If that's the case, then those 'issues' need to be re-visited. Navies aren't expected to be able to rush in and pick sailors up before a ship sinks; this is why they carry lifeboats. Why do we then expect all navies to take care of every instance of piracy? When faced with pirates in the past, merchant ships went about armed, and even escorted in some cases. There needs to be new rules for the re-arming of merchant fleets.
Congress still has the power to issue letters of marque
EMP | Email | Homepage | 10.21.09 - 9:14 am | #
Yeah, that'll happen.
Remember this?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Pretty clear right, no possible way to misinterpret that.
You could cluster bomb Washington and miss everyone who's read the Constitution.
Fact is, he had a .38 revolver in his safe, but chose not to use it.
He also had no reason at all to remain on the bridge, and could have joined the rest of the crew in the barricaded hide they were in.
The REAL heroes of the Maersk Alabam were the engineers.
They secured the main engines and the emergency diesel generator, and left the pirates a ship that was dead in the water, except for the myriad of battery-powered alarms sounding that they didn't know how to shut off.
Once the pirates realized that the crew wouldn't assist them, they were in the same place as an aircraft hijacker who kills the pilots...options became severely limited.
If Phillips HAD joined the crew in the hide, the pirates would likely have simply left without him, and the entire drama would have been averted.
His hogging of the limelight since being rescued, in that he hasn't gone out of his way to credit the rest of his crew who took back their ship while he was off busy being a hostage, has made him no friends in the industry.
Phillips is retiring from seafaring because jobs are really tight right now and very few in the business want to sail for him.
A crew without a Captain will elect one of their own as Master.
A Captain without a crew is adrift at sea in a boat.
He has been found wanting. Seamen do not forget those who forsake their shipmates, or through their pride and stupidity, lose their ships.
1. There have been several white papers on the issues of armed merchant vessels. The problems are solveable. For one, you can arrange to have the weapons sealed just before entering national waters if need be.
2. The problem with Congress issuing Letters of Marque is that they are now illegal under the Laws of War.
"The problem with Congress issuing Letters of Marque is that they are now illegal under the Laws of War."
That really shouldn't be an issue for a nation whose navy is more powerful than the entire rest of the world combined. Then again that would require a Congress with actual balls, so I guess you'd be right.
Also, I don't know what a 25mm white phosphorus flare does to a human torso, but it sounds like it'd be kind of painful.
>1. There have been several white >papers on the issues of armed merchant >vessels. The problems are solveable. >For one, you can arrange to have the >weapons sealed just before entering >national waters if need be.
>2. The problem with Congress issuing >Letters of Marque is that they are now >illegal under the Laws of War.
>Rick R.
And what rules of law do Pirates or Terrorists follow. In fact since they are not a nation. I suspect that the "Laws of War" do not apply to them.
Britt -- The Bush Administration DID say that. That's what the phrase "unlawful combatant" is all about.
TCK & Ted -- The fact that pirates and terrorists are not protected by the Laws of War as lawful combatants, doesn't change the legal aspect. "Letters of Marque" are a war crime, REGARDLESS of who they are directed at. The target isn't the "protected" by this prohibition -- rather that Geneva (and I believe Hague) signatories are prohibited from issuing them. Period.
This restriction was inserted into the Laws of War because "Letters of Marque" had become (actually, had been for some time) a paper cover that was used BY pirates, to avoid the penalties of piracy.
Get some internationally insignificant -- but technically sovereign -- power to issue you a letter, and you had a pretty solid defense against piracy, so long as you didn't get caught in teh act of hitting a ship allied to or protected by the issuing power. (And you get around that by haveing MULTIPLE Letters of Marque, from powers either actively hositle to one another or at least in different spheres.
In modern terms, get letters issued by almost any Western nation, one from an African nation on each coast, and one from Iran, and you could claim to be merely carrying out your Letter.
However, one DOES NOT need a Letter of Marque to DEFEND one's ship against pirates, nor to carry out the traditional punishment FOR piracy. Although I'd rather see private vessels turn any captured priates over to the nearest friendly or neutral naval vessel for disposition.
Commercial vessels should sail into their scheduled ports of call with the corpses of pirates hanging by the neck from the ship's upperworks.
That doing so would require firearms of various descriptions in order to repel or subdue the vermin is a self-evident fact, and ought be supported by all civilized peoples.
This would be a workeable solution. Certainly for any pirates who get killed.
I'd rather have the Navy (of any country) give any captured pirates a quick court martial and hang 'em if they get captured. More civilized to hang them and chuck the bodies overboard, with all the procedural "i"'s dotted, then to have commercial vessels execute prisoners and drape them off the hull like bunting.
Yes, but it runs into a few problems, some readily exploitable by intelligent savages:
1. Commercial mariners are not going to become experts at laws of war stuff, or international norms regarding pirates, nor are they going to keep a couple of lawyers around. Navies do. Reduces the chances of a serious miscarriage of justice -- or the obvious appearance of one -- that could be spun into propaganda.
2. All a marinier would be required to do with their prisoners is defangthem, secure them, and feed them until they could flag down a Big Grey Boat (regardless of whose flag she's flying). Then, large hairy types trained in handling sentient cargo can take over for transport and trial. reduces the risk the cretins get free and do more damage.
3. Having rotting corpses as bumpers is not only unsightly, but is likely to foul essential running gear -- forcing the privtae mariners to lose money to display their kill. Painted Jolly Rogers on teh side of teh wheelhouse or stackhouse are so much classier and don't interfere with operations. Get enough of them, and you might even discourage future attacks on your vessel.
Of course, I'd LOVE to see Western navies running Q-ships, trolling for pirates. Apparantly, given recent French experiences, you can do so even in a Big Grey Boat, as the savages aren't that smart. {chuckle}
(And yes, WIll, I realize you have your tongue at least partway into your cheek.)
Ah... I wasn't thinking in terms of decoration. I was thinking in terms of something hung over the side to absorb impact between two hulls, or between the hull and the dock.
Rick R:
"1. Commercial mariners are not going to become experts at laws of war stuff, or international norms regarding pirates,"
I am a commercial mariner with over twenty years before the mast, and have actually been on a ship that was hit by pirates,(wretched Bangladeshis who swiped some old mooring lines...stupid bastards!).
We do not NEED to become "experts at laws of war" anymore than a homeowner should be denied a shotgun in his home since he or she will not becoe an "expert" in their local jurisidiction's criminal code.
It's really very simple...if you try to board my ship without permission, it should be no different than someone breaking into your house.
"2. All a marinier would be required to do with their prisoners is defangthem, secure them,"
WHAT prisoners? Who are you to "require" anything of me when I am in reasonable fear for my life or grievous bodily harm?
And more pointedly, exactly how do you propose to enforce your will upon me when I'm in the Malacca Straits or off the east coast of Africa?
"3. Having rotting corpses as bumpers is not only unsightly, but is likely to foul essential running gear -- forcing the privtae mariners to lose money to display their kill. Painted Jolly Rogers on teh side of teh wheelhouse or stackhouse are so much classier and don't interfere with operations. Get enough of them, and you might even discourage future attacks on your vessel."
We're not savages, you know.
We are perfectly capable of decapitating the pirate and rendering the flesh down to the skull. A bit of urethane clear-coat, and we have a tasteful decoration for the iron correction balls on the binnacle.
The rest of the meat we toss over the side,(sharks gotta eat, too!).
And nobody need bother themselves with any paperwork except ordering some more ammo.
Don't educate your enemy.
Piracy will end when the lads who set out a-piratin' simply are never heard from again.
I have NEVER denied the utility is allowing mariners to defend themselves. Stop acting as if I have.
As far as the treatment of prisoners, ALL I am saying is that, IF pirates surrender to their intended victims, said intended victims ought not to conduct summary judgement and execute the pirates on the spot. For a variety of reasons (which I laid out), such executions are better handled by the various navies of the world.
Just like a homeowner who confronts a burgler (and that burglar surrenders) is NOT entitled to just frog march the slimeball into the backyard and shoot him in the back of the head. You hold him for the cops, and turn him over to them for disposition.
Of course, if you kill them BEFORE they can surrender, then there is no prisoner issue.
"Just like a homeowner who confronts a burgler (and that burglar surrenders) is NOT entitled to just frog march the slimeball into the backyard and shoot him in the back of the head."
Funny. I'm much of the opinion that once you step over my threshold with the intent to do harm or to take the fruits of my labor, your life is forfeit.
And your intent is entirely what I think it is - it is *my* house.
So, yes, I have no issue with the blindfolded execution in my backyard of a burglar. Why do you?
RickR:
"I have NEVER denied the utility is allowing mariners to defend themselves. Stop acting as if I have."
Then don't open your posts with blanket statements on what mariners are or are not going to become.
As someone who has spent most of my working life under maritime and admiralty law, I'd say I'm a little more versed in the subject,(with the scars and bruises to prove it).
Believe me, we have more than too many prohibitions on what we shall and shall not do as it is. We don't need more from the farm-boy peanut gallery,(no offense intended).
"As far as the treatment of prisoners, ALL I am saying is that, IF pirates surrender to their intended victims, said intended victims ought not to conduct summary judgement and execute the pirates on the spot. For a variety of reasons (which I laid out), such executions are better handled by the various navies of the world."
If pirates surrender, they STILL get gakked, only they might get a humane one-shot kill to the back of the head, instead of getting riddled with bullets and left to bleed out on the deck or struggle to claw their way to the surface after their they've lost their lungs' buoyancy from the bullet holes.
And I can give you TWO very good reasons WHY this must be so.
It is not in my, or any other mariner's interest,(and frankly speaking, it is we of the sea who REALLY matter in this), to provide any sort of education about our ships or their defensive capabilities to the pirates' buddies and prospective co-workers who might be ignorant of what we can do.
Second, with modern telecommunications
even if incarcerated for a little while, the intelligence that we, say, have M-14 rifles and 12 gauge pump shotguns would leak "back home"...so that the NEXT pack of bastards would come "loaded for bear".
My intent is not to "scare them off",or make them "beter" at what they do. My intent is to eradicate them, every last one of them.
This is the way that you put an end to piracy.
If no man EVER returned from over the horizon at sea, who would ever take a cruise or get on a fishing boat?
"Just like a homeowner who confronts a burgler (and that burglar surrenders) is NOT entitled to just frog march the slimeball into the backyard and shoot him in the back of the head. You hold him for the cops, and turn him over to them for disposition"
This is a ship, not a house down the block. For all intents and purposes, we are our own world largely independent of the one you inhabit.
Again I ask, how do you intend to enforce this if we choose not to co-operate with your will?
You'll never know that anything happened.
FWIW, if you successfully catch and disarm someone entering your house against your wishes, then as far as I'm concerned, you can execute him in your backyard or drown him in your toilet...it's none of MY affair.
And if it becomes some kind of issue, and I'm on your jury, you get a "not guilty" vote from me.
This is a ship, not a house down the block. For all intents and purposes, we are our own world largely independent of the one you inhabit.
I'm gonna count on Bilgeman to correct me here anywhere I go astray.
That's the bottom line. At the risk of "making blanket statements about what mariners are", mariners are people who spend a large portion of their lives hundreds or thousands of miles, and several days travel, from anywhere, and can't count on rational laws when they do get anywhere.
The last phrase of that sounds funky, so let me further define it.
"Rational" is a subjective concept. There are enough different countries in this world, with enough different legal systems, that no matter how you define "rational", there's a seaport somewhere where the local laws are blatantly at odds with that definition. For a fairly extreme example, let's say you catch your pirates somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, and the ship is traveling west. What will the authorities think of your "rational, reasonable" response to piracy at your next port of call, say, Naples? How different will that be from the authorities' opinion of your response if your next port of call is, say, Tripoli? There will be a wide variance in how the authorities view your actions in two ports a day's sailing apart, pretty much regardless of what those actions are.
And yet, once you get out of international waters, you are subject to those laws.
We grumble a lot here about things being treated as criminal by the Obama administration, when the administration preceding not only regarded them as legal (whether distasteful/effective/smart or not), but made a point to get expert legal advice to be sure they were legal. Well, welcome to a mariner's world. They deal with that crap every time they come within 15 miles of the coast.
GOF:
"Well, welcome to a mariner's world. They deal with that crap every time they come within 15 miles of the coast."
Imprimatur
nihil obstat
Bilgus homo maris
A.D. MMIX
There IS one nice feature of the madness I must mention.
Because of it, I could buy or sell a carton of cigarettes for 20 bucks just 12 miles and change offshore of New York or San Francisco, and Customs would let you land two cartons legally.
While I might be a hard-ass against piracy, i'm very keen on legal tax avoidance.
Now if I could only get some doofii at the company to front me one of their stacked OSV's and the crew to run it...
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2009/10/awakenings.html (27 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
And its too bad it took him this long to realize it.
The US should really allow ships to carry cannons.
Based on that last line, maybe the "it" he's referring to is "going to work where the good guys are the only ones with no rifles".
The US should really allow ships to carry cannons.
They can, as long as they shoot water instead of grapeshot. A cargo vessel carrying arms bumps up against too many issues of diplomacy.
If that's the case, then those 'issues' need to be re-visited. Navies aren't expected to be able to rush in and pick sailors up before a ship sinks; this is why they carry lifeboats. Why do we then expect all navies to take care of every instance of piracy? When faced with pirates in the past, merchant ships went about armed, and even escorted in some cases. There needs to be new rules for the re-arming of merchant fleets.
Don't try to untie the Gordian knot, dfw, just cut it clean through.
Congress still has the power to issue letters of marque
Or, you know, just do it.
Congress still has the power to issue letters of marque
EMP | Email | Homepage | 10.21.09 - 9:14 am | #
Yeah, that'll happen.
Remember this?
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Pretty clear right, no possible way to misinterpret that.
You could cluster bomb Washington and miss everyone who's read the Constitution.
A little "inside baseball" on Phillips.
I never sailed with him, but I know guys who did.
He's an idiot.
Fact is, he had a .38 revolver in his safe, but chose not to use it.
He also had no reason at all to remain on the bridge, and could have joined the rest of the crew in the barricaded hide they were in.
The REAL heroes of the Maersk Alabam were the engineers.
They secured the main engines and the emergency diesel generator, and left the pirates a ship that was dead in the water, except for the myriad of battery-powered alarms sounding that they didn't know how to shut off.
Once the pirates realized that the crew wouldn't assist them, they were in the same place as an aircraft hijacker who kills the pilots...options became severely limited.
If Phillips HAD joined the crew in the hide, the pirates would likely have simply left without him, and the entire drama would have been averted.
His hogging of the limelight since being rescued, in that he hasn't gone out of his way to credit the rest of his crew who took back their ship while he was off busy being a hostage, has made him no friends in the industry.
Phillips is retiring from seafaring because jobs are really tight right now and very few in the business want to sail for him.
A crew without a Captain will elect one of their own as Master.
A Captain without a crew is adrift at sea in a boat.
He has been found wanting. Seamen do not forget those who forsake their shipmates, or through their pride and stupidity, lose their ships.
1. There have been several white papers on the issues of armed merchant vessels. The problems are solveable. For one, you can arrange to have the weapons sealed just before entering national waters if need be.
2. The problem with Congress issuing Letters of Marque is that they are now illegal under the Laws of War.
"The problem with Congress issuing Letters of Marque is that they are now illegal under the Laws of War."
That really shouldn't be an issue for a nation whose navy is more powerful than the entire rest of the world combined. Then again that would require a Congress with actual balls, so I guess you'd be right.
Also, I don't know what a 25mm white phosphorus flare does to a human torso, but it sounds like it'd be kind of painful.
>1. There have been several white >papers on the issues of armed merchant >vessels. The problems are solveable. >For one, you can arrange to have the >weapons sealed just before entering >national waters if need be.
>2. The problem with Congress issuing >Letters of Marque is that they are now >illegal under the Laws of War.
>Rick R.
And what rules of law do Pirates or Terrorists follow. In fact since they are not a nation. I suspect that the "Laws of War" do not apply to them.
Ted
And what rules of law do Pirates or Terrorists follow. In fact since they are not a nation. I suspect that the "Laws of War" do not apply to them.
Ted
__________________
Wouldn't it be nice if the Bush DOJ had said this the first time the left bitched about keeping foreign jihadis in Gitmo?
Say it with me now: Hostilis humanis generis, the common enemy of all mankind. Worthy of nothing more then a rope and a yardam.
The phrase "to be treated as wolves are" comes to mind, and not post-Endangered Species Act, neither.
Britt -- The Bush Administration DID say that. That's what the phrase "unlawful combatant" is all about.
TCK & Ted -- The fact that pirates and terrorists are not protected by the Laws of War as lawful combatants, doesn't change the legal aspect. "Letters of Marque" are a war crime, REGARDLESS of who they are directed at. The target isn't the "protected" by this prohibition -- rather that Geneva (and I believe Hague) signatories are prohibited from issuing them. Period.
This restriction was inserted into the Laws of War because "Letters of Marque" had become (actually, had been for some time) a paper cover that was used BY pirates, to avoid the penalties of piracy.
Get some internationally insignificant -- but technically sovereign -- power to issue you a letter, and you had a pretty solid defense against piracy, so long as you didn't get caught in teh act of hitting a ship allied to or protected by the issuing power. (And you get around that by haveing MULTIPLE Letters of Marque, from powers either actively hositle to one another or at least in different spheres.
In modern terms, get letters issued by almost any Western nation, one from an African nation on each coast, and one from Iran, and you could claim to be merely carrying out your Letter.
However, one DOES NOT need a Letter of Marque to DEFEND one's ship against pirates, nor to carry out the traditional punishment FOR piracy. Although I'd rather see private vessels turn any captured priates over to the nearest friendly or neutral naval vessel for disposition.
Commercial vessels should sail into their scheduled ports of call with the corpses of pirates hanging by the neck from the ship's upperworks.
That doing so would require firearms of various descriptions in order to repel or subdue the vermin is a self-evident fact, and ought be supported by all civilized peoples.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
This would be a workeable solution. Certainly for any pirates who get killed.
I'd rather have the Navy (of any country) give any captured pirates a quick court martial and hang 'em if they get captured. More civilized to hang them and chuck the bodies overboard, with all the procedural "i"'s dotted, then to have commercial vessels execute prisoners and drape them off the hull like bunting.
Rick,
But the latter is so much more fun.
Yes, but it runs into a few problems, some readily exploitable by intelligent savages:
1. Commercial mariners are not going to become experts at laws of war stuff, or international norms regarding pirates, nor are they going to keep a couple of lawyers around. Navies do. Reduces the chances of a serious miscarriage of justice -- or the obvious appearance of one -- that could be spun into propaganda.
2. All a marinier would be required to do with their prisoners is defangthem, secure them, and feed them until they could flag down a Big Grey Boat (regardless of whose flag she's flying). Then, large hairy types trained in handling sentient cargo can take over for transport and trial. reduces the risk the cretins get free and do more damage.
3. Having rotting corpses as bumpers is not only unsightly, but is likely to foul essential running gear -- forcing the privtae mariners to lose money to display their kill. Painted Jolly Rogers on teh side of teh wheelhouse or stackhouse are so much classier and don't interfere with operations. Get enough of them, and you might even discourage future attacks on your vessel.
Of course, I'd LOVE to see Western navies running Q-ships, trolling for pirates. Apparantly, given recent French experiences, you can do so even in a Big Grey Boat, as the savages aren't that smart. {chuckle}
(And yes, WIll, I realize you have your tongue at least partway into your cheek.)
"...then to have commercial vessels execute prisoners and drape them off the hull like bunting.
Um, not bunting. Those are called "fenders."
bunting n.
"Strips of cloth or material usually in the colors of the national flag, used especially as drapery or streamers for festive decoration."
Yes, bunting.
Ah... I wasn't thinking in terms of decoration. I was thinking in terms of something hung over the side to absorb impact between two hulls, or between the hull and the dock.
Like these:
http://www.nauticexpo.com/boat-manufacturer/fender-996.html
Rick R:
"1. Commercial mariners are not going to become experts at laws of war stuff, or international norms regarding pirates,"
I am a commercial mariner with over twenty years before the mast, and have actually been on a ship that was hit by pirates,(wretched Bangladeshis who swiped some old mooring lines...stupid bastards!).
We do not NEED to become "experts at laws of war" anymore than a homeowner should be denied a shotgun in his home since he or she will not becoe an "expert" in their local jurisidiction's criminal code.
It's really very simple...if you try to board my ship without permission, it should be no different than someone breaking into your house.
"2. All a marinier would be required to do with their prisoners is defangthem, secure them,"
WHAT prisoners? Who are you to "require" anything of me when I am in reasonable fear for my life or grievous bodily harm?
And more pointedly, exactly how do you propose to enforce your will upon me when I'm in the Malacca Straits or off the east coast of Africa?
"3. Having rotting corpses as bumpers is not only unsightly, but is likely to foul essential running gear -- forcing the privtae mariners to lose money to display their kill. Painted Jolly Rogers on teh side of teh wheelhouse or stackhouse are so much classier and don't interfere with operations. Get enough of them, and you might even discourage future attacks on your vessel."
We're not savages, you know.
We are perfectly capable of decapitating the pirate and rendering the flesh down to the skull. A bit of urethane clear-coat, and we have a tasteful decoration for the iron correction balls on the binnacle.
The rest of the meat we toss over the side,(sharks gotta eat, too!).
And nobody need bother themselves with any paperwork except ordering some more ammo.
Don't educate your enemy.
Piracy will end when the lads who set out a-piratin' simply are never heard from again.
Bilgeman --
I have NEVER denied the utility is allowing mariners to defend themselves. Stop acting as if I have.
As far as the treatment of prisoners, ALL I am saying is that, IF pirates surrender to their intended victims, said intended victims ought not to conduct summary judgement and execute the pirates on the spot. For a variety of reasons (which I laid out), such executions are better handled by the various navies of the world.
Just like a homeowner who confronts a burgler (and that burglar surrenders) is NOT entitled to just frog march the slimeball into the backyard and shoot him in the back of the head. You hold him for the cops, and turn him over to them for disposition.
Of course, if you kill them BEFORE they can surrender, then there is no prisoner issue.
"Just like a homeowner who confronts a burgler (and that burglar surrenders) is NOT entitled to just frog march the slimeball into the backyard and shoot him in the back of the head."
Funny. I'm much of the opinion that once you step over my threshold with the intent to do harm or to take the fruits of my labor, your life is forfeit.
And your intent is entirely what I think it is - it is *my* house.
So, yes, I have no issue with the blindfolded execution in my backyard of a burglar. Why do you?
I should've clarified - that was meant to be facetious :P
RickR:
"I have NEVER denied the utility is allowing mariners to defend themselves. Stop acting as if I have."
Then don't open your posts with blanket statements on what mariners are or are not going to become.
As someone who has spent most of my working life under maritime and admiralty law, I'd say I'm a little more versed in the subject,(with the scars and bruises to prove it).
Believe me, we have more than too many prohibitions on what we shall and shall not do as it is. We don't need more from the farm-boy peanut gallery,(no offense intended).
"As far as the treatment of prisoners, ALL I am saying is that, IF pirates surrender to their intended victims, said intended victims ought not to conduct summary judgement and execute the pirates on the spot. For a variety of reasons (which I laid out), such executions are better handled by the various navies of the world."
If pirates surrender, they STILL get gakked, only they might get a humane one-shot kill to the back of the head, instead of getting riddled with bullets and left to bleed out on the deck or struggle to claw their way to the surface after their they've lost their lungs' buoyancy from the bullet holes.
And I can give you TWO very good reasons WHY this must be so.
It is not in my, or any other mariner's interest,(and frankly speaking, it is we of the sea who REALLY matter in this), to provide any sort of education about our ships or their defensive capabilities to the pirates' buddies and prospective co-workers who might be ignorant of what we can do.
Second, with modern telecommunications
even if incarcerated for a little while, the intelligence that we, say, have M-14 rifles and 12 gauge pump shotguns would leak "back home"...so that the NEXT pack of bastards would come "loaded for bear".
My intent is not to "scare them off",or make them "beter" at what they do. My intent is to eradicate them, every last one of them.
This is the way that you put an end to piracy.
If no man EVER returned from over the horizon at sea, who would ever take a cruise or get on a fishing boat?
"Just like a homeowner who confronts a burgler (and that burglar surrenders) is NOT entitled to just frog march the slimeball into the backyard and shoot him in the back of the head. You hold him for the cops, and turn him over to them for disposition"
This is a ship, not a house down the block. For all intents and purposes, we are our own world largely independent of the one you inhabit.
Again I ask, how do you intend to enforce this if we choose not to co-operate with your will?
You'll never know that anything happened.
FWIW, if you successfully catch and disarm someone entering your house against your wishes, then as far as I'm concerned, you can execute him in your backyard or drown him in your toilet...it's none of MY affair.
And if it becomes some kind of issue, and I'm on your jury, you get a "not guilty" vote from me.
This is a ship, not a house down the block. For all intents and purposes, we are our own world largely independent of the one you inhabit.
I'm gonna count on Bilgeman to correct me here anywhere I go astray.
That's the bottom line. At the risk of "making blanket statements about what mariners are", mariners are people who spend a large portion of their lives hundreds or thousands of miles, and several days travel, from anywhere, and can't count on rational laws when they do get anywhere.
The last phrase of that sounds funky, so let me further define it.
"Rational" is a subjective concept. There are enough different countries in this world, with enough different legal systems, that no matter how you define "rational", there's a seaport somewhere where the local laws are blatantly at odds with that definition. For a fairly extreme example, let's say you catch your pirates somewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, and the ship is traveling west. What will the authorities think of your "rational, reasonable" response to piracy at your next port of call, say, Naples? How different will that be from the authorities' opinion of your response if your next port of call is, say, Tripoli? There will be a wide variance in how the authorities view your actions in two ports a day's sailing apart, pretty much regardless of what those actions are.
And yet, once you get out of international waters, you are subject to those laws.
We grumble a lot here about things being treated as criminal by the Obama administration, when the administration preceding not only regarded them as legal (whether distasteful/effective/smart or not), but made a point to get expert legal advice to be sure they were legal. Well, welcome to a mariner's world. They deal with that crap every time they come within 15 miles of the coast.
GOF:
"Well, welcome to a mariner's world. They deal with that crap every time they come within 15 miles of the coast."
Imprimatur
nihil obstat
Bilgus homo maris
A.D. MMIX
There IS one nice feature of the madness I must mention.
Because of it, I could buy or sell a carton of cigarettes for 20 bucks just 12 miles and change offshore of New York or San Francisco, and Customs would let you land two cartons legally.
While I might be a hard-ass against piracy, i'm very keen on legal tax avoidance.
Now if I could only get some doofii at the company to front me one of their stacked OSV's and the crew to run it...
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>