we would embarrass ourselfs in front of the whole world....

[Dancing Fire]

if we paid the ransom to these pirates. we are the most powerful country in the world we must take action against these thugs.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/piracy_ransom

 

[LaraOnline]

These pirates have been making a fine living from ransoms and kidnappings, a French family and two friends were kidnapped from their little wooden pleasure boat just last week.
Those pirates are certainly busy!

 

[Ellen]

So DF, how else do you propose we get the Capt. back, alive. That is the main goal ya know.

 

[purrfectpear]

Speaking only for myself, if I were ever captured by Somali pirates I would hope that we would torpedo the ship I was being held on to oblivion. I''m willing to give it up for the cause. As long as we "negotiate" this will continue. Kill everyone in the next 4 or 5 episodes and they''ll realize you can''t make money doing piracy. Sometimes you need to make the hard decision and accept collateral damage to eliminate the threat in the future. You can see how well negotiating has been working

Additionally, the big shippers must stop this crap of paying ransom willingly. They''ve decided it''s too costly to pay the insurance required if they arm themselves, so they just send off the $1mil and call it the cost of doing business. I hold them as responsible for this mess as the pirates.

 

[mrscushion]

Date: 4/12/2009 12:20:04 PM
Author: purrfectpear
Speaking only for myself, if I were ever captured by Somali pirates I would hope that we would torpedo the ship I was being held on to oblivion. I''m willing to give it up for the cause. As long as we ''negotiate'' this will continue. Kill everyone in the next 4 or 5 episodes and they''ll realize you can''t make money doing piracy. Sometimes you need to make the hard decision and accept collateral damage to eliminate the threat in the future. You can see how well negotiating has been working

I agree with that, again speaking for myself only.

Additionally, the big shippers must stop this crap of paying ransom willingly. They''ve decided it''s too costly to pay the insurance required if they arm themselves, so they just send off the $1mil and call it the cost of doing business. I hold them as responsible for this mess as the pirates.

They''re just doing what''s best for their bottom line and their shareholders. Can''t really fault them. I think this is what we need coordinated government efforts for.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/12/2009 11:01:08 AM
Author: Ellen
So DF, how else do you propose we get the Capt. back, alive. That is the main goal ya know.

we did what we suppose to do to these thugs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090412/ap_on_re_af/piracy_223

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/12/2009 6:32:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 4/12/2009 11:01:08 AM
Author: Ellen
So DF, how else do you propose we get the Capt. back, alive. That is the main goal ya know.

we did what we suppose to do to these thugs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090412/ap_on_re_af/piracy_223

They only did it because the pirates had guns trained on the captain. I have no problem with that. But if the pirates hadn't done that, they would have kept talking, if it meant the safety of the captain, which always comes first.

They are also worried now that this will cause more vilolence. I'm not saying it wasn't the right thing to do, it was. But the reason they were trying to avoid this scenario is because they don't want violence to escalate with future captures. And "negotiating" doesn't mean the same thing as we normally think it does. They are not saying, hey, what can we do for you in exchange for the captive person(s), It means they are saying, you don't really have options here, so hand them over. It's basically a waiting game.

Oh, they also said this won't deter them. Our US people said that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 4/12/2009 7:27:45 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/12/2009 6:32:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 4/12/2009 11:01:08 AM
Author: Ellen
So DF, how else do you propose we get the Capt. back, alive. That is the main goal ya know.

we did what we suppose to do to these thugs

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090412/ap_on_re_af/piracy_223

They only did it because the pirates had guns trained on the captain. I have no problem with that. But if the pirates hadn''t done that, they would have kept talking, if it meant the safety of the captain, which always comes first.

They are also worried now that this will cause more vilolence. I''m not saying it wasn''t the right thing to do, it was. But the reason they were trying to avoid this scenario is because they don''t want violence to escalate with future captures. And ''negotiating'' doesn''t mean the same thing as we normally think it does. They are not saying, hey, what can we do for you in exchange for the captive person(s), It means they are saying, you don''t really have options here, so hand them over. It''s basically a waiting game.

Oh, they also said this won''t deter them. Our US people said that.

sooo...you think if we kept on paying these pirates millions of dollars they would stop these hijacking? heck no,it''s too easy, it''s like taking candy from a baby. IMO we made the right move. i

the navy commander.

 

[perry]

Ellen:

They are also worried now that this will cause more vilolence. I''m not saying it wasn''t the right thing to do, it was. But the reason they were trying to avoid this scenario is because they don''t want violence to escalate with future captures. And "negotiating" doesn''t mean the same thing as we normally think it does. They are not saying, hey, what can we do for you in exchange for the captive person(s), It means they are saying, you don''t really have options here, so hand them over. It''s basically a waiting game.
Oh, they also said this won''t deter them. Our US people said that.


Piracy has a very long history - and has never ended by continuing to pay ransom. It has always ended when the pirates start dying.

The pirates had a strategy that only worked as long as people are willing to just pay the ransom - and no one faught back. 3 nations now have fought back and killed pirates. I am sure the pirates will take notice and avoid those nations ships. There is no profit in getting killed or arrested.

The real question is how will the nations that do not have a decent NAVY protect their "flagged" ships from piracy. There is a very real reason why no US flagged ship has previously been pirated in about 100 years (I do admit there was at least one attemp I know of - which ended very badly for the pirates when the A-6s showed up as their just happened to be an Aircraft Carrier nearby that could respond to the call for help). Of course, Cambodia thought they could sieze a US flagged vessel in international waters - and while perhaps the execution of the Mayaguez recovery did not go entirely as planned due to the number of US casualties; the fact that everyone noticed was that the US actually sailed right into their main harbor and took the Mayaguez back, recovered the crew a few days later, and inflicted significant long lerm damage to the Cambodia economy. I remember very well the US announcements - and the results: It went like this: You have XX hours to release the crew and ship. Cambodia did not, and the US took decisive military action. You have XX hours to release the crew. Cambodia did not, and the US took decisive military action. You (again) have XX hours to release the crew: Cambodia did not and the US took decisive military action against key industrial infastructure (Cambodia''s oil refinery was destroyed). You (again) have XX hours to release the crew.... and the crew was on a plane to another country within a few hours. Lets just say that many people arround the world took notice. There is no profit in siezing a US flagged vessel - and considerable downside.

As far as the threats from the pirates in the news.... This is just talk; and talk is cheap. If the pirates start harming ships crew they know that there will likely never be another pirated ship that makes it to port under control of the pirates again. If the pirates demonstrate to the world that they will kill crew - then there is no reason not to have the military storm or sink the ships regardless of the consequences. In the end - this is how piracy ends - and it is the only way piracy ends. This is why longstanding international law allows the crew of a ship to not only use deadly force to repel piracy attempts - but to also convien a short trial of any captured pirates and then execute them at sea (this power is vested only in the crew of the ship on which a pirating attempt is made).

Piracy ends when the pirates start to die. Always has - and always will.

The only reason that piracy exist is that most ships crew is not willing to fight back - nor do they want to take responsibility for any captured pirates. But, I suspect that this may change if things continue the way they have been.


Oh, and piracy is a problem in other parts of the world - here is a map of all the reported 2009 incidents to date:

http://www.icc-ccs.org/index.php?option=com_fabrik&view=visualization&controller=visualization.googlemap&Itemid=219

Perry

 

[Ellen]

Date: 4/13/2009 12:35:58 AM
Author: Dancing Fire
sooo...you think if we kept on paying these pirates millions of dollars they would stop these hijacking? heck no,it''s too easy, it''s like taking candy from a baby. IMO we made the right move. i

the navy commander.

D, this had nothing to do with "us" paying. "We" were never going to pay them anything. But we weren''t going to blow them away either if it could be avoided. And like I said, I have NO problem with the decision they made. But from everything I''ve heard, we''re not going to change our tactic. In other words, we''d do the same thing again, should the situation arise. i.e. Talk/wait, shoot if captive is imminently in danger. I''m not the one making the rules up, they are, for their own reasons.




Perry, thanks for the history. I guess my post here applies to you as well. I totally hear what you''re saying, I just don''t know that it will work out that way. I think a lot of this can be avoided by taking a few precautionary/preventive steps so they never get ON the boats in the first place. What other countries do with an actual hostage situation in the future remains to be seen.

 

[LaraOnline]

Well the French attempted a rescue attempt (their second in the past few months, I think ) and unfortunately one of the men of the four adult captured was killed in the melee, several pirates were also killed but unfortunate for his wife and three-year-old son who were also on the vessel...

 

[perry]

Unfortunately, the French attempt endid also in the death of the husband who was the yatch owner. However, no one in France is blaming the camandoes - and a lot people in France are also saying "about time."

Here is a comment post from dbland3 from a CBS news article (linked below) where the pirates are claiming that they will kill any Americans they capture. Here is someone who knows their history and why the US maintains such a large Navy and Marine corp.

"How stupid can these pirates be. Threats against Americans is not smart business. Why give the Americans an excuse to launch military strikes. Just a few atrocities against Americans will be all the excuse that is needed to slaughter these poor people. Americans have dealt with pirates before. They need to stay as far away from Americans as they possibly can unless they are eager to hasten their own destruction."


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/13/eveningnews/main4942440.shtml?tag=topHome;topStories


Oh, and for those who don''t know.... I suggest you reasearch the foreign and battles in the US Marines song....

From the Halls of Montezuma
To the Shores of Tripoli;
We will fight our country''s battles
In the air, on land and sea;
First to fight for right and freedom
And to keep our honor clean;
We are proud to claim the title
of United States Marine.
Our flag''s unfurled to every breeze
From dawn to setting sun;
We have fought in ev''ry clime and place
Where we could take a gun;
In the snow of far-off Northern lands
And in sunny tropic scenes;
You will find us always on the job--
The United States Marines.
Here''s health to you and to our Corps
Which we are proud to serve
In many a strife we''ve fought for life
And never lost our nerve;
If the Army and the Navy
Ever look on Heaven''s scenes;
They will find the streets are guarded
By United States Marines.


I note that I was in the Navy - not the Marines. But I sure respect them, and know how much the Navy and Marines faught piracy to ensure that US shipping interest were not interfered with.

Perry

 

[partgypsy]

Ellen, I hear you. That captain no matter what, is a hero because he put his life on the line for the sake of the crew. And it was likely due to the situation (desperate pirates versus US military) that may have been the outcome.
I was talking to my husband and the background history of the pirates is interesting, many were former fisherman who lost their livelihood due to foreign ships (both fishing boats and ships polluting the fishing waters) plus the collapse of the local government so, they are desperate.
But- both here in the US in domestic situations, and militarily, once you have a hostage situation where the hostage taker is threatening a life, that hostage taker has forfeited his/her life. The game plan at that point changes to take out the hostage taker at the earliest opportune moment.

 

[cara]

There are serious consequences to firefights on tanker ships and other container ships. They are not appropriately armorized to avoid explosions and huge spills and other catastrophic consequences if they are fought over...
So its not just a matter of putting trained crews with firepower on each ship, you need to keep certain ships from receiving fire. That is part of the reason why they have not already armed the crews.

The companies shipping through these waters need to start making hard choices... either pay for armed escorts on other ships or reroute around the Cape of Good Hope. Both of those solutions will cost lots of money and increase transit time (if ships going through the Suez are grouped into convoys for armed escort rather than going freely whenever they want.) And then increase the cost of shipping goods in that region. To keep shipping through the Suez canal with the current environment means deciding they will just keep going until their is a *really* bad ending to one of these standoffs...

I think its definitely worth emphasizing that the piracy developed out of the fishing issue. When international fishing crews exploited the collapse of the Somali government by fishing illegally in Somali waters, they deprived the local fishermen of their income and destroyed the local ecosystem. The locals figured out how to repel the foreign fishers, but the fish didn't recover right away and so they turned to pirating. And pirating makes enough money to attract other Somalis. And the ransoms paid thus far have allowed the pirates to improve their arms and their boats. Of course it will continue escalating until something changes. I just hope its before there is a massive oil spill or loss of life....

 

[perry]

While it is true that the initial piracy in the area did develop from the fisherman; that is no longer the case - and the local fisherman (or ex fisherman) are really no longer involved.

It is now run by others attracted specifically to the money. The people organizing and running the show have largely come from other parts of the country or world.

As far as the options for the shipping companies. The dangers of having armed people onboard to repell the pirate attack is way overstated. In virtually all cases of pirate attacks the crew knows the pirates are there and try to fight them off with firehoses. If they were using a heavy machine gun, RPG, or small missles that sunk the pirate boat during that time the pirates would never even get onboard (and the historical response to pirates in the water is to let them swim for shore). The chance of a fire onboard a ship is almost non-existant from that kind of activity (I served 5 years in the Navy onboard an oiler - and have been on civilian ships as well). If you are on a modern oil tanker - you do not want a running gunfight in the pump-rooms and a few other spaces below deck. The deck, the bridge, and the rest of the superstructure is not a hazard. There is generally no hazard onboard a container ship unless you get into the fuel transfer and possibly the engine room. Even there - normal gunfire is unlikely to cause a problem.

Of course, Cara is right that things will escalate until something changes. Now that the pirates have engaged the US directly I think something has now changed (its called a tipping point).

These pirates are using "mother ships" which is why they can pirate ships from such a large area. I can''t name the time or the date (but I can actually make a good guess on posisible dates); but I suspect that almost simultaniously that those mother ships will be put out of service. I can also think of two other actions that are likely to occur at the same time. Let me just say that I suspect that someday this year - in a few short hours - that the Somali pirate situation will change dramatically - and will largly (if not totally) over. There will be loss of life. I suspect there will be some minimal loss of life of innocents (unfortunately); but, some prices must be paid at some point.

Perry

 

[strmrdr]

yep to what Perry said.
Expect some fireworks real soon.

 

[Ellen]

I found this article very interesting, not really knowing much about pirates, besides them letting parrots ride on their shoulders, having peg legs, and saying things like "Arrrrgh matey".

The author is not condoning the pirates per se, instead explaining how this started.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-vazquez/on-pirates_b_186015.html

As the first pirate attack of a U.S. ship in 200 years comes to a climax, I'm re-posting an essay I solicited and received several weeks ago from K'naan, a Somali-Canadian singer and activist. A video of a performance by K'naan that I filmed at the All Points West music festival last summer appears below. -- Michael Vazquez

Why We Don't Condemn Our Pirates
by K'naan

Can anyone ever really be for piracy? Outside of sea bandits, and young girls fantasizing of Johnny Depp, would anyone with an honest regard for good human conduct really say that they are in support of Sea Robbery?

Well, in Somalia, the answer is: it's complicated.

 

[strmrdr]

There is no valid excuse for piracy.

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 4/14/2009 8:07:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
There is no valid excuse for piracy.

Quoted for truth. This isn''t some civil disobedience or protest. This is strictly mercenary.

Time for some well placed torpedoes and be done with it.

 

[perry]

Can anyone ever really be for piracy? Outside of sea bandits, and young girls fantasizing of Johnny Depp, would anyone with an honest regard for good human conduct really say that they are in support of Sea Robbery?

Well, in Somalia, the answer is: it''s complicated.

Not really: The laws - or whatever you call them - on priracy are recognized as the oldest international laws. They have essentially remained unchanged for thousands of years - and every ocean and sea going nation has always known them. Those fishermen certainly knew them.

I have to admit some of my previous descriptions on the laws on piracy in fact are wrong. It turns out that in 1982 the most of the world adopted a new law of the seas convention with a new twist to the piracy laws (the US has yet to ratify this "treaty", but has agreed to follow most of it and treats most sections as binding international law - this includes the section on piracy). Summary execution at sea by a crew who has faught off or captured pirates is no longer allowed in this new convention - and pirates are genearlly to be arrested by the crew - or inteveining military vessel - and then transported and tried for their crimes in a land court (after-all the death penalty is "barbaric").

The vast majority of countries have signed and ratified this convention and are bound to it.

That has fundamentally changed how shipping companies respond (by international treaty to which most of the countries have signed - the shiip crew is susposed to arrest any attacking pirates - not just kill them). This treaty also explains why Britain and France have limited their Navy''s involvment as they do not want captured pirates on board who can then make a claim for refugee status (British and French laws allow people from many areas of the world to imegrate as "refugees" if they can get to "sovern ground"; and a Naval vessel is "sovern ground" (did you notice how the freed Captian said it was great to be on "US ground" when he was asked how he was feeling shortly after he got onto the US destroyer).

On the other hand, other nations can now aid in the stopping of a pirate attack on ships from other nations - and any military vessel from any country can stop and arrest pirates.

The basis of the this part of the convention was that each country with a coast would adequately police piracy. I saw several interent articles today that indicate that it is starting to be recognized that the treaty left 2 big holes. 1) being what to do when a country can''t - or won''t police the pirates (and the second case is known to have happen more than once in other parts of the world - SE Asia). 2) being that the notion that a ships crew - or military vessel - is now supossed to arrest and transport the pirates and the elimination of the summary execution concept of the previous conventions. In additon, there seems to be great difficulty in setting up an appropriate court to try the Somalia pirates. I suspect that the convention will be revised to rectify those issues- but that will realistically take another decade or two.

A core function of the US Navy is to protect the sea lanes for US Shipping and other shipping bound for or from the US. Within US and International law they have the legal authority to act in any international waters. Recent UN and Somalia goverment actions allow them (and other US military forces) to act in Somalia teritorial waters and on Somalia land teritory.

Over the next several months I suspect that you will hear on how its not really their issue - how impractical such a strike would be - all the problems - etc. That will just be the public cover for the planning that is now and will be going on. This may not happen quickly. I see at least three major task that need to be acomplished essentially simultaniously. Each of these task has multiple individual items. It will also help greatly to have international participation (and I can think of several countries that will automatically agree to participate). This may take months to plan to ensure the minimum innocent casualties. But I am convinced that it will happen. How hard will they try to arrest pirates for trial is another question. I do note that it seems that the 1982 law of the sea treaty technically only extends to pirates in international waters....

Perry

 

[HollyS]

Date: 4/14/2009 8:42:27 PM
Author: purrfectpear

Date: 4/14/2009 8:07:29 PM
Author: strmrdr
There is no valid excuse for piracy.

Quoted for truth. This isn''t some civil disobedience or protest. This is strictly mercenary.

Time for some well placed torpedoes and be done with it.

Shoulder launched missiles seem like a fine idea, actually.