ColdRage on November 19, 2008 at 12:52 PM

Sorry dude, I used to do this for a living.

You are quoting antiquated law.

If we enter Somali waters and board the tanker, according to the UN Law of the Sea, it is an act of aggresion against Somalia, AND, Liberia, according to the “Law of Nations” which you quoted above…

If we had caught them in the commision of Piracy? We could do somthing. But just knowing where they are after the commision does not give us the right to board them UNLESS it was a US flaged ship, OR in US Waters (Health and comfort inspection), or we were in HOT PURSUIT.

Quoting law from 1820 is useless in this case as it has CHANGED since then. International conventions have changed a number of times… and the Law you quote talks of the “Law of Nations”.

Sure, we get them back here and convict them, they get life… problem is that right now, we can not even arrest them without it being thrown out of court because we DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO BOARD THEM so all evidence would end of thrown out under illegal search and seizure, because of the latest Supreme Court ruling stating that Prisoners get full US Civil Rights.

Muslim vs. Muslim, and in an area not many might expect such a thing to happen either. From the Financial Times (via Hot Air):…

Please explain to me, under the Constitution, just how the American military, goes into foreign waters, takes over a Foreign ship, without a Declaration of War? Or at least declaring a National Emergency? Or something????

Starting military action of Economic reasons? When American lives nor property are even involved???

Romeo13 on November 18, 2008 at 9:41 PM

Now I remember why I didn’t become a teacher, I get irritated by those who don’t realize that they could have done themselves and the rest of us a favor by choosing to attempt to answer their own question with a little research rather than the narcissistic “inform me!” or “see me vent my frustration like a kid crying in a grocery store!” However, here we go.

Constitution: Article 1, section 8 paragraph 11

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001651—-000-.html

§ 1651. Piracy under law of nations
Whoever, on the high seas, commits the crime of piracy as defined by the law of nations, and is afterwards brought into or found in the United States, shall be imprisoned for life.

United States vs. Smith

Any other questions? In fact, in international waters, you or I could just as easily deal with pirates as the military. Of course, they have better weapons and better lawyers, so I’d generally let them do it unless they ask for help. Letters of marque and reprisal also help, since they effectively put the government on your side, in fact I’d love to see Congress choose to start reissuing those. Check out AJacksonian for someone who has really done his homework on this.

If the owners of these ships paid the extra money to have their ships flagged in the U.S. or another nation with a capable navy they could expect that navy to come to their aid.

But why should they have it both ways? Why let them pay next to nothing to flag their ships in third-world countries and then still come to their aid when they run into trouble.

Owners need to man up and either hire security teams or fork over the extra cash to flag their ships in nations capable of protecting them.

They’ll fit right in here in America. We’re becoming a third-world country anyway.

Venusian Visitor on November 19, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Good questions…

If the Allie has a true Treaty or Status of Forces agreement that says we can? Yep… legally we could.

But it would have to be spelled out in the ‘treaty’.

Problem here is that its a Liberian Flagged tanker, in Somali waters. We don’t need Saudi permission, we need Liberias.

And we need Somali permission as it would happen in their territorial waters, or we would be commiting an Act of War under the UN charter.

The Supreme Court’s decisions regarding the rights of non-military prisoners are baseless and ludicrous. There are several situations where prisoners have traditionally not been taken, such as seiges, and I believe that boarding actions against pirates was one such exception.

As to putting the military into a law enforcement situation, never. The military are for breaking things and killing people, and expecting them to use restraint in the use of lethal force endangers them and diminishes their effectiveness.

This is crazy.

I love it.

Aside from someone not knowing their history, acts of piracy attack the commerce which is the very fabric of free coexistence between nations.

Wanderlust on November 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Wow, I love being accused of not knowing history, by someone who DOES NOT KNOW HISTORY!

The Barbary Wars were fought because they were taking AMERICAN ships, and keeping AMERICAN hostages. Congres was actualy approached to pay this ransom every year… thus it was state sponsored Piracy against AMERICAN ships.

Oh, and just to let you all know… I happen to be US Navy Retired, and was the Senior Enlisted guy on my boarding team during Desert Storm, when my ship was tasked with control of contraband into the Gulf.

I’ve also done many boardings (with the Coasties) doing LEO or Law Enforcement Ops … looking for drug smugglers.

Boarding a Foreign flagged ship is not an easy thing to do. There are very few legal justifications for doing so outside of your own territorial waters, or a war zone.

Right now, NONE of those legal justifications exist as, I have pointed out so many times, but people dismiss…

This is NOT an American Ship.
It does NOT have an American Crew.
It is NOT in International or US Territorial Waters.
It is NOT entering or leaving a declared Embargo zone.
It was NOT caught in the act, so no Hot Pursuit applies.

Want LEGAL US Action?

Get a UN Security Council Resolution declaring this area a free fire zone against Pirates.

Get a Congressional State of Emergency… or at least a Presidential Statement that he is employing the War Powers Act…

OH, and get the Supreme Court to reverse the silly ruling that all Non Military Prisoners taken by the military have full US Civil Rights… because you are about to put the US military into a Law Enforcment situation.

As other people have pointed out…When it is in the US interest’s

2 million barrels of oil, heading to the US, gets taken over and still you think it is not a concern?

OK I can play that game.

Name me one country that has the resources AND desire to stand up to this attack.

The Saudis for obviously want their ship/cargo/crew back however are they don’t have the military for that. Trust me I have seen the Saudi military in action.

Simply put

The only country in the world, that has the resources and desire to right a wrong is the USA.

F15Mech on November 19, 2008 at 12:40 AM

Americans often complain about our own resources but make sure that our soldiers have everything they need; the Saudis have all the resources, but suck at providing their military all that they need. Perhaps that’s why they rely on others to do the dirty deed.

Rush covering this issue yesterday was one masterful sarcastic gentleman. I was laughing in the car, I bet ppl thought I was going nuts, and the kids asked me what was I laughing about and I told them, “He is being sarcastic”…kids went “Ooohhh”. Of all the countries he mentioned that “could” come to the Saudi’s help was Australia.

I wish if there is audio of this, pls. post the link in this topic.

the folks in the u.s. could supply thier own oil with less cost and friendlier enviormental impact than any one in the world! just think of the jobs that would come about if the u.s. decided to use all and every resource we have. it stikes me as moronic that every one is upset about a 700 bilion dollar BAILOUT and are never bothered about the 700
billion dollars we spend every year for imported oil.

ajacksonian on November 19, 2008 at 8:25 AM

Good post.

We also should be concerned because piracy has been on the rise all over the world, especially in Southeast Asia. We’ve had the problem right here in the Carribean ourselves for years on a small scale. Ships aren’t even safe in northern European ports.

While countries are debating what to do about it (the common response thus far has been to give in to the ransom demands) the situation is obviously worsening. What is also troubling in the case of these Somali pirates, is that I detect some sympathy for what they are doing from the usual suspects, AP and Reuters.

What’s next? Groups operating out of Morocco or Algeria seizing cruise ships in the Med for ransom? A super tanker run aground in the Suez Canal? Foreign countries using piracy as a cover to wage economic war?

This is a big story now because pirates have finally seized the most emotional commodity in the universe.

Kill ‘em all.

Pirates and terrorists both practice Private War, contrary to all standards of civilization, the laws of war and peace and the law of nations. They are *both* outlaws as a class. Sea-based Private War has, traditionally, been lumped in with the land-based version: Captain Morgan’s famous raid was from land, not sea; those that took a Swiss city by force without any backing by any government, suffered when the populace regained control of it; the first modern para-troop raid, ever, was by the USSR against an ‘army of thieves’ in central asia in 1929 and cited as a threat to many nations. Our civil law on that is short and sweet: sole conviction of piracy, life in jail. On the military side, prior to that, President Lincoln in 1863 described how the US Army was to treat those that intermittently took up war but were not in uniform and who even took up civil means between raids: summary judgement on the battlefield as pirates or highway robbers. Note, they are the same class to the US at that point in time.

Why we should be concerned? These are outlaws against all nations, and any nation can try pirates. A ship is an extension of the land that it carries its flag for, thus a US aircraft carrier is acres of US territory at sea, but so is every US pleasure craft so long as it is within reach of the high seas (that via multiple SCOTUS decisions in the early 19th century, where we trace our powers as a Nation back to William and that is the law of the land for the US). Passing into a river or otherwise wholly contained body of water then puts a ship under foreign laws for transport, that is why the USS Cole attack was not just terrorism, but piracy. It does not matter that you are not at war with pirates: they are at war with you. President Jefferson needed no Act of Congress and sent the Navy on his own… which is the duty of a President. Congress may pass laws to certify civilians to carry out military actions, under the Constitution in the Letters language, and that is on the basis of 1:1 cost reprisal on those beyond the reach of law or justice, according to Grotius who is, himself, citing older law in the Black Book of the Admiralty. The Black Book goes back to the 14th century and is the first compilation of sea law, based on European nations who, themselves, were using older Roman Law. The Romans, themselves, base their law on what was done to pirates on the first city states and empires, and how they had to deal with the panoply of those fighting private war as that is the duty of the state.

Our understanding from the Common Law comes from Blackstone on this, and he is one of those cited by many of the founders and others not only before the Revolution, but in the discussion on the Constitution. The outlook of the Common Law was clear at that point in time, this from Blackstone:

LASTLY, the crime of piracy, or robbery and depredation upon the high seas, is an offense against the universal law of society; a pirate being, according to Sir Edward Coke,10 hostis humani generis [enemy to mankind]. As therefore he has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature, by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him: so that every community has a right, by the rule of self-defense, to inflict that punishment upon him, which every individual would in a state of nature have been otherwise entitled to do, any invasion of his person or personal property.

BY the ancient common law, piracy, if committed by a subject, was held to be a species of treason, being contrary to his natural allegiance; and by an alien to be felony only: but now, since the statute of treasons, 25 Edw. III. c. 2. it is held to be only felony in a subject.11 Formerly it was only cognizable by the admiralty courts, which proceed by the rule of the civil law.12 But, it being inconsistent with the liberties of the nation, that any man’s life should be taken away, unless by the judgment of his peers, or the common law of the land, the statute 28 Hen. VIII. c. 15. established a new jurisdiction for this purpose; which proceeds according to the course of the common law, and of which we shall say more hereafter.

We are not taught these fine things any more.

Deal with both issues.

First, Deploy some ships to blockade pirate infested ports… just search ships before they leave port… if they have too many weapons and not enough fishing nets then you’ve got a pirate boat. At the very least keep tabs on the appropriate location of each ship. There couldn’t be more then a few thousand of them. It would seem the sort of thing a naval tactical computer could handle in its sleep.

Second, no ship should go near that body of water without protection. So either the crew should be trained, armed, and ready or each ship should join a convoy with one of the many naval ships in the area. Charge them a protection tax… its’ cheaper then the insurance and disruption.

Is this rocket science?

Maybe Barrack will go talk to these pirates and they will see the light and forego their evil pirating ways.

Oh and kill them, all!

dhunter on November 18, 2008 at 10:20 PM

As a trogolodyte conservative, I didn’t understand why the pirates did this, at first, but I think I have it. Obama got elected, so the seas are going to recede. Since the Somalis didn’t have any particular “rising sea” sort of problem, they are quite rightly thinking that they are going to die, because the sea is important to their way of life.

The only obvious answer – piracy, of course. Steal some Saudi oil money, retire to Boca Raton.

This is Obama’s fault.

(Oh, and kill them).

Kill them
SouthernGent on November 18, 2008 at 9:25 PM

And stop by that rich thug town in Somali where these thieves are basking in their high seas crimes and finish them off, too.

While everyone was watching something else Somalia has for all intents and purposes, fallen back into Jihadists hands. This is an easy way to reward and infuse cash under the guise of paying a ransom. Thus the Princes of Saudi Arabia invest as much jihad money as they want to in Africa and it all looks like something else.

BL@KBIRD on November 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM

Not only that..but they can then raise oil prices because of the “instability”..