What's the deal with these Pirates off Somalia?

[DC Tom]

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?

 

Liability is probably the same liability they'd incur in any similar situation (e.g. a hostage situation, where hostages are hurt). Whatever a civil court says is the liability.

 

Preemption...no legal basis that I know of. The precedence that I know of (which is hardly comprehensive) says that there is no preemption: intent is not enough; pirates are not pirates until they commit (or actively try to commit) an act of piracy.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

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.

I think you are overstating your case once again. Yes there are pacifist leftists though most understand the need for a military, they just want it used as a last resort. Also there are isolationist rightists as well, who think these conflicts are non-of our business and we should stay out of foreign entanglements. Combining these two with the more moderate but sympathetic elements of this ideal and they make up significant numbers, but to button hole all of them as pure pacifists ignores the issue and the problem they are concerned about. And that is the inappropriate use of military power in places such as Iraq.

 

But you don't want actually have a discussion about it, you just want to hurl insults and produce nonsensical labels a la Matt Drudge lite!

[RkFast]

I think you are overstating your case once again. Yes there are pacifist leftists though most understand the need for a military, they just want it used as a last resort. Also there are isolationist rightists as well, who think these conflicts are non-of our business and we should stay out of foreign entanglements. Combining these two with the more moderate but sympathetic elements of this ideal and they make up significant numbers, but to button hole all of them as pure pacifists ignores the issue and the problem they are concerned about. And that is the inappropriate use of military power in places such as Iraq.

 

Fair enough, but when the anti-war left calls soldiers "terrorists", blocks supply shipments to Naval bases, drives recruiters off college campuses, vandalizes recruitment offices, protests outside VA hospitals, protests at air shows becuase they "glorify war" and seeks to put off or vastly reduce military spending, it is THEM not ME that's blurring that fine line youre speaking about.

[blzrul]

Fair enough, but when the anti-war left calls soldiers "terrorists", blocks supply shipments to Naval bases, drives recruiters off college campuses, vandalizes recruitment offices, protests outside VA hospitals, protests at air shows becuase they "glorify war" and seeks to put off or vastly reduce military spending, it is THEM not ME that's blurring that fine line youre speaking about.

And tell me when you see / read about these people...it's typically a handful. Not thousands or hundreds of thousands. So you need to have some perspective about the whole thing.

[Steely Dan]

And tell me when you see / read about these people...it's typically a handful. Not thousands or hundreds of thousands. So you need to have some perspective about the whole thing.

 

No, no. Hundreds or a few thousand are a significant number.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Fair enough, but when the anti-war left calls soldiers "terrorists", blocks supply shipments to Naval bases, drives recruiters off college campuses, vandalizes recruitment offices, protests outside VA hospitals, protests at air shows becuase they "glorify war" and seeks to put off or vastly reduce military spending, it is THEM not ME that's blurring that fine line youre speaking about.

You just lumped a couple of priorities together. Hell, I want to reduce military spending, but not to reduce effectiveness, but as a result of increased accountability and a reduction in military waste including elimination of these so called beltway bandit contractors. The first thing I would do is put administrative costs at 12% and only allow purchases for basic military goods, food and services to be charged at no more that 105% of a state's average retail price for that product if not less. There are plenty of other ways to reduce costs as well. Just these simple changes would save the taxpayers a bundle and should include weapons that are dual use--able to be sold to civilians.

 

But that doesn't make me a pacifist. P.S. There is a very active anarchist crowd in the US, they protest the world bank as well. Their numbers are not politically significant however, but they are very adept at causing problems and a stir. But once again, don't overstate your case. Most pacifists don't agree with their tactics. I think you are confusing political groups.

[finknottle]

Liability is probably the same liability they'd incur in any similar situation (e.g. a hostage situation, where hostages are hurt). Whatever a civil court says is the liability.

 

But in a (civil) hostage situation, the police are explicitely empowered to act as they think best. I believe that limits their liability. If somebody dies but the police acted within their operating parameters, its unfortunate but that's all. It's less clear cut what happens here.

 

Suppose an Iranian naval vessel came upon a just seized US ship and immediately attacked, killing everybody on board and sinking the ship. They can say that they were operating within Iranian operational proceedures for pirates, but I'm pretty sure there would be some kind of wrongfull death claims for every life lost and a claim for the ship.

[finknottle]

And tell me when you see / read about these people...it's typically a handful. Not thousands or hundreds of thousands. So you need to have some perspective about the whole thing.

 

How many people voted for Kucinich? I'd bet that a good measure would be half his support.

[Boomer860]

And tell me when you see / read about these people...it's typically a handful. Not thousands or hundreds of thousands. So you need to have some perspective about the whole thing.

A handful is made to look like a much larger number by the leftist in the media. Actually one is too many. You certainly must read about the protestors at Ft lewis

[finknottle]

The first thing I would do is put administrative costs at 12% and only allow purchases for basic military goods, food and services to be charged at no more that 105% of a state's average retail price for that product if not less.

 

Easier said than done, unless you are in favor of de-regulation.

 

Selling to the government is far more onerous than selling to real customers. There is more paperwork. There may be extra warranty requirements. There may be requirements that the purchase pass through a small business or minority owned business. The manufacturer may have to guarantee and document some percentage of 'made in the USA' or show that it is in compliance with various labor regulations. You may have to go through a long competative bidding process (generating overhead to recoup, multiplied for the risk). The US doesn't purchase like a company, and doesn't pay for things like a company. If it is a service contract, you'll have to designate a contracting officer and periodically jump through hoops.

 

All this extra hassle gets pushed onto the price. And, sadly, rightfully so. If you insist that your new car be delivered on a Tuesday with 2/3 a tank of gas, the mudflats in the trunk, and the sunroof down, all driven by a Latino driver, and you take up 6 months of a salesman's time negotiating it, you can get it. But its gonna cost you more then the guy who simply walks in and buys the same model.

 

If you want to lower the prices, you have to free purchasers from the procurement regulations - let them just go out and buy like any company would.

[The Dean]

.

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.

 

I would think, once you've identified a pirate ship, catching them is a fairly straightforward procedure. Follow them, surreptitiously, until they pirate. Or, better yet, set them up, and catch them. If you're right about them been pirates, then they will pirate, right?

 

You can't catch all of them. You make sure you start to catch more, and really make them pay. This isn't a crime of passion, it's a risk/reward crime.

 

 

 

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.

 

The ships are being held right out in the open, in Somali waters, as I understand it. The Somalis are either actively getting that property back to its rightful owner, and pursuing the pirates, or they are complicit. Other nations can go "help" the gov't or the Islamic side, with this effort. If they refuse the help, they are complicit.

[finknottle]

I would think, once you've identified a pirate ship, catching them is a fairly straightforward procedure. Follow them, surreptitiously, until they pirate. Or, better yet, set them up, and catch them. If you're right about them been pirates, then they will pirate, right?

 

You can't catch all of them. You make sure you start to catch more, and really make them pay. This isn't a crime of passion, it's a risk/reward crime.

 

I would agree with this strategy. The problem is that it requires a significant extended deployment. And once you come upon a speedboat attacking a ship and it breaks off, what do you do? Sink it and kill those on board? I don't think that would be popular with the left.

 

The ships are being held right out in the open, in Somali waters, as I understand it. The Somalis are either actively getting that property back to its rightful owner, and pursuing the pirates, or they are complicit. Other nations can go "help" the gov't or the Islamic side, with this effort. If they refuse the help, they are complicit.

 

Just out of curiosity, aren't you old enough to remember the Bush/Clinton intervention in Somalia, 1991/2? The situation is not very different. A government only in name, unable to control the warlords, the UN sent a force, and got its ass kicked by thugs with machine guns. But what the heck, this time it will be different.

[stuckincincy]

Just out of curiosity, aren't you old enough to remember the Bush/Clinton intervention in Somalia, 1991/2? The situation is not very different. A government only in name, unable to control the warlords, the UN sent a force, and got its ass kicked by thugs with machine guns. But what the heck, this time it will be different.

 

I recall the Clinton failed intervention. What was the Bush Administration one you make reference to?

[finknottle]

I recall the Clinton failed intervention. What was the Bush Administration one you make reference to?

 

During the Somali Civil War, the UN set up UNOSOM to carry out relief missions and broker the cease fire - the US supplied transport. When they couldn't get the job done, the UN passed on Dec 4 1992 an authorization of a US-led military force called UNITAF to support UNOSOM and carry out the security council resolutions. The first troops landed Dec 9. All of the political deliberations took place in the Bush administration, and he committed the 25,000 US troops in the 37,000 strong force.

 

I suspect you are really only looking to trash Clinton, if I recall a similar thread correctly from about a year or two ago. The Clinton admin inherited and ran the operation, the Bush admin negotiated and initiated it.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I agree to with SD!

 

Afterall, wasn't our nation's first international "test" off the shores of Tripoli with the Barbary pirates.

 

I see no reason why we can't waste these guys.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I have been getting the weekly piracy reports since 2002. I am sure they've been issuing them longer than that. These pirates have been out there, and ignored.

 

Suddenly they hijack a tanker full of OIL and they're a big deal. Fancy that. Why does it put me in mind of ignoring terrorism around the world until it hits us?

 

Duh.

 

Well one good thing is piracy impacts all nations. Maybe it's a good cause to unit against.

 

Exactly... Not just terrorism... Enviro-terrorism... What happens if they take a tanker and threaten to scuttle it somewhere?

[ExiledInIllinois]

I actually have no problem with that. As for Tripoli, the Barbary Pirates were attacking our ships, so that is different.

 

I understand that. A little different now. Like, I said above... It can innvolve everybody.

[ExiledInIllinois]

On another note: Wasn't the British economy built by pirates? I forgot, the English didn't call the ones raiding the Spanish main pirates, they were "privateers."

 

Thank you Elizabeth and your Sea Dog Drake! You really brought England into prominence.

 

My point... I guess there will always be pirates or Pirvateers... Which ever way you look at it.

 

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

Easier said than done, unless you are in favor of de-regulation.

 

Selling to the government is far more onerous than selling to real customers. There is more paperwork. There may be extra warranty requirements. There may be requirements that the purchase pass through a small business or minority owned business. The manufacturer may have to guarantee and document some percentage of 'made in the USA' or show that it is in compliance with various labor regulations. You may have to go through a long competative bidding process (generating overhead to recoup, multiplied for the risk). The US doesn't purchase like a company, and doesn't pay for things like a company. If it is a service contract, you'll have to designate a contracting officer and periodically jump through hoops.

 

All this extra hassle gets pushed onto the price. And, sadly, rightfully so. If you insist that your new car be delivered on a Tuesday with 2/3 a tank of gas, the mudflats in the trunk, and the sunroof down, all driven by a Latino driver, and you take up 6 months of a salesman's time negotiating it, you can get it. But its gonna cost you more then the guy who simply walks in and buys the same model.

 

If you want to lower the prices, you have to free purchasers from the procurement regulations - let them just go out and buy like any company would.

 

Understood, I used to manage NIH, a Navy grant and an Army grant at GW while I attended undergrad school. We received 45% admin costs, but Duke somehow managed to lower theirs to 12% with an efficient computer system and a centralized grant admin staff. And we had to go through the same crap. That being said, I threw out 12% figure because of Duke, not sure if that is the best, but somewhere closer to that than 45%. I am not saying for heavy technical military hardware, though some cost controls should be warranted. We are paying off too many folks just to get product including the lobbyists.

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

P.S. Buffalo and Boston in a wild one 4-3 Buffalo with 7 minutes to go in first. Anyone for street hockey.