Open Season declared on US Navy

[TLAM Strike]

If you can dump your weapons overboard before they catch you feel free to attack the US Navy whenever you want. Its not Piracy unless you succeed...

Thank you Virgina! :damn:

http://blog.usni.org/2010/08/17/judge-rules-attempting-to-hijack-us-navy-ships-isnt-piracy/


Why am I reminded of Sidshow Bob?

I'm in jail for a crime I didn't even commit. Ha! "Attempted murder?" I mean, what is that? Do they give out a Nobel Prize for "attempted chemistry"?

[Betonov]

I miss the old days of piracy

FIRE BROAD SIDE !!!!!!! shoot first, shoot second, shoot some more and when everybody's dead ask a question or two

but seriously, as a future sailor how are supposed to defend ourselves from people accidentally boarding my ship, taking me hostage and (possibly) slitting my throat

[antikristuseke]

Shoot them in the groin, cut open their abdomen, shove in a length of chain, tape shut and throw overboard, piracy problem soled and you even have time for a cold beerbefore you have to clean that mess up.

[Moeceefus]

Remember when our snipers took out those pirates and saved that captain? Those were good times. :salute: This is just a screwed up court ruling anyways, maybe next time the navy wont take any prisoners on account of this.

[Ducimus]

Shoot them in the groin, cut open their abdomen, shove in a length of chain, tape shut and throw overboard, piracy problem soled and you even have time for a cold beerbefore you have to clean that mess up.

You know, just zip cuffing them to a length of anchor chain is just as effective and a lot less messy. :O:

[ETR3(SS)]

http://www.grim-planet.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/jesus_facepalm.jpg

[GoldenRivet]

If it were up to me to issue orders to the navy...

my official piracy and protest policy would be the old one of 'Dead men tale no tales'.

Its very difficult for fish food to make a court case

[DarkFish]

Shoot them in the groin, cut open their abdomen, shove in a length of chain, tape shut and throw overboard, piracy problem soled and you even have time for a cold beerbefore you have to clean that mess up.Taking them out of the water, cutting them open and throwing them back into the sea to save time to drink a beer?

Wouldn't it be much easier to just them stay in the water, and have time to drink more beer?
"Somalia is about 40 miles that way - see ya, guys!" :ping:

:gulp:

[August]

http://thedemotivators.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/USNavy.jpg

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yeah, well this is what happens when the government is sent to do the private sector's job. This is a private matter that affects private shipping and should be handled by private security companies whose only interest is preventing/deterring/thwarting pirate attacks.

Unlike the private sector, governments have politics and media and public sector careers to consider on top of everything else, so this doesn't surprise me a bit. In the meantime, the Navy is wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money to perform what is now an apparently impossible mission using enormous and expensive warships where a squad of private guards could do a better job. Out-f-ing standing!

I could fix this pirate problem within the space of a week. All you have to do is grant import concessions on stupid things like shirts with more than one pocket in exchange for land and legal permission for US security firms to operate from affected ports-of-call. Then all you have to do is get the message out. There would be a dozen private companies competing for protection contracts in a matter of hours, and they'd do it right because their job depends upon it. Within days, every shipping company along threatened routes would be contracting security services at bargain prices.

But then, none of this crap is really about finding a solution, is it? Much like the War on Terror or the War on Drugs, the current course of action is being directed more by sheer bureaucratic and political inertia than anything else.

[flatsixes]

Give it time. The judge didn't make his ruling out of a love for pirates. It was a tougher legal case than you might think, given that the law of piracy is rather old and musty in the United States, and the precedent a poor fit for the instant matter. I think that the judge interpreted it within the narrow limits to which non-activist judges usually confine their rulings knowing that it's going up to the Fourth Circuit on Appeal, and probably with the sincere hope that the he'll be overturned.

[UnderseaLcpl]

But why bring the courts into it at all? Why the Navy? Why anything other than private security? Even if the decision is overturned there are still the operating costs of using warships to defend against skiffs and taking this BS to court to begin with. It's a huge waste of time and money.

[Tribesman]

But why bring the courts into it at all?
Do you wish to abolish the rule of law?
Summary execution for all suspected criminals.

Why the Navy?
Its always been the job of the Navy.

Why anything other than private security?
Because private security for most ships would be a legal and logistical nightmare, plus given the relaibilty of many contractors in the field it would also be a finacial disaster for the nations whose flags the ships carry.

[antikristuseke]

You know, just zip cuffing them to a length of anchor chain is just as effective and a lot less messy. :O:

Less fun though.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Do you wish to abolish the rule of law?
Summary execution for all suspected criminals.
Yes, Tribesman, my sole desire is to abolish the rule of law by substituting private firms for the US navy, as the rule of law is incompatible with private firms. That's because I think expatriate private firms aren't governed by both foreign and domestic law, because I'm an idiot. Give me at least a little credit, would you?

For the record, I do favor the abolishment of the rule of stupid laws established for protectionist and therefore political reasons.

The OP says that part of the issue here was that a US Navy warship was used to obliterate a skiff, which in itself raises the question of whether or not excessive force was used against civilians, since they wouldn't be technically classified as "pirates" by US law.

Of course, they were pirates and they did, stupidly, attempt to raid a warship. For a private contractor safeguarding a merchant ship with proper permissions from the nationalities concerned, this isn't a legal problem; it's just a matter of self-defense. But when the a US Navy man-of-war blows the crap out of a tiny boat that is incapable of doing any harm to it, it becomes a legal issue.

Its always been the job of the Navy.
Delivering the mail and packages used to be the sole job of the post office. Now private companies do it better, faster, and cheaper. So what?


Because private security for most ships would be a legal and logistical nightmare, plus given the relaibilty of many contractors in the field it would also be a finacial disaster for the nations whose flags the ships carry.
It couldn't be any more of a legal nightmare than US import quotas are, and both government and private industry manage to find a way to work that out when people don't intentionally bypass them by smuggling goods.

Relaxing trade quotas in exchange for the operation of private shipping security firms is a wonderful idea, if I do say so myself. We simultaneously create a new vector for some economic growth and undo soem of the ridiculous damage that US trade unions have done to the world market by insisting upon protectionist measures, only to then commit suicide by offering overpriced goods. The concessions we could extract from textile and fiber exporters alone just by allowing them to sell to us would go far beyond what we need to establish security companies, and the length of the agreement need not be more than a decade at most, more than enough time to destroy the industry of piracy.

Furthermore, you underestimate the ability of private firms to negotiate, redefine, and when necessary, circumvent legal barriers that are counterproductive. International industry deals with legalities in one way or the other all the time, and you suddenly suppose that private shipping-security firms are unworkable? That's just lazy thinking.

[ETR3(SS)]

I quote from the Bluejacket's Manual

The navy of a maritime nation must be able to carry out a variety of strategic missions. In general terms, the most significant ones can be described as:



Freedom of the seas (sometimes called "sea control")
Deterrence
Forward presence
Power projection

Freedom of the Seas
World events and human nature conspired to prove that a maritime nation cannot long endure without a navy. Almost immediately, the so-called Barbary pirates - the North African states of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, ruled by petty despots whose main source of income was derived from the seizure of ships or extorting protection money - began preying on defenseless American merchant shipping in the Mediterranean Sea.Ever since men have been putting to sea to trade with other nations, pirates have been there to prey upon the defenseless merchants. It was the responsibility of maritime nations to provide this freedom of the seas for their merchant fleet in order to ensure their prosperity and continued growth. I believe in history repeating itself, as I am sure most of you do. Therefore the manner I believe in which this should be dealt with is the very same manner that the United States used to deal with the Barbary pirates. That means no interference from bureaucracy. Politicians run the country, Admirals and Generals run the military. Let them do their job, let them send a strong message that we will not stand for this.

[The Third Man]

Perhaps the answer is not to allow pirates to be captured. Especially if they attack US warships.
That may be the message trying to be transmitted. If it reaches the pirates and their confederates is another question entirely.3


Gitmo at sea the judge wants no more. Don't bring them back to US territory.

[Betonov]

Do you wish to abolish the rule of law?
Summary execution for all suspected criminals.


the rule of law wouldnt be abolished, just the laws need changing. And there would be no executions, the ships would have strict orders to fire at pirate vessels alone, not the crew, if the crew is on the boat than thats their problem (a macaber little loophole isnt it).

[Tribesman]

Yes, Tribesman, my sole desire is to abolish the rule of law by substituting private firms for the US navy, as the rule of law is incompatible with private firms. That's because I think expatriate private firms aren't governed by both foreign and domestic law, because I'm an idiot. Give me at least a little credit, would you?
And what has that got to do with what I wrote ?


The OP says that part of the issue here was that a US Navy warship was used to obliterate a skiff, which in itself raises the question of whether or not excessive force was used against civilians, since they wouldn't be technically classified as "pirates" by US law.

The OP is a drifting blog which skirts the issue for the sake of a headline rant.
Of course, they were pirates and they did, stupidly, attempt to raid a warship.
Yes but they have only managed to make 6 out of the 7 charges stick.

For a private contractor safeguarding a merchant ship with proper permissions from the nationalities concerned this isn't a legal problem;
There are a lot of nations and a lot of laws which makes it a big legal problem. Thats the problem with circumventing international law through multiple jusrisdictions.

Delivering the mail and packages used to be the sole job of the post office.
no it wasn't, they had a monopoly on non urgent letters with an obligation for universal distribution.

It couldn't be any more of a legal nightmare than US import quotas are,
Apples and oranges.

Relaxing trade quotas in exchange for the operation of private shipping security firms is a wonderful idea
So you want the government to negotiate seperately with lots of other government linking unrelated things for the interests of private business which may not be beneficial to the government or the nation.


the rule of law wouldnt be abolished, just the laws need changing. And there would be no executions, the ships would have strict orders to fire at pirate vessels alone, not the crew, if the crew is on the boat than thats their problem (a macaber little loophole isnt it).
So you are talking of fundamental changes in law and a loophole that doesn't exist.
Look at all the trouble that was caused when the fishermen were sunk and left to drown.

[Betonov]

So you are talking of fundamental changes in law and a loophole that doesn't exist.
Look at all the trouble that was caused when the fishermen were sunk and left to drown.

the loophole would exist when the laws would be passed. Laws need changing as time goes forward. the situation changed, laws must be changed. And when it comes to the fishermen, 100m from a major vessel is a no-go zone. If zone breached the vessel will be boarded, if no weapons found: have a nice day and a bountifull catch. If the vessel starts showing that it is hostile or confirmed hostile from other boats (a UAV should start tracking it) then this should follow
http://www.1440wallstreet.com/images/broadside1.jpg

I'm not a supporter of gun blazing diplomacy and doctrine, but I am a supporter of protecting the waterways by any means

[Tribesman]

the loophole would exist when the laws would be passed
So you expect countries to come together to sign off on a law they know is fundamentally flawed?

. And when it comes to the fishermen, 100m from a major vessel is a no-go zone. If zone breached the vessel will be boarded, if no weapons found
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
wait......
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
thank you for that gem, are you doing a show at Edinburgh fringe this week?

[Betonov]

thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week. I'll do the show if the price is right. :|\\

but c'mon, every law is flawed. The OP's link is a statement that laws are flawed. Why not this one, at least there will be some results. And all countries will probibly sign something like this. Everyone is more interested in safe cargo routes than the poor somali that gets his ass blown from the water.

and what is so funny with a boarding action. 3/4 of USMC would cry of happines if they get an assignement like this. And taxpayers money is put to better use with warships out there, than rusting away in Norfolk or Archangelesk

[Sailor Steve]

Betonov, I find that picture to be highly inappropriate. 16" guns against anything smaller than another battleship is a terrible waste of expensive ammunition. The twenty 5" guns should be more than adequate for the job.

[Betonov]

http://www.hnsa.org/ships/img/constitution1.jpg

something like this then, inexpensive balls of iron

[Tribesman]

and what is so funny with a boarding action.

Asyou presented it..
Apart from time and money? practicality

[Jimbuna]

Going back to OP....I doubt the Russians and Chinese will feel so hindered should one of their naval vessels come under attack.

[UnderseaLcpl]

And what has that got to do with what I wrote ?
Well, I figured you must have some rationale for suggesting that I would want to abolish rule of law and deliver summary executions, so I took a guess.


The OP is a drifting blog which skirts the issue for the sake of a headline rant. Nonetheless.


There are a lot of nations and a lot of laws which makes it a big legal problem. Thats the problem with circumventing international law through multiple jusrisdictions.
And yet, we still have global trade. I see no reason why quota concessions couldn't help cut through that red tape and get exemptions for security firms of only a few hundred persons at most.

no it wasn't, they had a monopoly on non urgent letters with an obligation for universal distribution. And now they don't.


Apples and oranges.
In what way?


So you want the government to negotiate seperately with lots of other government linking unrelated things for the interests of private business which may not be beneficial to the government or the nation.
Yes, and I do believe it will be beneficial.

[Betonov]

And yet, we still have global trade. I see no reason why quota concessions couldn't help cut through that red tape and get exemptions for security firms of only a few hundred persons at most.

few hundred?? only a couple, the russian and US presidents, chineese and UK prime ministers and a representative of EU.

So you want the government to negotiate seperately with lots of other government linking unrelated things for the interests of private business which may not be beneficial to the government or the nation.
free unhindered trade is always beneficial to any goverment (taxes anybody)

Apart from time and money? practicality
Billions are spent for training men and their wages plus buying/maintaining eqiupment. Lets put them to use.

[Tribesman]

Well, I figured you must have some rationale for suggesting that I would want to abolish rule of law and deliver summary executions, so I took a guess.

You did suggest killing suspects instead of bringing them to trial where legal complications would have to be addresed didn't you.

The funny thing about this isn't really about the law as it stands its about the prosecution as it was presented.
So instead of trying to get the world to change the law just give the prosecutors a kick in the butt.
They took an open and shut case and simply threw it away with lazyness on the key charge.

And yet, we still have global trade. I see no reason why quota concessions couldn't help cut through that red tape and get exemptions for security firms of only a few hundred persons at most.

A few hundred persons at most?
So what sort of quota concessions can be offered to little out of the way tax havens whose trade consists of selling flags for ships?

And now they don't.

But they never had what you said they had.

In what way?

Trade quotas between a couple of countries are absolutley nothing like international law negotiated by hundreds of countries.



few hundred?? only a couple, the russian and US presidents, chineese and UK prime ministers and a representative of EU.

Errrrrr....every maritime state.

free unhindered trade is always beneficial to any goverment (taxes anybody)

Is that why governments and business always aim for some protectionism to mix with their calls of free trade.
how can you say free unhindered trade is always beneficial when it has never existed?

[Ducimus]

This is a private matter that affects private shipping and should be handled by private security companies

Is Private Security Company the new euphemism for Private Military Contractor, which is in itself a euphemism for the word Mercenary? I've always wondered why people have to tap dance around that word.

edit:


For the record, I do favor the abolishment of the rule of stupid laws established for protectionist and therefore political reasons.
...

Delivering the mail and packages used to be the sole job of the post office. Now private companies do it better, faster, and cheaper. So what?



I've been developing the impression/theory for some time now, that you're an executive at some large corporation somewhere, or at the least, inspire to be just that.

[Tribesman]

Is Private Security Company the new euphemism for Private Military Contractor, which is in itself a euphemism for the word Mercenary? I've always wondered why people have to tap dance around that word.

The tap dancing is because of legality. one country might call someone a private military contractor, the next country might throw their arse in jail for being a mercenary

[Ducimus]

The tap dancing is because of legality. one country might call someone a private military contractor, the next country might throw their arse in jail for being a mercenary

A Euphemism is still a Euphemism. Their mercenary's. Period.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQLA7GNr4tY

We really do start using honest language.

[Betonov]

Is that why governments and business always aim for some protectionism to mix with their calls of free trade.
how can you say free unhindered trade is always beneficial when it has never existed?
Protectionism is here so that free trade is still a fair trade. but when it comes to actuall transportation of goods the less unhindered the better.

Errrrrr....every maritime state.
before the big boys pass some new law, they're going to ask ''great superpower'' Slovenia and ''mighty'' Croatia for their input (both maritime countries). riiiiiiight....
And still, every maritime nation (except somalia) has interests of pirate free waters, so lets say theirs actually a UN vote on this, a majority would go for new laws that allow more strict anti-piracy measures

[Tribesman]

before the big boys pass some new law, they're going to ask ''great superpower'' Slovenia and ''mighty'' Croatia for their input (both maritime countries). riiiiiiight....
What aspect of laws of the sea is it that you are unable to comprehend?
In case you didn't realise global issues and international law with things like universal jurisdiction happen to involve just about all nations.

We really do start using honest language.
OK , what do you suggest would be the honest language we could use instead of the word "politician" ?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Is Private Security Company the new euphemism for Private Military Contractor, which is in itself a euphemism for the word Mercenary? I've always wondered why people have to tap dance around that word.
I don't mind calling PMCs mercenaries, as long as that is what they are, and it often is. They avoid being callled mercenaries because of the 18th-century connotations of the word; it's akin to being called a brigand. And, as Tribesman points out, there are different legal definitions depending upon where you are.

Mercenaries, however, are hired soldiers, and many PMCs do not fit into that category. There are PMCs that specialize in non-combat operations, and in this case we're talking about a private security company, no different from the guys who protect the banks' armored cars.

I've been developing the impression/theory for some time now, that you're an executive at some large corporation somewhere, or at the least, inspire to be just that.
Heh, I wish. No, the real reason I'm such an advocate of the private sector is that it just does everything so much better than the public sector does - when it's allowed to.

You did suggest killing suspects instead of bringing them to trial where legal complications would have to be addresed didn't you.
Not necessarily killing, although that could be a possibility. In any case, any killings would be an act of self-defense and protection of property, rather than a question of whether or not excessive force was used and we could forget about the political ramifications of such an action, further streamlining the process.

A few hundred persons at most?

For a single facility, yes.

So what sort of quota concessions can be offered to little out of the way tax havens whose trade consists of selling flags for ships?
I don't understand the question.


Trade quotas between a couple of countries are absolutley nothing like international law negotiated by hundreds of countries.

You're right - they're actually more complex, varied, and harder to change but, small nations that share a particular export industry (and they are many) are keen to group together in order to leverage better export deals, particularly where the US is the importer. All we have to do is extract enough concessions for a chain of ports and controlled waters serving the threatened areas; registered ships in international waters are allowed to carry small arms.

The only people this would be bad news for are pirates and US producers in the industries concerned. To them I say, Foxtrot Uniform. US industries have been using subsidies and trade quotas as a means of keeping the poorest exporters poor for decades now, rather than dying off or branching out, as they should be doing. I have very little sympathy for such groups, no matter how many commercials showing shuttered factories the interest groups put out. But I'm going OT now.

As an alternative, we could always simply buy port access for security companies, or better yet, just negotiate it diplomatically. We might even be able to get private investors or the shipping companies to pay for it, if only we'd allow it.


Is that why governments and business always aim for some protectionism to mix with their calls of free trade. how can you say free unhindered trade is always beneficial when it has never existed?


I know this question isn't for me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. The general rule in economics is that the more freedom of trade there is, the better off everyone is in the long run. I don't have time to write a whole essay (and I'm sure nobody would want to read it) as to why this is so, but it makes sense on its own. Capitalism relies upon dynamism and innovation to work to full efficiency. If we take one dying industry that just happened to complain a lot and give it a protected or subsidized status, we are both draining money from the economy to effect that status and stifling incentive by making it more difficult for new industry or replacement industry to compete. Once you start to factor in things like rising living standards, currency values, and new technology, it starts to get really, really, obvious that free trade is the way to go.

[Tribesman]

I don't understand the question.

You are talking about trade concessions between parties involved in exchange for agreements on security arangements on vessels.
So if to you take a Danish ship registered in Liberia with British officers and a Phillipino crew carrying Turkish goods from an Iraqi port to a Korean company in Australia and passing through 7 other countries territorial waters who do you make the deal with?
Once the vessel has emptied and picked up a new cargo and new destination do you need tro do more deals with more nations?
The private security agreements can work with negotiations between just a few parties and have been shown to work, but only when its on fixed regular runs which for the vast majority of commercial traffic isn't applicable.


I know this question isn't for me, but I'll take a stab at it anyway. The general rule in economics is that the more freedom of trade there is, the better off everyone is in the long run.
I know, but politicians don't do long run very often do they, they think about as far as local issues for next years local election.

[Betonov]

I know, but politicians don't do long run very often do they, they think about as far as local issues for next years local election.
Unfortunately I agree.

Something will have to be changed. Either laws or the attitude of sailors/officers/merchant marine companies. The less pressure you put on pirates the more active they will become and that means companies will start hiring security companies and mercenaries to secure safe travel and then things will get out of hand.

I am studying nautics, which means that one day I'll be an officer on a ship. And if theirs a decision to protect my crew or obey the laws, I'll choose the safety of the crew. And if that means having a consealed stash of AK's on board and then killing every pirate that comes near me I'll take the chance before court. What's a few years in prison, as long as I am still alive.

[UnderseaLcpl]

You are talking about trade concessions between parties involved in exchange for agreements on security arangements on vessels.
So if to you take a Danish ship registered in Liberia with British officers and a Phillipino crew carrying Turkish goods from an Iraqi port to a Korean company in Australia and passing through 7 other countries territorial waters who do you make the deal with? The nation the ship is registred with and the nations at which it makes port calls. That's it. I doubt the captain or crew would have a problem with on-board security hired by their employer since the alternative is possible pirate raids.

Once the vessel has emptied and picked up a new cargo and new destination do you need tro do more deals with more nations?
No, you only need to do each deal once. Most vessels; especially company vessels trade on a circuit, only one leg of which may need protection. As long as the ports who are hubs for dangeous sealanes are covered, there is no need to do anything else.


The private security agreements can work with negotiations between just a few parties and have been shown to work, but only when its on fixed regular runs which for the vast majority of commercial traffic isn't applicable.

That doesn't sound like a private arrangement at all, it sounds more like a state escort arrangement. One way or the other, or goal here is to provide private security for ships travelling through dangerous waters by virtue of services offered at the ports they visit.

It sounds to me like you're looking for a regular, scheduled system, and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about on-demand security teams that will secure shipping from point A to point B at a reasonable rate. They can handle regular traffic and the occassional odd run, though prices for atypical voyages may run a bit higher, I'm sure.

For the record, most ships do make regular runs. It's cheaper that way.


I know, but politicians don't do long run very often do they, they think about as far as local issues for next years local election.

An excellent reason to get them out of the way, don't you think? As with most of my arguments, I'm not talking about what is politically feasible right now, but rather what ought to be done instead.