Piracy

[Mr. Wynand]

What do you think about using letters of marque and reprisal to stop piracy?

[RussK]

With so much money being spent on maintaining and growing a standing military, Navy for this case in particular, I see no reason for this. I think that if the government is going to grant authority to private entities to target and destroy pirate capabilities, the Navy should be using their assets to patrol and destroy the pirate elements to the utmost capability; and if the Navy were to do that, private or militia type of involvement would probably be a so small as to not even be noticeable. Not to mention, if such an authority were to be given to a private entity it would be construed as an act of war anyway. Then again, maybe it could help, as private entities currently help the military in Iraq and Afghanistan fulfill their jobs where military personnel of particular specialties were or are, low in numbers.

[Grames]

What do you think about using letters of marque and reprisal to stop piracy?

There is no prize money in it. Any reward would be in the form of a bounty from the U.S. government. But since we are already paying for a navy, why can't they do it?

Letters of marque and reprisal are best used when you don't have a navy, or not enough ships to go around.

[John McVey]

Lloyds looks to be taking the concept of Q-ships seriously again. A Q-Ship is a ship that appears to be an ordinary merchant but is secretly armed to the teeth and whose mission is to lure in and destroy commerce-raiding vessels.

It's worth considering, but only as part of a broader program that includes overt government involvement. What Q-ships would provide is a cheaper and quicker means of identifying and killing individual pirates and pirate vessels. Proper Navy action and clear-cut admonitions from national governments are still required, because it is naval action that would deal with pirate port facilities and it is no-nonsense political words that lays down the law. Governments also need to take direct charge lest the seas become vigilantised: the Q-ships have to be crewed by disciplined Navy men with rational Rules of Engagement, not angry merchants with a grudge and itchy trigger fingers. True, the concrete outcome will be largely the same in the first instance, but it would be morally much cleaner and hence more viable as an integrated part of a longer-term solution.

JJM

[NotCrazyDan]

Arm the merchantmen! I was amazed when I learned that those guys don't have any weapons at all. 22 sailors, most of whom are ex-military and armed with rifles, is a deterrent! I don't understand all the emphasis on non-lethal weapons and speakers that make irritating sounds, and water cannons to nudge the silly pirates away.

They're pirates! They're not to be coddled. They're to be hanged and then shot, or shot and then hanged. They're murderers and thieves. Kill them.

When did we turn into such cowards?

When you consider that these guys operate in an area of water roughly the size of Texas, and do so in little boats which are practically undetectable until you can visually see them, you start understanding that the Navy can't do everything. At some point people need to be able to defend themselves, whether in the ocean or on land.

John can you imagine someone telling you to sail through that straight on a boat with precious cargo and pirates operating off the coast, and then telling you to trust in the Navy, but that you're too immature and undisciplined to keep a firearm for your own protection? Can you imagine what you'd say to that individual? I can.

Edited April 27, 2009 by NotCrazyDan

[RussK]

It's worth considering, but only as part of a broader program that includes overt government involvement. What Q-ships would provide is a cheaper and quicker means of identifying and killing individual pirates and pirate vessels.

Wow. That seems like an excellent idea. One of these ships could lure in a group of pirates, destroy the attackers, and the navy could collect information by monitoring those that flee from the surprise. You'd get a bunch of dead pirates, and send a message to future attackers.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think the whole "we are powerless against the pirates" position of the world fleet is just ridiculous and cowardly. These pirates are in very small boats way out at sea, and yes the merchant fleet has the right to self-defense. Also, it is quite possible to simply consider these raids to be an act of war and to destroy the ports these raiding ships are coming from.

I think it is a combination of pragmatism and political correctness that prevents the civilized world from taking a very strong moral stance against the pirates. Pragmatism is anti-principles (including anti-morality) and political correctness doesn't hold anybody responsible for what they do (the Somalians are poor and without government, so their actions may be excusable).

Fortunately, some ships in the area have armed themselves and have fired upon the pirates, driving them off; but more needs to be done to make the shipping lanes safe once again.

[John McVey]

John can you imagine someone telling you to sail through that straight on a boat with precious cargo and pirates operating off the coast, and then telling you to trust in the Navy, but that you're too immature and undisciplined to keep a firearm for your own protection? Can you imagine what you'd say to that individual? I can.

I didn't say that the merchants themselves shouldn't be armed, only that merchants shouldn't be the ones doing the active seek-and-destroy. By all means, arm the merchants - but for defence only. It's exactly the same principle as people being free to be armed while on the streets but not permitted to be crime-fighters because that's for the police to take care of.

JJM

[John McVey]

(the Somalians are poor and without government, so their actions may be excusable).

Understandable, yes - but not excusable. Never confuse the two.

Putting the situation in its best light, apparently the lack of government and attendant protection of property allowed unscrupulous foreign thieves to destroy Somali fishing grounds by systematic overfishing. That deprived the Somali fishermen of their normal means of living, so they turned to piracy.

The problem is that the former is not in the slightest way an excuse for the latter. Certainly, these men are victims - but that is not sufficient justification for going out and victimising innocent others in turn. It is as justifiable as a man in the following scenario: a self-employed businessman with his own shop in a part of town that has started to become lawless goes to work and finds his business trashed by looters from across town. Being now financially ruined, he promptly takes up a gun and holds up the first truck that passes an arterial-road intersection near his burned-out storefront. The man's actions totally destroy any legitimate sympathy and help he might have received on the account of his being a victim (note that others HAVE been trying to help him and his neighbours for years, including trying to deal with the damn looters). Similarly, the truck driver is totally justified in responding with lethal force and the trucking business is equally justified in getting what law he can to clamp down on men like that former store-owner with their full force too.

Further, it is totally out of order for onlookers and commentators to tut-tut the truck driver and trucking company for not wanting to consider the nuances of the businessman's predicament when they make those calls for response with force. These chatterers are essentially expecting the truck driver and company to be shmoos, so altruistic as to be expected to risk being killed without trying to defend themselves for the crime of being richer and happening to pass by. The proper response is the same as Prometheus made in Anthem: I am not a servant to their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. Whatever their terrible position, they have no grounds to expect leniency from innocent others or their armed representatives, not after putting those others' lives in danger. While we may express our sympathy for the prior circumstances, we are completely justified in using lethal force to say that their response to their situation is totally unacceptable. If they're going to force us into a kill-or-be-killed situation then that's too damn bad for them, all they can (or should) expect is to be on the business end of our bigger and sharper sticks.

JJM

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

While we may express our sympathy for the prior circumstances, we are completely justified in using lethal force to say that their response to their situation is totally unacceptable. If they're going to force us into a kill-or-be-killed situation then that's too damn bad for them, all they can (or should) expect is to be on the business end of our bigger and sharper sticks.

Actually, I don't have much sympathy for them either, since I think they are the ones that tore down their government, so they brought it upon themselves to have to defend themselves by gang warfare.

Besides, I was not presenting my views when I was conveying the views of the politically correct. I'm fairly certain the "solution' to all of this by the altruist / political correct mindset will be to send them food supplies and such to try to persuade them that we will help them so they don't need to get all irate and turn to piracy. In other words, the governments of the civilized world will appease them instead of standing up for our individual rights.

"Fishing in Somalian waters" is just an excuse anyhow. If it is in international waters, it doesn't belong to anyone, and no one has tried to uphold private property rights when it comes to fishing.

[Mr. Wynand]

Arm the merchantmen! I was amazed when I learned that those guys don't have any weapons at all. 22 sailors, most of whom are ex-military and armed with rifles, is a deterrent! I don't understand all the emphasis on non-lethal weapons and speakers that make irritating sounds, and water cannons to nudge the silly pirates away.

They're pirates! They're not to be coddled. They're to be hanged and then shot, or shot and then hanged. They're murderers and thieves. Kill them.

When did we turn into such cowards?

When you consider that these guys operate in an area of water roughly the size of Texas, and do so in little boats which are practically undetectable until you can visually see them, you start understanding that the Navy can't do everything. At some point people need to be able to defend themselves, whether in the ocean or on land.

John can you imagine someone telling you to sail through that straight on a boat with precious cargo and pirates operating off the coast, and then telling you to trust in the Navy, but that you're too immature and undisciplined to keep a firearm for your own protection? Can you imagine what you'd say to that individual? I can.

I saw a special on pirates on the history channel. It was ridiculous the way they spoke of retaliatory force. It showed a crew member grab a pistol and run out to kill the pirates armed with AK-47s and RPGs like that was unfair! It comes down to the question: Is it immoral to defend you're property from force?

[RussK]

Another reason why letters of marque wouldn't be worthwhile is due to what's already been talked about frequently here: the UN laws banning firearms on vessels, the law currently placing the merchants in danger. None of the private fighters would be able to carry weapons on board, and wouldn't be very effective. If you get rid of those laws, merchants would be able to protect themselves, rendering privateers almost worthless. Then again, that's not likely going to happen due to the pragmatism and political correctness that Thomas has highlighted.

Unrelated to piracy, I did see a case where private fighters were contracted by a government and successfully brought in a ship to port. It was on a show, I think on the History channel, where the Liberian government hired a private company, composed of British and American personnel, to patrol Liberian waters for illegal fishing activity. The Privateers' job is to bring vessels, engaging in illegal fishing, into port where the Liberian government can dispense their form of justice to the occupants. In the show the privateers were actually able to board a ship and intimidate the Captain to go to port, but they were quite concerned about not having weapons to defend themselves in the attempt.

[Zip]

There is a case now where one western nation which had brought a group of pirates to Kenya for trial is now being sued by the pirates for leaving them in a place renown for torture and inhumane prisons.

This is where the rule of law bites you in the ass. You can not charge a person for a crime and expect a one sided trial if your own laws (specifically your bill of rights or what have you) are broken in the process.

[Joseph F.]

I saw a special on pirates on the history channel. It was ridiculous the way they spoke of retaliatory force. It showed a crew member grab a pistol and run out to kill the pirates armed with AK-47s and RPGs like that was unfair! It comes down to the question: Is it immoral to defend you're property from force?

I think what many of you are missing here is the economic implications of arming merchant ships. If a crew member is shot in a pirate attack, the owner of the ship is required to take care of expenses. The owner would be lucky to get off with a few million per death, but 8 figures would not be unheard of. When you arm a ship, you also increase the risk of an accident, mutiny, or just a murder. Again, the ship owner is liable for these things. Because the insurer bears much of the risk associated with arming a ship, insurance premiums would skyrocket - I'm thinking maybe 5x higher - for an armed ship. Most ship owners and insurers would much rather just pay the pirates (around 1 million maybe) in the rare case of an attack rather than dealing with the increased risk.

While I don't think we should prohibit people from arming their ships (and to my knowledge, we don't), I don't think we can really force ship owners to arm their crew and bear the additional expense, at least as long as they are liable to the degree they are now.

It's all about the money, sirs and ladies.

As for stopping piracy, you stop it at the heart - pirate "motherships" and, more importantly, on the ground in Somolia. International law prohibits us from doing much, and the legal issues involved are much more complex than most of us realize.

[Jake_Ellison]

I think what many of you are missing here is the economic implications of arming merchant ships. If a crew member is shot in a pirate attack, the owner of the ship is required to take care of expenses. The owner would be lucky to get off with a few million per death, but 8 figures would not be unheard of. When you arm a ship, you also increase the risk of an accident, mutiny, or just a murder.

I think that depends on the choice of crew. For instance, arming me would in no way increase any risk to anyone peaceful, it would just decrease the risk of piracy.

Not to mention the fact that the weapons could be stored in lockup, away from the crew, as they are done on many military vessels and subs.

While I don't think we should prohibit people from arming their ships (and to my knowledge, we don't)

Most ports have inflexible laws against armed ships.(and firearms on ships in general) Ships need to enter ports, so...

International law prohibits us from doing much, and the legal issues involved are much more complex than most of us realize.

As Clawq put it in another thread, international Law should also prohibit piracy. Since it doesn't, we should not allow ourselves to be hindered by such nonsense.

A law is something that is enforced. Empty rhetoric is not law, not even of a billion bureacrats get really really upset with people who don't take it seriously.

[Maximus]

International law. :snort:

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Here's a news story stating that arming ships has gone up ten-fold, especially for American ships, since the piracy has become big news. It goes into some detail as to what the legal requirements are, and it's not an easy mix to deal with.

[Mixon]

Here's a news story stating that arming ships has gone up ten-fold, especially for American ships, since the piracy has become big news. It goes into some detail as to what the legal requirements are, and it's not an easy mix to deal with.

It's refreshing to read about how a relatively small group of men armed with the profit motive are able to provide better protection to merchant shipping than a multi-billion dollar navy.

[RationalBiker]

It's refreshing to read about how a relatively small group of men armed with the profit motive are able to provide better protection to merchant shipping than a multi-billion dollar navy.

In all fairness it should be noted that the private security being provided has a very specific job function. The Navy's does not have the luxury of having a sole function of protecting specific ships. The Navy could accomplish the same thing if they detailed armed sailors to private shipping vessels.

It's pretty much the same thing that as private security versus a police force. Private security works a particular site while a police force has the responsibility of a whole city or county.

[Mixon]

The Navy could accomplish the same thing if they detailed armed sailors to private shipping vessels.

Certainly, but that isn't the point. The point is that with all the vast resources at its disposal, the Navy didn't come up with that elegant solution first. A small group of thinking individuals did and the market will reward them handsomely for it. That is the value of the profit motive.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The US Navy has its own elegant solution but doesn't have permission to do it: Tell the pirates to back off or their ships and their ports will be blown to smithereens

There is sense in which we have the opposite of the famous Pax Romana. Ancient Rome had many years of peace because they annihilated their enemies. We seem more concerned with not hurting their feelings.

[RationalBiker]

Certainly, but that isn't the point. The point is that with all the vast resources at its disposal, the Navy didn't come up with that elegant solution first. A small group of thinking individuals did and the market will reward them handsomely for it. That is the value of the profit motive.

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't the job of the Navy to provide private security to all merchant ships in all shipping lanes around the world.

I'm not saying anything bad about profit motive or the market, I'm simply saying the Navy could not possibly do the same kind of job that one can expect of a private security organization. Also, it was no stroke of brilliance to come up with the idea "hey, we need private security". Land-based merchants have been doing that for quite some time.

Kudos to them for the job they are doing, but I just don't see it as some stroke of brilliance or as a legitimate knock against the Navy.

[Mixon]

The point I'm trying to make is that it isn't the job of the Navy to provide private security to all merchant ships in all shipping lanes around the world.

I'm not saying anything bad about profit motive or the market, I'm simply saying the Navy could not possibly do the same kind of job that one can expect of a private security organization. Also, it was no stroke of brilliance to come up with the idea "hey, we need private security". Land-based merchants have been doing that for quite some time.

Kudos to them for the job they are doing, but I just don't see it as some stroke of brilliance or as a legitimate knock against the Navy.

I don't advocate that the navy is to provide security for the entire globe. It is our navy's responsibilty to maintain our control of the sea lanes. This includes protecting our merchant ships from acts of piracy on the high seas. Other nations who use the same trade lanes do benefit from the umbrella effect of our protection, though we are operating for our own interest. The US Navy is not fulfilling its responsibility fully and that is why private forces have stepped in to pick up the slack. As you mentioned early, our Navy certainly has the capability to place armed sailors on our merchant ships but they haven't embraced that strategy. Why? They have the responsibility and the means, yet they aren't doing the job. Is that not cause for legitimate criticism?

[L-C]

Use flamethrowers and white phosphorus.