What's the deal with these Pirates off Somalia?

[finknottle]

Is it ok for a foreign country to come here and enforce laws?

 

Please explain.

[RkFast]

Would it shock ANYONE if Iran or even the Saudis were bankrolling these thugs, in hopes of driving up prices?

 

What the heck are lowbrow pirates doing with an OIL TANKER, anyways?

 

Im just askin'

[finknottle]

Would it shock ANYONE if Iran or even the Saudis were bankrolling these thugs, in hopes of driving up prices?

 

What the heck are lowbrow pirates doing with an OIL TANKER, anyways?

 

Im just askin'

 

Yes. This was the first time a tanker was attacked.

 

If you want to engage in conspiracy speculation, you should finger Egypt. Pirates targeting tankers makes the paying steep fees to use the Suez Canal more attractive.

[Steely Dan]

Excuse me, I CLEARY stated that its the ANTI-MILITARY portion of the left that Im speaking about. Those who think the military is "useless" and should be done away with completely. Those who think that our projection of power has NO PURPOSE at all.

 

If you think there are not significant numbers of the anti-war left who not just want to us to "get out of Iraq", but want the military completely done away with, youre sadly mistaken.

 

 

 

Its a "problem" becuase whenever thing get nasty, the UN ducks and hides behind our backs and seems to say "DO SOMETHING!!!" Its a "problem" becuase hwnever someone needs help, they look to the US to provide it.

 

You cant have it both ways. The World cant expect the US to just be a "tenant" but then fix the roof of the apartment building when its leaking.

 

Riiiighhhht, you have no clue about the left except your lies and strawman arguments. Please define significant please.

 

So because of that the U.S. should be able to do anything they want to any country?! That's called tyranny and it's what Hitler tried. You can say "But we are right about everything" but we're not. You have an egocentric view of this country. We needed to take care of Afghanistan and the world had a lot of sympathy for us after the 911 attacks but Bush pretty much ignored them pissed away the sympathy behind an Afghan war and attacked Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with that attack. The U.N. was against the attack because there was no evidence Iraq had workable WMD's and guess what? Turns out they were right.

 

As for the U.N. needing us, we shouldn't supply the armies they want. However, since we are the world power we need to show them we are benevolent and not tyrannical.

[Steely Dan]

Please explain.

 

You are saying it's ok for us to go into other countries to enforce laws. Would it be ok for other countries to do the same to us or any other countries?

[The Dean]

I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that that is not a solution consistent with the thinking of the left. I am simply asking what they would find an acceptable solution. Leave it up to Interpol? Set up a UN protection flotilla to sail around with blue smokestacks monitoring the situation? Would force for anything but self-defence be authorized? That would be a departure from normal peace-keeping operations... Or would we craft a UN resolution authorizing nations to initiate military combat in the area at their own discretion?

 

Well, I am not a international conflict expert, so my opinion on exactly how to handle it, isn't worth the amount of memory this post takes on the TBD server. But (since that has never stopped me before), I think there any number of acceptable ways to handle this situation. As I stated previously, any country who has ship and/or crew held for ransom has every right to bust in and take their stuff back, IMO. As with Afghanistan after 911, it seems fairly obvious that the gov't of Somalia is complicit in these actions...or at least is doing nothing to stop them. So, if a nation, or a consortium of nations, wants to go reclaim what is rightfully theirs (and I don't expect much dispute from the world when it comes to reclaiming people and property, from pirates), have at it. I expect the USA would support, and join, an effort like that. As long as the effort was a surgical extraction of stolen property and rescue of crews, and not an excuse to engage in another longstanding conflict.

 

Also, as I said in one of my original posts, I can also see (perhaps in addition to a surgical extraction, if needed) an international fleet of bait ships (or "undercover" ships. Sure, they can have other legit purposes, but they would also contain strike teams to deter (or defeat) pirates.

 

Pirates are operating because they can make a lot of money doing it (as opposed to living in horrible poverty otherwise), so it is an attractive option. The upside needs to be removed. The job has to go from being one of moderate risk, and high reward, to one of very high risk, and no reward. A refusal to pay for pirated ships and crew, combined with surgical recovery, and undercover sting operations on the high seas (that results in the capture ad/or death of pirate crews), may turn pirating into a poor choice of work, for the locals.

 

 

Would it shock ANYONE if Iran or even the Saudis were bankrolling these thugs, in hopes of driving up prices?

 

What the heck are lowbrow pirates doing with an OIL TANKER, anyways?

 

Im just askin'

 

 

Nothing would shock me...but, I don't think that is likely. If Saudi Arabia refused to join an international coalition to defeat the pirates, and recover the property and crews, that would tell us something, I think.

[molson_golden2002]

No, the right (or at least myself) believes that the protections and rights of the US apply only to the citizens of the US, and that its mission is to further the interests of its citizens.

 

Everything else is belongs in the realm of foreign policy.

Exactly, you want to give the military a free pass to do whatever it wants, I think that's wrong. Under this thinking Cambodia got bombed by us. The world is a complicated place

[molson_golden2002]

Would it shock ANYONE if Iran or even the Saudis were bankrolling these thugs, in hopes of driving up prices?

 

What the heck are lowbrow pirates doing with an OIL TANKER, anyways?

 

Im just askin'

Let's hope! If they are its an excuse for a wider war! Joy!

[RkFast]

Riiiighhhht, you have no clue about the left except your lies and strawman arguments. Please define significant please.

 

Start with the rubes outside Whidbey and those like them. Or those who consider soldiers "terrorists." There are also pacifists who feel the Military should be eliminated out of hand.

 

So because of that the U.S. should be able to do anything they want to any country?!

 

You didnt get that from me. I never said ONCE in this discussion what I think the US' involvement in this affiar should be.

 

That's called tyranny and it's what Hitler tried.

 

Nazi reference. Racism one next?

 

You can say "But we are right about everything" but we're not. You have an egocentric view of this country.

 

Never said that either. Must be one of the voices in your head saying that.

 

We needed to take care of Afghanistan and the world had a lot of sympathy for us after the 911 attacks but Bush pretty much ignored them pissed away the sympathy behind an Afghan war and attacked Iraq which had absolutely nothing to do with that attack

 

I agree with you, silly. But what does the Iraq wat have to do with the debate about the US involvement in an incident in International Waters? On another continent.

 

 

The U.N. was against the attack because there was no evidence Iraq had workable WMD's and guess what? Turns out they were right.

 

The UN also passed 14 resolutions regarding Saddam and his "production" of WMDs.

 

As for the U.N. needing us, we shouldn't supply the armies they want. However, since we are the world power we need to show them we are benevolent and not tyrannical.

 

We need to look out for our best interests. This is what every other nation does. And while the US is more powerful than most, the notion that the rules should be vastly different for us is stupid.

[RkFast]

Let's hope! If they are its an excuse for a wider war! Joy!

 

No. Control of energy resources have NEVER been a cause for war.

 

Strap yourself to the tread of a bulldozer.

[blzrul]

Youre not obtuse enough to believe this line of thinking is limited to the US, are you?

No. Just citing an example.

[RkFast]

No. Just citing an example.

 

I figured

[finknottle]

You are saying it's ok for us to go into other countries to enforce laws. Would it be ok for other countries to do the same to us or any other countries?

 

Where did I say that?

 

If anything, I would argue that the meaning of 'law' is vacuous outside owns own country. I might say it's ok for us to go to country X and do Y - but that would be a calculation based on foreign policy considerations, not on some misguided belief in the universality of the 'law.' Nor would I expect that such an act would be considered lawfull by the host country.

[finknottle]

Exactly, you want to give the military a free pass to do whatever it wants, I think that's wrong. Under this thinking Cambodia got bombed by us. The world is a complicated place

 

Strawman caricture.

 

The right to do whatever they want subject to the calculations of US foreign policy would be fairer. If North Korean commandoes slip across the border and seize a bunch of servicemen, we do nothing - any action might be met with the devestation of South Korea. If Somali gunmen siezed some US soldiers and we knew where they were, there would be a rescue in force within days.

 

Likewise, if Russia declared 100 mile no-fly zone off of its borders, we'd be reluctant to test them. If Bermuda did the same, we'd pretty much ignore it.

[DC Tom]

Quoting international law:

 

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 or aircraft 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.

 

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Law's different in territorial waters (if the tanker makes it to Somali waters, territorial rights must be respected, and it becomes the responsibility of Somali "authorities" to deal with the pirates). But on the high seas (or "any other place outside the jurisdiction of any state", which arguably describes Somalia), any state may legally combat piracy and impose penalties according to their own laws.

[finknottle]

Well, I am not a international conflict expert, so my opinion on exactly how to handle it, isn't worth the amount of memory this post takes on the TBD server. But (since that has never stopped me before), I think there any number of acceptable ways to handle this situation. As I stated previously, any country who has ship and/or crew held for ransom has every right to bust in and take their stuff back, IMO. As with Afghanistan after 911, it seems fairly obvious that the gov't of Somalia is complicit in these actions...or at least is doing nothing to stop them. So, if a nation, or a consortium of nations, wants to go reclaim what is rightfully theirs (and I don't expect much dispute from the world when it comes to reclaiming people and property, from pirates), have at it. I expect the USA would support, and join, an effort like that. As long as the effort was a surgical extraction of stolen property and rescue of crews, and not an excuse to engage in another longstanding conflict.

 

Your suggestions are already in place. The problem is that once a ship is seized, it is too late for us to help - what if they start killing hostages? It becomes your basic ransom situation, money for the ship and we'll kill people if there is a rescue attempt, which is why almost none of the ships have ever been rescued by force.

 

The problem is how to prevent attacks, short of escorting the vessels. It's really no different than the terrorism problem. What action can you take when you have identified a pirate ship, but one that is not currently attacking another ship? There are a lot more of them than there are naval vessels.

 

As for your comments on the Somali government, I disagree. There is no control, either by the official government (embattled, and about to lose power again) or the Islamists (who may be benefiting by the proceeds occasionally, but do not control it). Remember, piracy is the Somali equivalent of an unlicensed cab - get a dozen frioends with guns and a speedboat and go fishing for a cargo vessel.

[finknottle]

Quoting international law:

 

 

 

Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Law's different in territorial waters (if the tanker makes it to Somali waters, territorial rights must be respected, and it becomes the responsibility of Somali "authorities" to deal with the pirates). But on the high seas (or "any other place outside the jurisdiction of any state", which arguably describes Somalia), any state may legally combat piracy and impose penalties according to their own laws.

 

What liability does the country assume for any deaths or damages that are incurred in seizing seized vessels? And for the purposes of pre-emptive action, how do you determine what is a pirate vessel?

[Steely Dan]

Where did I say that?

 

If anything, I would argue that the meaning of 'law' is vacuous outside owns own country. I might say it's ok for us to go to country X and do Y - but that would be a calculation based on foreign policy considerations, not on some misguided belief in the universality of the 'law.' Nor would I expect that such an act would be considered lawfull by the host country.

 

I took these posts to mean that you were saying that. If I'm interpreting it wrong sorry.

 

Under the left's thinking, under what legal standing could the US sink or a pirate ship pursuing another, or even intervene for that matter? Even the vague mantle of National Security Interests (which the civil liberties lawyers fight tooth and nail) wouldn't apply. Wouldn't we need a UN mandate and congressional approval?

 

If we can intervene there, then can we unilaterally intervene in muggings or carjackings in foreign countries? Drug wars in Mexico?

 

 

And what if the pirates radio that they were the ones first attacked? Or that it is their ship that they are trying to recover? Do their claims get due process, or can a sailor on a ship make a unilateral decision on who to start firing at? Who makes that decision, and on what is the authority to fire on a vessel based? Claims of another?

 

 

The Supreme Court seems to want to extend legal protections to non-citizens. This doesn't begin after you have been forcibly taken and your case examined, it begins before. What jurisdiction does the US have here? Last time I checked, an LA cop can't pull you over in NY and then inspect the contents of your car. Even if he see's you driving with expired tags. Nor can a US marine stationed at the Embassy in Nairobi start shooting at people he thinks might be carjackers.

 

Indeed, my understanding is that the US military cannot perform law enforcement duties without special authorities. Let alone law enforcement in international territory and where no US laws are involved.

 

Do I think the world should do nothing? Of course not. I'm only looking at it through the prism of the left, and wondering how they would reconcile the granting of US legal protections to foreigners with the use of the military to solve the problem in the absence of any UN authorization.

 

Personally, I see no problem with sinking them on sight.

 

 

No, the right (or at least myself) believes that the protections and rights of the US apply only to the citizens of the US, and that its mission is to further the interests of its citizens.

 

Everything else is belongs in the realm of foreign policy.

 

 

I'm not suggesting that. I'm pointing out that that is not a solution consistent with the thinking of the left. I am simply asking what they would find an acceptable solution. Leave it up to Interpol? Set up a UN protection flotilla to sail around with blue smokestacks monitoring the situation? Would force for anything but self-defence be authorized? That would be a departure from normal peace-keeping operations... Or would we craft a UN resolution authorizing nations to initiate military combat in the area at their own discretion?

[finknottle]

I took these posts to mean that you were saying that. If I'm interpreting it wrong sorry.

 

I would argue that we can go after the pirates, but I would never suggest that it is because we have some mystical right to enforce our laws beyond our borders. Indeed, I don't think we have legal standing at all! And that's my basis for ridiculing the strawman courses of actions the left might take, for they are the ones who would extend US legal protections beyond our borders.

 

And when I say that IMO we should go after the pirates, it is because I think we can, the world would be generally supportive, and there is no foreign policy downside. It has nothing to do with fantasies about the universality of the law.

[DC Tom]

Would it shock ANYONE if Iran or even the Saudis were bankrolling these thugs, in hopes of driving up prices?

 

What the heck are lowbrow pirates doing with an OIL TANKER, anyways?

 

Im just askin'

 

You'd be surprised.

 

Most dangerous waters in the world, w/r/t piracy, are around Singapore. Most of the time, pirates just board to take valuables (case from the ship's safe) but it's not uncommon for entire ships to disappear - taken by pirates, crew killed, pirates take it somewhere and sell off the cargo, and get it painted and re-registered, then sell it. Even oil tankers.