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

[Don Corleone]

Well, we knew it was only a matter of time:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa...ked/index.html.

So what will our reaction be? My guess is another "Vote present" maneuver by our president. Thus far, his big answer has been "we're reviewing our options". Then, a destroyer was dispatched from over 400 nautical miles away. Should get there in about 12 hours. I'm sure the pirates will be considerate and wait around for the destroyer to arrive.

Seriously, I think Obama will take one of two approaches. He's not about to confront anybody. So he'll either do nothing, and quietly pay ransom to get the sailors back, then talk about the need for new oversight by the government of the shipping industry. Or, he'll actually come out and negotiate with these clowns, elevating them to sovereign nation status. He may even issue an apology for whatever sins the U.S has committed in the past.

The one thing I'm certain he won't do is exactly what we need to do.... stage 2 or 3 SEAL team raids on a couple of known operating bases in Somalia. No, he won't even allow U.S. merchant marines to use firearms to defend themselves. While the pirates attack the crew with AK-47's and RPGs, Obama's answer to the crew... use fire hoses. Yeah, that seems like a fair fight.

Disgusting. It will provoke and accelerate and embolden further aggression against the United States around the world. Why doesn't Rahm Emmanuel loan his concrete cojones to Obama in moments like these?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The pirates are a symptom of a bigger problem occurring. Wiping out these pirates will remove the symptom...for a time, before more rise to take their place, learning from the mistakes of those before them.

[Husar]

Yes, many of them are pirates because it's a job, and there are no other jobs.
Attacking them now might mean all the sailors die, and sailors of other countries as well, countries that will then hate the US.

Putting armed men onto ships means you aren't allowed into many ports around the globe, this was discussed before.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The sailors have retaken control of the ship of their own accord.

[Don Corleone]

Yes, many of them are pirates because it's a job, and there are no other jobs.
Attacking them now might mean all the sailors die, and sailors of other countries as well, countries that will then hate the US.

Putting armed men onto ships means you aren't allowed into many ports around the globe, this was discussed before.

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this. You're a nice guy Husar, I've come to appreciate your views over the years, but the above... you could tell me you eat bugs and I'd be less flabbergasted.

How do you defend the kidnappers? How do you blame the U.S. for protecting its sailors?

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this. You're a nice guy Husar, I've come to appreciate your views over the years, but the above... you could tell me you eat bugs and I'd be less flabbergasted.

How do you defend the kidnappers? How do you blame the U.S. for protecting its sailors?

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.

It's a danish ship I believe, and I imagine they want to make money by trading.

[KarlXII]

Anyone here ready for the Third Barbary War?

In all seriousness, this is nothing surprising. The problem is, I don't think there's any one pirate port or base that can just be tooken out and the pirates die. This is a problem that will need to be addressed ship by ship, and possibly seaborne interdictions into Somalia. It would require a lot of manpower and money, but I have confidence a strategy like this would work. However, in light of the stretching of the U.S. Military and the economic situation, this is unlikely in the near future.

And I think Husar is right that these pirates are simply in it for the money, and not trying to push some ideological or political agenda. An offensive against piracy will undoubtedly turn them even more hostile against Western ships, but again, I think it's necessary we address the problem with gun boat diplomacy and force of arms.

[InsaneApache]

I'm going to ghast your flabber a bit more Don.

The point about varying ports not allowing armed guards on ships is a truism. How can I put it? Imagine an Iranian container ship docking in, say, New York. The port authorities board her to examine the manifest. On board they find 50 Iranian Revolutionary Guards armed to the teeth. What do you think would be the attitude of New York Port Authority? Never mind the CIA/FBI.

Husar also has a point about no jobs. I read somewhere that since the country disolved into anarchy, foreign fishing fleets, EU, Indian, Chinese etc. have moved into the vacuum and basically raped the ocean of fish. Many of these pirates are former fishermen. So the article said. Now I don't know if that's true or not but it would seem to make sense.

If it is true, then we in the west bear some culpability for this. Things are often not as black and white as they first appear.

I'll try to dig up the article, it may take some time. I'm a prolific reader of the t'interwebs.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this. You're a nice guy Husar, I've come to appreciate your views over the years, but the above... you could tell me you eat bugs and I'd be less flabbergasted.

How do you defend the kidnappers? How do you blame the U.S. for protecting its sailors?

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.

This attitude seems highly pompous and arrogant. You are acting as if these pirates are not humans themselves, with a side to tell. Piracy is the only way for many in that region to live a decent quality of life, they are not to be looked as monsters.

As for telling countries to **** off because they refuse for others to bring guns into their ports...well I really don't know what to say to that.

[KarlXII]

Well, we knew it was only a matter of time:

Yeah, a shame we didn't solve this earlier when we had the chance.

The one thing I'm certain he won't do is exactly what we need to do.... stage 2 or 3 SEAL team raids on a couple of known operating bases in Somalia.

Remember the last time we sent a spec-ops unit into Somalia? This is a problem that can't be solved by simply blowing a few ports up.

No, he won't even allow U.S. merchant marines to use firearms to defend themselves. While the pirates attack the crew with AK-47's and RPGs, Obama's answer to the crew... use fire hoses. Yeah, that seems like a fair fight.

That's funny, I never read anything about Obama saying "Guns on ships are no-no's" (Which, according to Husar, is true in ports). Unless you're trying to make some anti-Obama point, which I hope to God you aren't.

Disgusting. It will provoke and accelerate and embolden further aggression against the United States around the world. Why doesn't Rahm Emmanuel loan his concrete cojones to Obama in moments like these?

Oh please, it's just now become a problem because it was an American flagged ship? Is it somehow now something we need to deal with because she flew the Stars and Stripes? Tell that to the crew of the MV Faina, who had to wait 5 months while a number of war vessels were right by to assist, but instead had to wait in fear for their lives for a ransom to be paid.

[Don Corleone]

This attitude seems highly pompous and arrogant. You are acting as if these pirates are not humans themselves, with a side to tell. Piracy is the only way for many in that region to live a decent quality of life, they are not to be looked as monsters.

As for telling countries to **** off because they refuse for others to bring guns into their ports...well I really don't know what to say to that.

Defending yourself is highly pompous and arrogant?

And no Karl, it didnt just become a problem. It just became a problem for us. And its going to get really bad, really quickly, because of the way we've chosen to handle it.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Defending yourself is highly pompous and arrogant?

And no Karl, it didnt just become a problem. It just became a problem for us. And its going to get really bad, really quickly, because of the way we've chosen to handle it.

Asking someone how could they even think of supporting the pirates is a bit pompous, yes.

[KarlXII]

And no Karl, it didnt just become a problem. It just became a problem for us. And its going to get really bad, really quickly, because of the way we've chosen to handle it.

No, it's always been a problem, for everyone. Unless you're fine with other ships being hijacked because they aren't American. I think that's shameful to just now consider piracy as a threat to the United States, and only the United States, without any regard to the numerous other nationalities who have suffered from it.

[Strike For The South]

Step 1: Behead pirates
Step 2: Put heads on USS Lexington.

There not only have we taken care of the problem but we look BA

[KarlXII]

Step 1: Behead pirates
Step 2: Put heads on USS Constitution.

There not only have we taken care of the problem but we look BA

Fixed. What better way to display the heads of pirates than on the ship that participated in pirate wars?

[Don Corleone]

No, it's always been a problem, for everyone. Unless you're fine with other ships being hijacked because they aren't American. I think that's shameful to just now consider piracy as a threat to the United States, and only the United States, without any regard to the numerous other nationalities who have suffered from it.

I think you misunderstood me. When a Japanese ship get siezed, it is the responsiblity and right of the nation of Japan to determine how to proceed. If they ask for our help, then we might intervene, but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited.

[KarlXII]

I think you misunderstood me. When a Japanese ship get siezed, it is the responsiblity and right of the nation of Japan to determine how to proceed. If they ask for our help, then we might intervene, but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited.

This isn't about a nation's affairs. This is about international piracy.

but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited

Hasn't stopped us before.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Hasn't stopped us before.

That doesn't mean we should continue that policy.

[Strike For The South]

That doesn't mean we should continue that policy.

So are you pro or anti beheading?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So are you pro or anti beheading?

My stance on this is that since it is now our problem we should look on stopping pirates from appearing in the first place, not just killing them whenever they pop up. The fact that there is pirates plaguing the sea does not mean we should do something, we should not be the world's police.

[Strike For The South]

My stance on this is that since it is now our problem we should look on stopping pirates from appearing in the first place, not just killing them whenever they pop up. The fact that there is pirates plaguing the sea does not mean we should do something, we should not be the world's police.

So...pro?

[KarlXII]

My stance on this is that since it is now our problem we should look on stopping pirates from appearing in the first place, not just killing them whenever they pop up. The fact that there is pirates plaguing the sea does not mean we should do something, we should not be the world's police.

It has always been our problem. Remember Article V of the North Atlantic Treaty, of which the United States signed, that states an attack on one member is an attack on all members. It hasn't been an exclusively US problem, but it has been a US problem.

European tankers attacked

Norwegians attacked.

Unless you'd like to explain why the United States should not adhere to it's own signed treaties, then my point stands.

[GeneralHankerchief]

First of all, I have to hand it to the pirates for actually having the brass ones to attack a United States ship in the first place. Every single aspect of this story oozes awesome, including the US crewmen's retaking of the ship.

However, in all seriousness, I think it speaks more of the situation in Somalia than the state of US affairs. Throughout history, major powers have let minor flies buzz by without expending the resources necessary to swat them. The pirates' situation is just another example.

[KukriKhan]

The sailors have retaken control of the ship of their own accord.

Personally, I thought this was the most important part of the unfolding story. Very Flight 93, yanno?

When the chips are down, and the cavalry ain't coming any time soon, or the government, or the Navy, or the Marines, or the cops, or anybody else... the average groups of americans will take matters into their own hands, take charge and settle accounts... damn the outcome.

[Samurai Waki]

Well you know...we could have supported a relatively stable regime of their choosing... that would have been able to actually do something about this, but I guess Islamic Fundamentalism just isn't as good enough a choice as compared to rampant Warlord-ism, and Anarchy.

[Jolt]

European tankers attacked

Norwegians attacked.

...Are you saying Norwegians aren't European? :P

[seireikhaan]

Wanna fix the problem with Somali pirates? Fix the problems with Somalia. Trying to blast them one at a time isn't going to stop them when the average pirate just needs one or two good hauls to set him for life. Humans are pretty easy to tempt, even when faced with terrible odds of survival, when they have little to nothing to lose.

[InsaneApache]

I think you misunderstood me. When a Japanese ship get siezed, it is the responsiblity and right of the nation of Japan to determine how to proceed. If they ask for our help, then we might intervene, but it's not our place to jump into their affairs uninvited.

It's the responsibility of all nations. Piracy is what is known as a universal crime. What's buggering it all up is what to do with them once you've captured them. Believe it or not, most times they are set free.

[ajaxfetish]

What's buggering it all up is what to do with them once you've captured them. Believe it or not, most times they are set free.

How about if they're set free a few miles out to sea?

Ajax

[Tribesman]

I have absolutely no way to respond to viewpoints like this.

Is that because it makes sense ?

So with have two current examples , one followed the guidelines set out and one didn't , one ship is sailing on its way with crew and cargo safe and intact , one is missing its captain .
So who got it right ?
The Isreali crew who rigged water hoses , lights and barbed wire so they drove off the pirates or the American crew who fought back without ensuring that all crew were safe .

Obama's answer to the crew... use fire hoses. Yeah, that seems like a fair fight.

Leaving aside that those guidlines predate Obama by years.....
It worked for the Isrealis didn't it .

As for countries that would deny port entry to ships that actually capitalize on their right to defend themselves.... perhaps we're better off not trading with such self-loathing people with no instinct to survive.

Its the international law of the sea and right of innocent passage Don , you know the same international law that makes Piracy illegal .


So I hope now that The American sailors efforts backfired that the US forces in the area to fight piracy under international law follow the French Navies example of how to do things and don't screw up badly like the Indian Navy did .