Open Season declared on US Navy

[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.

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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


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

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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).

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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:

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.


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