« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

This ain’t “Pirates of the Carribean”

And they ain't Cap'n Jack either

In the movies, pirates are a lot more fun. Now, this is serious. In the last 24 hours in the waters off Somalia, two more merchant vessels were captured by Somali “pirates.” These tinhorn twerps in their “pirate ships” (which come closer to resembling recycled tinfoil than actual boats) have somehow been able to overpower numerous large cargo ships, one of which is a oil supertanker carrying over $100M in cargo. A second ship was also captured today – an Iranian freighter carrying a cargo of 30,000 tons of grain. Oh, and don’t forget – a ship carrying Russian tanks is still in the possession of another band of Somali pirates.


The Times of London reports on this latest chapter of the story, with the unbelievable byline “Alarm grows as governments and navies are rendered legally powerless to conduct security operations on the high seas” “Legally powerless?” I am simply speechless. Here we have some of the most potent naval powers in the world attempting a response, and they are unable to summon the firepower to sink these popgun pissants? Yes, the terrorists are carrying submachine guns and RPGs. And for “insurance and safety reasons” the merchants are unable to use any kind of significant arms. From the looks of the pirates’ “ships,” it would probably take little more than a Daisy air rifle to perforate the hull and send them to the bottom of the sea.

The shippers, the EU and others are wringing their hands in helpless befuddlement. The real story appears to lie in the “deer in the headlights” response of the governments involved:

Operations undertaken by the coalition fleet are fraught with legal difficulties, ranging from restrictive rules of engagement to rights of habeas corpus, as the British Navy discovered when it detained eight pirates after a shootout last week. Yesterday the detainees were passed on to Kenya, where efforts to prosecute them will be closely watched for precedent.

The limitations of naval action are refocusing international attention on the conflict within Somalia, where the rule of warlords, the lack of a functioning government and resulting anarchy have spawned the piracy epidemic. The Somali President admitted this weekend that his Western-backed transitional Government was on the brink of collapse, with fighters from the ousted Islamic Courts regime bearing down on Mogadishu.

Of course the Times attempts to place the blame on the United States:

Washington was instrumental in the ousting of the Islamic Courts, backing Ethiopian troops to throw them out for fear that they would make Somalia a haven for extremists. Since then piracy has soared and, should it worsen – and the violence in Somalia increase – pressure will grow on the international community to reconsider its support for the corrupt and ineffective regime, even if it means the return of the Islamist Courts.

Weak. Very weak. If you can’t succeed, blame the U.S.

These spineless governments are worried about “legal difficulties”? “Habeas corpus?” Are they afraid of violating the rights of the poor, defenseless pirates? Apparently. The BBC reports that “Rules frustrate anti-piracy efforts”. Rules?? What has happened to the willingness to fight against an enemy? Apparently the British are more concerned about the rights of the pirates than the welfare of the shipping business:

But even all these operations have to be conducted within international law, defined in this case as the provisions of the UN Law of the Sea Convention.

There has also been a legal opinion by the British Foreign Office that captured pirates cannot necessarily be sent back to whatever authorities can be found in Somalia, in case they are subject to harsh treatment. That would contravene the British Human Rights Act. The pirates captured in the Royal Navy action have now been handed over not to Somalia, but Kenya.

The Law of the Sea Convention places limitations on daring action. Under Article 100 of the convention a warship has first to send an officer-led party to board a suspected pirate ship to verify any suspicions.

The warship cannot just open fire. Any inspection has to be carried out “with all possible consideration”. That sounds rather tentative.

As one of my fellow RedState contributors points out:

The codified and understood law of civilized men for over 300 years is and has been that pirates forfeit their lives by virtue of their acts; that summary hangings, shooting, and sinkings are what they must expect for their crime, so that we discourage them to undertake those acts.

The BBC article mentions this as well:

Maritime writer Dr David Cordingly, author of “Life among the Pirates”, says that, historically, firm measures were taken against pirates.

“There would often be a show trial in London, Jamaica, Boston or Charleston,” he said. “That was followed by a public hanging and the bodies would be left swinging on the gallows at the entrance to harbours. Sailors would draw the conclusion that piracy was not a good career option.

The comment stream in the London Times article is telling. An American responder sarcastically states “The US certainly can’t get involved in this – after all the pirates have rights which have to be protected. We would have to first sit down with them and find out their motivation for their actions as our new president-elect prefers to do with terrorists.” And there’s the rub – that is precisely the logic that is likely to be employed by our newly elected Leftist. As with the terrorists in Gitmo, Obama would undoubtedly be more concerned with the rights of the terrorists pirates than of the victims. We may be seeing a foreshadowing of what’s to come with our president-elect. He is cut from the same cloth as these emasculated “leaders” who are unable (or unwilling) to protect their own national interests. It’s no coincidence that the Europeans were so elated to see Obama elected. They would rather have a “sophisticated” President who will sit down and have tea with the terrorists, rather than a “cowboy” response from President Bush.

Until the countries targeted by these pirates decide to respond decisively and stop the analysis paralysis, the problem will continue. How long will it take for these nations to figure out that terrorists do not understand diplomacy and do not care about laws? They understand but one thing – violence and force. And this is what needs to be applied. Deadly force. Send in air power. Sink every one of these Captain Jack Sparrow pretenders. No mercy. There should be no concern about what Somalia thinks. This is not a time to be worried about the sensitivities of the country who has permitted this to occur.

COMMENTS

  • Neil_Stevens

    It’s only Africa, after all. Democrats don’t care about Africa. That’s why they have jeered the President’s foreign policy for the last eight years, even though he’s done more for Africa than any US President.

  • dbecraft

    actually uphold law and order – what’s the use…

  • Doc_Holliday

    safe for commerce. Now we have the largest Navy, but don’t seem to have that sense of purpose the Brits once had. Of course the Brits don’t have it either.

  • E_Pluribus_Unum

    And I mean the 1801-1805 replay. And just SCREW world opinion.

  • wicon256

    Is this suggesting that we unilaterally invade Somalia? Maybe try our hand at nation building? Is that really a conservative take on the issue? And what does this have to do with Obama? Last I checked this crisis has been going on for years. Our president has been a lot less eager to throw out the treaties entered into by the US than you seem to be.

    Try this take on the issue: Somali pirates have taken many ships over the last few years, none of the ones I know of cary a US flag. Therefore a lot of nations other than America have a responsibility to handle the issue, maybe even the UN. If America wants to assist then fine, but we should not take the lead in an operation that would probably require a land based peacekeeping force and several aircraft carriers to carry out.

    If anything about Obama handling this issue scares me its that he might feel a “moral obligation” to intervene, and we will end up with another situation like, oh say SOMALIA in the 90′s.

  • towdogInCal

    Still waiting to find the truth about this vessel.
    Rumors abound, everything from “radioactive sand” as a cargo to “barels of unknown substance”. which caused the pirates “hair to fall out”.
    Seems the only news comes from blogs, other than the following;
    Was deadly Iranian ship bound for Israel? from WND’s Hal Lindsey

    Was Pirated Iranian Freighter a Giant Dirty Bomb Meant For Israel? from newsgroups.derkeiler.com

    Finally, MV Iran Deyant from the NRO blogs, David Pryce-Jones, who feels it may all may be net rumor.

  • bs

    where I said the U.S. should be involved. Hint: there isn’t one.

  • OneCleverCookie

    our fellow citizens begin to appreciate George W. Bush the better. W has some faults, but it ain’t when it comes to National security.

    Obama may surprise us by over compensating in the beginning, but eventually he’ll gut the military to spend on his new Justice Department of Corporate Extortion.

    SOB….Eric Holder…We’re F&cked!!

  • ETCartman

    …….before 20 January 2009, I’d say “dead in the water” will quite probably have a literal meaning. I’d bet the hijackings would stop almost immediately.

    If a seizing takes place after 20 January 2009, the new administration will talk, talk, talk, talk, talk talk, talk……………and then blame GWB for the massive level of global warming that caused the pirates to drive evil SUV’s to their rain-forest-sacred-wood-built docks, get on their diesel-guzzling, excessive carbon-footprint spewing garbage scows for ‘liberating’ the ship in the name of peaceful coexistence.

    Good ‘ol Barry will then hold an emergency press conference to tell all Israelis they have 3 days to move to either Brooklyn NY or Miami Beach Florida for their own well being, since he ‘just remembered’ that The UN already gave 85% of Israel’s land to Hamas in a swap for another hijacked ship (a 16 ft. bowrider from France crewed by two drunk cross-dressing fishermen who were out looking for the ever-elusive Horned-Rimmed Left-Flippered Snipe).

    =====================

    See, I’m not concerned at all.

    Just another isolated incident from around the globe.

  • PhxG

    the US or the UK Navy sinks a pirate vessel resulting in a loss of life at sea, some pathetic lawyer (or solicitor if you prefer) will step up on behalf of the families. The litigation will be fraught with lies and crying mothers; “They were just trying to feed their families” and “They were really just fishing” will be the mantra.

    Eventually, there will be public outcry from CAIR that this is just another genocidal attempt upon the Muslim people by the United States, AKA the Great Satan. Then, and only then will the nanny state capitulate and yield before the superior intellect and powers of the NY Personal Injury Lawyer. Payments will be made, in Euros as requested by the families.

    Rearm, repeat.

    Perhaps a review of the Barbary Wars with an emphasis on reinstituting the policies of that era would be in order today.

  • PhxG

    nt

  • 10ksnooker

    Buddy can you spare a hellfire?

  • ETCartman

    World Tribune article on hijacked Iranian ship carrying “whateveritisyouwanttocallit”

    Hasn’t been a follow-up that I know of.

    I keep looking daily.

  • ClassicConservative

    Democrats have been very critical of the War on Terror and other foreign policies, but Bush and the Democrats were more align than not when it came to African policy. Ever since the 107th, Congress (Republicans AND Democrats) have been proactive in helping Africa.

    No one will deny we’ve done more in the last several years, but to say the Democrats haven’t been part of it is intellectually dishonest. I expect more from you.

  • Neil_Stevens
  • Vladimir

    …that $100 million shipment of oil was worth $200 million last July. The Somali pirates are victims of their own bad timing.

    Their real coup will come when the pirates file charges in international court against the tanker owner and the Saudis for exposing them to benzene & asbestos. $5million ransom will look like chump change.

    I can’t wait for Barack to talk some sense into these guys!

  • JoeG

    >
    When or if the US or the UK Navy sinks a pirate vessel resulting in a loss of life at sea, some pathetic lawyer (or solicitor if you prefer) will step up on behalf of the families. The litigation will be fraught with lies and crying mothers; “They were just trying to feed their families” and “They were really just fishing” will be the mantra.

    That already happened: CNN: USS Porter sinks pirate skiffs

    No lawsuits so far.

  • PhxG

    nt

  • mbecker908

    First, let’s kill all the lawyers.

  • kyle8

    Simply issue letter of Marque and Reprisal to anyone who wants to arm their ships and hunt down pirates. Someone (probably an insurance firm) will do it and offer their services to shipowners.

  • Doc_Holliday

    nt

  • JoeG

    These guys are third wold thugs. They wouldn’t know where to find a lawyer, let alone what they’d do with them. Our litigious society is only possible when the basic needs of society are largely met.

    If a lawyer went out to them, they’d hold the lawyer at gunpoint and demand that the family pay a ransom for their return.

    Unfortunately they don’t know that many of us would pay the thugs to keep the lawyers ;-)

  • PhxG

    nt

  • leftylurker

    But often taken out of context. My reading of the quote is that it’s about killing the lawyers because they’re the only people who can stop the government from stripping people of their rights.