Somalian Piracy

[Shintogoru]

Today in International Law and Diplomatic Relations, the class discussed the piracy occurring in Somalia. Anyway, I attend Harding University in Searcy, Arkansas, which is a highly conservative private university; because of this conservatism, one rarely hears the liberal side of a discussion (although the professor of this particular course is a liberal, the university all but completely disallows the voicing of his views). In the class, the professor stated that one of the major reasons behind the outbreak of Somalian piracy originates not only from the "failure" of the Somalian state but also from the fact that many maritime countries (that is, a country with significant naval capabilities) dump toxic waste in the coastal waters of Somalia. These Somalian "pirates" then took it upon themselves to defend the Somalian coast from the abuse of these countries by attacking and commandeering vessels of those maritime countries (though obviously some of these "pirates" engage in these activities merely for economic gain). Although I obviously believe that the methods utilized by these Somalian "pirates" are rather uncouth, I must admit that the abuse of the "failure" of the Somalian state and the inability of Somalia to defend itself and its borders is a problem that must be solved. Additionally, I really feel that Obama's decision (or whoever decided, since I doubt Obama received word of the killing of the three "pirates" until after the fact) to shoot those three "pirates" was ill-advised, especially since these "pirates" had declared a vendetta against American vessels and crewmen. In this particular occurrence, the lifeboat, in which the three "pirates" held the American captain, was being pulled in by an American ship as the negotiations were taking place; it seems likely that the negotiations were merely a pretense for the American military to show that it had no choice. In other words, the American negotiators intentionally caused the "break down in negotiations" that led to the killing of those three individuals by the Navy Seals. If that was not the case, then, at least, the situation was certainly not nearly as bad as the military claimed. How coincidental that the Seals just happened to find the perfect opportunity to kill all three targets simultaneously at the exact moment that negotiations completely halted.

I thought that I would ask some of the people outside of the conservative Christian bubble of Harding for their opinion. I do not mean to imply that I discourage conservatives to reply and comment; in fact, I encourage it. I just wanted to hear what people in the "real world" think about this particular issue.

[ReiperX]

No matter their reasoning, piracy is piracy. And their actions are unacceptable and I fully support the use of military force against these pirates to protect our nation's and our allies' interests in the area.

While if we were dumping toxic waste in the area, we were in the wrong for that, but piracy was not the answer.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/14/09 04:23 PM, ReiperX wrote: No matter their reasoning, piracy is piracy. And their actions are unacceptable and I fully support the use of military force against these pirates to protect our nation's and our allies' interests in the area.

While if we were dumping toxic waste in the area, we were in the wrong for that, but piracy was not the answer.

While I do agree that the use of piracy was wrong, I still cannot bring myself to believe that those Nave Seals had any reason--other than suspicion and fear--to kill the three individuals holding the captain hostage. Of course, something must have been done, but killing them was not the best decision.

[Ericho]

At 4/14/09 04:28 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

:: I still cannot bring myself to believe that those Nave Seals had any reason--other than suspicion and fear--to kill the three individuals holding the captain hostage. Of course, something must have been done, but killing them was not the best decision.

So what you're saying is the people holding it hostage hadn't killed anybody? I would agree with that then, but I would like to know if they hadn't killed anyone.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/14/09 05:06 PM, Ericho wrote:

At 4/14/09 04:28 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

I still cannot bring myself to believe that those Nave Seals had any reason--other than suspicion and fear--to kill the three individuals holding the captain hostage. Of course, something must have been done, but killing them was not the best decision.

So what you're saying is the people holding it hostage hadn't killed anybody? I would agree with that then, but I would like to know if they hadn't killed anyone.

Though I have no idea whether or not those people have ever murdered in the past, I do know that no one was killed in this particular incident. Also, it is known that these pirates in Somalia have always treated their captives in the most hospitable manner possible in the past. That is not to say that captivity is hospitable but that, compared to other similar groups, these pirates are rather benign.

[adrshepard]

Lets see:
The small lifeboat was surrounded by a Navy destroyer and other US ships, a bunch of angry SEALS, and an attack helicopter. Rather than accept the terms of arrest and prosecution, they decided to fire their weapons and point them at their hostage. Not a very smart move.

The whole "defending the borders from toxic waste dumping" is complete bullshit, spewn from the mouth of some guilt-ridden liberal who's too afraid to stand up for the rule of law. If it was really oriented towards defense, they would simply inspect the ships for waste and let go all the ones that didn't carry it. Instead they seize the crew of every ship they find and hold them for ransom.

What's even more disturbing is that you would actually entertain the possibility that we, the world's only superpower, should bow down to pirates because their lives are so "precious." You should be ashamed.

[Aughiris]

Piracy is a crime. Criminals are to be punished. If they do not cooperate, they should feel the consequences.

In this case, they did.

The end.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/14/09 05:32 PM, adrshepard wrote: Lets see:
The small lifeboat was surrounded by a Navy destroyer and other US ships, a bunch of angry SEALS, and an attack helicopter. Rather than accept the terms of arrest and prosecution, they decided to fire their weapons and point them at their hostage. Not a very smart move.

The whole "defending the borders from toxic waste dumping" is complete bullshit, spewn from the mouth of some guilt-ridden liberal who's too afraid to stand up for the rule of law. If it was really oriented towards defense, they would simply inspect the ships for waste and let go all the ones that didn't carry it. Instead they seize the crew of every ship they find and hold them for ransom.

What's even more disturbing is that you would actually entertain the possibility that we, the world's only superpower, should bow down to pirates because their lives are so "precious." You should be ashamed.

Though I can see the possibility of what you said about the "defending the borders from toxic waste dumping," is it not also possible that the whole "point them [weapons] at their hostage" is complete bullshit, spewn from the mouth of a military commander trying to defend his course of action. Anyway, those pirates did not fire. And, other than the testimony of military officials, there is no proof that the pirates actually pointed their weapons at the captain. Those pirates could have easily fired on the captain without exposing themselves to the weapons of the Navy Seals; however, the Seals had all three in their sights simultaneously so they fired. I understand that it was a crisis, but that still does not justify killing them.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/14/09 05:32 PM, adrshepard wrote: What's even more disturbing is that you would actually entertain the possibility that we, the world's only superpower, should bow down to pirates because their lives are so "precious." You should be ashamed.

I do not think that the U.S. should just "bow down to pirates," but I do think that the U.S. and other maritime countries have no right to use the Somalian coast however it sees fit just because the country is unstable. Even though the U.S. is a superpower, that does not mean that the U.S. should always get its way. There are other people on this Earth besides Americans.

[generalwinter]

Maybe they had an initial intention of defending the coasts from toxic waste, but within like 10 seconds, they realized the profit they could make and said screw the coast, fill our pocket books.

[fli]

At 4/14/09 05:15 PM, Shintogoru wrote: Though I have no idea whether or not those people have ever murdered in the past, I do know that no one was killed in this particular incident. Also, it is known that these pirates in Somalia have always treated their captives in the most hospitable manner possible in the past. That is not to say that captivity is hospitable but that, compared to other similar groups, these pirates are rather benign.

First off-- we don't know the situation.
But I think anyone can assume that when somebody is holding another person hostage... the hostage's life is in danger.

Which makes the killing of the hostage-takers reasonable because of the situation.
This isn't exactly cold-blooded murder.

We don't know how things went down, but I believe none of it was without reason.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/14/09 06:01 PM, generalwinter wrote: Maybe they had an initial intention of defending the coasts from toxic waste, but within like 10 seconds, they realized the profit they could make and said screw the coast, fill our pocket books.

Originally the extent of the problem was only that Somalians attempted to tax the foreign ships attempting to dump toxic waste near their coast, well within the 12-mile territorial limit of the ocean. Anyway, I think that the most simple solution is to bring some form of government to reunite Somalia.

[adrshepard]

You're chalk full of great ideas, aren't you?

"We can't give in to their ransom demands but we can't use lethal force to rescue hostages."

"The easiest answer is to put in an effective, widely-accepted, and incorruptible government in one of those most god-forsaken hellholes in Africa."

What's next on the menu, eliminating global famine?

[Shintogoru]

At 4/14/09 07:30 PM, adrshepard wrote: You're chalk full of great ideas, aren't you?

"We can't give in to their ransom demands but we can't use lethal force to rescue hostages."

"The easiest answer is to put in an effective, widely-accepted, and incorruptible government in one of those most god-forsaken hellholes in Africa."

What's next on the menu, eliminating global famine?

I do, in fact, believe that piracy is a crime and should not be tolerated; however, I am not saying that lethal force can never be used. I never said anything about an "incorruptible" government; in fact, I only said something that can unite the Somalians and reinstate Somalian sovereignty (by "sovereignty" I mean the recognition given by other states that the territory of Somalia is solely under the control of Somalia).

[JoS]

Illegal fishing is a bigger issue to them then the dumping of toxic waste. Toxic waste is more of a side point. Other countries took advantage of the lawlessness of Somalia to illegally over fish in their waters, putting many Somali fishermen out of work. These fishermen became the first pirates.

Now it has taken itself to a new level, from resistance to opportunism.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 4/14/09 07:30 PM, adrshepard wrote:

What's next on the menu, eliminating global famine?

I wonder what's his solution for bank robbery would be?

[JoS]

At 4/14/09 09:01 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 4/14/09 07:30 PM, adrshepard wrote:

What's next on the menu, eliminating global famine?

I wonder what's his solution for bank robbery would be?

Give them keys to the safe so no one would get hurt.

[Adachiskindagod]

I should be going to bed but i feel compelled to respond to this thread.

I'm happy to see that even tho you attend a very conservative college, you don't completely disregard your liberal professors views. Shows that your a reasonable person.

And to that I must say this.

Implementing military force is only a temporary solution. No doubt putting a significant presence off the coast of Somalia will deter a lot of piracy, however this cannot be the way to deal with the situation. If you disagree with me, then look at the past few days. Even with a navy destroyer near Somalia, and all the media coverage of the hostilities, three more vessels were taken hostage literally a day or two ago. This goes to show how when pushed to the edge, people will resort to desperate measures, such as piracy. And this brings us to the heart of the problem.

Somalia is a mess, there is almost no government to speak of, and since there is no infrastructure, local authorities can do nothing to stop the piracy. Also, since the country is in such a poor state, the poorest of the poor must turn to crime, because it pays a hell of a lot better than any of their other options. For those who say, "Piracy is piracy, they should be punished" your just killing the rats, but they won't stop coming until you get rid of the rotten cheese under the fridge. More people should base their decision making on that approach, identify the temporary fix, and then do all you can to fix the heart of the problem.

I wish I could write much more but i rly do have to go to bed.

[Adachiskindagod]

At 4/14/09 09:20 PM, JoS wrote:

At 4/14/09 09:01 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote:

At 4/14/09 07:30 PM, adrshepard wrote:

What's next on the menu, eliminating global famine?

I wonder what's his solution for bank robbery would be?

Give them keys to the safe so no one would get hurt.

No, the solution would be to identify why the criminals turned to bank robbery. Probably poverty, and adjust so as to prevent there from being any motive to commit the crime. Instead of spending all the money on enforcement, we should spend it on prevention. You're probubly gonna say, that im "chalk full of ideas" but at least he's addressing the heart of the problem. If more people did, maybe more good could be accomplished.

[Shintogoru]

That is exactly what I have been trying to tell people all along, except that I have never actually said it so candidly.

[Nosferatu-of-Worms]

The SEALs did what they're trained to do, to eliminate targets and rescue hostage. How much bs do you have to listen to, to get the idea that their fighting against the "dumping of waste". Their god damn pirates, basically maritime terrorist. And the U.S. doesn't tolerate terrorism in anyway. If another govt or group threatens our people, then we deal with them appropriately. These pirates got what they deserved, there is no argument.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/15/09 12:49 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: The SEALs did what they're trained to do, to eliminate targets and rescue hostage. How much bs do you have to listen to, to get the idea that their fighting against the "dumping of waste". Their god damn pirates, basically maritime terrorist. And the U.S. doesn't tolerate terrorism in anyway. If another govt or group threatens our people, then we deal with them appropriately. These pirates got what they deserved, there is no argument.

Nowhere in this entire topic has anybody denied that the actions of those pirates were incorrigible, and it is obvious that the pirates are by no means justified in their use of piracy. However, it was the collapse of the Somalian government accompanied with the actions, which were illegal under international law, of the maritime nations--being the overfishing (which I accidentally failed to mention, but luckily was later mentioned in another person's comment) and the dumping of toxic waste--that led to the growth of piracy in the region around Somalia.

Obviously, piracy existed long before the collapse of the Somalian government, but piracy of this scale never previously--that is, during the existence of the Somalian government--existed in this particular region. Additionally, the actions of the forerunners of these pirates were not actually piracy, but the chance for quick and easy money and the inevitably of human greed distorted these good intentions into terrorism. I would definitely agree that these actions constitute terrorism.

However, regardless of what Navy Seals are trained to do, the use of lethal force was a bit over the top. As I said earlier, there is no proof other than military testimony that negotiations actually broke down. And, your statement that the Seals only did what they train to do actually evinces my point that the Seals did not even care about the negotiations because they would shoot as soon as the targets were all clearly visible with or without negotiations.

[SadisticMonkey]

No matter your cause, take an American hostage, expect to be shot. Simple as that.

[Shintogoru]

At 4/15/09 01:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No matter your cause, take an American hostage, expect to be shot. Simple as that.

More like, "take an American [official, officer, etc.] hostage, expect to be shot."

[ReiperX]

At 4/15/09 01:12 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/15/09 12:49 AM, Nosferatu-of-Worms wrote: The SEALs did what they're trained to do, to eliminate targets and rescue hostage. How much bs do you have to listen to, to get the idea that their fighting against the "dumping of waste". Their god damn pirates, basically maritime terrorist. And the U.S. doesn't tolerate terrorism in anyway. If another govt or group threatens our people, then we deal with them appropriately. These pirates got what they deserved, there is no argument.

Nowhere in this entire topic has anybody denied that the actions of those pirates were incorrigible, and it is obvious that the pirates are by no means justified in their use of piracy. However, it was the collapse of the Somalian government accompanied with the actions, which were illegal under international law, of the maritime nations--being the overfishing (which I accidentally failed to mention, but luckily was later mentioned in another person's comment) and the dumping of toxic waste--that led to the growth of piracy in the region around Somalia.

Obviously, piracy existed long before the collapse of the Somalian government, but piracy of this scale never previously--that is, during the existence of the Somalian government--existed in this particular region. Additionally, the actions of the forerunners of these pirates were not actually piracy, but the chance for quick and easy money and the inevitably of human greed distorted these good intentions into terrorism. I would definitely agree that these actions constitute terrorism.

However, regardless of what Navy Seals are trained to do, the use of lethal force was a bit over the top. As I said earlier, there is no proof other than military testimony that negotiations actually broke down. And, your statement that the Seals only did what they train to do actually evinces my point that the Seals did not even care about the negotiations because they would shoot as soon as the targets were all clearly visible with or without negotiations.

First off, the SEALS had orders to take the shot. They aren't going to take out three targets without clearance.

Second, the captain's life was in danger. He was apparently shot at when he tried to escape earlier. From reports, the AK was at the captain's back. You don't get much more "in danger" than that.

But for those saying that the SEALs were in the wrong, what do you suggest we have done?
- Pay a ransom (in case you have not noticed since ransoms have been paid piracy has gone up).
- Negotiate their freedom for the freedom of the captain? Then you are putting another terrorist into the pot (while I hate the overuse of the word Terrorist, this is what these people are).
- Make the stand off last even longer? This does nothing but put the captive's life in even more danger.
- Board the life boat? 3 armed men, 1 hostage on a life boat, it's hard to get there by stealth.
- Let the pirates go with the captain?

I'm sorry when groups of people are threatening innocent people with violence, then someone has to put their foot down and stop taking their shit. I think France and the US are doing what is unfortunately necessary to help reduce the threat of pirates in the area, and secure safe passage for these boats. Many of these boats are sending good and supplies to people who need them, so not only are the pirates risking the lives of the crew, they are hurting other people by reducing the amount of aid that they are getting.

[HogWashSoup]

arwak! pirates in Somalia! pirates in Somalia! arwak!

[HogWashSoup]

anyone that thinks it was wrong to kill the pirates should be hung. holding sympathy for pirates is a crime.
all i can say is
ahem...

AMERICA! FUCK YA!

[Idiot-Finder]

At 4/15/09 12:35 AM, Adachiskindagod wrote: If more people did, maybe more good could be accomplished.

I'm not sure if I should laugh at this or stand there with "WTF" in my mind with a mental facepalm.

[LazyDrunk]

At 4/15/09 01:32 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/15/09 01:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No matter your cause, take an American hostage, expect to be shot. Simple as that.

More like, "take an American [official, officer, etc.] hostage, expect to be shot."

Life has value. When you take the value of life from another and expect your dues (money, guns, POW release) for their safety, you need to understand you've put your own life on the same table as theirs.

Somalian pirates need to think for a second and ask themselves, "Can we build ships as fast as the Americans can sink them?"

If the Somalians want sovereignty of their waters and the waters that are international, they must adhere to the same international agreements, or formulate their own, and abide by those rules. Hostage-taking is a fine way to be executed and have your pirating industry destroyed with fire and steel.

[morefngdbs]

As reported in the News today, Eygptian fishing boats & crew have just been seized.
They were in somalian waters & they had no legal right to be fishing there. Somalian Fisherman (many of them are pirates now) have complained for some time now & no country has prosecuted anyone for fishing where they are not suppose to.

The fisherman & the companies from surrounding Countries , know that without an effective government they have free range to exploit & over fish Somalian waters...That is a legitimate complaint.
BUT THAT has nothing to do with the attacks & capture of international shipping that passes by Somalia...sometimes hundreds of kilometers from their shores .

Personally I say if your armed & attacking or have attacked a ship for ransom, you are fair game.
IF the powers that be out there trying to put a stop to this kill some of them, that's the price you pay for being armed as well, .