More Piracy Near Somalia

[motorfirebox]

But Sir, what you say also means the criminals have won and we must pay and pay, and more and more crewman must endure unjust imprisonment-forever.

Yes, because there's absolutely no middle ground between a full assault and throwing up our hands.

I have thought of something else Sir. The foul pirates are asking for more and more money each time they steal a ship and abduct crewmen. I fear they may grow frustrated when there is a reluctance to pay. That may be very bad for the kidnapped crewman. Africa is a most dangerous place.

No doubt it will be, and no kidding it is. But we haven't yet reached the point where we'll kill less hostages by actively assaulting the pirates than we will by taking less direct action.

[Stan]

No doubt it will be, and no kidding it is. But we haven't yet reached the point where we'll kill less hostages by actively assaulting the pirates than we will by taking less direct action.

Does that mean we should just continue to pay criminals because there is no other way ?

Are there (is there evidence of) less hostages being killed? What we do know is their living conditions are bad and some have either died or were killed. At some point they will be usless pawns, and some will successfully escape and others won't.

Seems more realistic to consider that scenario and quell the current state of piracy. There'll will come a point when we pay 5 bucks a gallon and most will be ready to pay for cruise missiles and could care less about journalists reporting dead pirates on the evening news (rest assured, there will be baby pictures too). We are a pathetic and weak super power hamstrung by PC and CNN.

TIA and WAWA

[carl]

Yes, because there's absolutely no middle ground between a full assault and throwing up our hands.

Ah Inspector, you are using what my son the college student calls the fallacy of the false alternative, all or nothing. We have spoken many times in the past about things we can do short of incorporating the land of the pirates into our empire.

But Sir, you are right about there being no middle ground in one respect. When we are dealing with violent bandits and son's of violent bandits, there is no middle ground between killing them or scaring them into quietude, and giving up your soul and your family to them. They are not reasonable men Sir, given to rational discussion.

No doubt it will be, and no kidding it is. But we haven't yet reached the point where we'll kill less hostages by actively assaulting the pirates than we will by taking less direct action.

Again Sir, I point out that we do not seek to occupy the land of the pirates, though there may be good beaches there. I believe it wise Sir to stop things at sea first. As the foul pirates take more honest seaman into captivity, their ability to haggle Sir, though I dislike that word when dealing with the lives of innocent men, increases. If we can stop more men being abducted and ships being stolen, the position of the criminals Sir will grow weaker as each day passes. It is a needed first step on the journey and it will require direct action Sir, if by that somewhat curious phrase you mean pointing weapons at the cowardly skiffmen and putting them in fear for their dishonorable lives.

Motorfirebox, you are a good sport for not taking offense at my attempt to play Charlie Chan. I'll stop that inadequate attempt now.

[motorfirebox]

Ah Inspector, you are using what my son the college student calls the fallacy of the false alternative, all or nothing. We have spoken many times in the past about things we can do short of incorporating the land of the pirates into our empire.

Yes, because I was clearly not being facetious.

But Sir, you are right about there being no middle ground in one respect. When we are dealing with violent bandits and son's of violent bandits, there is no middle ground between killing them or scaring them into quietude, and giving up your soul and your family to them. They are not reasonable men Sir, given to rational discussion.

Oh, cow chips. There's acres of middle ground. We as a country have been stomping around in that middle ground for more than half a century. The only difference--the only difference at all--is that now it's on the news.

Again Sir, I point out that we do not seek to occupy the land of the pirates, though there may be good beaches there. I believe it wise Sir to stop things at sea first. As the foul pirates take more honest seaman into captivity, their ability to haggle Sir, though I dislike that word when dealing with the lives of innocent men, increases. If we can stop more men being abducted and ships being stolen, the position of the criminals Sir will grow weaker as each day passes. It is a needed first step on the journey and it will require direct action Sir, if by that somewhat curious phrase you mean pointing weapons at the cowardly skiffmen and putting them in fear for their dishonorable lives.

Except, as I grow tired of pointing out, that doing so is likely to result in significantly more hostage casualties than would otherwise occur. I just want to hear somebody say it. I want to hear someone say, "Yes, I am okay with taking action that will result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of hostages who current trends indicate would probably not have otherwise died." At that point, at least we could agree to disagree. As it stands, I feel like I keep pointing that problem out and those in favor of direct action keep dancing away from it.

[carl]

Here is the article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...n=main-twitter

According to the article, being convicted of piracy means life with no possibility of parole.

[Ken White]

We as a country have been stomping around in that middle ground for more than half a century. The only difference--the only difference at all--is that now it's on the news.

Er, that's not new. That it's on the news, I mean. It always has been in the news -- the difference is that today, the news repeats itself over and over and over to fill the 24 hour cycle. Thus, instead of being informed, we are being beaten over the head with factoids.

A number of which are somewhat specious...

I want to hear someone say, "Yes, I am okay with taking action that will result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of hostages who current trends indicate would probably not have otherwise died." At that point, at least we could agree to disagree. As it stands, I feel like I keep pointing that problem out and those in favor of direct action keep dancing away from it.

Sounds like all or nothing to me...

I'm unsure anyone can or will say that without amplification of circumstances, costs, benefits, etc. I'm equally unsure that anyone from A nation can say that with any validity as the hostages come from many nations and an agreement or consensus to make such an attack would likely be required. *

I am sure, however, that lacking such punitive action or another major change in shipping protection (with concomitant costs) the problem will not go away until such time as the other area nations elect to end the piracy for their own economic well being.

* Unless the Chinese, French or Russians get hacked -- or the British or Americans start losing too much money -- then all bets are off.

[davidbfpo]

A curious report that Puntland security forces clashed, two weeks ago, with pirates holding Danish hostages:

Officials said forces from the northern Somali breakaway state where the seven hostages – four adults and three teenage children – are held were approaching the pirates' lair and were intercepted on the way.

Link to short report:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...sh-family.html

A little more by the BBC:

The BBC's East Africa correspondent Will Ross says it is not clear why the Puntland soldiers chose to intervene, given the risk involved.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12708168

Curious, why so? I cannot recall such a clash before, let alone where soldiers are killed.

[120mm]

Except, as I grow tired of pointing out, that doing so is likely to result in significantly more hostage casualties than would otherwise occur. I just want to hear somebody say it. I want to hear someone say, "Yes, I am okay with taking action that will result in the deaths of tens or hundreds of hostages who current trends indicate would probably not have otherwise died." At that point, at least we could agree to disagree. As it stands, I feel like I keep pointing that problem out and those in favor of direct action keep dancing away from it.

What offends me most about your argument, is that somehow, in your warped mind, taking lawful action against criminals is what will cause the deaths. What about the criminal, subhuman filth pirates? Are they excused from condemnation?

And I'll say it: I'd rather 10s or hundreds die now, than the thousands that will die over time, as we become more and more neglectful of this problem.

No more captured pirates. Shoot at a ship, and die. Approach a ship armed, and die. Take a ship, and die. Take hostages, and die. Find pirate lairs, and kill every man, woman, child, dog and cat where you find them.

Pirate problems are caused by international inattention and f*cked up "modern" pussified laws governing legal oceanic transport.

10s or 100s? We, the modern world have evidently become so soft and worthless as to deserve whatever happens to us at the hands of savages such as the pirates.

[davidbfpo]

120mm,

Hopefully this Indian navy action may help:

Dozens of pirates aboard a Mozambican ship have been captured by India's navy after a gun battle in the Arabian Sea. The Indian navy says it seized 61 pirates and rescued 13 crew from the vessel, which had been used as a mother ship from where pirates launched attacks around the Indian Ocean.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12729629

Indian courts move very slowly normally, assuming they reach land and it maybe years before sentencing.

[Stan]

Day-to-day administration of prisoners rests on principles incorporated in the Prisons Act of 1894

This may in fact be worse than living in Somalia

The barracks looked unkempt and least maintained. One single cell housed three times the capacity making it too uncomfortable for the inmates to even move about, apart from the fact that they slept in shifts. Those small coops, called cells, contained people from all walks of crime — petty thieves, murderers, bride burners, scamsters, anti-socials and a whole sty of undertrials.

Hey Drew --- You old pirate !

No more captured pirates. Shoot at a ship, and die. Approach a ship armed, and die. Take a ship, and die. Take hostages, and die. Find pirate lairs, and kill every man, woman, child, dog and cat where you find them.

Glad to see your last tour has done nothing for your sense of humor

Say, you don't know anyone in South Africa... do you ?

[motorfirebox]

What offends me most about your argument, is that somehow, in your warped mind, taking lawful action against criminals is what will cause the deaths. What about the criminal, subhuman filth pirates? Are they excused from condemnation?

I'm talking about cause and effect, not who to point fingers at. Action A has effect B. If you don't want effect B, don't take action A. If you fail to check traffic before using a crosswalk, you're likely to get hit by a car. The driver of that car will be criminally liable for hitting you, because as a pedestrian, you have the right of way. That probably won't be of any great comfort while you're lying under the car, so the wiser course is to check for traffic.

If you're totally fine with getting run over so long as some bastard gets taken to court, well, get on out there.

[JMA]

It has been often said that a lack of understanding of Africa often leads to well intentioned actions lead to unintended consequences (I'm trying to be kind here).

Norway ‘wasting money’ on Somali pirates

“It’s ironic, but Norway finances them with its foreign aid. The pirates are now also using fishing vessels donated by Norway and other Nordic countries to carry out their hijackings, I have seen it with my own eyes,” Dagens Næringsliv (DN) reports.

Idiots! (not trying to be kind any more).

[carl]

If the details reported in this story are true,

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/03/norf...s-scampering-0

why didn't the helo crew sink the pirate skiff?

[JMA]

If the details reported in this story are true,

http://hamptonroads.com/2011/03/norf...s-scampering-0

why didn't the helo crew sink the pirate skiff?

I wonder if the pirate fire came from the skiff or the mother ship or both?

[carl]

The Indians are rolling up a lot of pirates lately (added link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12877557 ) and the Dutch scored yesterday I think (http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011..._r=1&ref=world). The pirates don't seem to put up much resistance.

UAE action unclear if Somalis:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12948803

[carl]

This is a link to an Information Dissemination story about the U.S. Navy providing emergency medical treatment for a pirate ship. I am not making this up (thank you Dave Berry).

http://www.informationdissemination....#disqus_thread

The pirates asked the ship to treat one of their guys. Our ship agreed and and asked the pirates if they would mind giving up some of their mariner prisoners. The pirates said ok and gave up 13 of 25. The sick pirate died before the ship to ship transfer was completed. Our ship took the mariners released and it and the pirate ship went their separate ways, both undoubtedly basking in the warmth of the fellowship of the sea. The mariners who weren't released were freed by somebody else later.

On the Royal Navy front, one of their ships captured a bunch of pirates and then helpfully dropped them on the shore of what used to be Somalia.

This stuff is unbelievable. Monty Python goes on pirate patrol accompanied by a sensitivity counselor.

But at least the Danes seemed to do ok. They took a pirate ship after a brief fight in which 3 pirates were wounded, continuing the pattern of next to no resistance and no effective resistance by the pirates when they are confronted with force.

[motorfirebox]

Yeah, freeing over half of a group of hostages without a shot fired and only one casualty (who was going to die anyway)--what were they thinking?

[carl]

Allowing a boatload of pirates to get away with 12 innocent kidnapped mariners, yeah, I agree, what were they thinking?

Care to comment on the action by the Danes?

[JMA]

Allowing a boatload of pirates to get away with 12 innocent kidnapped mariners, yeah, I agree, what were they thinking?

Care to comment on the action by the Danes?

Is it possible for a US ships captain to be so stupid? Can't see it myself so it must have something to do with the RoE he is being subjected to. The pirates must still be laughing.

[jmm99]

You tell me exactly what your command decision and orders would have been if you were the captain of the USS Halyburton.

In my hypothetical, you have no ROEs constraining you. You have absolute discretion to decide and order what you believe is right.

The USS Halyburton (FFG-40) is an Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate.

Here's your chance to be a US Naval officer.

Mike