by minimus 116 Replies latest jw friends
I don't understand why those crews aren't armed. They should be trained and have M16s.
I read something the other day about why they are not armed. It had to do with how if they where armed they would have to stop at ports they where not secluded to stop at in accordance with maritime law, and there trip would quite a bit longer.
I agree with Amazing, but right now, they are holding an American hostage, and the priority should be to get this fellow citizen out alive.
BTS
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923550659203341.html
Pirates are flourishing because the world is letting them.President Obama may have dodged a hostage crisis on the high seas yesterday, thanks to the bravery, quick thinking and good fortune of the 20-man American crew of the Maersk Alabama. But unless his Administration moves quickly to show that pirates, rogue states -- and even a few rogue judges -- will pay a fearsome price for taking U.S. citizens hostage, a similar drama can't be far off.
As we went to press, the crew of the Maersk Alabama had regained control of their U.S.-flagged, 17,000-ton unarmed merchant ship, though its seems Captain Richard Phillips was still being held by Somali pirates. The ship had been bound for Mombasa, Kenya, carrying a cargo of emergency food when it came within 300 miles of Somalia's coastline. It is one of at least 50 ships to have been attacked by Somali-based pirates in the past three months. But it is the first U.S.-flagged vessel to have been hijacked in years, and perhaps decades.
Why has Somalia become the 21st-century version of the 17th-century West Indies? The usual answer is that it's a failed state, unhappily situated near a major shipping lane where all kinds of criminality can thrive.
In fact, piracy is making a comeback because the world has largely allowed it. The owners of captured vessels have been willing to pay multimillion dollar ransoms to recover the ships, 16 of which and 200 crew members are currently in pirate hands. Restrictive or ambiguous rules of engagement -- a bequest of the Law of the Sea Treaty -- create further difficulties for navies trying to prevent piracy. Western states have also been wary of trying captured pirates in their own courts, choosing instead to remand them to Kenya's jurisdiction.
As for the U.S., too often the operative language in dealing with pirates has been "no controlling legal authority," in part because, until now, all of the hijacked ships have operated under foreign flags. The case of the Maersk Alabama was (or would have been) clearly different. Still, the price the civilized world has paid for dispensing with the old Ciceronian wisdom that pirates were hostis humani generis -- enemies of the human race -- can probably now be counted in billions of dollars.
We don't advocate reverting to Roman methods (e.g., crucifixion) for dealing with pirates, though the Administration could apply the Stephen Decatur standard by bombing the Somali pirate city of Eyl. U.S. law is clear that pirates who attack U.S. flag ships deserve life in prison. But treating captured pirates as enemy combatants unworthy of Geneva Convention protections would help in cases where pirates attack foreign-flagged ships and international law is now more ambiguous.
A similar attitude might guide the Obama Administration in its dealings with other states that have, or seek, to take Americans captives. North Korea seized two American journalists, Euna Lee and Laura Ling, last month on the Chinese border and says it intends to put them on trial for "espionage." Iran also uses hostage-taking as an instrument of state policy, including the British sailors seized in Iraqi waters in 2007, American academic Haleh Esfandiari the same year and, most recently, American journalist Roxana Saberi, whom the Iranians also accuse of espionage and who is now being held in Tehran's notorious Evin prison.
Then again, why look so far afield? As we wrote yesterday, a Spanish judge may soon order arrest warrants for six Bush Administration officials on dubious charges under the preposterous theory of "universal jurisdiction." So far, however, the Obama Administration hasn't spoken a word in their defense. If the U.S. government won't protect American citizens from the legal anarchy of postmodern Europe, how can we expect it to protect American sailors from the premodern anarchy of Somalia, much less the tyrannies of Tehran and Pyongyang?
I 100% agree with Amazing. Jim, how are things?? It's great to see you pop in!!!!
Min: Good to see you too ... yes, I thought I would drop in and pay my yearly visit for a while. - Thanks!
BurnTheShips: You are right ... talk enough to get the Captian free ... then drag the animal pirates out to sea, kill them, tell the whole world ... make sure to have ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, and FDN (France Daily News) there to film it all. It will send the message that there is no more talk ... only killing. It will work if the USA stops trying to always prove it is the nice guy, gets serious, and shows some real spine. In the future, when such vessels approach American ships of any sort, sink them before they board. Period ... no apology ... no comment ... no arms race. French and British ships should do the same. Pirate and terror cowards will shrink when they know that they are dealing with strength ... the only language their warped minds understand.
It is nice to see Amazing pop in. Jim, your one of my favorite posters all new people around hear should have to read your story.
I think this President believes in diplomacy more than force and he thinks (wrongly) that he can dialogue with anyone to change their view. He's very green.
RR, I TOTALLY CONCUR.
jim has always been a solid contributor here and he's very much missed.
Unfortunately there will always be people who choose to capitalize on others unwillingness to fight. The only way to deal with such people is from a position of strength. I say butcher them, burn them, mix their remains with shit, and send them back to their countries of origin in zip lock bags.
W
The only problem though is that these piracies will all become violent and deadly. So far, that hasn't been the case.
The Somalians aren't that backward after all.
Of course they aren't.
From Wikipedia:
Mogadishu Modern history
Rebel forces entered and took the city in 1990, forcing then President of SomaliaMohamed Siad Barre to flee in 1991 to Kenya. One faction proclaimed Ali Mahdi Muhammad president, another Mohamed Farrah Aidid. A contingent of United States Marines landed near Mogadishu on December 9 , 1992 to spearhead the United Nationspeacekeeping forces during Operation Restore Hope, in which Pakistan, Italy and Malaysia also participated.
Aerial view of a residential area of Mogadishu, with a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter in the foreground, December 1992.
In the wake of Operation Restore Hope, further US helicopter-borne incursions persisted, until, on October 4, 1993, at 6:30 AM., American forces were finally evacuated to the UN's Pakistani base by an armored convoy along the so-called "Mogadishu Mile." In that exercise alone, 18 U.S. soldiers died and 73 were injured, while two US Black Hawk helicopters were shot down and three further MH-60s put out of action. After the battle, one or more US casualties of the conflict were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by crowds of local civilians and SNA forces. The Malaysian forces lost one soldier and had seven injured, while the Pakistanis suffered two injured. Casualties on the Somali side were heavy, with estimates on fatalities ranging from 500 to over 2,000 people. The Somali casualties were a mixture of militiamen and local civilians. Somali civilians suffered heavy casualties due to the dense urban character of that portion of Mogadishu. Two days later, a mortar round fell on the U.S. compound, killing one U.S. soldier, and injuring another twelve.
Sylvia
