I quote from the Bluejacket's Manual

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.

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.

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).

And what has that got to do with what I wrote ?


The OP is a drifting blog which skirts the issue for the sake of a headline rant.
Yes but they have only managed to make 6 out of the 7 charges stick.

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.

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

Apples and oranges.

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.


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

So you expect countries to come together to sign off on a law they know is fundamentally flawed?

: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?

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

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.

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

something like this then, inexpensive balls of iron

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

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

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.


Nonetheless.


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.

And now they don't.


In what way?


Yes, and I do believe it will be beneficial.

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

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

Billions are spent for training men and their wages plus buying/maintaining eqiupment. Lets put them to use.

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.

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?

But they never had what you said they had.

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



Errrrrr....every maritime state.

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?

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:

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.