40 Comments

1. RWE:

Maybe we should produce a scientific proof that shows that pirates cause global warming, harm whales, and have enough money in their accounts to rescue General Motors.

Then they would not last another week…

Nov 21, 2008 - 2:58 pm 2. Thrasymachus:

As Dave Barry would say- I am not making this up.

But why are we surprised, when many of the terrorists now held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay will eventually receive political asylum in the United States?

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:06 pm 3. Lifeofthemind:

So the answer to any competent Squad Leader or Platoon Sergeant becomes, don’t take prisoners. The cost to the military is in the loss of intelligence. Expect life to get less pleasant for members of the media who have taken on the role of active embeds with either side. They are now seen as lawyers on the battle field. BTW, the US Navy for years had a policy of not stationing lawyers on ships.

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:44 pm 4. Zeno:

The link to Caroline Glick doesn’t work.

Nov 21, 2008 - 3:56 pm 5. SpeakEasy:

“Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.”

Nov 21, 2008 - 4:02 pm 6. K:

Obviously the nations will end this mess at some point. The question is how.

It will probably be by an international agreement neutering the courts and diplomats on the matter. I believe the Security Council can do this.

Then a multinational armada will be formed – I believe armada is the technical term – which will clean out several ports and take no prisoners.

The second option is basically to revert to how piracy was suppressed three centuries ago. By authorizing direct action at sea based the assessment of the naval commander at the scene.

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:12 pm 7. NahnCee:

India just blew them up and sank them. Dead pirates, no boat to hassle about – nice and neat. Was there any outcry over the savagery of India’s response to what they claimed was an attack in self-defense, that the pirates started shooting first?

Why on earth can’t the US Navy also claim self-defense and shoot first? Who’s got the satellite technology to be peering down to prove them wrong?

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:23 pm 8. NahnCee:

It seems to me that the easiest solution to the whole piracy problem is that ships just start adding a couple of new positions to their roster: a machine-gunner and a bazooka-person (or whatever armament would be best at blowing small skiffs out of the water).

How much would it cost to add two or three additional people to each boat for the express purpose of repelling pirates? Surely not the millions of dollars that ship owners are paying in ransom now.

Nov 21, 2008 - 5:26 pm 9. SpeakEasy:

I am with you Nahncee, but I see two very realistic tactics that would make this enterprise too risky to continue. First, randomly put special ops forces aboard at-risk shipping and use your aforementioned (alluded to?) approach. No prisoners to claim asylum, no skiffs left to worry about. Second, UAVs patrolling and/or shadowing shipping- with or without the crew’s knowledge/consent. Same result as the first tactic. Kill them all and it loses its appeal.

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:00 pm 10. Langley:

1. RWE:

Maybe we should produce a scientific proof that shows that pirates cause global warming, harm

I am sorry RWE – the evidence is just the opposite.

<A HREF=”Pirates Vs. Temperature.

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:02 pm 11. Langley:

Lets try that again.

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:03 pm 12. Kirk Parker:

NahnCee,

Adding the positions, and finding people to staff them, would be child’s play compared with getting governments around the world to allow ships, thus equipped, to dock in their ports unmolested.

Nov 21, 2008 - 6:29 pm 13. NahnCee:

Kirk – two or three Blackwater people could take out another nation’s entire port? Surely not. Not even poor old pathetic Russia is *that* backwards.

OK, then a bunch of nations start a pool of people that shipowners can dip into so that it’s never known exactly what nationality will be on what ship docking at what port. Then if a couple of Yemens with machine-guns dock on ship stopping at London, there will be an equal number of Germans, French or Americans docking in Yemen.

This just seems like a silly excuse to do nothing. Surely it can’t be any harder than dividing up a piece of cake between two brothers.

Nov 21, 2008 - 7:05 pm 14. Aristide:

It’s a situation made possible by lawyers. As Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post notes it is legally more dangerous to apprehend a pirate than to let him go. If you actual succeeded, it might be necessary to grant them asylum.

“The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”

– Shakespeare

Nov 21, 2008 - 10:44 pm 15. MG:

Look,

Just have Somali spokesperson call the President-Elect a House Negro, and that will end all concerns about legalities.

Nov 22, 2008 - 1:03 am 16. Reaganaut:

NahnCee-

The issue isn’t who supplies the forces on board, it’s having armed forces on board at all. The ship’s master, owner and insurer have only one interest-preservation of the ship, crew and cargo. Hellfire armed UAV’s along with joint air attacks (jdams take no prisoners)on bases seems a pretty good answer.

Nov 22, 2008 - 7:29 am 17. DanM:

Nahncee – “Surely it can’t be any harder than dividing up a piece of cake between two brothers.”

At times a problem in my house… Best taken care of by me eating the piece.

Which illustrates/forwards the point of Caroline Glick’s assumption – The international law champions who argue that international humanitarian law provides a nonviolent means for nations to defend themselves against aggressors have perverted the purpose and meaning of international humanitarian law to such a degree that the only way for nations to protect themselves against pirates, terrorists and other international rogues is to ignore international law aficionados and secure their interests by force. But then, I’m the force in my house… The boys only depend on me for their meals, shelter and education. They are not slaves, they are dependent. The slavery is in their mind, not in fact.

Nov 22, 2008 - 8:21 am 18. NahnCee:

Reaganut – do you really think we, the American taxpayer, need to spend all that money providing armament to protect Saudi oil vessels when two guys with machine guns on board would do? It just really seems unnecessary and like doohicky-loving overkill to me.

Nov 22, 2008 - 11:45 am 19. Reaganaut:

NahnCee- Do you really think that the owner of the oil vessel/oil on-board is going to put 100’s of millions at risk (armed ship blown up by pirates) when, on the off-chance their ship is taken, the ransom is at least an order of magnitude lower? Imagine one rpg vs ?? bbl of oil.

Currently the risk/reward curve greatly favors the pirates. The odds of being caught are small and carry little or no down side. Blowing the crap uot of their bases/vessels prior to contact with shipping would reverse the curve.

Nov 22, 2008 - 1:26 pm 20. nilsonian:

The good news–an rpg striking a container of Crude oil–not gasoline or some other lighter refined product–would probably not start a fire , at least in the confines of a super tanker. The double hulled newer models might not even know if they have been hit. WWII footage of tankers burning and sinking were usually full of gasoline, had single hulls, and no fire supression systems.
It is certainly possible to get a supertanker to burn–just probably not with anything that can be carried in a speedboat.

Nov 22, 2008 - 3:29 pm 21. RWE:

Actually, I understand that some ships, cruise ships at least, have been equipped with and employed non-lethal weapons designed to repel pirates for eyars now.

The non-lethal weapons so used consisted of some kind of very loud focused sound generator. Apparently they worked – then. Perhaps the pirates all have IPODs now and are playing Ozzy Osbourne at full volume.

The DoD has been working on non lethal RF energy weapons for some years now. One of them makes you feel like you fell into a bathtub full of aroused fire ants. It is designed for crowd control but I would think it could be pointed at a boat without too much difficulty.

Of course, the big thing now in airborne electronic warfare is the use of the aircraft fire control radars as a weapon in its own right. Pulses of RF from the radars can be focused so to destroy or disable targets. That is becoming a standard fit in aircraft such as the F-22 and F-35. I can imagine this technology being used to augment shipboard radars for defense. If nothing else it could eliminate Ozzy Osbourne.

This would eliminate the concerns over private armies and armed civillian ships. But personally, I think it would be cheap, easy, and fun to set a surplus T-55 or T-62 tank on the deck of each and every ship. They are available from many Eastern European countries at low cost.

Nov 22, 2008 - 4:08 pm 22. mariner:

RWE:

“Maybe we should produce a scientific proof that shows that pirates cause global warming, harm whales, and have enough money in their accounts to rescue General Motors.

Then they would not last another week…”

Better yet — start a rumor that they’re opposed to gay marriage.

Nov 22, 2008 - 4:15 pm 23. NahnCee:

Why on earth do the arms need to be non-lethal? It seems to me that, to the contrary, there should be a generous bounty for every pirate head brought to land … or picture of pirate head leaving pirate body.

Nov 22, 2008 - 6:13 pm 24. RWE:

Actually, I think that $3 for a cup of coffee IS piracy.

Nov 22, 2008 - 6:15 pm 25. RWE:

Nahncee: In asnwer to your question, it’s like this:

Someone once asked what was the worst case situation for a rocket from Cape Canveral going off course.

The answer was that it if the rocket hits a hotel in Miami Beach where the American Trial Lawyers Association is holding a convention – and as a result not ALL of them are killed.

So the problem is like the guy Ben in Columbia SC who shot a burgler, did not kill him, and lost his house in a lawsuit by the burgler as a result. It’s not just the act of killing them but the possibility that you won’t kill them ALL.

Nov 22, 2008 - 6:22 pm 26. Buck Smith:

Wretchard,

Aren’t irregular combatants picked off of battlefields or intercepted before they attack given more than the same rights as those accorded to legal prisoners of war?

I mean, If Iran declares war on the US we can hold prisoners of war until there is a peace treaty. If a non-state actor such as Al Qaeda declares war on the US, we are not able to hold prisoners of war until there is a peace treaty.

Nov 22, 2008 - 7:12 pm 27. OmegaPaladin:

I say that we hire Navy vets and put the water in Blackwater. Buy some surplus patrol boats, and ruin the pirate port.

Nov 22, 2008 - 8:49 pm 28. Alaska Paul:

The solution is simple: Give the pirates holding ships around Eyl 24 hours to release the ships and crews, otherwise you will level Eyl and everything in it will become rubble. Look at Eyl on Google Earth. A couple of bomb runs parallel to the coast and all those larger and smaller buildings are finished. The message is clear. The result will be positive.

The problem is that there is no will and who will do it?

It seems to me that the only dog that the US has in this fight is to prevent Somalia becoming a terrorist base. The best thing to do is to use our assets and feed intel to our allies, like India, and let them have at it.

Nov 22, 2008 - 9:57 pm 29. Dave:

Alaska Paul: Lawlessness anywhere can be of concern. Even when seemingly remote, isolated, and contained. Think how Afghanistan became a terrorist hideout.

Lawlessness on the high seas is, by definition not remote, not isolated and not contained.

Today, we have a victory in Iraq. However, our enemies still have a lot of warm bodies that can be employed in terrorism elsewhere.

I’ve little doubt that some of the cash flow generated by piracy will go/is going to keep those warm bodies either making mischief or preparing to do so.

Since todays pirates hold their captive ships and crews for ransom, the goal is simple:
keep them from collecting ransom. Do that and they will have to do something else for a living.

Now, what are the best means of stopping their cash flow? Don’t know yet. Probably a variety of techniques will prove necessary.
I am not prepared as of yet to make recommendations. I am a firm believer in enfilading the target and have not figured this one out yet.

Nov 22, 2008 - 10:51 pm 30. NahnCee:

RWE – what are the chances that members of the American Trial Lawyers Association will be yachting around the waters off of Somalia? Or even the ACLU or UN’s Human Rights Watch, for that matter?

Prolly better to arm India and let them have at it, though. Maybe Pakistan will jump in and kill a few pirates, too, just to show they’re as tough as the Indians.

Nov 22, 2008 - 11:52 pm 31. RWE:

Nahncee: You misunderstand me. Actually, if the lawyers were cruising around a pirate-infested area, the problem would probably get fixed real fast. But my point was that if you killed the pirates attacking a ship and do not succeed in killing all of them in one blow, then any survivors will sue you down to the waterline and then some.

If they don’t have them money, no problem. The ACLU will do the work pro bono and various ambulance chaser shysters will do it for a percentage of the take. Sean Penn and Oliver Stone will rush to make a movie, starring Johnny Dep. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will chant “No piracy, no peace!” Susan Surandon will be see wearing a “Free Blackbeard!” T-shirt. Disney will rename their ride “Pirates of the Somali Coast.” The Supreme Court will rule that they were not read their rights before the Harpoon missile smashed into their ship and the pirates will end up owning the Potomac Yacht Club.

Back in the 90’s two crooks wearing bullet proof vests and carrying AK-47’s robbed a bank in North Hollywood. They shot up the neighborhood with impunity for an extended period, until the police put down their puny handguns, got AR-15’s from a local gun store and killed them.

And the family of those bank robbers sued the police.

Nov 23, 2008 - 7:33 am 32. tomw:

Sec. 1651. Piracy under law of nations

Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

See:
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/06/why-do-we-refuse-to-call-terrorism-for.html

For one way to look at Gitmo, pirates and generally speaking, non-States who attack nations.

tom

Nov 23, 2008 - 8:47 am 33. glenny:

Let’s see. Find out the little strip of “harbor” facilities in Somalia where all the little pirate ships go to refuel and refit. Call in B-52/B-1 arc light strike from, say, Diego Garcia. No overflight restrictions or permissions to get, not very far from an intercontinental bomber point of view, etc. I say, “Kill ‘em all”. glenny

Nov 23, 2008 - 10:40 am 34. Alaska Paul:

W/R/T the ACLU: One will not find them in dangerous waters. They are basically anti establishment types that thrive in the environment of freedom that allow them to game our institutions to our detriment. If it weren’t for our military people doing their jobs in vacation spots like Djibouti, Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places we generally don’t know about, the ACLU types would not be plying their trade. Our tolerance is a two edge sword: it is our greatest strength and our greatest weakness. People like CAIR, ACLU, foreign terrorists, and the like look upon it as a weakness to be exploited.

Take a look at the UK and see the logical end that irrational tolerance will bring you. There are limits. Freedom without responsibility becomes license, and a society that adopts that philosophy will wither away and die.

Getting back to piracy: those seafaring nations having flagged vessels need to step up to the plate and deal with this situation around the Gulf of Aden and Somalia, as well as around places in Nigeria, Chittagong, Straits of Malacca, etc. Of course, flags of convenience ships like those flying the Panamanian and Liberian flags have their a$$es in a crack. Cheap registrations are like cheap parachutes.

Nov 23, 2008 - 12:44 pm 35. jkftl:

OK NahnCee I agree with your first point. Since 1965 DoD has had ability to read license plates from satellites. It would be childs play to move one of the ‘eye in the sky’ units to a position over this subject region. When the operator/observer/AI computer program spots suspicious vessel activity there would be plenty of time to call in any kind of response to prevent piracy.

Just stationing repelling forces on ships won’t work. First of all you would need a big detail on EVERY ship of attractive size, three shifts of guard duty. Then all it takes is ONE 1950s-technology RPG-7 into the wheelhouse and the ship is theirs, regardless of on-board forces. Needless to say, just a credible threat of such an attack is enough to force capitulation.

As in SO MUCH of life’s activities these days, it isn’t logic or reason that determines the behavior of the ship’s crew. It’s the INSUROR who calls the shots. The directive today is “Don’t Resist”.

Nov 23, 2008 - 4:58 pm 36. RAH:

The Indian Navy is a new brash navy. The Indians had just paid a large ransom for an Indian captain and crew to the Somali pirates and feelings are high to do something against the pirates. At least the Indian Navy had the description of the pirate ship and the pirates made the mistake of firing at the Indian Navy ship which then blew them out of the water.

The waters are a large area. The Russians are starting to do escort duties of freighters which is a traditional naval duty.

Nov 24, 2008 - 10:07 am 37. Aristide:

What is need is some Q-ships!

Nov 24, 2008 - 5:42 pm 38. Dave:

Hey Aristide, I got and idea for a new variety of Q-Ship.

The soft target sails into pirate-laden waters
where it is promptly seized.

Then the pirates find out that the cargo is
Gitmo detainees.

Wonder who will pay their ranson?

Nov 24, 2008 - 9:33 pm 39. Aristide:

LOL!!!

Nov 24, 2008 - 10:37 pm 40. Links for November 25th 2008 — LimbicNutrition Weblog:

[...] Belmont Club » A Pirate’s Life For Me – "It is legally more dangerous to apprehend a pirate than to let him go. If you actual succeeded, it might be necessary to grant them asylum." [...]

Nov 25, 2008 - 4:00 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.