Somali Pirate Attacks

[Winstonm]

Oink, oink.

[Winstonm]

I didn't know this about the U.S. Constitution:

 

9:33 AM PDT, April 18, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and darling of Libertarians everywhere, has an idea on how the United States can deal with the Somali pirates plaguing international shipping in the Indian Ocean: hire and train some bounty hunters.

 

The idea, unlike some of Paul's proposals, is actually gaining traction in Congress. The U.S. Navy, designed to do battle against other nations' navies, is too big for the mission. So, hiring and training bounty hunters to go after the pirates is, as Political Machine put it, "a classic case of fighting fire with fire."

 

The mechanism would be a little-known power in the Constitution called marque and reprisal. Leave it to a strict constitutionalist like Paul to have read that far into the document.

The provision was used often during the Revolution and the War of 1812, but not since. Basically, the law allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

 

"If we have 100 American wannabe Rambos patrolling the seas, it's probably a good way of getting the job done," said Competitive Enterprise Institute's Eli Lehrer.

 

If Congress does start using the procedure, it might want to consider a few amendments. Under current law, bounty hunters are allowed to keep the ship and any treasure they capture.

[helene_t]

don't think it is the constitution. Just an ordinary law. My guess.

[onoway]

It was interesting to gain some sort of idea of what might have led to the pirates taking up that line of "work" . It is difficult to imagine the sort of life people are dealing with there if even half of this is true. I suppose if you just keep shooting them all eventually Somalia will run out of young men....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8001183.stm

[hrothgar]

I didn't know this about the U.S. Constitution:

 

9:33 AM PDT, April 18, 2009

Reporting from Washington -- Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and darling of Libertarians everywhere, has an idea on how the United States can deal with the Somali pirates plaguing international shipping in the Indian Ocean: hire and train some bounty hunters.

 

The idea, unlike some of Paul's proposals, is actually gaining traction in Congress. The U.S. Navy, designed to do battle against other nations' navies, is too big for the mission. So, hiring and training bounty hunters to go after the pirates is, as Political Machine put it, "a classic case of fighting fire with fire."

 

The mechanism would be a little-known power in the Constitution called marque and reprisal. Leave it to a strict constitutionalist like Paul to have read that far into the document.

The provision was used often during the Revolution and the War of 1812, but not since. Basically, the law allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

 

"If we have 100 American wannabe Rambos patrolling the seas, it's probably a good way of getting the job done," said Competitive Enterprise Institute's Eli Lehrer.

 

If Congress does start using the procedure, it might want to consider a few amendments. Under current law, bounty hunters are allowed to keep the ship and any treasure they capture.

Wow...

 

Just when you thought Ron Paul couldn't get any stupider, he starts babbling about letters of marque.

 

Admittedly, this will give the lunatic fringe a chance to dream of a new and perfect world where lifting the oppressive arms of the government will allows robust young Aryan warriors to go off and slaughter the dark skin hordes; however, I fail to see the practical benefit.

 

Let's look at all the things that this plan WON'T accomplish:

 

One of the factors limiting the US Navy is cost. It's too damn expensive to patrol the entire coast of Somalia. Will privatizing the fight reduce costs in any appreciable manner? I doubt it. Back in the day, privateers were highly cost effective because they (primarily) worked as pirates. They captured and looted enemy merchant vessels. On rare occasion, they also seized ships/loot from pirates. However, I don't see that as particularly feasible in this day and age. The only way that I see private companies being willing to take up a job like this is if we start paying bounties for dead pirates. My suspicion is that this would almost immediate transform itself into "bounties for dead Somalis"...

 

A second factor limiting the Navy is lack of information. It's very difficult to find pirates in the deep blue sea. Somehow, I suspect that the Navy has much better command and control than some random group of yahoos...

 

For the life of me, I can't figure out what this is supposed to accomplish... Personally, I think that "100 American wannabee Rambos" sounds like "50 dead idiots" and a bunch of brand new hostages that the real military is going to need to rescue...

[blackshoe]

The Congress shall have Power ...

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

 

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

 

The right to issue letters of marque was relinquished by signatories to the Declaration of Paris, which was an annex to the 1856 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Crimean War.

 

That second quote is from a wikipedia article on letters of marque. The US is not a signatory to this declaration. My understanding is that the reason for this is that it would have voided the above quoted power granted Congress in the Constitution.

 

The USN is not "too big" to fight piracy. It is, however "designed to fight other nations' navies" in large scale battles, which is a completely different mission. The Navy needs completely different kinds of ships for the anti-piracy mission than the ones we have. There has been an effort to design and build such ships, but it's slow going. For one thing, the admirals (particularly the aviation types) want to keep as many carriers as they can, partly because carrier battle groups are billets for aviation flag officers. Perhaps the littoral combat ship will fit the bill — eventually.

 

There is "the deep blue sea" and there is "the not so deep littoral sea". The latter is where pirates operate. The problem with tracking pirates there is two-fold: a lot of ships around these areas, and satellite coverage can only do so much. We need eyes on the surface - iow more small(ish) combatants. This is the kind of thing that cruisers, historically, were made for.

 

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

 

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

[jdonn]

It was interesting to gain some sort of idea of what might have led to the pirates taking up that line of "work" . It is difficult to imagine the sort of life people are dealing with there if even half of this is true. I suppose if you just keep shooting them all eventually Somalia will run out of young men....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8001183.stm

This was a very intelligent article. If you want to rid your house of an ant infestation, trying to stomp on every ant you can find won't work.

[Oof Arted]

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.

;)

 

Helen I rather suspect that they would recieve backing from the Eoropean Union Courts in Strasbourg for going against 'their' Human rights

 

:)

[PassedOut]

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

 

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

[luke warm]

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

 

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

what would your solution be? feel free to form one in consultation with richard

[PassedOut]

what would your solution be?

Tax cuts.

[jdonn]

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

 

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

what would your solution be? feel free to form one in consultation with richard

While I don't know exactly what I would do, it would happen IN Somalia, not in the waters extending a thousand miles from it in every direction. The prior analogy still applies. You can't kill an ant infestation by stomping on every ant you see.

[hrothgar]

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

 

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

what would your solution be? feel free to form one in consultation with richard

Whats the old saying...

 

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

 

I don't claim to have a good answer to the problem. That doesn't mean that I can't recognize an incredibly bad idea when I see one.

[PassedOut]

The eventual solution to this and other problems in the world will be a system of international law with real and strong enforcement capabilities.

 

Governments will have to meet certain minimum standards regarding human rights and international conduct. Penalties up to and including replacement of those governments (to stop genocide, for example) will be applied. Situations like those in Somalia will not be permitted to continue.

 

Because "the world has gotten smaller," some consolidation has already started and is certain to continue, albeit slowly. Among other things, we need effective international ways to control corporations and to ensure that our planet is protected.

 

Establishing the worldwide legal system will be gradual, I realize, and I won't live to see it. Until then, problems like piracy, genocide, and poisoning the air and water won't be solved completely.

 

And certainly not by stupid ideas like that offered by Ron Paul on piracy.

[helene_t]

The eventual solution to this and other problems in the world will be a system of international law with real and strong enforcement capabilities.

 

Governments will have to meet certain minimum standards regarding human rights and international conduct. Penalties up to and including replacement of those governments (to stop genocide, for example) will be applied. Situations like those in Somalia will not be permitted to continue.

The US tried to create order in Somalia and gave up. Ethiopia tried and gave up. Afghanistan hasn't been such a big success either. Iraq is showing a tiny bit of progress, finally, but at annual costs some 1000 times the costs inflicted by Somali pirates, I think (please correct me if I exaggerate). Any chance that an international force would be more (cost-) effective?

 

As a healthcare researcher I favor symptom treatment. Block their sea ports, bomb their costal towns, discourage them by blowing up one or two of their vessels every week, direct the ships further to the East and South of Africa, or just live with the piracy and pay the occasional ransom.

 

Do whatever is more politically opportune. Just don't try to address the root of the problem, that's so much easier said than done.

 

This all said: I am all for development aid to third world countries. I am a permanent sponsor of several development aid organizations and have spent many holidays doing voluntary work for them. If anything can be done to provide better conditions and prospects for somalians, the money will be better spent there than on hi-tech anti-pirate weapons. I just don't believe development aid has any significant impact on this particular problem. Doesn't matter, improving the life of third world people is important for its own sake and much more so than this pirate issue.

[PassedOut]

The eventual solution to this and other problems in the world will be a system of international law with real and strong enforcement capabilities.

 

Governments will have to meet certain minimum standards regarding human rights and international conduct. Penalties up to and including replacement of those governments (to stop genocide, for example) will be applied. Situations like those in Somalia will not be permitted to continue.

The US tried to create order in Somalia and gave up. Ethiopia tried and gave up. Afghanistan hasn't been such a big success either. Iraq is showing a tiny bit of progress, finally, but at annual costs some 1000 times the costs inflicted by Somali pirates, I think (please correct me if I exaggerate). Any chance that an international force would be more (cost-) effective?

 

As a healthcare researcher I favor symptom treatment. Block their sea ports, bomb their costal towns, discourage them by blowing up one or two of their vessels every week, direct the ships further to the East and South of Africa, or just live with the piracy and pay the occasional ransom.

 

Do whatever is more politically opportune. Just don't try to address the root of the problem, that's so much easier said than done.

 

This all said: I am all for development aid to third world countries. I am a permanent sponsor of several development aid organizations and have spent many holidays doing voluntary work for them. If anything can be done to provide better conditions and prospects for somalians, the money will be better spent there than on hi-tech anti-pirate weapons. I just don't believe development aid has any significant impact on this particular problem. Doesn't matter, improving the life of third world people is important for its own sake and much more so than this pirate issue.

Yes, my point is that there simply is no easy short-term fix to problems like this one, and to pretend otherwise is foolish.

 

Eventually such problems will be solved (not completely, but for all practical purposes) along the lines I mentioned. But we're a long way from that day for sure.

[blackshoe]

just live with the piracy and pay the occasional ransom.

The then-fledgling USofA tried that. I referred to it earlier. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" (Georges Santyana).

 

"Just live with" will not work. Not long-term.

[hrothgar]

just live with the piracy and pay the occasional ransom.

The then-fledgling USofA tried that. I referred to it earlier. "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it" (Georges Santyana).

 

"Just live with" will not work. Not long-term.

I'd argue that "Just live with it" has a long, storied, and largely happy history.

 

Pirates have been around for millenia. I'm sure that anyone with any knowledge of history recalls the stories where Julius Caesar was ransomed by pirates. (The rest of you can get by with recent Disney movies).

 

Pirates/Corsairs/what have you infested the Medditerrean from (at least) the time of the Egyptian through to the French conquest of North Africa. Yes, there were periodic attempts to sqush individual groups of pirates. (Caesar later crucified the pirates who held him captive). There were even efforts to raid and destroy pirate's home ports. None of this had any lasting effect because its not cost effective. It might make people feel good. It's GREAT political theater (which is why I brought up young Gaius Julius...). It really seems to get people's dick's hard. However, it doesn't have any lasting impact.

 

What finally ended the threat of piracy in the Med was the stablity imposed by European colonialism. The same basic pattern prevailed elsewhere in the world (including the Carribean)

[onoway]

This came from a blog associated with one of Canada's political parties. It's a bit long but brings up some issues not so far mentioned in the forum.

http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/14081/20...proud-be-pirate

 

(the title may come back to haunt them in the next election :D )

[jdonn]

I don't agree with just living with the problem. Maybe it is just a matter of the hardness of my body parts, but I see a problem and thus I like the idea of fixing it. As with most problems, I suspect the up front cost is great but the long term benefit is greater. Of course I can't prove that.

[luke warm]

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

 

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

what would your solution be? feel free to form one in consultation with richard

While I don't know exactly what I would do, it would happen IN Somalia, not in the waters extending a thousand miles from it in every direction. The prior analogy still applies. You can't kill an ant infestation by stomping on every ant you see.

that's pretty much my view also, although i don't see anything wrong with stepping on the occasional ant when he shows himself

[TimG]

In the little reading that I have done, it does not sound to me like the pirates have a political agenda, they're quite simply out for the money. Is that right?

 

I'm sure I would be surprised by the number of ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden, but how many of these are American ships?

 

How coordinated have the military escorts been? Have ships that were under escort been pirated? From a purely US perspective, couldn't the piracy of US ships be virtually eliminated through the use of Navy escorts through the area?

[bid_em_up]

Of course, the obvious solution would be for the insurer's and/or governments to just pay $x million per month up front to the local Pirates Benevolence Fund, in exchange for no more hijackings. :)

 

(Any semblance between this and a real solution is purely a figment of your imagination.)

[Aberlour10]

What about the other sort of "pirates", who illegal over-fished totally Somalia coasts through 2 decades after the central goverment was collapsed in 1991 and there were nobody who was able to protect Somalias rights. More than $300m-worth of tuna, shrimp, and lobster are being stolen every year by illegal trawlers (western vessels too). For many of these todays pirates was fishing the only source of income. This is not excuse for their excesses but we should think and talk about it too.

 

Robert

[Winstonm]

Jeff Huber in full sarcasm mode:

 

http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2009/04/...vy-dogs-of-war/