BBC

QUOTE

Pentagon sources and relatives of the Maersk Alabama's 20 crew were earlier quoted as saying the ship was back under control after a struggle.
But later reports emerged that the captain was still in the hands of the hijackers, adrift in the lifeboat.
It was the sixth ship seized off Somalia in recent days.
It is reportedly the first time in 200 years that a US-flagged vessel has been seized by pirates.
The Associated Press reported that they had spoken to a sailor on board the Maersk Alabama who said the crew had retaken the vessel and one pirate had been captured.
But the unnamed sailor told AP that three of the pirates were now holding the captain hostage in a lifeboat.

WWYD?

My co-worker was getting really irate about this earlier, and I probably pissed him off more by making noises about how cool pirates were. He was actually jumping up and down and talking about bombing the pirates and sending in shock and awe machinery (clarification, this person isn't even American, he's Canadian). While I'm not interested in apologizing to the pirates either, I don't understand why this is a hot button issue for some people. Sure, fight them off, don't give them money, great, but it's not like the hostages are being mistreated or anything.

EHK is Canadian?

Does modern piracy indicate a break down in international law?
LINK

QUOTE

The navy of the British Empire, with some aid from other western navies, wiped out piracy in the first half of the 1800s. British sailing ships with muzzle-loading blackpowder cannons fought pirate sailing ships using the same technology. In a time without steam, radio, aircraft, satellites, etc. they tracked pirates down to their bases and brought them to justice.

Yet, today, in a world of universal. instantaneous, world wide communication, satellite surveillance and weapons of such reach and accuracy that the President of the United States can order a missile shot through a particular window in a particular building on the other side of the world, we can't seem to prevent a bunch of Somali rednecks in bass boats from seizing giant container ships. [h/t Instapundit]

Clearly, we find ourselves paralyzed due to the collapse of our trust in international maritime law. In the past, broad international agreement existed on how to deal with pirates. Any naval or police power of any state could attack any vessel attacking a merchant vessel of any state. Any port that harbored pirates' ships was liable to attack itself. Pirates disappeared from the seas because the swift and sure universal response to piracy made piracy suicidal. Today, when faced with piracy, we dither. Maritime law, once considered clear and long-established, suddenly now is viewed as ambiguous and unsupported.

As I wrote before, liberal orders do not transform into authoritarian ones by a gradual process of the accretion of state powers. Instead, liberal orders fail when they become paralyzed and ineffective. The resulting chaos causes the sudden collapse of the liberal order into either warlordism or authoritarianism.

No, that's hysterical rubbish. The cause of the current Somali piracy crisis is the total collapse of Somalia, not some mystic loss of faith in maritime law.

Piracy is only prevalent in areas where there are high volumes of sea traffic and weak naval policing, chiefly the Straits of Malacca and the Gulf of Aden. The difficulty in combating modern piracy lies in the vast sea areas and the use of small, anonymous vessels. There are jurisdictional issues in third parties charging captured pirates - this is an issue with Somali piracy as there isn't a Somali state that can prosecute them. In recent years piracy has been on the downslide, Somalia notwithstanding, due to increased patrols and better policing by affected states.

QUOTE (Horza @ Apr 10 2009, 21.33)

Piracy is only prevalent in areas where there are high volumes of sea traffic and weak naval policing, chiefly the Straits of Malacca and the Gulf of Aden. The difficulty in combating modern piracy lies in the vast sea areas and the use of small, anonymous vessels.

No. The seas are no more vast than they were in the 1800's -- that's just the reason why you take the battle to the port. Small, anonymous vessels won't get very far from land; they have ships that tow them out to sea. We know where the ports are and we know where the money is going. What angers me is that our governments aren't willing to do anything about it because it appears to be cheaper to pay them off.

QUOTE (Horza @ Apr 10 2009, 21.33)

There are jurisdictional issues in third parties charging captured pirates - this is an issue with Somali piracy as there isn't a Somali state that can prosecute them.

This is another problem. We've become too squeamish to simply execute them when they're captured. In fact, some nations refuse to even hand them over to the nearby nations for trial because they might be executed there. IIRC the Danes actually captured some and let them go without any repercussions at all rather than try them. This sets up a rather perverse scenario: the pirates stand to gain way, way more than they could ever dream of getting otherwise and even if they get caught, not much will happen to them. The only risk is getting killed in the actual fight, but given how rarely the West acts when hostages are involved, that is pretty small.

The fact that Somalia's "government" is both unwilling and unable to eliminate these pirates is the immediate cause, but the reaction of the international community does point to a problem in how the world is ordered. We have more than enough power to swat these insects, but there doesn't seem to be a framework for doing so and in fact our laws mostly prohibit us from doing things that would get rid of them.

QUOTE (Altherion @ Apr 11 2009, 09.07)

No. The seas are no more vast than they were in the 1800's -- that's just the reason why you take the battle to the port. Small, anonymous vessels won't get very far from land; they have ships that tow them out to sea. We know where the ports are and we know where the money is going. What angers me is that our governments aren't willing to do anything about it because it appears to be cheaper to pay them off.

No, they are able to go very far from land to assault a ship. sailing 500 nautical miles or more is not a problem for these pirates. Last week they just captured a french small sailing boat and held the four adult and one children aboard hostages, which was 750 km away from Somalia.

QUOTE (Altherion @ Apr 11 2009, 09.07)

This is another problem. We've become too squeamish to simply execute them when they're captured. In fact, some nations refuse to even hand them over to the nearby nations for trial because they might be executed there. IIRC the Danes actually captured some and let them go without any repercussions at all rather than try them. This sets up a rather perverse scenario: the pirates stand to gain way, way more than they could ever dream of getting otherwise and even if they get caught, not much will happen to them. The only risk is getting killed in the actual fight, but given how rarely the West acts when hostages are involved, that is pretty small.

Seems the French are the only one not squeamish in the west. We don't see a problem with using armed force to rescue hostages and to kill pirates who don't surrender. And the last time we did, two days ago, it ended in a tragedy with an hostage killed. That shows the limits of the use of force.

QUOTE (Altherion @ Apr 11 2009, 09.07)

The fact that Somalia's "government" is both unwilling and unable to eliminate these pirates is the immediate cause, but the reaction of the international community does point to a problem in how the world is ordered. We have more than enough power to swat these insects, but there doesn't seem to be a framework for doing so and in fact our laws mostly prohibit us from doing things that would get rid of them.

The problem is more complicated than just unwillingness to eliminate the pirates. That could only be done through a military intervention. But the last time we tried a military intervention to solve problems in Somalia, sixteen years ago, it was a failure that solved nothing.

QUOTE (The WaterDancer Knight @ Apr 11 2009, 17.47)

The problem is more complicated than just unwillingness to eliminate the pirates. That could only be done through a military intervention. But the last time we tried a military intervention to solve problems in Somalia, sixteen years ago, it was a failure that solved nothing.

Might be because we were treating them as a nation to be helped rather than an enemy to be destroyed. Maintaining stability is much harder and more detail orientated than wiping a few port cities off the map. If the West had any balls, they could solve this problem tomorrow. We know the main pirate city, get rid of it. Or at least eliminate anything a couple hundred yards from the shore. If they move to a different location, get rid of that. So on and so forth until they run out of places from which to base their operations and conduct their business. If this means destroying the entire Somalia coastline, then so be it. At some point they'll learn their lesson. Or be rendered incapable of threatening the commerce, travel, and trade of the free world.

At the very least, at this point the transport ships should be armed with longish range weaponry and any small boat anywhere near the Somalia coast declared fair game for any ship that wishes to fire upon them. If this destroyed legitimate Somalia fishermen...well shit, should've thought about that before damned near everyone there turned to piracy.

Good news:

QUOTE

The official said Capt. Richard Phillips is uninjured and in good condition, and that three of the four pirates were killed. The fourth pirate is in custody. Phillips was taken aboard the USS Bainbridge, a nearby naval warship.

Moral of the story: don't mess with the US Navy. Now let's see what happens to the captured pirate. I vaguely recall there was some mention of piracy on the high seas in the Constitution -- do we have a law that says we can execute him?

AMERICA, FUCK YEAH! About as good of a scenario as we could've expected. Everyone safe. Pirates dead. And one who hopefully will be standing trial and going to the gallows pretty soon. Glad for the families of the victims. Glad for the dead pirates. Its a good day.

QUOTE (Waldo Frey @ Apr 12 2009, 16.21)

According to this article, killing off a few pirates is not going to solve the problem. The UN propably needs to station some troops along the coast.

I wasn't suggesting that it would. Killing off a few thousand pirates, placing a military blockade along the coast, and leveling pirate used cities one by one just might.

The most dangerous game

LINK

Deluxe pirate hunting in Somalia and only an extra 17.50 for an AK and 100 rounds of ammo.

I thought this might be a hoax and went looking for a website or something in Russian (hampered by not having a russian keyboard) - couldn't find one, but I did find this ad on a forum, dated back to mid may (every other report I saw was from the last couple days and reference english language media.) that didn't have any kind of contact info but did have the following part in English for some reason:

rates:

QUOTE

$800.00 US/per day double occupancy (4 day max billing).
M-16 full auto rental: $25.00/day .ammo: 100 rounds of 5.56 armor piercing ammo at $15.95.
Ak-47 assault riffle rental: No charge. ammo: 100 rounds of 7.62 com block ball ammo at $14.95.
Barrett M-107 .50 cal sniper riffle rental: $55.00/day. ammo: 25 rounds 50 cal armor piercing at $9.95.
RPG rental: $75/day. ammo: 3 standard loads at $200.
Mounted Mini-Gun $450.00 per 30 seconds of sustained fire.
Crew members can double as spotters for $30.00 per hour (spotting scope included).
"Everyone gets use of free complimentary night vision equipment and coffee and snacks on the top deck from 7pm-6am."
Meals are not included.

Sheesh. Could at least have included the meals.

They gaurentee, roughly translated, "At least two pirate attacks...half refund if they don't happen. We will sail up and down the somali coast for no less than 8 days, until someone finally attacks. At night the ship will be brightly lit and fire fireworks, and speakers blasting translated disco music will be directed at the Somali shore. Be sure - we will attract the attention of pirates."

There are also little blurbs from four participants of the cruise - The only other thing in English, their names are "Lars , Hamburg Germany, Donald, Salt Lake city Utah USA, 'chopper' Dan, Toledo USA, Zeke, Springs Kentucky USA" and highlight of their reviews include "Certainly finished off 3. Will never go on any hunting safari again - nothing beats gunning pirates. I felt like a 'Komandant' in a movie" (Lars, being faithfully german there.) and "I got 3, while my 12 year old son sunk two boats with a machine gun." (Donald. Mormon parenting FTW.) Chopper Dan hasn't had this much fun since he piloted helicopters in Vietnam, while Zeke had never been as hard* in his life as when some injured pirates got ripped apart by sharks.

I increasingly think its a hoax, but the forum I found this quoted on seemed to take it seriously (ok, it was by all of two people in the thread) and so did various news sites and a blog quoting english media. If true - exceptionally sick. If a hoax - also kinda sick for som many seeming to fall for it.

*I'm not entirely familiar with russian sex slang - it was literally "Have never stuck up this much". Context seems to suggest "hard", but I guess it could be something else.