Somali Pirate Attacks

[jdonn]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

[mike777]

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?

 

 

1) no way these 18 year old kids get anything like a life term for being a pirate....I bet a few months or years at most served for vast majority of them.....

1b) at this point somali has been doing piracy for years..so far how many are tried and convicted and serving in Europe or usa?

1c) btw life term almost never means you are in prison until you die, very rare.

 

2) blown out of the water and killed? Again very few will be blown out of the water and killed.

 

 

3) Just to repeat main point, these Somali pirates are the least of the worlds piracy issues. I bet Chinese piracy alone is closer to 100 times this over the decades. How many of these pirates are in usa or europe prisons? zero?

[Winstonm]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

[orlam]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

If there is a serial killer in Pennsylvania, just don't go to Pennsylvania?

[jdonn]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

If that is your point then sorry but that's the dumbest point I've ever heard. If there is a burgler in my neighborhood should I move? What do pirates have to do with icebergs? Since I don't expect the government to remove dangerous telephone poles from my driving path, should I not expect them to remove dangerous drunk drivers with guns pointed out the window?

[P_Marlowe]

<snip>

Obviously you and Richard missed my point.  If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters.  If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters.  If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

A simple answer:

 

You have to use those routes, since lots of ships sending

cargos from Europe to India and China (and back) will

use the Suez Channel.

And if you leave the Suez Channel, you have reached the

Gulf of Aden, and if you want to leave the Gulf, than your

routes will lead you to the "Horn of Africa", and Somalia is

the country, which is located there.

 

And if you dont want to pass Somalia and still want to ship

cargo Europe to India (and back) you would need to use a

route passing the South African vorders, safer, but a whole

lot longer.

 

It is a matter of economics.

 

.....................................................................................

 

Ask yourself, how you would feel, if there are pirates

attacking ships using the Pannama channel.

And what would be your response to the suggestion to

use the apossible alternative for shipping goods from

New York to San Francisco via Cape Horn?

And what would be the economic impact?

 

With kind regards

Marlowe

[barmar]

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.

Article 20 addresses this:

Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been effected without adequate grounds,  the State making the seizure shall be liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft, for any loss or damage caused by the seizure.

What I think this means is that if you're convicted of piracy, your home nation can appeal to an international court.

[helene_t]

That interpretation makes sense, but here the alleged pirate ships carry no flag and even if they did they shouldn't expect legal support from either Somalia, Puntland or any other country.

[barmar]

In that case, I think the only way Convention 19 can reasonably be interpreted is that they mean "suspected pirate ships". Otherwise there's a circularity: it's not a pirate ship unless they've been convicted of piracy, so it can't be seized.

 

This does seem to open a can of worms, though. If a nation is very liberal about convicting pirates, they can seize almost anyone without a home nation that's willing to fight for them. But I'm not going to lose sleep over this. If there were a nation that were eggregious about falsely seizing and convicting pirates, I think there would be international sanctions imposed by nations that view themselves as the world's policemen.

[Winstonm]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

If that is your point then sorry but that's the dumbest point I've ever heard. If there is a burgler in my neighborhood should I move? What do pirates have to do with icebergs? Since I don't expect the government to remove dangerous telephone poles from my driving path, should I not expect them to remove dangerous drunk drivers with guns pointed out the window?

I'm not claiming its the best argument ever made - but it still seeks to answer the question of who is reponsible for enforcing international laws - US, Somalia, or should the ones in the waters protect themselves?

 

I think it is dumb to jump into the ocean with a bunch of sharks and expect the lifeguards to keep you from getting bit.

[Winstonm]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

If there is a serial killer in Pennsylvania, just don't go to Pennsylvania?

No. You can go if you want to or need to, but if you do go and there is a killer in Pa., don't hitchike, don't share a motel room with a stranger, and don't expect big brother to save you if things go wrong.

[jdonn]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

If there is a serial killer in Pennsylvania, just don't go to Pennsylvania?

No. You can go if you want to or need to, but if you do go and there is a killer in Pa., don't hitchike, don't share a motel room with a stranger, and don't expect big brother to save you if things go wrong.

I just don't get it. Big Brother is the police. If they find out I'm in trouble why shouldn't they come save me? Because I had the choice to not be there in the first place?

[Winstonm]

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?

Do you mean that? I think Richard was kind in his reply. Many of these ships were delivering aid, and many are attacked quite far from Somalia. And what if the pirates spread out, is your answer we should just stop sailing?? And if they start flying, should we travel by digging tunnels to China?

Obviously you and Richard missed my point. If you are concerned about icebergs, don't sail into frigid waters. If you are concerned about Somali pirates, don't use those waters. If you do use those waters, then you have factored in the risk of the pirates so deal with it.

 

No one would expect the government to clear all the icebergs from his path, and no one should expect the government to rid the world of Somali pirates.

If there is a serial killer in Pennsylvania, just don't go to Pennsylvania?

No. You can go if you want to or need to, but if you do go and there is a killer in Pa., don't hitchike, don't share a motel room with a stranger, and don't expect big brother to save you if things go wrong.

I just don't get it. Big Brother is the police. If they find out I'm in trouble why shouldn't they come save me? Because I had the choice to not be there in the first place?

If you knowingly put yourself in harm's way, you also knew the risks - why should society insure your risk-taking - if it is for profit, you can certainly build risk models that allow losses and still ensure profitibility - if it is for charity, then it is hard to see the value of hijacking that shipment, but nonetheless, that should fall into the domain of the recipients'government to handle for it is their citizens who bear the loss.

 

If you had no choice but to go, that is something else altogether and then society should be the insurance.

[jdonn]

Maybe it's your standard that's the problem. Sailing anywhere in the vicinity of eastern Africa is not "putting yourself in harm's way" any more than going to Pennsylvania when there is a serial killer somewhere in the state (or even city) is. How many ships are being hijacked in that area, is it even 1% of 1%? And what about the first group of ships to be attacked, before the problem existed or was as widely known? And what do you do when you stay out of the area but they spread out?

 

Btw it is not hard to see the value of hijacking a shipment for charity. Nor is it realistic to expect a country so poor and in such disarray to be able to protect all these ships, which are hundreds of miles off the coast when these attacks occur.

 

Also btw, many would argue that if people are in desperate need of aid (that being poor and starving Somalians), someone "has to go" with aid to help them.

 

I am still sort of amazed that you are even arguing this, let alone that you believe it to begin with. My last comment said I should be able to expect the police to protect me if they know I'm in trouble, even if I went to a dangerous area, and your response was that it's my chance to take to go somewhere risky so they shouldn't! Do you really believe what you are saying?

[Winstonm]

My last comment said I should be able to expect the police to protect me if they know I'm in trouble, even if I went to a dangerous area, and your response was that it's my chance to take to go somewhere risky so they shouldn't! Do you really believe what you are saying?

 

Not exactly. What I stated was that if you knew the risks and decided anyway that it was in your best interests to go somewhere or sell goods or do business, etc. then you can factor the risk into your business model. You wouldn't create a business model that was only profitable if the police saved you. If you went in with blind faith that your butt would be saved regardless of the reason you went it, then I hope your faith is strong enough to move mountains because the cops are busy elsewhere.

 

I think Richard pointed this out in a earlier post - the insurance companies seem to think it is cheaper to simply pay off to the pirates and go on about business. That seems about right to me - catch them when you can but otherwise simply add the risk to the business model.

 

As you point out, charity may well be within the "had to go" bracket, and I have no problem with that or with society being the insurance.

[blackshoe]

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

 

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

[Winstonm]

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

 

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

[PassedOut]

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

 

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

I remember Blackshoe's quote from school. I liked it then and I still do.

 

We shouldn't be torturing and we shouldn't be invading countries that haven't attacked us. But the US should be going after groups who attack US citizens and pirates who hold people for ransom. That's a traditional value I share.

 

To hell with bin Laden and to hell with pirates.

[hrothgar]

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

 

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

I think that you are confusing US government policy with that of insurance providers and shipping companies.

 

The self defense policies that are followed by ships are set by shipping companies. In turn, these companies respond to the cost structures imposed by their insurance carriers and the folks who own/manage majors ports (both of whom are quite opposed to having armed freighters floating out on the seven seas and ratchet up insurance premiums and port fees for armed vessels)

 

US government policy really doesn't factor into things all that much...

 

Unless we decide that we're going to invade Somalia and try to "fix" the country, we're probably going to be forced to deal with a fairly unstable part of the world.

 

In theory, we could go and bomb/kill a bunch of folks who we suspect of being pirates. Regretfully, I don't think that this would have any long term impact on the stability of the region in question.

 

BTW, US propaganda aside, what ended the threat from the Barbary pirates was the French invading/colonizing Algeria, Morocco, etc. Yes the US scored some impressive tactical victories. Yes Old Ironsides is cool. But the "game changer" was the French seizing control of Algeria. I don't think anyone is stupoid enough to try anything similar in Somalia any time soon.

[Winstonm]

I don't think anyone is stupoid enough to try anything similar in Somalia any time soon.

 

It has once or twice before been proven dangerous to underestimate the stupidity of the neocon hawks.

 

Judge Smails: You know, you should play with Dr. Beeper and myself. I mean, he's been club champion for three years running and I'm no slouch myself.

Ty Webb: Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're a tremendous slouch.

[helene_t]

Big deal that the americans freed one hostage - the Dutch marine just freed 20:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8005730.stm

[PassedOut]

The spokesman said the pirates were set free because Nato does not have a maritime detainment policy, meaning Dutch national law would apply in this case.

Set free to plunder again.

[blackshoe]

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

If you want to advocate completely ridiculous policies for the US government to adopt, you go right ahead.

 

For myself, I would suggest that in furtherance of one of the primary missions of the US Navy - control of the seas - we put warships to patrol in places where piracy is common, tasked to put a stop to it.

 

Pirates do what they do because it seems to them a reasonable way to make a living. If we make it unreasonable, they'll find something else to do. If that something else also involves attacks on Americans or American property, then we'll have to deal with that, but short of instituting the death penalty for mere suspicion (which I do not advocate) I don't see a better solution. Do you?

[Winstonm]

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

If you want to advocate completely ridiculous policies for the US government to adopt, you go right ahead.

No, thanks. I would never usurp the responsibilities the neocons have adopted as their own.

[blackshoe]

How's that go? Oh, yeah. "Never wrestle with a pig. It just gets you dirty and annoys the pig."