Pirates seize U.S. freighter, hold captain for ransom

Quote:

---

12 miles is international waters. I've not found any source that states otherwise.

---

So you can't find a source that states Somali territorial waters are extending to 370 kilometers from the water line (of cousre excluding the portions which would be the wrong side of their neighbours median line) ?
Have you tried looking ? It isn't hard to find , there are not that many African countries that share the same territorial limit .
BTW rory , if perhaps someone suggests that you havn't been keeping up to date , does posting a non up to date map reinforce that ?
Thanks for the link though , I usually go through the maritime union which has the UNOSAT stuff on it , but you went straight with an outdated link to UNOSAT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Fair enough , I could for example link to amazing non existant legislation eh Mars:oops:

And then even after people posted other links that proved pretty comprehensively the legislation as non existant and for good measure post all the relevant actual existing legislation , I could still maintain that something was against the law when there was no law against it .:yes:

---

:rolleyes:

Way to grasp at straws...

That's the exclusive economic zone, isn't it? Not territorial waters.

Has the boundary been ratified? They've got until May 13th. Could be tough with no government.

No, I'm not up to date with international laws concerning coastal waters. I'd hazard you aren't either.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

That's the exclusive economic zone, isn't it? Not territorial waters.

---

Nope , it just happens that Somalia is one of the 7 countries with a big claim when it comes to territorial waters .

Quote:

---

I'd hazard you aren't either.

---

Would that be a maritime hazard ? As there are international laws concerning those .
Just out of interest Rory ,how many times has maritime legislation come up in topics here in the recent past . Say for example the fiaso in Iraq with the British navy , the ridiculuous propoganda in the straights of Hormuz, the french and later EU introduction of convoys to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden , arming civilian ships . Have you really not read up on maritime law ?

Quote:

---

Way to grasp at straws...

---

Well I would have thought that clinging to non existant legislation to justify an arguement was by definition grasping at straws.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well I would have thought that clinging to non existant legislation to justify an arguement was by definition grasping at straws.:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

The Hague Conventions don't exist? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

The Hague Conventions don't exist?

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
yes they exist , you had big trouble finding the relative clauses though and still coulndn't understand the applicable get out clauses that went with them .
However the proposed law which was never adopted which you kept harping on about as making the action illegal was never law .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Just out of interest Rory ,how many times has maritime legislation come up in topics here in the recent past . Say for example the fiasco in Iraq with the British navy , the ridiculous propaganda in the straights of Hormuz, the French and later EU introduction of convoys to combat piracy in the Gulf of Aden, arming civilian ships. Have you really not read up on maritime law?

---

I've looked at bits but I would not class my self as up to date as I am aware that it is a large topic and it would be arrogant to appear to know everything whilst making errors.

My excuses would include an exam coming up in May which if I fail costs me not only £1300 but an extra year of training, and a relative who has had a subarachnoid haemorrhage. Getting her the care that the NHS theoretically provides also has taken up a lot of time and effort.

~:smoking:

Look at that map, you will note that all of the attacks are marked in a vibrant red, and all pirate engagements are shown with skulls and crossbones and all manner of foolishness.

That means that this is only a psychological problem; whoever made that map is trying to blow things way out of proportion.

Look at the capture in Mogadishu; the ship was taken 2007, ship was released, 2007.

I don't see what there is to worry about.

One can make the map of the tour de france look monstrous if you scribble all over it with cartoon pirates and dragons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Nope , it just happens that Somalia is one of the 7 countries with a big claim when it comes to territorial waters.

---

Does that mean we have to accept and respond to that territorial claim as though it were valid even if our nations have not accepted that claim?

Quote:

---

Does that mean we have to accept and respond to that territorial claim as though it were valid even if our nations have not accepted that claim?

---

Well you had a small problem before when your government chose to demonstrate that it didn't recognise a territorial claim . It led to a fake claim of outrage that your "innocent" warships had been attacked in international waters..which ledto a war you couldn't win .
So you don't have to recognise the claim , but if you wish to dispute it with warships instead of diplomacy then that is an act of war with you as the aggressor .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

"alledged" ???? did you read the link and follow the links off it ?
You sound just like those people on the comments section talking about Hari making stuff up because they don't like what he said as it doesn't agree with their views and can't be arsed to find out if their views are actually wrong

---

What "links off it"?

As for proof, Hari offered only this:

Quote:

---

In 1991, the government of Somalia collapsed. Its nine million people have been teetering on starvation ever since – and the ugliest forces in the Western world have seen this as a great opportunity to steal the country's food supply and dump our nuclear waste in their seas.

Yes: nuclear waste. As soon as the government was gone, mysterious European ships started appearing off the coast of Somalia, dumping vast barrels into the ocean. The coastal population began to sicken. At first they suffered strange rashes, nausea and malformed babies. Then, after the 2005 tsunami, hundreds of the dumped and leaking barrels washed up on shore. People began to suffer from radiation sickness, and more than 300 died.

Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the UN envoy to Somalia, tells me: "Somebody is dumping nuclear material here. There is also lead, and heavy metals such as cadmium and mercury – you name it." Much of it can be traced back to European hospitals and factories, who seem to be passing it on to the Italian mafia to "dispose" of cheaply. When I asked Mr Ould-Abdallah what European governments were doing about it, he said with a sigh: "Nothing. There has been no clean-up, no compensation, and no prevention."

---

So, yeah, I refer to it as alleged since I see allegations but no proof. No links or directions to any proof either.

Now, if you've got such proof, why not show it here? Oh wait, that would mean letting other people see what you're basing your posts on. And then you wouldn't have any advantage of information, now would you?

Your whole system here is based on hiding your sources. I have to think it's because you'd be rather irrelevant if you couldn't play your games by making snarky remarks based on sources only you've read.

Quote:

---

Oh good. Now that we know the whole thing is merely the imagination of a writer you don't like, the problem can go back to being nicely black and white.

---

:strawman1:
Even if the whole toxic dumping thing is true, I don't see the pirates stopping if the dumping suddenly stopped.

CR

Quote:

---

Well you had a small problem before when your government chose to demonstrate that it didn't recognise a territorial claim . It led to a fake claim of outrage that your "innocent" warships had been attacked in international waters..which ledto a war you couldn't win .
So you don't have to recognise the claim , but if you wish to dispute it with warships instead of diplomacy then that is an act of war with you as the aggressor .

---

Not really.

Sailing in the area is allowed. In your example, the country would be aggressively acting against the ships; the warships would be being aggressive if they used gunboat diplomacy and started bombarding the coast.
There is no recognised government in Somalia. Diplomicy? With who? Act of war. Against which country when there's no government?

~:smoking:

I think this thread is beginning to show that the pirates are actually the victims in this situation.

bizarre, that isn't the impression i am getting.................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'm pleased for the captain that this situation has been resolved, though saddened by the loss of life. I can't fathom why the Somalians didn't realise their number was up and surrender.

---

To answer that last question: they didn't realise their number was up because in many previous instances ransom was paid.

Somali /Yemenite kidnappings are perfectly rational. The stories so far have been ones of consistently rational, logical behaviour by the pirates. The hostages are never hurt, they have all been treated well, and the pirates have shown themselves perfectly reliable negotiation partners.

This is why their business came to be so lucrative. Their rationality meant that paying an (often insured) ransom was (in the short term) the most logical, certainly most reliable, course of action. However, because it proved to be so lucrative, it has gotten completely out of hand.

Quote:

---

I realise few ever read linked articles, but this is a good summary of the wickedness that many of the Somali pirates are reacting against. As with so many things, one man's pirate is another man's privateer - or dispossessed fisherman.

---

Some food for thought:

- South East Asia suffered heavy piracy a few years ago. West Africa* suffers heavy piracy too. Were their seas depleted of fish as well?

*Incidentally, the Security Council has adopted resolutions granting means to curb piracy along the Red Sea / Suez trade route.
However, a French Security Council resolution to grant similar means to curb West African piracy was veto'ed by China. Chinese trading only marginally runs along West Africa. Cynical Chinese power politics to sabotage other countries interests in Africa? Revenge for Sarkozy's remarks about the Dalai Lama?
Either way, a storm is still brewing on the other side of the African continent.

- Depletion fishing is a global problem. Many, if not most, traditional fishing communities are suffering the consequences. Did they all turn to piracy?

- Kidnapping originated as a land problem in the region. Kidnappings and the ransoming of foreigners are an ancient tradition. Especially in Yemen. The widespread practice has spread from land to sea.


So an explanation needs more than 'fish and toxic waste'. Depleted fishing grounds did not lead to piracy elsewhere, and much piracy elsewhere is not the result of depleted fishing grounds.

In my view, the missing explanation here is one of a failed state. This is the unique problem of Somalia. Somalia is not a country of starving fishermen. Of poor, suffering Africans - Africans usually do not comply with the stereotype of passive, poor victims. Somalia is instead a country of warlords. Of armed gangs. Actively seeking out their own fortunes.
At any rate, toxic waste dumping certainly wasn't a motivation for their armed acts of violence within Somalia.

I say Hari suffers from Western post-colonial superiority thinking. As ever, it is well-intended. Equally as ever, it reduces Africans from active agents to passive victims.
His line of reasoning fits the old mauld of a Western-centrist scheme of thinking: the West is all-powerful, the agent of everything good and bad in the Third World. As opposed to passive Africans, incapable of being the agent of their own course of action. Any event in Africa, whatsoever - to be traced to some evil Western act. Victimhood as the sole, inalieble state of being of Africans. Etc.

As a provocative piece of journalism, Hari's article has its value. There are more sides to the story than meets the eye at first sight. As an explanation, Hari is, at best, thoroughly incomplete. And at worst, more resembling of the Western Imperialist mind that he tries to overcome than he realises.

Thank you, Louis, for a thoughtful rebuttal. You make some excellent points, which I will have to ponder further.

:bow:

Quote:

---

What "links off it"?

---

The links .

Quote:

---

So, yeah, I refer to it as alleged since I see allegations but no proof. No links or directions to any proof either.

---

Perhaps you should follow the links .

Quote:

---

Now, if you've got such proof, why not show it here?

---

errrr .....because they are already on the article that was linked .

Quote:

---

Your whole system here is based on hiding your sources.

---

The links are on the link that was posted , why not try reading it again .

Quote:

---

I have to think it's because you'd be rather irrelevant if you couldn't play your games by making snarky remarks based on sources only you've read.

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:
The information is there for anyone to read , just go to the page that was linked and follow the links on that page .:yes:

Quote:

---

There is no recognised government in Somalia. Diplomicy? With who? Act of war. Against which country when there's no government?

---

yes there is , the TNG is the internationally recognised government in Somalia . You are mixing up issues and events . The anti pollution and anti illegal fishing stuff was done under the other "government" , they also clamped down on piracy as well as other crime , that is because it was run by local business interests who wanted some sort of stability and progress , at that time the recognised government were busy sulking and doing nothing apart from arguing with each other over which warlord should get which job and which region as their own little fiefdom
Since the invasion the warlords (recognised government)are back and they have gone into the piracy again in a big way because all they are interested in is making a quick buck before they have to skulk off again .

Quote:

---

- Depletion fishing is a global problem. Many, if not most, traditional fishing communities are suffering the consequences. Did they all turn to piracy?

---

Good point Louis , then again many traditional fishing communities are being paid by their governments to do less fishing or to change job entirely . Though you don't have to look far to find fishermen that have gone into other lucrative illegal enterprises with their boats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So you don't have to recognise the claim , but if you wish to dispute it with warships instead of diplomacy then that is an act of war with you as the aggressor .

---

So we can dispute it diplomatically, where the likely result is a polite "get stuffed." [Not the only possible result of course, but probably the most likely]

OR

We can dispute it militarily, by "showing the flag" in waters they claim, in which case by so doing we are committing an act of war againt the Somalis.* I assume you would apply this equally to any foreign power so doing?

Bit of a lose-lose the way you frame it.

So, in your take Tribes, our only practical response is to -- at least de facto -- accept that they have full territorial control out to 200nm, keeping all warships outside that limit without express Somali permission. Am I summarizing correctly?


*Note: I would only acknowledge an act or war to have occurred if Somalis fire on us or we upon them, but that's my take on things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

To answer that last question: they didn't realise their number was up because in many previous instances ransom was paid.

Somali /Yemenite kidnappings are perfectly rational. The stories so far have been ones of consistently rational, logical behaviour by the pirates. The hostages are never hurt, they have all been treated well, and the pirates have shown themselves perfectly reliable negotiation partners.

This is why their business came to be so lucrative. Their rationality meant that paying an (often insured) ransom was (in the short term) the most logical, certainly most reliable, course of action. However, because it proved to be so lucrative, it has gotten completely out of hand.


Some food for thought:

- South East Asia suffered heavy piracy a few years ago. West Africa* suffers heavy piracy too. Were their seas depleted of fish as well?

*Incidentally, the Security Council has adopted resolutions granting means to curb piracy along the Red Sea / Suez trade route.
However, a French Security Council resolution to grant similar means to curb West African piracy was veto'ed by China. Chinese trading only marginally runs along West Africa. Cynical Chinese power politics to sabotage other countries interests in Africa? Revenge for Sarkozy's remarks about the Dalai Lama?
Either way, a storm is still brewing on the other side of the African continent.

- Depletion fishing is a global problem. Many, if not most, traditional fishing communities are suffering the consequences. Did they all turn to piracy?

- Kidnapping originated as a land problem in the region. Kidnappings and the ransoming of foreigners are an ancient tradition. Especially in Yemen. The widespread practice has spread from land to sea.


So an explanation needs more than 'fish and toxic waste'. Depleted fishing grounds did not lead to piracy elsewhere, and much piracy elsewhere is not the result of depleted fishing grounds.

In my view, the missing explanation here is one of a failed state. This is the unique problem of Somalia. Somalia is not a country of starving fishermen. Of poor, suffering Africans - Africans usually do not comply with the stereotype of passive, poor victims. Somalia is instead a country of warlords. Of armed gangs. Actively seeking out their own fortunes.
At any rate, toxic waste dumping certainly wasn't a motivation for their armed acts of violence within Somalia.

I say Hari suffers from Western post-colonial superiority thinking. As ever, it is well-intended. Equally as ever, it reduces Africans from active agents to passive victims.
His line of reasoning fits the old mauld of a Western-centrist scheme of thinking: the West is all-powerful, the agent of everything good and bad in the Third World. As opposed to passive Africans, incapable of being the agent of their own course of action. Any event in Africa, whatsoever - to be traced to some evil Western act. Victimhood as the sole, inalieble state of being of Africans. Etc.

As a provocative piece of journalism, Hari's article has its value. There are more sides to the story than meets the eye at first sight. As an explanation, Hari is, at best, thoroughly incomplete. And at worst, more resembling of the Western Imperialist mind that he tries to overcome than he realises.

---

excellent post louis, the best yet in response to the questions BG raised.

Quote:

---

Bit of a lose-lose the way you frame it.

---

Yep , it is isn't it , and expect more of it , look at the recent Russian extensions of their claims , the Iran/Iraq Iran/UAE disputes , the ongoing crap about Rockall , or for a really complicated one the spratley islands .

Quote:

---

*Note: I would only acknowledge an act or war to have occurred if Somalis fire on us or we upon them, but that's my take on things.

---

Well that depends , when the Maddox (among others) was ordered to operate inside the 12 mile limit to demonstrate that America only recognised the 3 mile limit then that was an act of agression to dispute a territorial claim which is an act of war .

Quote:

---

So, in your take Tribes, our only practical response is to -- at least de facto -- accept that they have full territorial control out to 200nm, keeping all warships outside that limit without express Somali permission. Am I summarizing correctly?

---

No , warships still have the right of innocent passage , though the country which claims the waters can dispute the innocence of the vessels present . Just like Iran did with the British navy as the navy boats were not doing an innocent transit which is why the admiralty (and the UN whose mandate they were operating under) said they shouldn't enter the disputed area .
But since this concerns illegal fishing and waste dumping then somalia is in the right as it claims them as territorial waters and that gives them jurisdiction over exploition of resources and pollution incidents, piracy is different as that is a global crime where everyone has jurisdiction .

Quote:

---

Hopefully the pirates willthink twice before going after another American flagged vessel.

---

Well you can always hope , but the pirates have attacked another US flagged vessel today .

i'm not surprised, there has been only one retaliation so far, but i guarentee that if the US makes a habit of killing pirates then pirates will make a habit of attacking non-US ships.

Quote:

---

i'm not surprised, there has been only one retaliation so far, but i guarentee that if the US makes a habit of killing pirates then pirates will make a habit of attacking non-US ships.

---

The French have got a habit of killing pirates , the pirates still have a habit of attacking French ships

French also pursued and captured 11 more pirates today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The French have got a habit of killing pirates , the pirates still have a habit of attacking French ships

---

it takes time and comittment, no doubt about it. this isn't the first time pirates have been squashed after all.

Pirates are like vermin. Both need to be exterminated, both flourish in ruins and both reappear whenever due villigence is not maintained.

Not seen the news on the French, but pleased to see they're not cluttering up the courts with asylum seeking pleas.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

A French warship has captured 11 pirates off the coast of Kenya, amid calls for the international community to deal with the problem of piracy.

The pirates were captured by a warship from an EU piracy patrol, French officials said, hours after a failed attack on a US ship. The latest attack involved pirates firing rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons at a US-flagged cargo ship, the Liberty Sun, which was carrying food aid for Africa.

---

Bless the EU for its pro-active stance. Nothing a voluntary association of two dozen democracies can't achieve.

And fear not, Americans! We got them - they already thoroughly regret their attack on an American ship earlier today.

:france: :eu:

Sorry for the delayed response there, chief.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

What is a "vote present" attitude, please?

---

Rather than taking an active position for or against particular legislation, President Obama set new records with recording a "present" vote (essentially abstaining) while serving as a legislator in the Illinois State House. He brought that trick with him to the Senate, and I was expressing dismay that it would guide his executive policies as well, and relief that early signs seem to point to my being mistaken in that belief.

Quote:

---

I'm intrigued why you think the Commander in Chief should be discussing options in public. Wouldn't that rather compromise any operation, such as the one just completed?

---

Commenting on the planning of a response? Absolutely, he should keep quiet about it. Expressing outrage? Seems like a no-brainer. I would have thought he would have made a pretty loud saber rattling speech about the whole affair within the first couple of days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Pirates are like vermin. Both need to be exterminated, both flourish in ruins and both reappear whenever due villigence is not maintained.

---

Yes, that's why we got SecuROM, StarForce and Steam. :mellow:
Oh, and why the RIAA is suing family people for thousands of dollars for being pirates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Rather than taking an active position for or against particular legislation, President Obama set new records with recording a "present" vote (essentially abstaining) while serving as a legislator in the Illinois State House. He brought that trick with him to the Senate, and I was expressing dismay that it would guide his executive policies as well, and relief that early signs seem to point to my being mistaken in that belief.

---

Ah, thank you for explaining. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Commenting on the planning of a response? Absolutely, he should keep quiet about it. Expressing outrage? Seems like a no-brainer. I would have thought he would have made a pretty loud saber rattling speech about the whole affair within the first couple of days.

---

I think sabre-rattling speeches are over-blown and usually counter-productive. Sometimes (hostages being a very good example) the bluster backfires and you look a right fool. Speak softly and carry a big stick, which is what he seems to have done - and sent a useful message into the bargain.