Somali Pirates

[Big Don]

Here's a question...and it might be deep enough for another thread. Suppose we let these private ships hire some mercenaries/contractors and the companies start buying high tech weaponry in order to defend their cargo.

1st of all, is this legal?

In some circumstances, it is perfectly legal. In my opinion, a CIWS (the Close IN Weapons System the Vulcan Phalanx 30mm computer guided 6000 round per min Gatling Gun on both sides of the bow would be one hell of a deterrent...
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution: Clause 11, (Spelling out the responsibilities of Congress)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

so, if Congress authorized the sale of the weapons, and, you can be sure, 10000 other things in the same bill, and made rules about it, totally legal.

;[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/FONT] 2nd of all, does this open a Pandoras box of weapons proliferation?

Well, you can't unring a bell, so, arming or allowing people, and corporations, to arm their ships in the interest of self-defense is only fair. I read a book a few years ago, the author and title escapes me, about a President and Congress who issued a Letter of Marque to the Admiral commanding a Carrier Battle Group, it was an entertaining read. Congress could sell Letters of Marque, and let some companies or individuals go on the offensive.

My first instinct is to let the companies arm the ships and put the pirates in Davey Jones Locker. On the other hand, I can see a vast black market in weapons growing even larger, with some of these systems falling into the hands of people who don't like us very much.

 

[Nolerama]

I agree with TF that piracy happens everywhere. There are reported incidents in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of the Philippines, Indonesia and Thailand, and in the Mediterranean. It's like getting mugged in a busy city... And then going back to that same place over and over.

The question is: do you get police escort every time you take that trip? Or do you just carry your own "protection?"

I'm not a fan of PMC's, but this is definitely right up their alley as a security force. Unfortunately, it might also put them at the forefront of another international incident. Maybe they've learned from previous mistakes.

 

[Big Don]

I agree with TF that piracy happens everywhere. There are reported incidents in the Caribbean Sea

I blame Disney for that...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

There is historic precedent. Jefferson sent what we had as a navy to deal with the Tripoli pirates back in the 1800's. (That's also where youo get that "from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli" bit in the Marine Hymn.

If US interests are impacted, use of US warships to intercept and terminate pirates is appropriate.

 

[HKphooey]

I believe the last time the US tried to get involved in Somalia, it lead to US troops being hung like sides of beef while crowds cheered. If they go in again, lets hope the mission commanders prepare properly this time.

You may want to phrase that Commander in Chief...

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the mission commanders who decide on gear needed, and core operations plans?

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/ambush/etc/cron.html

Request for armored reinforcements denied
In a decision that is later highly criticized, US Defense Secretary Les Aspin denies requests from General Montgomery for armored reinforcements, despite support for Montgomery's request from General Colin Powell. Aspin says that he did not want to create the appearance that the US was increasing forces in Somalia at a time when they were trying to reduce military presence. He later concedes,"Had I known at the time what I knew after the events of Sunday, [October 3]. I would have made a very different decision." In December, he is forced to resign.

Who do you think has the strings on the SECDEF?

 

[Big Don]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the mission commanders who decide on gear needed, and core operations plans?

To a point. However, there are a whole passel of people above their pay grade who affect what the mission is defined as and what and how they are allowed to act during the mission.

 

[ganglian]

So to tie into another thread regarding US interventalism...do we get involved? Or do we just leave them alone and do our best to protect the shipping lanes? US ships only?

Screw that crap, we're americans. Strafe the deck....

 

[HKphooey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's the mission commanders who decide on gear needed, and core operations plans?

Unfortunately the events that lead up to day were not whole-heartedly supported and the commanders an troups did the best they could with had.

If you give a carpenter a wrech and a screwdriver, and ask him to hammer a nail you will not get the desired result.

But I guess that is another thread. Sorry to take this one way from topic.

 

[Sukerkin]

Reference to the historical record shows that there are only really two ways of dealing with pirates. Either you protect your shipping with sufficient force to send the pirates elsewhere or you effect that goal by using pirates themselves to do the job via letters of marque.

Given that the latter is unlikely to be favoured in this day and age, then it's time to task the navy for the job (oh and give them the funding their role deserves ... sorry, very, very nearly became RN in my youth, does it show ).

 

[elder999]

Contractors called on for maritime security

NAIROBI, Kenya – Blackwater Worldwide and other private security firms — some with a reputation for being quick on the trigger in Iraq — are joining the battle against pirates plaguing one of the world's most important shipping lanes off the coast of Somalia.
The growing interest among merchant fleets to hire their own firepower is encouraged by the U.S. Navy and represents a new and potential lucrative market for security firms scaling back operations in Iraq.
But some maritime organizations told The Associated Press that armed guards may increase the danger to ships' crews or that overzealous contractors might accidentally fire on fishermen.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Here's a question...and it might be deep enough for another thread. Suppose we let these private ships hire some mercenaries/contractors and the companies start buying high tech weaponry in order to defend their cargo.

1st of all, is this legal? 2nd of all, does this open a Pandoras box of weapons proliferation?

My first instinct is to let the companies arm the ships and put the pirates in Davey Jones Locker. On the other hand, I can see a vast black market in weapons growing even larger, with some of these systems falling into the hands of people who don't like us very much.

I am not certain but I believe I heard somewhere that it is not legal, possibly dependant on how close you get to a counties coastline.

Also I believe ever since 'Executive Outcomes' many have been a bit nervous about mercenaries in things related to Africa

 

[CoryKS]

I also wonder..how the hell do these guys get from the little dinghys to the decks of these superships uncontested? Its not like they can swing over from the masts of their tall sail ships.

*knock* *knock*
Sailor: Who is it?
Voice: [pause] Flowers.
Sailor: Flowers for whom?
Voice: [long pause] Plumber.
Sailor: I don't need a plumber. You're a pirate, aren't you?
Voice: [pause] Candygram.
Sailor: Candygram, my foot. You get out of here before I call the Russian Navy. You're a pirate, and you know it.
Voice: Wait. I'm only a dolphin.
Sailor: A dolphin? Well...okay. [opens door]

 

[elder999]

I am not certain but I believe I heard somewhere that it is not legal, possibly dependant on how close you get to a counties coastline.

Also I believe ever since 'Executive Outcomes' many have been a bit nervous about mercenaries in things related to Africa

It's entirely legal to deploy security personnel, and bear arms on the high seas-on both commercial and private vessels.Entering port can be a bit sticky, but there are usually procedures for this. For example, while firearms are generally illegal in Mexico, especially as a foreigner, when I sail into a Mexican port, I can declare my firearms and have them remain stowed onboard.

 

[MA-Caver]

Nobody light a match! Perhaps this will be the catalyst that will put a tougher stance as opposed to the seeming tolerant stance against those pirates?

Somali pirates seize supertanker loaded with crude


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117/ap_on_re_af/ml_piracy
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Somali pirates hijacked a supertanker off the Kenyan coast, seizing the Saudi-owned ship loaded with crude and its 25-member crew, the U.S. Navy said Monday.
Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said the pirates hijacked the Sirius Star — a newly commissioned ship owned by Saudi oil company Aramco — more than 450 nautical miles southeast of Mombasa, Kenya.
Somali pirates have seized several ships off the Horn of Africa coast in the past week, but the latest hijacking — of a tanker the size of an aircraft carrier — marked a dramatic escalation.
Somali pirates are trained fighters, often dressed in military fatigues, using speedboats equipped with satellite phones and GPS equipment. They are typically armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rockets launchers and various types of grenades.
The tanker seized Saturday is 1,080 feet and can carry about 2 million barrels of oil.
Lt. Nathan Christensen, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet, said the Sirius Star was carrying crude at the time of hijacking, but he did know how much. He also had no details about where the ship was sailing from and where it was headed.
The ship was sailing under a Liberian flag. The 25-member crew includes citizens of Croatia, Britain, the Philippines, Poland and Saudi Arabia.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081117/ap_on_re_af/ml_piracy

 

[grydth]

To me, the question of the Somali Pirates is a 2 part inquiry.

First, is it any business of ours? No, we are not the world's (extremely unappreciated) policeman. If the pirates are pretty much preying on Russian arms shipments or Saudi and Iranian oil ships, perhaps those nations should get a warship force out there to address the problem. If our interests are not significantly involved, then action should be limited to "Oh, that is such a shame", followed by a switch to the sports page to address vital topics like the upcoming Giants-Titans game this weekend.

Second, if it is our business, then the pirates must be speedily exterminated - yes, that means killed - with overwhelming force. One ship hijacking was foiled by a Spanish helicopter buzzing the pirates and dropping smoke cannisters(!) upon them. While I applaud their courage, I don't mean we should employ the usual half measures, which endanger our troops and leave the enemy intact to buccaneer another day. The aircraft should use live munitions and kill from a range which presents the minimal danger to our forces. Announce a zero tolerance zone and sink anything bad that sails into it. Target their port installations and support areas. Set maritime ambushes. While the usual screams for pirates rights will be heard - there is always sympathy for the devil - they should be told to commit a hermaphroditic act. Once their boats no longer return, booty stops being taken and a few Blackbeards are killed on shore, the rest will get the message and turn to land based violent crime upon each other.

 

[MA-Caver]

To me, the question of the Somali Pirates is a 2 part inquiry.

First, is it any business of ours? No, we are not the world's (extremely unappreciated) policeman. If the pirates are pretty much preying on Russian arms shipments or Saudi and Iranian oil ships, perhaps those nations should get a warship force out there to address the problem. If our interests are not significantly involved, then action should be limited to "Oh, that is such a shame", followed by a switch to the sports page to address vital topics like the upcoming Giants-Titans game this weekend.

Second, if it is our business, then the pirates must be speedily exterminated - yes, that means killed - with overwhelming force. One ship hijacking was foiled by a Spanish helicopter buzzing the pirates and dropping smoke canisters(!) upon them. While I applaud their courage, I don't mean we should employ the usual half measures, which endanger our troops and leave the enemy intact to buccaneer another day. The aircraft should use live munitions and kill from a range which presents the minimal danger to our forces. Announce a zero tolerance zone and sink anything bad that sails into it. Target their port installations and support areas. Set maritime ambushes. While the usual screams for pirates rights will be heard - there is always sympathy for the devil - they should be told to commit a hermaphroditic act. Once their boats no longer return, booty stops being taken and a few Blackbeards are killed on shore, the rest will get the message and turn to land based violent crime upon each other.

Piracy like terrorism is a hydra, kill one two more take it's place. Besides the profit$ made from a piracy are FAR too lucrative to be thwarted by the chance of being blown out of the water... just as it was back in the days around the Caribbean and all that gold being shipped back to Europe.
It is in our best interest to fight them because allowing them to prey upon other foreign shipping gives them the wherewithal to attack American (and British) shipping. Pirates don't care what flag you fly under... its whats ye got in your cargo matey, aye that's what's important!
True we should have a small fast attack destroyer out cruising around or even a frigate but the area where the pirates are at is a pretty big area and thus would need the presence of more than one country to make a big enough threat to the pirates to halt their activities.
There are probably other reasons why not as well.

 

[Sukerkin]

Hmm, I'm not sure circumstances are quite the same nowadays, Caver.

Piratical behaviour persisted in it's time of fame (or infamy) because it was supported by warring states. We, the British, had 'our' Pirates out there with Letters of Marque and so did the French, the Dutch and the Portuguese.

When that time of usefulness to foreign policy ended, so did the 'heyday' of the pirate.

I do agree tho' that unless the full force of naval power is thrown against these modern-day murderers then the effect will be minimal. It is only because there is no policy advantage in it right now that it is not done. When it becomes necessary then the pirates will be swept from the seas with relative ease - satellite surveillance with AWACS and a carrier group with freedom of engagement would do the job quite nicely.

 

[grydth]

Disagree. The world has suffered plagues of both terrorism and piracy before, They were only stamped out by the resolute and very violent actions of governments who determined the scourges were no longer bearable. Whether it was Thuggee or Tripoli or Werewolves or The Caribbean, it wasn't ended overnight - but it was ended and with extreme prejudice.

The Somalis are apparently thinking professionals. Once boats stop returning and the few that do come back empty handed, it'll stop. Once they find that they can't even die fighting bravely against weapons that target them from out of the sky or far across the ocean, they'll return to domestic robbery. The survivors, that is.