Pirates yet again with an American ship

[tdager]

Pirates vow revenge, according to CNN. Lets hear it for brute force!

So?

What the hell do you think we should have done? Let them take the Captain and then paid the ransom?

It is a "rock and a hard spot" we are stuck at. Pay the ransom and you encourage more piracy. Do not pay the ransom and you encourage a more brutal act of piracy, but eventually you kill enough pirates that they lose the stomach for it.

So which is it?

I just find it funny how so many want a 100% solution and until that is found we do nothing. It is called "analysis paralysis" and it is stupid.

 

[Anthony]

Pirates vow revenge, according to CNN. Lets hear it for brute force!

Yeah, let's hear it for brute force. The captain is safe and the pirates are dead or captured. Are you really afraid of a bunch of skinnies in a row boat versus the U.S. Navy?

 

[ScottM]

Let us also keep in mind that Somali is not the only place that is rife with priacy on the high seas. The Philippine Islands, Straights of Malaca, coast of Latin American are all pirate hotbeds. While this instance had a good outcome thanks to the US Navy, it won't always be as such. The French just lost a hostage when they tried to take back a ship that had been hijacked.

Some recent pirate attacks are listed here, http://www.mmsn.org/pirates.htm

Piracy is not a localized issue. It is a wide spread occurance.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Again, how much does piracy cost us, and how much will it cost to respond to these issues in the future in the same manner?

It always makes sense to throw a million dollars at a thousand dollar problem.

U-S-A! U-S-A!

 

[jmaynard]

It always makes sense to throw a million dollars at a thousand dollar problem.

Doing the right thing is sometimes more expensive than taking the expedient out. That doesn't make it any less the right thing. See, for example, the Pinto.

 

[Trapper John]

U-S-A! U-S-A!

Probably explains the popularity of Steven Seagal movies...


Trapper John

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Doing the right thing is sometimes more expensive than taking the expedient out. That doesn't make it any less the right thing. See, for example, the Pinto.

When it comes to the affairs of nations, the "right thing" isn't a factor. It's a complicated concept, I know, and it's not nearly as fun as flexing our muscles while we sit on our couches talking about how we need to stick it to the world, but successful management of international affairs always involves a question of costs and benefits.

Again, any idea of how much piracy costs the U.S.?

 

[Anthony]

When it comes to the affairs of nations, the "right thing" isn't a factor.

Again, any idea of how much piracy costs the U.S.?

I hear ya. Its probably not a lot in an economic sense. And while I am all for cost benefit analysis, sometimes sending a message has a larger effect that transcends economics or ultimately helps economically in other regions. If we show we are willing to dtand up to threats, the Russians, Chinese and other enemies may think twice before trying something. When we project weakness and indecision we get attacked. Look at Pearl Harbor, 9/11 after eight years of Clinton, the hostage crises during Jimmy Carter.

 

[ScottM]

I hear ya. Its probably not a lot in an economic sense. And while I am all for cost benefit analysis, sometimes sending a message has a larger effect that transcends economics or ultimately helps economically in other regions. If we show we are willing to dtand up to threats, the Russians, Chinese and other enemies may think twice before trying something. When we project weakness and indecision we get attacked. Look at Pearl Harbor, 9/11 after eight years of Clinton, the hostage crises during Jimmy Carter.

I'm looking but I don't know what your point is. Perhaps that was because my butt was in Beirut in 1983 when we were sending a message of so called strength and in the end had to turn tail and run away.

 

[gprellwitz]

When it comes to the affairs of nations, the "right thing" isn't a factor. It's a complicated concept, I know, and it's not nearly as fun as flexing our muscles while we sit on our couches talking about how we need to stick it to the world.

Again, any idea of how much piracy costs the U.S.?

I agree. Simplistic solutions tend to fail when they meet the complexities of the world. Trying to make everything fit into a black & white polarized environment isn't the recipe for long-term success, though it can at times be emotionally satisfying.

As for the cost of piracy, it's a good question. Unfortunately, I don't know of many companies that are going to put on their financial statement "ransom paid: ($xM)." Lloyds springs to my mind as one potential source of the data, though. Henning would know the other main shipping insurers.

 

[ScottM]

As for the cost of piracy, it's a good question. Unfortunately, I don't know of many companies that are going to put on their financial statement "ransom paid: ($xM)." Lloyds springs to my mind as one potential source of the data, though. Henning would know the other main shipping insurers.

Lloyds has been increasing their costs for insurance against acts of piracy. They are offering discounts for crews that are trained in defense and they are offering policy that only will pay if a crew member is injured or killed. http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/piracy-spurs-threats-to-shipping-costs/ is an link to a WSJ article about shipping in that area.

 

[steingar]

The message is pretty simple. If you encounter an American ship, kill the crew and steal everything before the Navy can find you. Not so good for the affected sailors, who otherwise would have been ransomed and returned.

 

[jmaynard]

When it comes to the affairs of nations, the "right thing" isn't a factor.

Considering just how many people, here and abroad, accuse the US of doing nothing but the wrong thing, that statement rings very, very hollow. That there is a wrong thing implies that there is a right thing.

 

[jmaynard]

The message is pretty simple. If you encounter an American ship, kill the crew and steal everything before the Navy can find you. Not so good for the affected sailors, who otherwise would have been ransomed and returned.

You know, people have been arguing the analogous thing with respect to an armed citizenry and crime for years. It hasn't happened at all. There's no reason to believe it would happen in this case, either.

 

[Anthony]

The message is pretty simple. If you encounter an American ship, kill the crew and steal everything before the Navy can find you. Not so good for the affected sailors, who otherwise would have been ransomed and returned.

I got a different message. If you take a crew hostage and/or harm them we will track you down and exterminate you.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I hear ya. Its probably not a lot in an economic sense. And while I am all for cost benefit analysis, sometimes sending a message has a larger effect that transcends economics or ultimately helps economically in other regions. If we show we are willing to dtand up to threats, the Russians, Chinese and other enemies may think twice before trying something. When we project weakness and indecision we get attacked. Look at Pearl Harbor, 9/11 after eight years of Clinton, the hostage crises during Jimmy Carter.

Nothing wrong with sending a message - it's a limited "one-time" effort that hopefully gets the point across and serves as a deterrent.

Did that really happen here, though? If you want to send a message, you just shoot the people at the first opportunity (which, maybe this was, although I doubt it), instead of calling in the FBI (seriously?) to negotiate.

But, that's not really how it works. Think about how you do with a dog - you get mad and yell at the dog, and she goes and hangs her head...and a day later eats your sandwhich off the counter again. If I want to keep her from eating my sandwhich all the time, I can either never leave the counter alone, never have a sandwhich, or put the sandwhich elsewhere. Which one makes the most sense? People aren't too much different from that.

In other words, unless we want to keep a permanent naval presence within X hours steaming of any potential pirate activity anywhere, it ain't gonna do any good. So, let's think of some more creative solutions other than "let's blow them all up," because we just don't have the resources for it even if it were possible.

The idea off the top of my head? Mandate a basic course in ship defense, and provide an actual defensive capability, for the crews of all American-flagged ships; revise the maritime laws to allow for armed ships (at least those frequenting the sketchy parts of the world). Expensive and time consuming? Yes. But, when it's passed on to the consumers, it's pennies on the thousand-dollars. Does it solve the problem? Probably not, but it'll be more efficient and cheaper than calling up the Navy every time there's a problem.

 

[gprellwitz]

I got a different message. If you take a crew hostage and/or harm them we will track you down and exterminate you.

That's not quite the message I saw from that. The Navy was authorized to take out the pirates (terrorists?) if they appeared to be offering imminent harm to the hostage. That's not the same as track down and kill.

 

[Anthony]

That's not quite the message I saw from that. The Navy was authorized to take out the pirates (terrorists?) if they appeared to be offering imminent harm to the hostage. That's not the same as track down and kill.

What was the end result?

 

[jmaynard]

But, that's not really how it works. Think about how you do with a dog - you get mad and yell at the dog, and she goes and hangs her head...and a day later eats your sandwhich off the counter again. If I want to keep her from eating my sandwhich all the time, I can either never leave the counter alone, never have a sandwhich, or put the sandwhich elsewhere. Which one makes the most sense? People aren't too much different from that.

You're forgetting one factor: You want to keep the dog around for the long term. That does not necessarily apply to pirates. Dogs are good friends who have lots going for them. Pirates are not.

So, let's think of some more creative solutions other than "let's blow them all up," because we just don't have the resources for it even if it were possible.

Sure we do. Two words: "radioactive glass".

The idea off the top of my head? Mandate a basic course in ship defense, and provide an actual defensive capability, for the crews of all American-flagged ships; revise the maritime laws to allow for armed ships (at least those frequenting the sketchy parts of the world). Expensive and time consuming? Yes. But, when it's passed on to the consumers, it's pennies on the thousand-dollars. Does it solve the problem? Probably not, but it'll be more efficient and cheaper than calling up the Navy every time there's a problem.

This is a good start, but you have to be able to escalate. Commerce protection is a fundamental job of navies.

 

[steingar]

Then again, if I'm the sailor, and I can either engage these guys in a gun fight to protect someone else's cargo, or I can let them capture and ransom me, I'll take the latter if the pirates don't have too bad a reputation. If their aim is money they're less likely to harm or mistreat me, it doesn't make financial sense.

Now of course our sailors should be armed, since the pirates are as likely as not to kill them.

 

[jmaynard]

Then again, if I'm the sailor, and I can either engage these guys in a gun fight to protect someone else's cargo, or I can let them capture and ransom me, I'll take the latter if the pirates don't have too bad a reputation. If their aim is money they're less likely to harm or mistreat me, it doesn't make financial sense.

Now of course our sailors should be armed, since the pirates are as likely as not to kill them.

You're assuming that the pirates care the tiniest bit about the lives of the sailors aboard their targets...you know, victims. That assumption is far from proven.

 

[gprellwitz]

You know, people have been arguing the analogous thing with respect to an armed citizenry and crime for years. It hasn't happened at all.

Sorry Jay, but I don't think that crime on the streets of America is analogous to the pirates out there when you take into account the types of people and organizations involved.

As for

There's no reason to believe it would happen in this case, either.

that's clearly not true as they have threatened retaliation. So, unless you have unpresented evidence that they are actually unable of unwilling to carry through with those threats, you statement is false.

 

[jmaynard]

Sorry Jay, but I don't think that crime on the streets of America is analogous to the pirates out there when you take into account the types of people and organizations involved.

You're making the same incorrect assumption I pointed out yesterday: you're assuming that these people are organized. That is yet to be proven.

As for

There's no reason to believe it would happen in this case, either.

that's clearly not true as they have threatened retaliation. So, unless you have unpresented evidence that they are actually unable of unwilling to carry through with those threats, you statement is false.

The problem with this contention is that it carries with it an implicit assumption that they weren't going to harm people before the latest threat. That assumption is very shaky, and without it, the threat merely makes it explicit.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...


This is a good start, but you have to be able to escalate. Commerce protection is a fundamental job of navies.

You don't have to be able to escalate - the problem just isn't worth escalating anything over. It's a cost of business, nothing more.

And commerce protection is a fundamental job of navies only when there is a substantial risk to national interests presented by a danger to commerce. The military doesn't exist to serve or protect private business interests.

 

[Anthony]

And commerce protection is a fundamental job of navies only when there is a substantial risk to national interests presented by a danger to commerce. The military doesn't exist to serve or protect private business interests.

That's why they invented Privateers.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

That's why they invented Privateers.

There are certainly settings where privateers can be effective. But, this isn't one of them - what does a lifeboat with a couple pirates and a hostage present to a privateer?

The more interesting question to me is what would happen were a private entrepreneur (can't think of a better term) to recapture a pirated vessel. Would the law of salvage apply? Would the recapturing party be entitled to some kind of claim on the vessel or its cargo?

I'll put it like this - say pirates capture a tanker with $500M of oil on it (no idea if that's what the value would/could be). If I outfit an expedition to recapture vessels, and said expedition recaptures that oil tanker...if the recapturer could claim even 10% of its value under salvage law or by some other means - that might be incentive for some kind of privateering enterprise.

So - Henning, what are your thoughts on something like that?

 

[ScottM]

There are certainly settings where privateers can be effective. But, this isn't one of them - what does a lifeboat with a couple pirates and a hostage present to a privateer?

The more interesting question to me is what would happen were a private entrepreneur (can't think of a better term) to recapture a pirated vessel. Would the law of salvage apply? Would the recapturing party be entitled to some kind of claim on the vessel or its cargo?

I'll put it like this - say pirates capture a tanker with $500M of oil on it (no idea if that's what the value would/could be). If I outfit an expedition to recapture vessels, and said expedition recaptures that oil tanker...if the recapturer could claim even 10% of its value under salvage law or by some other means - that might be incentive for some kind of privateering enterprise.

So - Henning, what are your thoughts on something like that?

Isn't that exactly what a letter marquee and a privateer do albeit in time of war?

Or are you thinking that they would do a recapture without those authorizations?

 

[Ddayle]

That's why they invented Privateers.

no wrong not what privateers were for. Buy a history book and have somebody read it to you. DaveR

 

[jmaynard]

I'll put it like this - say pirates capture a tanker with $500M of oil on it (no idea if that's what the value would/could be). If I outfit an expedition to recapture vessels, and said expedition recaptures that oil tanker...if the recapturer could claim even 10% of its value under salvage law or by some other means - that might be incentive for some kind of privateering enterprise.

SF author Michael Z. Williamson posted something similar today on his LiveJournal.

 

[Anthony]

no wrong not what privateers were for. Buy a history book and have somebody read it to you. DaveR

I was being facetious. Did you see the smiley devil next to my post?

Can I ask a quick question? Why the snotty attitude? Why not just say what you mean without the anger?

I could make some kind of snide reort to you but what's the point. I thought we were all pilots who shared a passion for flying.

 

[Ddayle]

I was being facetious. Did you see the smiley devil next to my post?

Can I ask a quick question? Why the snotty attitude? Why not just say what you mean without the anger?

I could make some kind of snide reort to you but what's the point. I thought we were all pilots who shared a passion for flying.

My mistake Anthony, No i did not notice the smiley or understand it was sarcazim.
sorry if I thought this was one of your ussuall remarks. DaveR

 

[Anthony]

My mistake Anthony, No i did not notice the smiley or understand it was sarcazim.
sorry if I thought this was one of your ussuall remarks. DaveR

So, I guess what you are saying is my "usual remarks" anger you? So, I'm not allowed a differing opinion?


I fly a Grumman. Maybe you fly a Cessna or Piper. Because we like different planes that makes one of us wrong? How?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Isn't that exactly what a letter marquee and a privateer do albeit in time of war?

Or are you thinking that they would do a recapture without those authorizations?

Yes, but a letter of marque is broader than mere recapture - if I have a L.O.M. (fun acronym), that also authorizes me to plunder the vessels of the enemy.

In other words, say England is at war with France. I have an English L.O.M. - I can raid French shipping anywhere I want. While that would include English ships captured and now flying under the French flag, it would also include "native" French ships.

But, your second question is accurate - I'm wondering what would happen absent an express authorization from the ship's flag country (or anyone, really).

My understanding of salvage law is that if something is deemed abandoned, if you go get it, you're entitled to the full value of it (this is a really fuzzy memory) - could that be stretched to include being entitled to the value, or some portion thereof, of a ship recaptured from pirates?

 

[steingar]

You're assuming that the pirates care the tiniest bit about the lives of the sailors aboard their targets...you know, victims. That assumption is far from proven.

So long as the sailors are worth money, the pirates will care plenty.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

<SNIP>



But, your second question is accurate - I'm wondering what would happen absent an express authorization from the ship's flag country (or anyone, really).

<SNIP>

I believe LOM were abolished some time ago as stated in earlier posts by others in this thread. Although the US Constitution allows them to be authorized, treaty obligations rank with the Constitution and so we don't issue LOM anymore.

Absent an authorization from the ship's flag country (the letter of marque and reprisal), the private ship of war is called a pirate.

I make no claims to knowledge to your other questions in your posts- Henning can likely answer those, or perhaps a lawyer.

 

[ScottM]

I believe LOM were abolished some time ago as stated in earlier posts by others in this thread.

They were abolished as part of the Declaration of Paris in 1856 but the US was not a signature to that declaration and is thus not bound to it, Article 1 Section 8 of the USCon. is still law for us.

 

[Geico266]

I got a different message. If you take a crew hostage and/or harm them we will track you down and exterminate you.

............and your families.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I think taking out the pirates was appropriate in this situation, and BZ to the SEALs and everyone else involved. But, as I was discussing elsewhere...

Now there's this.

Sometimes something minor (like, say, three pirates suddenly becoming headless) is all it takes to uncork a giant, messy, costly regional conflict.

IMO, this is going to have two real effects:

1. More tumult in Somalia -- which stands just as good a chance of benefiting the Islamist factions there as it does anybody else.
2. Next time it'll be 30 pirates holding a crew hostage, not 3.

So, we gots us a fight, which I suppose was more or less inevitable. But now we'll probably have a bit of a clearer picture of just what exactly the whole "YEAH, JUST BLOW 'EM UP! U-S-A! U-S-A!" approach (if you can call it that) nets us.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

They were abolished as part of the Declaration of Paris in 1856 but the US was not a signature to that declaration and is thus not bound to it, Article 1 Section 8 of the USCon. is still law for us.

Very interesting...thanks for clearing that up!

 

[jesse]

ZOMG...A couple pirates in Somali are mad because we shot their pirate friends while they were holding an AK-47 to the back of an American citizen with the intention of bringing in other hostages as human shields. Whatever.

Seriously? ...I'm sorry but our response was justified and should be repeated.