mtvesuvius Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Recently, there have been several attacks on US ships by Somali pirates, the move comes after U.S. Navy sharpshooters killed three pirates Sunday to win the release of a hijacked American sea captain, Richard Phillips. I know this is just an extention of the problems on land in Somalia, but I really think that there is something that the US can do to fend off these pirates aside from just cutting off their funding/source of money, as that will take a long time to fully work. Perhaps mount guns on the ship, manned 24/7 by professionally trained sharpshooters as a short term solution? I'm not sure... Thoughts? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30204891/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30215566/ Hillary Clinton's plan to fight the pirates: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30231056/ Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday the State Department will work with shippers and insurers to bolster their defenses against pirates, part of a diplomatic initiative to thwart attacks on commercial ships off the Somali coast. "These pirates are criminals, they are armed gangs on the sea. And those plotting attacks must be stopped," Clinton told reporters at the State Department. Clinton did not call for using military force against the pirates, although she mentioned "going after" pirate bases in Somalia, as authorized by the U.N. several months ago. We need to bring 21st-century solutions to bear," she said. In a question-and-answer session with reporters, Clinton said it may be possible to stop boat-building companies from doing business with the pirates. One element of her initiative, she said, is to "explore ways to track and freeze pirate assets." The other element of the initiative includes calling for immediate meetings of an international counter-piracy task force to expand naval coordination against pirates. She said federal agencies would meet Friday to review the problem and consider potential responses. The administration plans to send an envoy to a Somali donors conference scheduled for next week in Brussels and will attempt to organize meetings with officials of Somali's transitional government as well as regional leaders in its semiautonomous Puntland. Gates: More ships, weapons Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the high-seas pirate drama shows why the Pentagon should buy more affordable ships, planes and weapons even if they are not perfect. "As we saw last week, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar ship to chase down a bunch of teenage pirates," Gates said while visiting Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala. Although Gates has praised the precision training of Navy SEAL snipers who killed three pirate hostage-takers Sunday, he was referring to the imbalance of massive U.S. warships and dazzling weaponry corralling the pirates' tiny lifeboat. The Somali pirates were armed with automatic weapons and pistols and holding an American cargo ship captain for ransom. Gates is touring war colleges this week, selling his plan to reorder the Pentagon budget. He wants to cancel some big programs and scale back others. It was at this same Air Force War College that Gates a year ago accused the service of dragging its feet on sending relatively low-tech surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates said Wednesday that those wars should drive the design and purchase of realistic weapons. The goal should be larger quantities of well-priced and versatile systems, instead of exquisite machines "so costly and complex that they take forever to build and then only in very limited quantities." Gates' proposed $534 billion defense budget for the coming year would end production of the Air Force's marquee fighter plane, the F-22 Raptor, a sleek $400 million beauty that has not seen a day of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan. Gates wants to build more workhorse planes called Joint Strike Fighters, at about $80 million apiece. That program could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The F-22 is a "niche, silver-bullet solution" to a narrow problem, and 187 of them will be plenty, Gates said. He got no complaint about the F-22 from his audience of students and instructors, and the Air Force leadership has signaled it will support the phase-out. Manufacture of the plane creates jobs in more than 40 states, however, and it is not clear whether Congress will try to keep the program going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 I don't think the pirates have the pitching to get into the playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I like the American approach. Compare to the European way: Maybe we should talk to their government about some educational initiatives that would encourage youngsters to seek employment in non-pirate industries ....Maybe we should threaten the pirates with an arrest warrant from The Hague if they don't behave ...It would send a wrong signal to use violence, but maybe it would be acceptable to equip our warships with capsicum sprays .....In any case, it will be a major challenge to get the approval from both chambers in each of the 27 member countries .....But I think this meeting was very successful since we managed to agree to meet again next year ..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PassedOut Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I agree with Gates' assessment. Why spend such ridiculous sums refighting WWII? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 One purpose of a navy is to suppress piracy. I would think attempting to do so with pepper spray is a bit silly. Under US Law, piracy carries a penalty of life in prison. (18USC1651). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 One purpose of a navy is to suppress piracy. I would think attempting to do so with pepper spray is a bit silly. Under US Law, piracy carries a penalty of life in prison. (18USC1651). Does the US Navy have jurisdiction in international waters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdonn Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I don't know anything about the law behind this, but flipping through channels tonight I came across Donald Trump on Larry King Live, being asked (for reasons that I confess escape me) what he would do about the pirate situation. So if this violates any laws or is otherwise unfeasible I apologize, but his solution seemed almost too obvious to have not been done. Put a friggin sniper with a loaded rifle on the boats! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 :) I think under British Law it is still on the statutes to HANG Pirates from the Yardarm :D Seriously though why don't ALL sea going Vessels Tankers/Cruise Ships carry Armaments and just Blow the Barstards out of the Water :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkljkl Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Put a friggin sniper with a loaded rifle on the boats!that's boring and you hardly get good video material.Put at use those F22 and mininukes, alternatively it would be fun to see again MOAB in action, on hijacketed ships. It will give us some more beautiful films about precision bombing. A plain solution that every TV consumer will understand. As Helen said, we do not need talking we need action, hasta la vista baby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 <snip>As Helen said, we do not need talking we need action,<snip> Sounds like a good idea, does it not? ... of course only until someone remembers, that this attidude let to the war in Iraq, to the war in Afganistan.You say, that was different, fair enough, although it is not.But than maybe you remember Somalia 1993? Or have you forgotten, than go to the viedeo shop looking for Black Hawk Down.The guys wanted to act fast, and the result of this fast actions is the current mess, which got ignored this several years. As a matter of fact, it is important that you think before you go into action, because most of the time this will help avoiding that you have later to think how to clean up the mess. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 As I understand matters, the reason that merchant ships aren't armed is an outgrowth of policies adopted by insurance carriers. The insurance carriers have concluded that fire fights between crew members and pirates are more expensive than paying off the occasional ransom. They significantly increase insurance rates if cargo ships are armed. Matt Yglesias had a great blog posting on this one: http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives...bout_piracy.php I suspect that this is going to come across as callous, but I wonder about the cost of saving the latest endeavor. Its all great that we were able to save Captain Phillips. I'm certainly not crying any crocodile tears for the pirates that got shot. However, this operation couldn't have been cheap. I wonder whether this is another freeloader problem where the bulk carriers are passing the buck, so to speak, over to the military. It might have been better if the US government had ignored the entire problem and let the insurance companies work things out. I suspect that Phillips would still (eventually) have gone free and that the costs would have been more localized. There are certainly some arguments that the (successful) military operation will have a deterrent effect. I'm just not sure about the whole cost benefit calculus. I think that any long term solution to this problem involves that dread "Nation Building" stuff... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oof Arted Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Does the US Navy have jurisdiction in international waters? :huh: More to the point do the Pirates have jurisdiction in international waters??? Lesser of 2 evils :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P_Marlowe Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 <snip>There are certainly some arguments that the (successful) military operation will have a deterrent effect. I'm just not sure about the whole cost benefit calculus.<snip> Ubless you solve the root cause of the problem, the cost benefitwill be negative. The deterent effect is minimal, the most likely result will be, thatthe pirates will be better armored and will be more likley to killthe hostages. It was just a show for the home front putting sand in their eyes. I am happy if the above statemnt will be proven wrong, but if history is any indication, than I doubt that this will be the case. With kind regardsMarlowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 I think that any long term solution to this problem involves that dread "Nation Building" stuff... Yes. Here is a somewhat trivial report about the background of the problem:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/africa/8001183.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Does the US Navy have jurisdiction in international waters? On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith. That's article 19 of the Convention on the High Seas. So yes, the USN has jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerben42 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize a pirate ship or aircraft, or a ship taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons and seize the property on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, and may also determine the action to be taken with regard to the ships, aircraft or property, subject to the rights of third parties acting in good faith. How do you identify the pirates? If I am captured, I simply deny being one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 One does wonder how many millions it would cost to capture, transport, pay for trial, lawyers and appeals and costs of prison. There may be more poor young men willing to risk being a pirate then there are open prison slots. How much money will citizens be willing to forego for this and not for education and health care? As some point these young men will have to weigh the risk of staying in Somali or being forced to move to France or Holland or the USA. At least if they go to prison, as bad as that is, they will be entitled to a free college education, world class health care and religious Muslim meals. After serving their term they can try for refugee status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vuroth Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Piracy must be very profitable and lucrative for Somali youth. Cut the funding, and make the practice unprofitable. It's been done before, but not by sending peace offerings to havens. Do pirates fly a flag? I'm guessing not.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Piracy must be very profitable and lucrative for Somali youth. Cut the funding, and make the practice unprofitable. It's been done before, but not by sending peace offerings to havens. Do pirates fly a flag? I'm guessing not.... Piracy has been going on for at least several thousand years, this is not something new. It is always tough to cut the funding, in fact piracy has never been fully stopped. At the very least one hopes that China and Europe react at least as forceful as they have to Russia invading and still occupying Georgia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 Btw Piracy definition 2. the unauthorized use of another's production or invention. Somali youth are not the only youthful pirates out there. Somali pirates have gotten what 50-100 million out of how many billions worldwide stolen by pirates? Somali have kidnapped what 300 people or so and yet one city in the USA had over 300 kidnappings last year. How many women are are held as sex slaves worldwide, over a million? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y66 Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 The Wire fans know how this ends. If we ever figure out how to solve the problems in our own cities, maybe we can offer credible solutions for problems like the ones in Somalia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 How do you identify the pirates? If I am captured, I simply deny being one. Criminals routinely protest their innocence — and are routinely convicted anyway if the evidence supports their guilt. I doubt it's any different for pirates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted April 16, 2009 Report Share Posted April 16, 2009 After serving their term they can try for refugee status. After serving their term, they'll be dead. That's what "life in prison" means. And then of course, there's this possible scenario: pirate ship is called upon by warship to surrender. They refuse. The ship is blown out of the water. There may be survivors, of course. OTOH, there may not. Who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winstonm Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Didn't anybody consider just steering around that part of the sea? I mean really, we can't live without Somalia as a *****ing trade partner? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hrothgar Posted April 17, 2009 Report Share Posted April 17, 2009 Didn't anybody consider just steering around that part of the sea? I mean really, we can't live without Somalia as a *****ing trade partner? Comment 1: You really might want to look at the location of the Suez canal... Get back to us when you have a basic understanding of geography Comment 2: A number of the ships that have been attacked were delivering food aid to Somalia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.