More catch-and-release in Gulf of Aden
posted at 10:55 am on June 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
The West remains in a law-enforcement approach to Somalian piracy, with the latest example coming from the British Royal Navy. They intercepted a skiff with machine guns, RPGs, and grappling hooks in the Gulf of Aden earlier this week. Their response? Set them free:
Nearly a dozen pirates armed with rocket-propelled grenades, machineguns and grappling hooks have been seized in the Gulf of Aden, after being intercepted by a Royal Navy warship.
Two skiffs had been detected by the radar on board HMS Portland, a Type 23 frigate, which was originally designed for anti-submarine warfare.
Suspecting that they were “not innocent fishing vessels”, the frigate, commanded by Commander Tim Henry, steamed closer to the skiffs and saw that both vessels were filled with weaponry and ammunition. The ship’s Lynx helicopter was sent to hover over the skiffs while teams of Royal Marine and navy personnel in rigid inflatable boats sped towards the craft and disarmed the ten men on board. The Lynx was armed with a machinegun and snipers.
“The skiffs were equipped with extra barrels of fuel, grappling hooks and a cache of weapons that included rocket-propelled grenades, machineguns and ammunition,” navy officials said.
Great! The Royal Navy then protected shipping lanes by seizing the weapons and the fuel, sinking the boats, and at least arresting the pirates. Right? Not exactly:
Because of the rules of engagement, however, the ten pirates had to be set free. “We can only arrest suspected pirates if we catch them in the act or on the point of launching an attack on a vessel,” a Ministry of Defence official said.
The British Navy did seize the weapons and paraphernalia, but sent the pirates back in one of the two skiffs to return to Somalia. They burned the other skiff and took pictures of it, apparently believing it to be a propaganda coup.
Instead, the pirates got to keep one of their boats, and will now simply replace the weapons before conducting more piracy. They learned that getting caught on the seas preying on shipping lines has little consequence except the risk of short-term financial loss. That will provide no deterrent at all, and instead of going back with warnings about burning boats, the pirates are laughing all the way back to Somalia, secure in their lives and their freedom to commit more piracy.
I don’t mean to pick on the British Navy alone. The West as a whole has more or less the same rules of engagement, treating piracy the same as burglary committed on sovereign territory. Until the West treats it like, well, piracy, our flabby response will encourage many more pirates to take to the seas.
Update: Gulf of Aden. What the heck was I thinking? I even had two cups of coffee before writing that headline. [sigh]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
fix the headline. Not amman.
JiangxiDad on June 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM
Who writes these rules????
This is not hard. Catch and release…in the middle of the ocean.
WashJeff on June 5, 2009 at 11:02 AM
They may not even have gone back to Somalia to rearm. some of the pirates have mother ships just like walers or fishing vessels.
burt on June 5, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Swim with the fishes.
Count to 10 on June 5, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Lord Nelson is spinning in his grave. Leave the pirates and weapons in the boats, and just do a little live fire practice. End of problem.
rbj on June 5, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Oh, but they gave them a pretty strong talking-to!
mankai on June 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Apparently, life is a tea party and we must never, ever take our dainty gloves off.
DrMagnolias on June 5, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I would have had no problem with setting the pirates free if the Brits had sunk both boats, and released the pirates where they were apprehended. They can swim back to shore.
Skandia Recluse on June 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Do you need a permit for this?
eforhan on June 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM
I think we should raise the stakes on these pirates. In addition to taking weapons from them…
Maybe we should also talk to them in a very stern manner? Not to the point of raising our voice of course, just stern.
originalpechanga on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Good God, when did the British Navy become so freakin’ p*ssyfied???
If they are interdicted for piracy in international waters, at least sink the boats and materiel, and put the idiots in a lifeboat.
Let them use their own hands to row back home.
/shaking my head
Wanderlust on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Seriously, who is going to prosecute the Brits, Our Navy, the Chinese, the Russians, or whoever if they are taking down the PIrates via 17th/18th century methods. Read your frickin history books leaders!!!!
WashJeff on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM
The US Navy SEALs had the correct response to piracy. Use to be that any captured pirate was immediately hanged, no questions asked, no appeal. For some strange reason, piracy seemed to have lost it’s luster after that.
SeniorD on June 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM
The Adjective method.
First apprehension: 2 adjectives and release.
Second apprehension: 5 adjectives and release.
Third apprehension: 5 adjectives, finger waving and release.
WashJeff on June 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM
I don’t know….. If I was the helicopter pilot, you couldn’t get me to hover over such a heavily armed rogue ship. Even if my craft was “armed witha a machinegun and snipers.”
One good shot from them with one of those RPGs and it’s all over.
UltimateBob on June 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Not to sound like Obama here, but the big difference is that the SEALS caught the pirates in the act, and they had an American hostage. The Royal navy just caught these guys out on the water before they commited an act of piracy. That does not justify killing them, however tempting it would be to do that.
UltimateBob on June 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM
The British ‘rules of engagement’ suck as bad as the U.S. rules used in Iraq. How totally moronic the West is! And yes, it DOES justify executing them on the spot.
That’s called a deterent!
GFW on June 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Unfortunately, it sounds like they had no choice but to set them free since they hadn’t actually committed an act of piracy. You can’t arrest or shoot a guy someone on the assumption that they were about to or could have committed a crime.
scalleywag on June 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM
Whoever wrote those rules of engagement should be disengaged.
Those pirates should have been thrown in the brig and questioned in shifts 24/7, about whom they serve, where they got their weapons, and where they were trained. Then send out some planes to bomb the place to smithereens.
And, if their rules don’t allow them to hold prisoners without trial, cast them adrift in a boat with no motor or fuel. They might prefere being prisoners.
Steve Z on June 5, 2009 at 11:27 AM
We have to fight “sensitive wars” now, don’t ya know. Pirates have feelings too.
CP on June 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Good grief! What ever happened to common sense?!
GFW on June 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM
The British have been coddling Muslims for years at home and abroad…they might as well go home for all the good they do.
JIMV on June 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Just had that PM Dawn song pop in my head – “Set Adrift on Memory Bliss”
CP on June 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Where’s Cap’n Jack Sparrow when you need him? I guess it’s a code, but the West should still just see them more as guidelines…and sinking those skiffs with the scum on board would have sent a much better message.
kirkill on June 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
These policies are a joke and stop no one.
Much the same way that the UN accomplishes pretty much nothing when it comes to international disputes,war,or genocide.
These are the same type policies that the Obama administration wants the US to apply to terrorism (sorry,I mean, Man Made Disasters),and other international and domestic killers.
This is a good review of the toothless policies that have allowed the piracy problem to grow strong and pretty much undeterred:
The Administration’s Pathetic Piracy Policy, or Freezing Assets
[Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging,
http://volokh.com/posts/1240406450.shtml
This is the same “smart power” that states we have no right to tell Iran it can’t have a nuclear weapon even though they are the leading sponsor of terrorism around the world and are committed to the destruction of Israel.
Baxter Greene on June 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
Boys will be boys…they are just kids finding their way…
right2bright on June 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM
Whats really sad?
Under international law, the Brits actualy had no authority to even take the guns.
It is NOT illegal to have guns on the high seas, or every military vessel could be stoped for Piracy (as well as every ship or Yacht that has an anti “shark” rifle).
Therefore, even though they “suspected” this ship of being a Pirate, unless it was in danger of sinking, or flying a Brit flag (for health and comfort inspection), they had no legal reason to board, search, or seize LEGAL firearms.
I’m sure the lawsuits are being filed even as we speak.
World needs to get a clue, and Declare WAR… so the rules can change… this is what happens in the modern world when the Legal System hits Military Action… just like with the
War on TerrorOverseas Contingency Operations.Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM
finger waving? Careful there, WashJeff. We certainly don’t want to torture these poor victims of Western oppression. Just need some calm reasoning with them, let them know how their actions hurt our feelings. That and a nice cup of chamomile tea.
rbj on June 5, 2009 at 12:01 PM
I’d throw them some water wings, and yell…swim back.
capejasmine on June 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Exactly. You catch, take the boats, fuel and weapons, and release the pirates from the railing of your ship to swim wherever they wish.
Jaibones on June 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Nope, sorry, can’t let that last comment stand uncorrected. I would in all seriousness handcuff them before releasing them off the side of the ship. Their only value in this world is as shark food.
Jaibones on June 5, 2009 at 12:05 PM
Hmmm… actualy.. thinking on it a bit…
The Brits illegaly stopped a ship on the High Seas, and stole it LEGAL property, ie, the guns.
Isn’t that the very definition of Piracy?
Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 12:12 PM
For them it’s the Gulf of Eden.
faol on June 5, 2009 at 12:16 PM
Just pathetic.
patrick neid on June 5, 2009 at 12:21 PM
We’ve turned into PBS. No wonder the bullies take our lunch money.
Limerick on June 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Catch-and-Release is absolutely necessary here. The United Nations has declared pirates to be an Endangered Species, pressed almost out of existence by oppressive navies and their capitalist overlords..
eeyore on June 5, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Confiscate all the weapons except for one lone hand grenade…… pin pulled…. dropped in boat.
See how fast they can get back to shore then.
44Magnum on June 5, 2009 at 12:44 PM
They are Muslims, you can’t stop them.
Islam is awesome, Muslims are real straight shooters (except for 7 or 8 disenfranchised youths that kidnapped the religion of peace).
BL@KBIRD on June 5, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Pirates kill.
Thus, kill pirates.
Problem negated.
coldwarrior on June 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM
“Catch-and-release.” No wonder England is in political disarray at home, and at the bottom of the world pecking order! Once a great world super power and leader, now a mere whimpering, pathetic PC child!
byteshredder on June 5, 2009 at 1:11 PM
I find it interesting that so many of you are presumably ardent supporters of gun ownership, yet you want these guys arrested for doing nothing other than possessing weapons.
I mean, I’d be all for them being arrested, too. Fortunately, I dont support the idea that people should be running around armed to the teeth (whether inside or outside America), so I dont have to do mental gymnastics to hold two contradictory views.
All of that said, there’s no logic to rules of engagement that allow you to seize property without any oversight, yet do not allow you to arrest people and take them to trial. If they’re committing conspiracy to piracy (which they certainly seemed to be doing), then haul them in. If not, then what right do you have to take their stuff?
I seriously doubt this is the case in this scenario, but what if these guys were heavily armed because they wanted to protect themselves from pirates? In that case, it would be wrong to take their weapons.
But one would think that a small heavily-armed vessel with no other obvious reason to be out on the sea has to either be pirates or, at best, arms smugglers. So it seems that more logical rules of engagement would involve some sort of “probable cause” deal where they can bring in people who have no good motive for being out on the sea with a bunch of guns.
Granted, there would have to be some sort of allowance for a legit fishing vessel that brought along some arms for protection, but I would think it shouldnt be too difficult to come up with a reasonable standard that gives us the right to pull in guys as shady as these characters.
orange on June 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM
Not the comfy chair!
When Monty Python skits echo actual British ROE, it’s the end of the world.
TexasDan on June 5, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Who suggests they be arrested for “gun ownership?” In fact, they probably can’t be arrested at all, for the same reason we don’t “arrest” Taliban fighters.
They should be detained as suspected pirates. It should be proven, somehow, that they are indeed pirates, and then they should be hung. But that would require that we’ve laid the groundwork ahead of time for those actions.
Read
TexasDan on June 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM
With a name like that, this guy definitely has some credibility on this subject matter.
ARRRRRRRRR……..
UltimateBob on June 5, 2009 at 2:00 PM
I say have mercy. Let them swim. They can pray to their false gods and get rescued.
seven on June 5, 2009 at 2:09 PM
If the country of Somalia won’t police these thugs then it would seem time for someone just to declare war on the country. Then take the appropriate action.
SC.Charlie on June 5, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Well, it’s the only thing they’re guilty of. I mean, I know ‘innocent until proven guilty’ isnt a terribly popular phrase around these parts, but it’s a long-held American legal tradition, so a true Conservative would respect that.
Wait, it should be proven “somehow”? So we start with the verdict, then work backwards to manufacture the proof? That’s not in keeping with the American legal system.
I imagine our actual disagreement here is pretty small. I’m just being open-minded about the fact that the legal framework is where it is for a good reason, and that it cant be changed too quickly. It’s international law, and that takes time to change.
I did read Romeo13’s posts, and I think they bring up a good point: that what the Brits did here could be thought of as piracy as well. But I dont like the conclusion – that declaring “WAR” is the best solution. I guess this thought is a bit archaic, but in ye olden tymes, declaring “WAR” didnt mean that you got to throw the rulebook out the window. There still exist things called war crimes. Thus, declaring “WAR” wouldnt mean we can just capture whomever we want and hang them.
Did declaring a “war on terror” (a rather ridiculous phrase, you must admit) preemptively solve all legal issues? Not at all. There are still all sorts of legal issues that are being hammered out many years later.
Rather than the “declare war, kill ‘em all, and let God sort ‘em out” method (which hasnt been terribly effective in the “war on terror”) perhaps we could get together with the other nations involved and agree upon different rules of engagment which would allow for the British Navy to detain and convict dudes who are roaming the seas with a bunch of guns and no good reason for being there.
If you just declare “WAR” against a nebulous enemy (one that is even less cohesive than Al Qaeda) and go in with
guns a’blazin’, then you can expect that sooner or later, some fishing vessel that has a few guns for protection is going to get blown up, innocent civilians are going to get killed, and our public relations problems in the region will again be exacerbated.
I mean, really: let’s not blow this thing out of proportion. Piracy in that region is a problem, and we would in fact be in a better position if the Bush admin had sone more to address the problem instead of waiting for an American to get captured. But really, it’s not *that* big an issue in global terms.
Declaring “WAR” whenever there’s a problem isnt a good idea.
orange on June 5, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Thats like someone walking down the street in a Ski mask and a gun in his hand(Typical Bank robber), and being told by police to go home! Wheres the lesson to be learned in that?
FontanaConservative on June 5, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Respectfully, I think you have mised the point. The reason to declare war is that the rules of war then go into effect. It is not possible for, say, the U.S. to arrest these people on the open sea and then try them in a US court of law, because our laws do not govern there. The act of declaring war, in my understanding, then gives us the leeway to actually do something other than release them.
My statement that their guilt should be “proven somehow” was just an acknowledgement that I don’t really know all the “legal” steps that would be involved in prosecuting a pirate, nor what court it can be done in. I just meant that there should be an actual trial with evidence before they got their necks stretched.
As for minimizing the issue, small problems, untended, have a way of growing. It would be like negotiating with terrorists, just this once, since what’s the harm of that, really?
Actually, I think the phrase “war on terror” is exactly what we need to call it, and how it needs to be understood. You suggest detention and at the same time bemoan the legal issues surrounding the terrorists we’ve already detained. In fact, “kill ‘em all” is both remarkably effective and, done on a war footing, eliminates oall those pesky legal problems (not that I really think there are any, other than what the ACLU pulls out of its rear.)
TexasDan on June 5, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Whole problem with the War on Terror is that we never declared WAR.
There are very clear International Law things which take affect when you declare War… vice use some ambivalent War Powers Act…
Its like the Korean “Conflict”… there has NEVER been a Peace Treaty, because there was never (for the US) officialy a War.
Historic Laws of the Sea are clear about how you treat Pirates, and the States which allow them to exist. Piracy IS an act of War… and supporting Pirates is an act of War…
Until the Politicians do their part, the Legal problems for the various Navys will continue.
Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 4:51 PM
No, piracy is explicitly not an act of war and is clearly distinguished from it in the relevent law to the extent that such law is agreed.
The 1958 “Convention on the High Seas” specifically defines piracy as an act “committed for private ends” which precludes it being an “act of war”. These words were, I believe, incorporated verbatim into the later UN “Convention on the Law of the Sea”. Other, broader, definitions for piracy have been proposed since way-back-when but I don’t know that any of them has gained wide acceptance.
Legally, piracy involves very ‘murky waters’ and changes to maritime law are slow because it is such a horrendously complicated and highly contentious topic involving many countries with very diverse and divergent interests.
YiZhangZhe on June 5, 2009 at 6:48 PM
The Royal Navy is likely under orders not to do so if only because the waters get even murkier once they are in UK custody (the little rascals might start claiming asylum and become the poster-children for hand-wringing liberals).
YiZhangZhe on June 5, 2009 at 6:58 PM
This is straight up factually wrong, orange.
Every enemy in the war on terror that we have defeated (and there have been quite a few, don’t let the MSM tell you otherwise, instead trust reporters like Yon and Totten) have been defeated precisely because we killed a lot of them.
To address the straw man I already see you building, was that all we did? No. But it was important. It was important that we kill the leadership, put their armies in disarray, and convince the underlings that maybe this whole jihad thing is just not worth it.
It worked quite well in Iraq, and I’m sure it would work in Somalia.
Here’s the other thing you’re not quite getting: primitive cultures – like the kind that 7th century Islamic rule fosters – respect strength above all else. Unless you can demonstrate that you are as strong or stronger than they are, they simply will not respect you and they will never fear you more than they fear the loss of their livelihood.
apollyonbob on June 5, 2009 at 7:09 PM
A general comment:
International law, including martime law for the high seas, is determined by a very convoluted process that involves consideration of the “customs and usages of civilized nations”. The customs and usages referred to could be quite ancient … anything with the past two or three hundred years would be worthy of consideration. The treatise “De jure belli ac pacis” (The law of war and peace) dates from 1625 and apparently is still referred to.
Consequently, all responsible nations with a serious interest in the high seas are very cautious about what they do because what they do today as “civilized nations” could be referred to many years hence as the basis for future law or as the justification for action taken by some other state.
Shooting or drowning suspected pirates may seem like a cheap short-term solution but sensible governments are aware that a hasty little act this year could prove to be hugely expensive 50 or 100 years down the line when it is referred to as precedent during some conflict or during the negotiation of some treaty.
Maritime law is an area of international law where it is definitely prudent to avoid rocking the boat.
YiZhangZhe on June 5, 2009 at 7:14 PM
Yes, and that is exactly as it should be because piracy, and a warship’s duties and authority concerning pirates and their vessels are the subject of various international laws, agreements and treaties.
YiZhangZhe on June 5, 2009 at 7:31 PM
Then, by that same reasoning, supporting TERRORISTS is not an act of war either.
There is a LONG historical case that could be made that supporting Piracy is an act of War… even in American History. If you use the French, Brits, and Spanish of the Colonial times it is even more clear.
We have been to Tripoli before after all.
And, as has been so amply shown, the War Powers Act can be used against Non State Groups… even though it does put us into strange waters as far as Prisoners are concerned.
Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 7:56 PM
Now now, don’t fuss so. They got their names and addresses and the UN will be mailing them a strongly worded letter soon.
boomer on June 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM
The law we have is based on that long history which is why the law is what it is.
Piracy is a legally defined term and the definition is actually quite narrow. A pirate is not merely somebody doing bad stuff on a boat. If these were people in the recognised uniform of a state then their actions could conceivably be construed as an act of war but these suspected pirates are clearly not in the recognised uniform of any state, nor do they appear to be representing anybody except themselves nor have any goal beyond self-enrichment.
Earlier you wrote:
True.
False. Warships are granted special status in international law, they have special rights and special responsibilities. In particular they are not subject to stop-and-search by the warships of another nation. If a warship of one nation forcibly subjected a warship of another nation to stop-and-search that could be construed as an act of war. At the very least it would involve a major diplomatic ruckus.
Yes, if they are not warships they can be stopped by a warship of any nation if they are suspected of certain activities. However, if they are stopped without reason there may be grounds for a compensation demand.
False. Warships are not only permitted to intercept suspected pirates, it is their duty to do so and that duty is imposed upon them precisely because they have been granted warship status. The warships of all nations have both the right and the duty to stop, board, and search any vessel suspected of certain activites, such as piracy or slavery. If wrongdoing is found then they can arrest both the vessel and the crew.
That is possible. It is one of the risks warships take when they intercept a vessel, which is one reason why any responsible navy will be cautious.
Against which state should the world declare war? I doubt if even the nationality of the suspected pirates is known with certainty. One can only declare war against a state and declaring war is something that sensible nations do as a last resort. This situation is nowhere near that stage.
Declaring war is not undertaken lightly because it has significant implications for the relationships between the belligerent parties and non-belligerents … for example, during the Falkland Islands dispute of 1982 between Argentina and the United Kingdom there was some serious military action and both sides sunk warships of the other side. Nonetheless, even in such a serious duel, both sides thought it prudent to refrain from a formal declaration of war.
This is not a modern problem and the only significant difference between piracy in 2009 and piracy in, say, 1509 is the technology being used. The law we have has been worked out over centuries taking into account far more issues than are involved in these recent cases.
The war powers act is specifically USA legislation that is contentious even in the USA and which has no relevence to this situation because (a) pirates are, by definition, not state actors and therefore war, by definition, cannot be declared against them (b) the warship involved was not a United States warship (c) the law of the high seas applies so there is already a recognised and internationally acceptable framework for dealing with the problem.
YiZhangZhe on June 5, 2009 at 10:15 PM
“I’m Just a Woman” … Therefore, I think of the folks in the West who had to deal with predators of their herds/flocks who coined the expression “Shoot, Shovel and Shut up”. Therefore, “Shoot, Sink and Shut up” seems to me the way to deal with this pestilence.
YankeeinCA on June 5, 2009 at 11:40 PM
That’s where you’re wrong. The war on terror has been very effective in diminishing the ability of Al Quaeda to deliver. In fact, it’s the only approach that has worked. By contrast, treating it as a law enforcement issue has no effect at all.
So trying to apply the law enforcement model to piracy will be just as ineffective. They don’t have to be charged with a crime. Holding them in custody for a while is the bare minimum that should be done, since destroying their weapons will only impact them long enough for them to buy more.
It’s really not that hard to distinguish between a level of weaponry that can serve as self-defense, and a level of weaponry that is obviously meant for aggression. But there’s really no need to declare war per se. Simply apply the longstanding rules for piracy. The death penalty makes a great deterrent.
As if you would have supported anything the Bush administration had done!
You pose a false dilemma: between war on piracy and prosecution of piracy. Simply give the various navies of the world the authority to deal with piracy as it was dealt with in the past, and piracy will not last long.
The bottom line is that the pirates do this because it pays. The only way to stop it is to make sure it doesn’t pay.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on June 6, 2009 at 1:18 AM
Comment pages: