Really? People don’t see a problem with giving militaries and civilians the power to arbitrarily declare someone a “pirate” and kill them on the spot? I find that surprising on this board.
Well, if a US Navy ship captures a group of Somali pirates attacking a ship under a Liberia flag with a Japanese crew delivering goods to Argentina for a Dutch company in international waters, where should the trial take place?
Which are full of innocent people. Would you carpet bomb a neighborhood in New York that some guys who robbed a store happened to live in? Is mere armed robbery a justification for that kind of indiscriminate slaughter?
There’s plenty of death penalty supporters and “hawks” on this board. For some reason the same people who are worried about the abuse of power by government (and others) lose their caution when it comes to killing.
I would certainly object to giving them the power to declare someone a pirate arbitrarily. That’s why I like the idea of giving them a trial. The Navy already has procedures for holding courts-martial, so it’s not like this would be completely outside their purview (though I admit I don’t know how easy a drumhead court-martial would be to set up fairly).
It sounds like there would be a choice of venues. Anyway, don’t maritime laws already account for this sort of overlapping jurisdiction?
We canNOT have a debate in the first world on third world piracy without racism and classism coming in to play–if nothing else, then because the poor are stealing from the rich. Anyone who denies this is a combination of white or first world, and privilege-blind. There is no debate about this.
When someone accuses me of not advocating the establishment of any semblance of rule of law, merely because I don’t agree with killing pirates on the spot, I don’t have a response to that. Because I didn’t say or imply anything like that. It’s a clear example of strawmanning, and it’s also a pretty stark example of a false dichotomy. The argument isn’t as black-and-white (pardon the pun) as either kill pirates, or not establish rule of law. That’s a fucking indefensible fallacy.
For the record, I am actually OK with the death penalty for heinous crimes. But I’d prefer it be issued by judges and juries instead of in the heat of the moment, because individuals in emotionally-charged situations are notorious for making tragically bad decisions. Like, say, wanting to carpet bomb a city of brown or black people.
Well that’s a difference between us. I am not a fan of using the military as law enforcement, and then perverting our court system through use of the death penalty. I find it more honest to admit a war is being fought, and shoot people.
I’d also like to see countries that don’t enforce adequate safety standards on their flagged ships denied protection from the navies of countries that do require such standards for registration. I’d also like to see those ships not allowed ot dock in countries which have standards. But that’s probably not going to happen.
Regarding previous posts about nation building as a solution to the pirate problem. The West has a…well…rather poor track record in that department as of late. Even had a go at it in Somalia in the early 90’s which probably exasperated the whole situation.
I bet if someone ran the numbers is would probably be quite a bit more economical (even over the long term) to defend against pirates with old fashioned fire&steel than to sink hundreds of billions into a project that most likely isn’t going to work and will probably leave you worse off than you were before. The pirates would most likely take your reconstruction cash by day and then hijack your ship at night.
Call me a cold-hearted bastard, but there is only so much dough and time that can be invested into these places.
[SIZE=“1”]On a side note, I usually find that it is the same people who cry for more cash, more “peacekeepers” and more attention to such miserable places are those who are the first to criticize any foreign involvement or attempts at security in said places. [/SIZE]
Did anyone here deny that the poor are stealing from the rich? I don’t get how this is relevant, or the “privilege” buzzword that you keep bringing up.
In any case, the shipping companies may be rich. The crews on the ships who are being held at gunpoint, whose lives are being threatened as their ships are robbed, are not rich, and these are the people who are being oppressed. I don’t really care on way or the other about the bank accounts of multi-billion dollar shipping companies. What I care about are the working men on these ships who have to deal with the threat of robbery, assault and abuse by pirates on top of the many other rigors of their job. These people deserve to be protected.
I suggested back in April 09 that There is only one effective approach to piracy: kill the pirates
I don’t think it’s necessary to hang them. I do think ships should defend themselves and I think it’s very shortsighted not to do so.
Looks like Yemen is already farming out its Navy as Privateers. (FP article)
Guaranteeing "the ultimate protection for your vessel and crew,‘’ the website of Gulf of Aden Group Transits, Yemen’s London-based broker, offers shippers “a dedicated escort by a heavily armored 37.5 meter Yemen Navy Austal patrol boat” and ''six serving Yemen military or coast guard personnel to embark and protect your vessel.
Don’t forget-piracy is now a sophisticated business-the criminal gangs in Somalia (who send out the pirate ships), employ spotters in ports like Suez, Port Said, Mombasa, etc., who phone in the ship descriptions, with the sailing schedules. So they know pretty well were targets will be.
So, if the naval ships patroling the area were simply to sink these rats, word would get out quickly-piracy would become unprofitable, and would cease.
Since most of the people arguing for privateering appear to have realised its not a very clever solution and nobody is disagreeing that sailors have the right to defend themselves, what are we arguing about now?
Is it still what to do with captured pirates? Because I believe that the ICHR could be effective, but fundamentally piracy is a low skill occupation, piracy in SE Asia is endemic and several relatively wealthy trading countries haven’t been able to stop it. Low level piracy may seem to be something the world has to live with.
I like the new class/privilege argument though 
. I wonder if people would be so sanguine about Somalian terrorists blowing up Western cities in revenge for what we’ve done to them? I’d be willing to bet that more people have suffered economically and physically due to the West’s practices in Somalia then have suffered due to Somalian piracy.
And tingbudong it would be a hijack to discuss your points here but if you start a new thread about foreign intervention I’ll come and debate you
Nah. That’s debate has been beat to death. Besides, I’m not nearly as black&white on the issue as my previous post indicated.
There is one point, though, that so far appears not to have been touched in this thread.
Let us imagine that the shipping companies decide to arm their merchant vessels, so they can defend themselves against pirates. OK. Pirates show up, and are repulsed by the weapons in the merchant ship. Hooray, etc.
The pirates are not stupid. What would prevent them from carrying bigger weapons next time? And if they know that they are going to be killed anyway, what would prevent them from preemptively slaughtering every last member of the crew of the next merchant ship they encounter just to make sure (or for revenge)?
It might lead to a rather nasty spiral.
What makes you think that the pirates are not already using the best weapons they can afford?
They are attacking unarmed merchant vessels. Why should they be using “the big guns”? They are not necessary. A few machine guns and RPGs are more than enough for that.
However, if the merchants start arming themselves, I would be very surprised if the pirates wouldn’t be able to get better weapons from whatever warlords they have contacts with.