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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 7:56 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:

It is NOT illegal to have guns on the high seas,

True.

or every military vessel could be stoped for Piracy

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.

(as well as every ship or Yacht that has an anti “shark” rifle).

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.

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.

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.

I’m sure the lawsuits are being filed even as we speak.

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.

World needs to get a clue, and Declare WAR…

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.

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 Terror Overseas Contingency Operations.

Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM

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.

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

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 6:48 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.

The West remains in a law-enforcement approach to Somalian piracy
(from Ed’s article)

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.

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.

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”)

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.

“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

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).

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…
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.

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.

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.

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?

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”)

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.)

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.

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.

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.

TexasDan on June 5, 2009 at 1:42 PM

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.

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

I say have mercy. Let them swim. They can pray to their false gods and get rescued.

scalleywag on June 5, 2009 at 11:26 AM

With a name like that, this guy definitely has some credibility on this subject matter.

ARRRRRRRRR……..

orange on June 5, 2009 at 1:12 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

Romeo13 on June 5, 2009 at 11:53 AM

When Monty Python skits echo actual British ROE, it’s the end of the world.

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.

More catch-and-release in Gulf of Aden

“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!

Thus, kill pirates.

Problem negated.

Islam is awesome, Muslims are real straight shooters (except for 7 or 8 disenfranchised youths that kidnapped the religion of peace).

See how fast they can get back to shore then.