calls on states, the IMO, and other international organizations to build a partnership to ensure regional coastal and maritime security, and is designed to bring together flag, port, and coastal states, and other states with jurisdiction under national and international law. They will cooperate in determining criminal jurisdiction for acts of piracy, in its investigation and prosecution, and in rendering disposition and logistics assistance to victims, witnesses, and persons detained…"
4.22.2009 4:39pm
Mark E.Butler (mail):
I think that things "keep" apace, not "increase" apace. I could be wrong though. :)


Yeah, you're wrong. You can "keep pace" or you can "increase apace" but you can't "keep apace." Look it up.

Let's go back 200 years. "Millions for defense, and not one cent for tribute!"
4.22.2009 6:00pm
Tom S (mail):
Mark E. Butler:

Umm...we're spending billions on defense, and have not paid any tribute.
4.22.2009 6:11pm
RPT (mail):
Combining responses to co-comment posts by Prof. Lindgren and this post:

Isn't it interesting that the pirates are all union members, and the piracy phenomenon increased "apace", and the stock market and economy crashed, at the same time that it became evident that Obama would be the Democratic nominee? Mere Coincidence?
4.22.2009 7:04pm
RPT (mail):
That's "no-comment" posts......
4.22.2009 7:05pm
Frater Plotter:
Apparently some of the reason that many Somalis support pirates is that the pirates are also acting as a bit of a vigilante coast guard, deterring European criminals (including the Italian Mafia) from using the waters off Somalia as a big illegal toxic-waste dump. Other European ships are illegally fishing in Somalia's territorial waters; the pirates are accepted by many Somalis as enacting a combination of deterrent and taxation on this illegal commerce.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/04/13-6

It's worth noting that many sorts of organized crime -- including the Mafia itself -- began as vigilante groups in places and times where the "real" government was too weak, corrupt, or racist to deal with crime or to settle disputes in a given area or among a given population. Even many American urban gangs have a function of enforcing order and resolving disputes in their territory -- see, e.g., Sudhir Venkatesh's Gang Leader For A Day for one study that deals in part with this function.
4.22.2009 8:12pm
Strict:

Yeah, you're wrong. You can "keep pace" or you can "increase apace" but you can't "keep apace." Look it up.


Mark,

Thanks. Where do I look these things up?
4.22.2009 9:10pm
ReaderY:
Dead men tell no tales and have no constitutional rights. Habeas corpus applies to those imprisoned unlawfully. Die free, and there is no imprisonment, hence no unlawful imprisonment, hence no habeas corpus. It is the act of giving quarter that rise to a right to sue in court. Give no quarter, and there can be no lawsuit. No fuss, no muss.
4.22.2009 9:11pm
Vermando (mail) (www):
I agree with Trad and Anon and SeaDrive - put up or shut up. If this isn't right, then what should we be doing?

There are obviously numerous ways to solve the problem, but all that I've seen cost more than the shipping companies are willing to pay. Now, I'm not an expert like the good professor is, but if he has an affordable legal alternative then he should say it, hopefully sooner rather than later.
4.22.2009 10:30pm
I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means (mail):
SeaDrive,

When a paper is forthcoming, it means the paper has been accepted for publication in a journal, but that issue of the journal hasn't yet been published. There is typically a long lead time between when the paper is complete, when it is accepted for publication, and when that issue is officially published, especially for infrequently-published legal publications. Had you simply clicked on the SSRN link, you would have seen that the paper is already written, which I gather you haven't attempted.

Your internet tip for the day: If you're going to resort to ad hominem attacks, at least try to do it successfully. For instance: you are clearly ignorant of how the world works (at least in part) and therefore not worthy of our attention. See how easy that is?
4.23.2009 12:41am
Kirk:
jviss,
5. Deconstruct Somalia and give the divided territory to neighboring countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti.
Good grief, I'm pretty sure Kenya doesn't want the territory (and the people that would come with it.)
4.23.2009 8:49pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

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.