Pirates yet again with an American ship

[Anthony]

The pirates are at it again, this time taking an American crew hostage.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97EE5GO2&show_article=1


Wish they looked like this!

 

[Skip Miller]

Americans back in control of the ship, Captain being held hostage.

-Skip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7990566.stm

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Americans back in control of the ship, Captain being held hostage.

-Skip

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7990566.stm

If it's true. Pirates in lifeboat sounds good but they have the captain hostage, still gonna be a pain. Could half a dozen snipers help?

 

[wsuffa]

Nothing a Spooky would't prevent in the future...

 

[markb5900]

I understand there are Navy ships "in the area" so to speak. This ship was 350 miles from the coast so the protection was not out that far.
I am not sure of exactly what Navy group is in the area, but IMHO if it is a carrier battle group they have planes in the air just about 24/7 in defense of the battle group. Wouldn't a radio call from just one ship that they are under attack from pirates and a strafing run start to put some fear into these pirates? A month or two ago a cruise ship outran these guys, so they aren't exactly in "high speed" boats that is for sure and a jet at supersonic speeds would be there in a matter of a minute or two.
When are we going to start to protect our citizens abroad and stop all the "PC"?

Mark B

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I understand there are Navy ships "in the area" so to speak. This ship was 350 miles from the coast so the protection was not out that far.
I am not sure of exactly what Navy group is in the area, but IMHO if it is a carrier battle group they have planes in the air just about 24/7 in defense of the battle group. Wouldn't a radio call from just one ship that they are under attack from pirates and a strafing run start to put some fear into these pirates? A month or two ago a cruise ship outran these guys, so they aren't exactly in "high speed" boats that is for sure and a jet at supersonic speeds would be there in a matter of a minute or two.
When are we going to start to protect our citizens abroad and stop all the "PC"?

Mark B

I don't recall the details or where I read it, but I'm pretty sure it's a surface force only... No fixed wing air assets.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I understand there are Navy ships "in the area" so to speak. This ship was 350 miles from the coast so the protection was not out that far.
I am not sure of exactly what Navy group is in the area, but IMHO if it is a carrier battle group they have planes in the air just about 24/7 in defense of the battle group. Wouldn't a radio call from just one ship that they are under attack from pirates and a strafing run start to put some fear into these pirates? A month or two ago a cruise ship outran these guys, so they aren't exactly in "high speed" boats that is for sure and a jet at supersonic speeds would be there in a matter of a minute or two.
When are we going to start to protect our citizens abroad and stop all the "PC"?

Mark B

Not disagreeing with your premise, just a nit to pick. A cruise ship can move pretty fast when they want to. All 4 ships I was on clocked better than 25 knots just cruising when clear of land at times. That's pretty fast for most small boats. You tend to go slower in a small boat when the waves pick up because the ride gets uncomfortable. I don't think the pirates are using cigarettes that run 50+ knots.

If you are curious how fast your cruise ship can go, a reasonable approximation is 1.2*(waterline_length_in_feet)^0.5. Depending on the hull, it could be slightly faster or much slower. This applies to displacement hulls, not anything planing.

A smallish 500' cruise ship tops off ~26 knots.

I don't know how easy it is to tell the pirates from the fishing vessels in the area. Maybe they should bring back the convoy system, or maybe the Q ship ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_ship )

 

[Matthew]

Nothing a Spooky would't prevent in the future...

One my favorite lines from the movie Sin City ... "Kill 'em Nate, kill 'em REEEEAL good!"

>
If you are curious how fast your cruise ship can go, a reasonable approximation is 1.2*(waterline_length_in_feet)^0.5. Depending on the hull, it could be slightly faster or much slower. This applies to displacement hulls, not anything planing.
<

I used to work with an old Navy guy. Can't remember the situation, it would have been mid-late 80s, but it was a case where we needed a carrier someplace. He did the math and predicted within a few hours when we'd hear on the news about a carrier being on-station someplace. Those things can scoot when necessary.

 

[LearDriver]

Maybe its time to put the guys from Blackwater on board the ships. The pirates can't board a ship if they are dead. I don't see why some group couldn't go to the pirate villages and eradicate the problem.

 

[Henning]

If you are curious how fast your cruise ship can go, a reasonable approximation is 1.2*(waterline_length_in_feet)^0.5. Depending on the hull, it could be slightly faster or much slower. This applies to displacement hulls, not anything planing.

Actually, that isn't the formula. The wavetrap waterline speed formula is 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length However, on a vessel with a waterline length to beam ratio greater than 7:1, it can cut through its bow wave and numbers such as 1.75*sq rt WL length are not unheard of. That's why most Man o' Wars you see have WL/Beam ratios around 10/1 as they cut through the water most efficiently. Most of the modern large cruise ships will be able to do in the low 30s if they put all of the generators on line and into the pods, and at that speed, the wake form at the side of the ship would be unsurvivable by the approach of a small boat. That's Cruise Ships though. Most Mechant vessels don't carry the powerplants to do that. Most merchant vessels are powered to manage 1.25* SRWLL full out and cruise about 1.18 which is where maximum economy is.

 

[Henning]

I used to work with an old Navy guy. Can't remember the situation, it would have been mid-late 80s, but it was a case where we needed a carrier someplace. He did the math and predicted within a few hours when we'd hear on the news about a carrier being on-station someplace. Those things can scoot when necessary.

I was coming back from Singapore once pulling a 580' barge with a US flag tug when an F-14 buzzed us, I guess he saw the US Flag and came back with a smoker pass cracking us a boom. A few minutes later a Carrier came up on the horizon all alone and shagging a--. I worked his radar plot at over 42kts. about 20hrs later the rest of the carrier task force came by.

 

[SCCutler]

Actually, that isn't the formula. The wavetrap waterline speed formula is 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length However, on a vessel with a waterline length to beam ratio greater than 7:1, it can cut through its bow wave and numbers such as 1.75*sq rt WL length are not unheard of. That's why most Man o' Wars you see have WL/Beam ratios around 10/1 as they cut through the water most efficiently. Most of the modern large cruise ships will be able to do in the low 30s if they put all of the generators on line and into the pods, and at that speed, the wake form at the side of the ship would be unsurvivable by the approach of a small boat. That's Cruise Ships though. Most Mechant vessels don't carry the powerplants to do that. Most merchant vessels are powered to manage 1.25* SRWLL full out and cruise about 1.18 which is where maximum economy is.

Y'know, I was gonna say all that, but I did not want to appear too smart.

 

[tdager]

Maybe its time to put the guys from Blackwater on board the ships. The pirates can't board a ship if they are dead. I don't see why some group couldn't go to the pirate villages and eradicate the problem.

+1

Why the hell are these things not ARMED?

 

[Anthony]

+1

Why the hell are these things not ARMED?

Its against many countries of the flag vessel's law as well illegal in most ports to arm merchant vessels. The U.S. needs to float a few "Q" ships in the region.

Edited. Henning's correct.

 

[AuntPeggy]

A spokesman for the ship company Maersk, Kevin Speers, tells AP Radio that the destroyer USS Bainbridge is on the scene. He adds that the boat with the pirates is floating near the Maersk Alabama.

The U.S. Navy is keeping a close watch on the still unfolding pirate drama off the coast of Somalia, using P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft and other equipment.
Defense officials have video of the scene where pirates are holding the American captain of a U.S-flag ship hijacked Wednesday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Bainbridge_(DDG-96)

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Actually, that isn't the formula. The wavetrap waterline speed formula is 1.34 times the square root of the waterline length However, on a vessel with a waterline length to beam ratio greater than 7:1, it can cut through its bow wave and numbers such as 1.75*sq rt WL length are not unheard of. That's why most Man o' Wars you see have WL/Beam ratios around 10/1 as they cut through the water most efficiently. Most of the modern large cruise ships will be able to do in the low 30s if they put all of the generators on line and into the pods, and at that speed, the wake form at the side of the ship would be unsurvivable by the approach of a small boat. That's Cruise Ships though. Most Mechant vessels don't carry the powerplants to do that. Most merchant vessels are powered to manage 1.25* SRWLL full out and cruise about 1.18 which is where maximum economy is.

Actually, the formula I list is correct with the constant before the square root changing due to the hull form. I was just keeping it simple. You post a range of 1.18 through 1.25 with extremes of 1.75 for extremely sharp hulls- the constant 1.2 fits in there and is probably close to the average for all displacement hulls, including sailing vessels where sacrifices to the hull shape are made for menuverability and pointing to windward. The fact that a sailing vessel moves through the water on its side and slightly sideways (usually) also reduces its speed. Is is still a good approximation.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Its against international maritime law to arm merchant vessels. The U.S. needs to float a few "Q" ships in the region.

When did this happen? Once upon a time a lot of merchant ships were armed against pirates. The British East India company armed their ships (a long time ago). More recently, didn't merchant ships in WWII carry deck guns? Or do the rules change in time of war?

 

[wanttaja]

When did this happen? Once upon a time a lot of merchant ships were armed against pirates. The British East India company armed their ships (a long time ago). More recently, didn't merchant ships in WWII carry deck guns? Or do the rules change in time of war?

Merchant ships carried deck guns, but they were manned by Navy sailors rather than the merchant seamen. A 3" gun requires specialized training, not something you can learn over a weekend.

There was also a Geneva Convention aspect, too. A merchant seaman is a civilian. A person in civilian clothing who fires a gun at the armed forces of another country is not granted the same protections as a formal combatant. Doesn't apply to fighting piracy, of course, but that was probably a factor in WWI and WWII.

As to why ships aren't armed today, I suspect there are a variety of reasons. Insurance is probably a big one... ransoms have been paltry compared to what insurance companies would have to pay for a complete loss. Or even what they'd have to pay if someone came aboard such a ship in, say, San Francisco Bay, and started shooting the gun at various shore targets.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Teller1900]

Y'know, I was gonna say all that, but I did not want to appear too smart.

Don't worry Spike, we'd never think that of you!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I was coming back from Singapore once pulling a 580' barge with a US flag tug when an F-14 buzzed us, I guess he saw the US Flag and came back with a smoker pass cracking us a boom. A few minutes later a Carrier came up on the horizon all alone and shagging a--. I worked his radar plot at over 42kts. about 20hrs later the rest of the carrier task force came by.

Wow. I was crossing the Bay Bridge Tunnels once, and there was a carrier putting out to sea. It wasn't more than 300 yds. away, and was clipping along pretty well. I noticed that I could smell the jet fuel, but couldn't hear the ship. I guess I just assumed that you'd be able to hear something of 100K tons, at least displacing all of that water.

42 knots. Wow. That's a lot of energy to be able to do that.

 

[ScottM]

42 knots. Wow. That's a lot of energy to be able to do that.

Arrrgh that be a nuk'lar carrier! lot of enregery in dem atom bucko!






{sorry thread topic was about pirates so I had to stay on topic....well a bit}

 

[Henning]

+1

Why the hell are these things not ARMED?

Simple, the UN wants to ban guns from everyone so IMO's (International Maritime Organization, an arm of the UN) has policy against arming merchant vessels. It stems back to the Geneva Convention wording in Armed Combatants and unarmed merchant vessels and their allowability under the rules of war to be targets (although hauling arms and ammunition is considered being armed). It was never meant to include small defensive arms though, it's meant to cover weapons large enough to threaten a ship itself. So the UN perverted this like the NRA perverted the Second Ammendment into hunters rights and said "All merchant vessels should be unarmed" and included small arms into their definition of "Armed Vessel".

It's shear stupidity to set to sea without being properly armed to defend your vessel on a man to man level, and I wouldn't mind a 4" gun one bit. I'll take my chances with a foreign navy considering me a combatant and blowing me out of the water for it.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Simple, the UN wants to ban guns from everyone so IMO's (International Maritime Organization, an arm of the UN) has policy against arming merchant vessels. It stems back to the Geneva Convention wording in Armed Combatants and unarmed merchant vessels and their allowability under the rules of war to be targets (although hauling arms and ammunition is considered being armed). It was never meant to include small defensive arms though, it's meant to cover weapons large enough to threaten a ship itself. So the UN perverted this like the NRA perverted the Second Ammendment into hunters rights and said "All merchant vessels should be unarmed" and included small arms into their definition of "Armed Vessel".

It's shear stupidity to set to sea without being properly armed to defend your vessel on a man to man level, and I wouldn't mind a 4" gun one bit. I'll take my chances with a foreign navy considering me a combatant and blowing me out of the water for it.

So, just so I'm clear, are you saying there's no small arms locker on merchant vessels?

 

[Henning]

Its against international maritime law to arm merchant vessels. The U.S. needs to float a few "Q" ships in the region.

Incorrect!!! It is against no international law for a ship to carry small arms. It is against IMO's policy, but there is no legal weight applied whatsoever as IMO has no enforcement power. Nothing IMO says is law, only convention. Flag Nations set laws in accordance or defiance of those conventions for it's flag vessels to follow or not. It is up to the Flag nation to enforce those regulations as well, and no one else. On the high seas I am required to acquiesce to US Flagged Naval and Coast Guard vessels, and to no one else. If any other nation's vessel tries to impede my progress or board me on the high seas, it is an act of war against the US. The US takes no position, pro or con on the carrying of arms aboard a US flagged vessel.

 

[tdager]

.. ransoms have been paltry compared to what insurance companies would have to pay for a complete loss. Or even what they'd have to pay if someone came aboard such a ship in, say, San Francisco Bay, and started shooting the gun at various shore targets.

Ron Wanttaja

Screw the ransoms. So merchant marines are supposed to just say be taken and held hostage?

Damn I am soooooooo glad that these guys fought back.

I think we need to SERIOUSLY reconsider arming "civilian" ships with self-defense weapons.

 

[Henning]

So, just so I'm clear, are you saying there's no small arms locker on merchant vessels?

Where did you read that? Most every vessel has an arms locker in the Captains cabin. Whether it is legal for there to be small arms in that locker is up to the Flag Nation. Whether the arms locker is actually stocked is ultimately up to the captain. Mine always has a few things in it.

What I said is there is NO INTERNATIONAL LAW PROHIBITING MERCHANT VESSELS TO CARRY SMALL ARMS. In all fact, there are no "International Laws" at all, since there is no international body with enforcement powers. The only thing there is is international conventions to which parties can be signatories to, and then other parties signatory to that convention can either apply or disregard the sanctions that the convention body places on transgressors of that convention. The concept of International Law is a scary one and I'm surprised that you of all people would concede such unearned and unissued power. The UN would like to be able to set an international law, but that will be right about 9 months before World Dictatorship and the end of any semblance of the US way of life.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Where did you read that? Most every vessel has an arms locker in the Captains cabin. Whether it is legal for there to be small arms in that locker is up to the Flag Nation. Whether the arms locker is actually stocked is ultimately up to the captain. Mine always has a few things in it.

What I said is there is NO INTERNATIONAL LAW PROHIBITING MERCHANT VESSELS TO CARRY SMALL ARMS. In all fact, there are no "International Laws" at all, since there is no international body with enforcement powers. The only thing there is is international conventions to which parties can be signatories to, and then other parties signatory to that convention can either apply or disregard the sanctions that the convention body places on transgressors of that convention. The concept of International Law is a scary one and I'm surprised that you of all people would concede such unearned and unissued power. The UN would like to be able to set an international law, but that will be right about 9 months before World Dictatorship and the end of any semblance of the US way of life.

I guess I just completely misinterpreted your post.

You're right about international law. The only thing I'd add is that, per my 5-yr. old memory of admiralty, the vessel is subject to the laws/treaties of the nation by which it is flagged. For instance, if there's a murder on board a Greek-flagged vessel while in int'l waters, the crime is tried under Greek law. Or, if the U.S. has entered into a treaty saying "we won't disturb military shipwrecks," a U.S.-flagged vessel is subject to that, even in int'l waters.

But, there are also things considered to be against "international law," despite the fact that international law isn't necessarily written. But, the only way to enforce international law and its concepts is to haul you before an international court, which at this point in history, is a big deal on the scale of WWII tribunals.

But, international law is a mess, and no one can really say they understand how it works, because it hasn't developed to the point where it has any set way of working - it's kind of an ad hoc thing at this point. Way more advanced than it was even 50 years ago (and that may not be a good thing), but it's still an absolute mess.

 

[Henning]

Screw the ransoms. So merchant marines are supposed to just say be taken and held hostage?

Damn I am soooooooo glad that these guys fought back.

I think we need to SERIOUSLY reconsider arming "civilian" ships with self-defense weapons.

What's to reconsider? Many of us never stopped being armed. I even worked at one company where the official policy was to be unarmed, but when you went into the operations managers office to get your orders, there was a rack of SS Mossberg 12 gauges and a couple of cases of ammo, and if you were heading out and felt it prudent to be armed will not be seen walking out with a reasonable contingent of those supplies with the charts he pulled from the adjacent cabinet. I have never been asked about or admonished by any company for my sidearm either even when the Port Captain came in my cabin while I was cleaning and servicing it.

 

[Henning]

I guess I just completely misinterpreted your post.

You're right about international law. The only thing I'd add is that, per my 5-yr. old memory of admiralty, the vessel is subject to the laws/treaties of the nation by which it is flagged. For instance, if there's a murder on board a Greek-flagged vessel while in int'l waters, the crime is tried under Greek law. Or, if the U.S. has entered into a treaty saying "we won't disturb military shipwrecks," a U.S.-flagged vessel is subject to that, even in int'l waters.

But, there are also things considered to be against "international law," despite the fact that international law isn't necessarily written. But, the only way to enforce international law and its concepts is to haul you before an international court, which at this point in history, is a big deal on the scale of WWII tribunals.

But, international law is a mess, and no one can really say they understand how it works, because it hasn't developed to the point where it has any set way of working - it's kind of an ad hoc thing at this point. Way more advanced than it was even 50 years ago (and that may not be a good thing), but it's still an absolute mess.

As I said, all laws are those of the Flag Nation and on the high seas, only the flag nation bears legal jurisdiction to board a vessel uninvited for any reason except salvage. Once a vessel crossed into state waters (3-12 miles off shore depending on location) then that vessel becomes subject to being boarded for inspection. I do not know of any states where it is prohibited for a vessel to contain small arms free practique. There are nations where when I clear into a port, they may either take my weapons into storage and then return them with my out bound clearance, but I have never had that happen. Typically they will put a lead seal, similar to the seal they put on containers until they clear customs, on my weapons locker which I am not to break until I leave port. I do have to provide them with a serial number of all the weapons regardless of how they handle the situation.

 

[Matthew]

Out of curiosity - If these pirates are taken aboard a US Navy ship, and they are truly pirates (acting on their own, not acting for a foreign state), and are subject to US law, what is the US law regarding high seas piracy of a US flagged vessel?

 

[SkyHog]

Out of curiosity - If these pirates are taken aboard a US Navy ship, and they are truly pirates (acting on their own, not acting for a foreign state), and are subject to US law, what is the US law regarding high seas piracy of a US flagged vessel?

Yarrr! Dey be forced to walk de plank!

 

[Matthew]

Yarrr! Dey be forced to walk de plank!

Maybe not far from it, I don't know how much the penalties may have changed over the last couple hundred years. I doubt they'd have the protection of any convention, Geneva or otherwise.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Maybe not far from it, I don't know how much the penalties may have changed over the last couple hundred years. I doubt they'd have the protection of any convention, Geneva or otherwise.

I'm sure somebody'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that there is (or at least once was) a provision in US law that allowed the captain of a US flagged vessel on the high seas to conduct a sort of "trial" of partisans, the rules of which to be set by him and the "jury" to consist of members of the crew.

Not sure if that's accurate or not (and now that I'm thinking about it, that may be from a Tom Clancy novel, so...) but I'm guessing that pirates are afforded zero protection under pretty much every nation's laws. And the Geneva Conventions don't apply to partisans, so that leaves precious little room for them to get away with it, so to speak.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Wanna bet that Henning will know the answer off the top of his head?

But, considering that U.S.-flagged vessels are subject to U.S. law - absent a specific and express statement in the United States Code saying that the crew of a vessel is authorized to carry out its own trials, they'd be nuts to do anything but haul them back here for a trial with whatever process they get.

But, the oceans are big, and ships are small. Unless there's a spy satellite or submarine peeking through a periscope, who's to say what happened to them.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Wanna bet that Henning will know the answer off the top of his head?

But, considering that U.S.-flagged vessels are subject to U.S. law - absent a specific and express statement in the United States Code saying that the crew of a vessel is authorized to carry out its own trials, they'd be nuts to do anything but haul them back here for a trial with whatever process they get.

But, the oceans are big, and ships are small. Unless there's a spy satellite or submarine peeking through a periscope, who's to say what happened to them.

Yep, I was mistaken. I was thinking of Clear and Present Danger, however:

Contrary to usual procedure, they create a "justice at sea" bogus trial based on some ancient mariner's manual. It is just the right scenario to create fear in their prisoners which extracts a confession from them that the Coast Guard believes will stand up in court and get them prosecuted.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Clear-Present-Danger-Tom-Clancy/dp/0006177301

Shows what I know.

 

[colomtnflyer]

Shark bait.... I think the pirates would make excellent shark bait... I doubt if a shark really cares whether a pirate tastes like chicken or not...

Bring home the Capt, and leave the pirates to their own devices... (and of course, no fuel....) Let them row the hundreds of miles back to shore...

What would it take to put up a KEYHOLE aircraft to monitor all sea traffic, and make it know that any approach to a merchant vessel will be met with EXTREME, PREJUDICIAL FORCE?
Think they'll back off a bit if a few of their boats are blown out of the water?

 

[wabower]

quotes from military high-ups seem to indicate it's not feasible.

Shark bait.... I think the pirates would make excellent shark bait... I doubt if a shark really cares whether a pirate tastes like chicken or not...

Bring home the Capt, and leave the pirates to their own devices... (and of course, no fuel....) Let them row the hundreds of miles back to shore...

What would it take to put up a KEYHOLE aircraft to monitor all sea traffic, and make it know that any approach to a merchant vessel will be met with EXTREME, PREJUDICIAL FORCE?
Think they'll back off a bit if a few of their boats are blown out of the water?

 

[Henning]

Out of curiosity - If these pirates are taken aboard a US Navy ship, and they are truly pirates (acting on their own, not acting for a foreign state), and are subject to US law, what is the US law regarding high seas piracy of a US flagged vessel?

If they are taken aboard a US Navy vessel, they will act under the direction of the President as advised by the US Dept of State. Perhaps Tom can answer this if I am wrong, but I do not believe the US Navy has standing Orders for their captains as to how to deal with captive Pirates, and while allowance under international treaty and convention exists for the captain to order their immediate execution, you don't get to be captain of a US Navy Man o' War by being stupid enough to make a call like that without orders. In the days before communications, both Naval Vessels and Privateers (basically mercenaries sanctioned by States to combat pirates) would routinely execute pirates on their standing orders. As I said, I'm not sure those standing orders still exist. I would assume at this point, the pirates will either be brought to the US to stand trial, or returned to the Authorities in the countries to which they are nationals. I would assume the latter being more likely as if we bring them here it just adds more hassles to the situation. As a merchant captain I have the option of killing them, containing them and delivering them to the authorities at my next or nearest port, or letting them flee. I am not under the same restrictions as a Naval Officer.

 

[wabower]

Are you under any restrictions regarding changing your mind regarding your course of action, say after you let them flee for about 50 yards?

If they are taken aboard a US Navy vessel, they will act under the direction of the President as advised by the US Dept of State. Perhaps Tom can answer this if I am wrong, but I do not believe the US Navy has standing Orders for their captains as to how to deal with captive Pirates, and while allowance under international treaty and convention exists for the captain to order their immediate execution, you don't get to be captain of a US Navy Man o' War by being stupid enough to make a call like that without orders. In the days before communications, both Naval Vessels and Privateers (basically mercenaries sanctioned by States to combat pirates) would routinely execute pirates on their standing orders. As I said, I'm not sure those standing orders still exist. I would assume at this point, the pirates will either be brought to the US to stand trial, or returned to the Authorities in the countries to which they are nationals. I would assume the latter being more likely as if we bring them here it just adds more hassles to the situation. As a merchant captain I have the option of killing them, containing them and delivering them to the authorities at my next or nearest port, or letting them flee. I am not under the same restrictions as a Naval Officer.

 

[Henning]

Wanna bet that Henning will know the answer off the top of his head?

But, considering that U.S.-flagged vessels are subject to U.S. law - absent a specific and express statement in the United States Code saying that the crew of a vessel is authorized to carry out its own trials, they'd be nuts to do anything but haul them back here for a trial with whatever process they get.

But, the oceans are big, and ships are small. Unless there's a spy satellite or submarine peeking through a periscope, who's to say what happened to them.

The US is signatory to convention that decries piracy and authorizes the use of any force including deadly force in defense against and while rendering aid against piracy. There is no trial required to execute them, kill on sight is my standing order. If I do take them captive, I do not have the option of holding any trial (The "trial" that I think is being alluded to here is a Captain's Mast and is restricted to the crew of the vessel regulating the actions of their own, and holds very limited scope in what infractions can be adjudicated and what punishments can be meted out). I can Kill them, I can turn them over to Authorities in the next/nearest (my choice, but I have to provide them with humane conditions and adequate food and water) port, or let them flee. I can safely just come out and say "They were all killed during the defense of the attack", no worries, the satellite can show the footage on CNN for all I care, I have violated no law by killing them.