Somali pirates vow retaliation after captain freed

[VetSkinsFan]

I will restate that I have little actual Navy knowledge. I wasn't a semen which was a conscious choice.

Ask the guys who are held at gunpoint how "well" they're treated. I mean, I hold ALL my friends at gun point, just to show them how much I like them.

Our most recent U.S. captive who was rescued by the Navy Seals would probably not say 'that they're really no problem.' I guess Navy Seals were just vacationing in the area and decided to hone their skills.

[VetSkinsFan]

So the U.S. vessels being targeted by pirates don't get U.S. military protection. They are abducting people at gunpoint and holding them ransom, or for "taxes" as someone called it. Foreign aggressors are allowed to take U.S. vessels by force, and U.S. shouldn't do anything to protect them.

How shall these pirates be dealt with then? Let's say I go with the "no military assistance." Since I'm prior service, maybe my judgment is clouded. Enlighten me.

I'm fine with the pirates getting killed. Not sure I see your point---is it really so important that "we" do it?

They're our ships, U.S. flagged vessels is all I'm worried about. We're not briging in the Navy, Marines, or even the ROTC. How should these pirates be dealt with the next time they take U.S. captives or hi-jack a U.S. flagged vessel?

If we don't protect our own, who should, then?

[Countertrey]

Pulp... I could care less how "well" these nice young PIRATES treat their PRISONERS. Bottom line... they are international criminals, kidnappers, extortionists, vile and disgusting thugs.

As you may have noticed, Captain Peters was not in the least "broken up" that three of them had their heads ventilated next to him. "Awwww... my poor hosts". Nope. He was pretty well pleased with the result.

Please do not propose to apologize for their thuggery. If a bank is robbed, the fact that the bank robber says "thank you" on his way out the door does not mitigate his crime.

In this country, if you unjustly hold an innocent person at gunpoint, they are not entitled to mitigation because they did not kill the person. This is among the most ludicrous arguments in defense of a non-aggressive response I can imagine.

You wrote:

Now if you're talking about going after the pirates at their home port, if you actually read this thread, you'll see that's exactly what I said we should do.

It's not my fault that YOU did not read nor bother to attempt to understand my reply. While I DO happen to believe that there is a place to arm US FLAGGED VESSELS with either contractors or infantry, the prime tenor of my response was about destroying the support system in place.

Instead, you chose to attempt to belittle those portions in which I agree with you... ("Also, you're honestly talking about keeping a 688 attack boat on station at all times for essentially speed boats? Hah. That's hilarious!")
Too bad. You just don't get the reality. 688's are on station all over the world, just waiting for a mission. Many of them have Seal Teams aboard... also just waiting for a mission... and routing a TLAM or two onto a thug hideout is just the kind of thing that might send a message.


Regarding the RN Captain you wanted to believe was a Yank...

Ok, you got me there. But how does my mistake invalidate his opinion?

Well, the fact is, the US and the Brits have vastly different capabilities, and different points of view. Notice that it was the US Navy that took out 3 pirates with 3 simultaneous shots at night. That has some bearing.

[Irn-Bru]

They're our ships, U.S. flagged vessels is all I'm worried about. We're not briging in the Navy, Marines, or even the ROTC. How should these pirates be dealt with the next time they take U.S. captives or hi-jack a U.S. flagged vessel?

If we don't protect our own, who should, then?

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. I understand that ships sail under a standard, but I'm disagreeing that they are somehow "ours" in a way that means this country is obliged to send its military wherever civilians go in the name of protection. The US shouldn't be in the escort business except when defending what is, literally, national property. See what I mean?

For example, you say that they are our ships, but do you or I actually own them, or even a part of them? As far as I know, the ships we are talking about are commercial, privately owned vessels. (Unless I'm mistaken on that point?)

[PulpExposure]

Pulp... I could care less how "well" these nice young PIRATES treat their PRISONERS. Bottom line... they are international criminals, kidnappers, extortionists, vile and disgusting thugs.

As you may have noticed, Captain Peters was not in the least "broken up" that three of them had their heads ventilated next to him. "Awwww... my poor hosts". Nope. He was pretty well pleased with the result.

Please do not propose to apologize for their thuggery. If a bank is robbed, the fact that the bank robber says "thank you" on his way out the door does not mitigate his crime.

In this country, if you unjustly hold an innocent person at gunpoint, they are not entitled to mitigation because they did not kill the person. This is among the most ludicrous arguments in defense of a non-aggressive response I can imagine.

I'm not apologizing for their behavior. I just found it interesting that they treated their hostages so well (as compared to other hostage-takers). Shrug. I'm on record with saying we should level their pirate port, remember.

Oh and FYI there is built in mitigation for a hostage taker in this country who doesn't kill their hostage, as opposed to a hostage taker in this country who kills their hostage. One faces kidnapping charges. The other faces murder and kidnapping charges...

Well, the fact is, the US and the Brits have vastly different capabilities, and different points of view. Notice that it was the US Navy that took out 3 pirates with 3 simultaneous shots at night. That has some bearing.

And the French did a hostage rescue earlier...yet I'd still say that the Brits and us are more similar in our responses than the French and we are. I'd hazard the Brits would act similarly to us if they had the chance.

The marksmanship of those SEALS was really something else...

Edit:

I actually guess it's not as easy to wipe these guys out, as many of them aren't stationed out of the land port.

Many use mother ships:

Proceeding farther offshore is less an option than one might think. It is now clear that the Somali buccaneers have mother ships from which they will launch rigid hull inflatables. One seizure actually took place 450 nautical miles offshore.

And...

Instead, you chose to attempt to belittle those portions in which I agree with you...

Noted, and my apologies. I didn't understand you were using the i688 as a vehicle for a SEAL incursion. To be fair, it's not exactly clear that's what you meant, however

[Countertrey]

Oh and FYI there is built in mitigation for a hostage taker in this country who doesn't kill their hostage, as opposed to a hostage taker in this country who kills their hostage. One faces kidnapping charges. The other faces murder and kidnapping charges...

That's not mitigation. Those are entirely different crimes... murder and manslaughter versus kidnapping and terrorizing.

You are not sentencing based on "nice" kidnappers versus "mean" kidnappers...

[VetSkinsFan]

They're our ships, U.S. flagged vessels is all I'm worried about. We're not briging in the Navy, Marines, or even the ROTC. How should these pirates be dealt with the next time they take U.S. captives or hi-jack a U.S. flagged vessel?

If we don't protect our own, who should, then?

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across. I understand that ships sail under a standard, but I'm disagreeing that they are somehow "ours" in a way that means this country is obliged to send its military wherever civilians go in the name of protection. The US shouldn't be in the escort business except when defending what is, literally, national property. See what I mean?

For example, you say that they are our ships, but do you or I actually own them, or even a part of them? As far as I know, the ships we are talking about are commercial, privately owned vessels. (Unless I'm mistaken on that point?)

So, you're arguing that because they are privately owned U.S. companies, or manged under U.S. companies, that they are not entitled to protection by the U.S.?

Let's just say, for simplicity of argument, that the company who owns them is 100% U.S. based. The same company bought 100% of these ships with no joint international venture. These vessels also employ U.S. civilians. That makes it, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. vessel with U.S. assets. These U.S. vessels, traveling abroad, are attacked, aggressed upon, or however you wish to categorize it.

These U.S. civilians are taken at gunpoint by kidnappers, terrorists, or however you wish to catagorize them. It is my argument, that these are U.S. assets and interests and these U.S. assets and interests should, in fact, be able to be protected by U.S. Military.

It is my understanding that you believe that these U.S. assets and interests have no right of protection by the U.S. Military.

I hope I've broken it down specific enough to express my point. It may be easier to understand where you're coming from if you actually expressed your position as opposed to disecting mine only.

[Irn-Bru]

So, you're arguing that because they are provately owned U.S. companies, or manged under U.S. companies, that they are not entitled to protection by the U.S.?

The are not entitled to the protection of the U.S. military wherever they decide to go. Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

Let's just say, for simplicity of argument, that the company who owns them is 100% U.S. based. The same company bought 100% of these ships with no joint international venture. These vessels also employ U.S. civilians.

Sure. But let's see whether this follows. . .

That makes it, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. vessel with U.S. assets. These U.S. vessels, traveling abroad, are attacked, aggressed upon, or however you wish to categorize it.

So all of the sudden the assets are nationalized and owned by the country because all of their activity took place within the US? My question is: when do I get some of the profits of this company, since apparently I now own it (in part)? Actually, I'm short on cash right now and would like to sell my share in this company. The cost of providing security for it is also something I can't afford. Since I have ownership in this thing, let me disassociate from it, please.

These U.S. civilians are taken at gunpoint by kidnappers, terrorists, or however you wish to catagorize them. It is my argument, that these are U.S. assets and interests and these U.S. assets and interests should, in fact, be able to be protected by U.S. Military.

But there are problems with this viewpoint that I pointed out a couple of pages ago. I'll give the gist of what I mean here:

Guaranteeing any good or service as a socialized right removes the cost of providing it from those who should be doing the paying. This means that people who don't want to pay for it (and, frankly, can't afford it) have to, the people who should be paying a lot more for it don't, and the service provider cannot provide the good with any efficiency because all price signals and profit/loss have been removed. In my view, it's insane to make that a national policy for anything—security and protection services half way around the world included.

It is my understanding that you believe that these U.S. assets and interests have no right of protection by the U.S. Military.

For those people traveling to every last place on the globe, all else being equal, no, they don't. That's correct.

[Irn-Bru]

It may be easier to understand where you're coming from if you actually expressed your position as opposed to disecting mine only.

By the way, I always have a positive opinion on things and not just criticism. I do not consider myself to be a cynic.

[tcwest10]

I have a very nice, tall flagpole in my front yard. I fly the American Flag on it. If my house were invaded by burglars of any ethnicity, I highly doubt that the military would "handle it" for me.
While I'm glad the Navy was able to free the Captain of this vessel, I'm pretty sure that we can't be over there policing everything. That should be the responsibility of the nation that claims that part of the ocean as its own.
Incidentally, I think 'Naval Snipers' would be a good name for a rock band.

[Countertrey]

VSF:

That makes it, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. vessel with U.S. assets. These U.S. vessels, traveling abroad, are attacked, aggressed upon, or however you wish to categorize it.

Iron Brew:

So all of the sudden the assets are nationalized and owned by the country because all of their activity took place within the US? My question is: when do I get some of the profits of this company, since apparently I now own it (in part)? Actually, I'm short on cash right now and would like to sell my share in this company. The cost of providing security for it is also something I can't afford. Since I have ownership in this thing, let me disassociate from it, please.

I just want to note that (due to the strategic importance of transoceanic shipping), these companies, and their conveyances, are considered military assets. They are, in fact, are calculated into the equation of US military shipping capacity. That implies that there is a national security interest in maintaining the safety and availibility of these assets. Just another bone to chew on.

[Irn-Bru]

I just want to note that (due to the strategic importance of transoceanic shipping), these companies, and their conveyances, are considered military assets. They are, in fact, are calculated into the equation of US military shipping capacity. That implies that there is a national security interest in maintaining the safety and availibility of these assets. Just another bone to chew on.

Hmm. This begs the question, though. I don't doubt that the military does do this; I'm pointing out that there's a problem with doing so and am asking why.

[PulpExposure]

I have a very nice, tall flagpole in my front yard. I fly the American Flag on it. If my house were invaded by burglars of any ethnicity, I highly doubt that the military would "handle it" for me.

You're right. Posse comitatus

[Countertrey]

I have a very nice, tall flagpole in my front yard. I fly the American Flag on it. If my house were invaded by burglars of any ethnicity, I highly doubt that the military would "handle it" for me.

Ignoring, of course, that you describe a criminal activity to which the Police would respond... as would be your right and expectation as a law abiding citizen. Poor analogy. This is a non-starter.

While I'm glad the Navy was able to free the Captain of this vessel, I'm pretty sure that we can't be over there policing everything. That should be the responsibility of the nation that claims that part of the ocean as its own.

Fair enough... except, well, there is no national authority there. If there were, and if it were enforcing internationally accepted maritime law, there would not be an issue here, now would there? Beyond that, there have been attacks even well beyond 200 miles from shore, in clearly international waters. You ok with that?

Enforcing the right of free passage is one of the original purposes and missions of the US Navy.

As I have pointed out, there is much precedent, from Thomas Jefferson's emasculation of the Barbary thugs of his day, to Jerry Ford taking out the pirates who captured and held the Mayaguez. Obama has plenty of history to fall back on, should he choose.

No one here proposes that we solve the problem... but the protection of US shipping is in our interest, and the US Navy should continue to be doing what it can to intervene in the protection of US Shipping. There is the principle of free access to non-national waters. If any government behaved in the way the pirates do, it would be considered an act of war.

[Countertrey]

I just want to note that (due to the strategic importance of transoceanic shipping), these companies, and their conveyances, are considered military assets. They are, in fact, are calculated into the equation of US military shipping capacity. That implies that there is a national security interest in maintaining the safety and availibility of these assets. Just another bone to chew on.

Hmm. This begs the question, though. I don't doubt that the military does do this; I'm pointing out that there's a problem with doing so and am asking why.

If there were a crisis of significant proportion that overwhelmed the military's capacity for transport, it would, upon the execution of the necessary executive orders, use this as a pool of last resort. It was done, as an example, in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and Korea. The same holds true for air transport and rail. It is, essentially, emminent domain... and any national government will reserve it's "right" to claim such use. Unless you are living in a truly anarchistic society, this is a reality.

[Countertrey]

I just want to note that (due to the strategic importance of transoceanic shipping), these companies, and their conveyances, are considered military assets. They are, in fact, are calculated into the equation of US military shipping capacity. That implies that there is a national security interest in maintaining the safety and availibility of these assets. Just another bone to chew on.

Hmm. This begs the question, though. I don't doubt that the military does do this; I'm pointing out that there's a problem with doing so and am asking why.

Personally, I don't have an issue with it. It's one of those area where, no matter what your political philosophy, you are completely at the mercy of those in power. Those in power, inevitably find that they "learn" things upon taking power that change their views of such issues of "surveilance" and "national security" (note the profound disappointment of Obama's supporters that, huh... he isn't getting rid of certain powers that he said he would... )

It is what it is, and the bottom line is, if the government wants something during what it declares to be a crisis, it is going to take it. That is true no matter what country you live in, and there is not a damned thing that either you nor I can do about it. The president can assume any number of "powers" during a national crisis. Who's to stop him?

If there were a crisis of significant proportion that overwhelmed the military's capacity for transport, it would, upon the execution of the necessary executive orders, use this as a pool of last resort. It was done, as an example, in the Civil War, WW1, WW2, and Korea. The same holds true for air transport and rail. It is, essentially, emminent domain... and any national government will reserve it's "right" to claim such use. Unless you are living in a truly anarchistic society, this is a reality.

[Irn-Bru]

OK, you won't get an argument from me that this is a reality. But the problems I'm pointing out are just as much a reality, and they are put in place by national policy.

So national policy creates the problem, then purports to solve it, and finally is above criticism. . .because it's national policy?

[Countertrey]

OK, you won't get an argument from me that this is a reality. But the problems I'm pointing out are just as much a reality, and they are put in place by national policy.

So national policy creates the problem, then purports to solve it, and finally is above criticism. . .because it's national policy?

Dude... it's not a matter of national policy... but the existence of a national government. It's one of those things that ALL governments claim as their right when they feel their survival is at stake.

As I said, the only way it doesn't exist is if there are no governments. It is a problem with no solution. I don't so much like it, as concede it. There is no point fretting... as long as there is a national government, this will be the reality.

[tcwest10]

I have a very nice, tall flagpole in my front yard. I fly the American Flag on it. If my house were invaded by burglars of any ethnicity, I highly doubt that the military would "handle it" for me.

Ignoring, of course, that you describe a criminal activity to which the Police would respond... as would be your right and expectation as a law abiding citizen. Poor analogy. This is a non-starter.

Yes, they would...if I called them, and not because I bear the flag of my country on my private property. I'll thank you to not grade my analogies simply because you don't agree with them. The house belongs to me, a private citizen. The Maersk belongs to a private company. What part of that is non-analogous? Is it a simple analogy? Yes, absolutely. I try to boil things down to Occum's Razor-type solutions.

While I'm glad the Navy was able to free the Captain of this vessel, I'm pretty sure that we can't be over there policing everything. That should be the responsibility of the nation that claims that part of the ocean as its own.

Fair enough... except, well, there is no national authority there. If there were, and if it were enforcing internationally accepted maritime law, there would not be an issue here, now would there? Beyond that, there have been attacks even well beyond 200 miles from shore, in clearly international waters. You ok with that?

Like I wrote, bud...I'm glad the Navy was able to get this thing under control, but we are a nation at war. We cannot spread ourselves out so thin. If private companies are aware of a piracy problem in a particular area, it should be incumbent upon them to take action. Who's to say that the sudden interest in ships sailing under the American flag isn't part of a much larger picture...drawn up by parties we are currently at war with, or are currently keeping a close eye on with our carriers? Is that paranoia? Maybe. Doesn't mean it ain't happening, though.

Enforcing the right of free passage is one of the original purposes and missions of the US Navy.

No argument from me. What I'm saying is, the old adage of "Fool me once..." ought to apply now. It's time for the shippers to step up and hire security. This is not a new problem. We simply do not have the resources to send the military out after every angry teenager with a gun. Not in NYC, not in Somalia. Not now.

[Irn-Bru]

Dude... it's not a matter of national policy... but the existence of a national government. It's one of those things that ALL governments claim as their right when they feel their survival is at stake.

As I said, the only way it doesn't exist is if there are no governments. It is a problem with no solution. I don't so much like it, as concede it. There is no point fretting... as long as there is a national government, this will be the reality.

The implication here is that if the U.S. government told these shipping companies "Find a way to protect your vessels, because the U.S. Navy doesn't have the resources to waste doing it for you" our country would cease to exist. Not a satisfying answer to me.

I don't think it's too hard to imagine our government simply not providing these services. The question is whether we'd all be better off following such a move.

[VetSkinsFan]

So, you're arguing that because they are provately owned U.S. companies, or manged under U.S. companies, that they are not entitled to protection by the U.S.?

The are not entitled to the protection of the U.S. military wherever they decide to go. Yes, this is exactly what I'm saying.

Let's just say, for simplicity of argument, that the company who owns them is 100% U.S. based. The same company bought 100% of these ships with no joint international venture. These vessels also employ U.S. civilians.

Sure. But let's see whether this follows. . .

That makes it, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. vessel with U.S. assets. These U.S. vessels, traveling abroad, are attacked, aggressed upon, or however you wish to categorize it.

So all of the sudden the assets are nationalized and owned by the country because all of their activity took place within the US? My question is: when do I get some of the profits of this company, since apparently I now own it (in part)? Actually, I'm short on cash right now and would like to sell my share in this company. The cost of providing security for it is also something I can't afford. Since I have ownership in this thing, let me disassociate from it, please.

These U.S. civilians are taken at gunpoint by kidnappers, terrorists, or however you wish to catagorize them. It is my argument, that these are U.S. assets and interests and these U.S. assets and interests should, in fact, be able to be protected by U.S. Military.

But there are problems with this viewpoint that I pointed out a couple of pages ago. I'll give the gist of what I mean here:

Guaranteeing any good or service as a socialized right removes the cost of providing it from those who should be doing the paying. This means that people who don't want to pay for it (and, frankly, can't afford it) have to, the people who should be paying a lot more for it don't, and the service provider cannot provide the good with any efficiency because all price signals and profit/loss have been removed. In my view, it's insane to make that a national policy for anything—security and protection services half way around the world included.

It is my understanding that you believe that these U.S. assets and interests have no right of protection by the U.S. Military.

For those people traveling to every last place on the globe, all else being equal, no, they don't. That's correct.

So you're Mr I-B strolling down in any corner you want in the U.S. You get robbed at gun point. You're saying that it's not the authoritative force's responsibility to make sure you have a safe passage. Don't call 911 b/c you were pistol whipped and taken for all your personal belongings. This was, in fact, your responsibility. You should have hired security in the event that you may be confronted by an aggressor.

Is this about right?

[Irn-Bru]

No, it's not right, Vet. Because these shipping vessels aren't sailing down the Mississippi. They are sailing halfway around the globe.

If I make a trip to the middle of Africa, can I demand that a U.S. military unit be assigned to me for my personal security? What if I'm there on a business trip?

[VetSkinsFan]

No, it's not right, Vet. Because these shipping vessels aren't sailing down the Mississippi. They are sailing halfway around the globe.

If I make a trip to the middle of Africa, can I demand that a U.S. military unit be assigned to me for my personal security? What if I'm there on a business trip?

I think it's safe to assume that if there's a U.S. interest in a common route and there are terrorists/guerrilla (after all, we don't have jungle pirates) activity frequently harrassing all who pass, INCLUDING U.S., then yes, there would be some intervention. But again, this is where the African jurisdiction should be taking care of this, not us, anyway. International waters have no governmental jurisdiction.

[Irn-Bru]

That's the assumption that I'm questioning, Vet, so I don't see it as a "safe assumption."

Why is it automatically a government jurisdiction? What is so repugnant about these commercial lines taking care of their own security concerns? Obviously many African nations along the coast will not be able to handle security. But how it follows that the US military should get involved is beyond me.

Again, whatever country I'm walking around in may have terrible police protection. Does this mean that me and my business partners can demand a U.S. military escort?

[Countertrey]

The Maersk belongs to a private company. What part of that is non-analogous?

The Maersk Alabama was traveling with the well established expectation that it had the right to be there, and free of molestation. More like your right to travel on an Interstate between Baltimore and Washington in your private car, than sitting in your house.

We simply do not have the resources to send the military out after every angry teenager with a gun.

We have all the resources we need to deal with this problem, without adding a lick of burden to the military... as I have noted before, we need not pursue each and every thug onto the water... but destroy his base. A successful pirate must conduct business from the water's edge (kind of hard to be a pirate in the middle of the desert)... which limits the places where he can hide his business, and significantly reduces the area to be monitored for targeting list development. We don't need to put a single boot on the ground.

You think we shouldn't. I think that the principle of freedom of the seas is one of those values that must be defended. If the Somalis are able to do it... how long before others pick up the pace? Y'all really want to wait until it's that big a problem?

We'll just have to disagree.