FTA: ...it's common for patrolling warships to disarm then free brigands because they have rarely have jurisdiction to try them.

Then something needs to change.

/obvious comment is obvious

It's clear the UN is joining in the game of trying to make Rush's head explode.

Fun for the whole family world

Then don't try them. You strand them in a very small unpowered lifeboat at least twenty miles out to sea with no water, no food, one knife, an IV cannula, and a large container of meat tenderizer. Do that a few times and they'll be less likely to pirate.

Kill. There is no try.

It would be interesting if somehow it was legally possible to just make a declaration of war against the pirate factions, declare a no-sail zone off the somali coast and then sit off the coast and kill them with extreme prejudice.

Acting under the pretenses and restrictions of being a big international maritime policeman handicaps the efforts necessary to effectively solve the problem. KIlling them won't solve the problem if they can still capture ships but if we can both kill them and prevent them from getting near ships, then we might be getting somewhere. And as a bone to the more squeamish types out there -- we can see about working with whoever it is to get a working gov in Mogadishu, but good luck to that.

There is not a lot of legal precedent regarding declarations of war against non-state actors (our poorly-named "war on terror" being a fine example). You're asking what are currently legally defined as international maritime policemen operating under legal systems designed for domestic criminal acts to to wage a low-grade war far from home in a place where no-one gives a shiat about your laws.

Problem is if we declare war, there is always the possibility of collateral damage and that is what freaks people out. We can either admit that the cause is worth the risk of regrettable collateral damage or continue futily trying to act like a policeman acting under laws in a region that currently is without law.

For the record, I am not advocating a particular course of action, just putting out there the hypothetical scenarios that will need to be addressed before coming to a decision.

[NATO][UN]

choose one, dumbmitter

006andahalf: It would be interesting if somehow it was legally possible to just make a declaration of war against the pirate factions

I don't think enemy combatants have to be a sovereign nation... "war on drugs," "war on terra," etc...

Typical Liberals. All talk, no action.

deevo: [NATO][UN]

choose one, dumbmitter

This

Wow, the UN as usual is stupid and impotent.

No "Boom, Headshot"? That's how the US rolls when it comes to 3rd world pirates.

"There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem

Seems like the lead ones would work just fine.

Goldeneye007: Typical Liberals. All talk, no action.

Which is equally as foolish as the Conservative alternative: All action, no talk. Which is what led us to chasing nonexistent WMDs in the in a giant sand pile on the other side of the world.

At its height there was no jurisdiction attached to piracy. "Any interested warship" had carte blanche to attack pirates and dispatch pirate prisoners on the authority of the ship's captain. Not to get all ITG, but isn't that the way it should be?

MrSteve007: No "Boom, Headshot"? That's how the US rolls when it comes to 3rd world pirates.

Thread over....'nuff said

Common sense.

Something the UN or NATO doesn't have.

'Hey, let's let them go so they can do it again.'

Change your rules or laws to allow arrest, detention, prosecution or military force.

US got it right. SEALS killed the guys. Same has to happen for all of them.

Just look at the old days...pirates were hanged.

eff ewe: "war on terra,"

Wait....we have a war against land now? I guess I missed that memo.

deevo: [NATO][UN]

choose one, dumbmitter

No shiat. I read that on CNN so I knew the deal. Before reading TFA I guessed it was FAUX News the farked it up.

Way to go subtard.

Foaming

"There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem

Seems like the lead ones would work just fine.

Beat me to it.

dahmers love zombie: Then don't try them. You strand them in a very small unpowered lifeboat at least twenty miles out to sea with no water, no food, one knife, an IV cannula, and a large container of meat tenderizer. Do that a few times and they'll be less likely to pirate. attach weights to their ankles and throw them overboard.

Kill. There is no try.

FTFY

EvilElecBlanket: FTA: ...it's common for patrolling warships to disarm then free brigands because they have rarely have jurisdiction to try them.

Then something needs to change.

/obvious comment is obvious

They don't have jurisdiction to try them? They're pirates! Everyone has jurisdiction to try them and most everyone has specific procedures set up to do so.

Are they not considered pirates if they are caught before attacking a ship? That needs to change, the pirate laws (as in, those allowing all nations jurisdiction to grab pirates and try them as they see fit) need to extend to these cases?

"There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem, said Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at London-based think-tank Chatham House.

Yeah, there is.

Foaming: "There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem

Seems like the lead ones would work just fine.

Came here to say this. Foaming beat me to it. Well played.

geetus: Foaming

"There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem

Seems like the lead ones would work just fine.

Beat me to it.

I can haz depleted uranium?

"There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem, said Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at London-based think-tank Chatham House.

You don't need silver bullets. The regular kind will suffice.

The silver bullet is called Universal Jurisdiction and has been used before to deal with pirates.

JC22: Common sense.

Something the UN or NATO doesn't have.

'Hey, let's let them go so they can do it again.'

Change your rules or laws to allow arrest, detention, prosecution or military force.

US got it right. SEALS killed the guys. Same has to happen for all of them.

Just look at the old days...pirates were hanged.

These weren't pirates who had boarded a ship and kidnapped the captain. These were heavily armed people on the water going to attack a ship. If they give up willingly to the patrol ships, there's not reason to shoot them. Arrest them as pirates, which everyone has the right to do, and move on. The case with the SEALs was a completely different kind of situation.

MadCat221: Goldeneye007: Typical Liberals. All talk, no action.

Which is equally as foolish as the Conservative alternative: All action, no talk. Which is what led us to chasing nonexistent WMDs in the in a giant sand pile on the other side of the world.

Yeah, Saddam did not have any yellow cake uranium which was wisked away to Canada which the media covered for one day then acted like it never happened. Oh wait he did, and the link to the CNN article is right here? Link

"There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem, said Roger Middleton

No there isn't. But lead bullets will suffice.

/ didn't even know Somalia had boats

If you're gonna release them at least sink the boat. Ferry them to land minus guns & means to further their piracy.

NATO

Way to go TROLLmitter! I guess your solution is to kill em all, rite? Worked really well against Al Qaeda and Talibans, huh?

/Stay the course

Yep. Looks like another UN hate-thread lead by Assmitter, and followed by the usual Fox loving horde of Fark Independants. Not a single mention of the U.N in the story, yet we have:

tzzhc4: Wow, the UN as usual is stupid and impotent.

Way to read the article, sparky.

What are we supposed to use, harsh language?

/obscure?

Some of you have the right idea. I am for putting the 4+ captured pirates in the middle of the sea. No gas for the engine. no radio. 2 loaded guns. 1 canteen of water.

Long range video and sound, call it "real survivor" and make popcorn.

2 on each ship = problem solved.

Foaming: "There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem

Seems like the lead ones would work just fine.

What solution may look like...

PenguinTheRed: At its height there was no jurisdiction attached to piracy. "Any interested warship" had carte blanche to attack pirates and dispatch pirate prisoners on the authority of the ship's captain. Not to get all ITG, but isn't that the way it should be?

dahmers love zombie: Then don't try them. You strand them in a very small unpowered lifeboat at least twenty miles out to sea with no water, no food, one knife, an IV cannula, and a large container of meat tenderizer. Do that a few times and they'll be less likely to pirate.

Kill. There is no try.

I was thinking more along the lines of cutting one of them up into chum and dumping him into the water, then abandoning them in an unpowered lifeboat.

MadCat221: Goldeneye007: Typical Liberals. All talk, no action.

Which is equally as foolish as the Conservative alternative: All action, no talk. Which is what led us to chasing nonexistent WMDs in the in a giant sand pile on the other side of the world.

Dude, don't feed the troll.

Foaming: "There isn't a silver bullet" to solve the problem

Seems like the lead ones would work just fine.

Dammit, someone told me the pirates were also werewolves. It SEEMS I was misinformed.

If they just start killing pirates at sea (after they've been captured, at least), they're committing a crime as well.

The authority military forces would need to be able to arrest and try pirates like these would be multilateral, something the right likes to absolutely FREAK OUT over as an attack on "sovereignty". They may react differently when its Somalis being regulated instead of Americans, but the very general principle is the same.

The bottom line is that America rules the seas and we LIKE it that way. Any creation of an international authority with power over navies and civilians alike undermines that, and most likely won't be allowed.

So yeah, rock and a hard place...

I'm surprised so many are eager to kill hungry people who haven't shown they are willing to actually shoot anyone. Sure, stop them, arrest them, if they resist, open fire, but pirates do not demand a "shoot on sight" approach. Even in the old days they tended to capture and hang them when they didn't fight back, it wasn't shoot on sight.

RemyDuron: JC22: Common sense.

Something the UN or NATO doesn't have.

'Hey, let's let them go so they can do it again.'

Change your rules or laws to allow arrest, detention, prosecution or military force.

US got it right. SEALS killed the guys. Same has to happen for all of them.

Just look at the old days...pirates were hanged.

These weren't pirates who had boarded a ship and kidnapped the captain. These were heavily armed people on the water going to attack a ship. If they give up willingly to the patrol ships, there's not reason to shoot them. Arrest them as pirates, which everyone has the right to do, and move on. The case with the SEALs was a completely different kind of situation.

Pirates are Pirates. They WERE going to go attack a ship and most likely take hostages or worse.

Why do you think they keep doing this...because no one retaliates against them.

The vast majority of detained pirates are set free to wreak havoc again because of legal barriers to prosecuting them. It can be difficult or impossible for prosecutors to assemble witnesses scattered across the globe and find translators. Many countries are wary of hauling in pirates for trial for fear of being saddled with them after they serve their prison terms.

And pirates have little incentive to stop: each ransom paid is worth millions of dollars.

You want stuff to stop like this, you make examples of those that do it. Period.

MemeSlave: What are we supposed to use, harsh language?

/obscure?

Orbital bombardment with high yield thermonuclear warheads would be my preference.

OK.
Simple.

tattoo a big "P" on their face (not torture, just demarkation)
Sink boat, drop them on dry land - but not their's.
Try some other nations' and see how they fare.

Step 3: Non-profit from non-stealing!

RemyDuron: I'm surprised so many are eager to kill hungry people who haven't shown they are willing to actually shoot anyone.

The pirates commit acts of kidnapping. Killing them is the only guaranteed method for preventing recidivism.

In many locales, deadly force is leagally justified to prevent an act of kidnapping.

MemeSlave: What are we supposed to use, man, harsh language?

/obscure?

Better not be obscure, but it's easier if you at least get the quote right. :P

JC22: RemyDuron: JC22: Common sense.

Something the UN or NATO doesn't have.

'Hey, let's let them go so they can do it again.'

Change your rules or laws to allow arrest, detention, prosecution or military force.

US got it right. SEALS killed the guys. Same has to happen for all of them.

Just look at the old days...pirates were hanged.

These weren't pirates who had boarded a ship and kidnapped the captain. These were heavily armed people on the water going to attack a ship. If they give up willingly to the patrol ships, there's not reason to shoot them. Arrest them as pirates, which everyone has the right to do, and move on. The case with the SEALs was a completely different kind of situation.

Pirates are Pirates. They WERE going to go attack a ship and most likely take hostages or worse.

Why do you think they keep doing this...because no one retaliates against them.

The vast majority of detained pirates are set free to wreak havoc again because of legal barriers to prosecuting them. It can be difficult or impossible for prosecutors to assemble witnesses scattered across the globe and find translators. Many countries are wary of hauling in pirates for trial for fear of being saddled with them after they serve their prison terms.

And pirates have little incentive to stop: each ransom paid is worth millions of dollars.

You want stuff to stop like this, you make examples of those that do it. Period.

Yes, obviously the death penalty as stopped all murder in the US.

To stop something like this you make sure universal jurisdiction applies and you shoot them if they refuse to surrender the first time, or if they have a hostage. I'm not saying never shoot pirates, I'm saying that, before they've actually attacked a ship and taken hostages, if they surrender, don't shoot them, try them as pirates.

MIguy: 2 on each ship = problem solved.

Corporate lawyers for shipping companies would NEVER allow that.

If it were up to me, I'd allow a very securely sealed room on each large vessel containing small arms that only the captain has access to in the event of an emergency.

But I'm not an expert on this stuff. One of the families I grew up with was headed by one of the most experienced merchant mariners in America; an old Scottish sea captain who repatriated and administered the Houston Ship Channel for years before retiring to teach maritime law. I'm sure he's sick of talking about this stuff by now, but I REALLY want to call him up and ask his opinion on a solution to this type of piracy.

I have a feeling he'd have a far better reply than any "expert" the pundits drag onto TV.

Dimensio: RemyDuron: I'm surprised so many are eager to kill hungry people who haven't shown they are willing to actually shoot anyone.

The pirates commit acts of kidnapping. Killing them is the only guaranteed method for preventing recidivism.

In many locales, deadly force is leagally justified to prevent an act of kidnapping.

Okay, if someone is trying to kidnap me, or a member of my family, and I pull a gun on them, and they surrender, hands up, far enough away so they can't jump me. I should pull the trigger?

006andahalf: It would be interesting if somehow it was legally possible to just make a declaration of war against the pirate factions, declare a no-sail zone off the somali coast and then sit off the coast and kill them with extreme prejudice.

Acting under the pretenses and restrictions of being a big international maritime policeman handicaps the efforts necessary to effectively solve the problem. KIlling them won't solve the problem if they can still capture ships but if we can both kill them and prevent them from getting near ships, then we might be getting somewhere. And as a bone to the more squeamish types out there -- we can see about working with whoever it is to get a working gov in Mogadishu, but good luck to that.

There is not a lot of legal precedent regarding declarations of war against non-state actors (our poorly-named "war on terror" being a fine example). You're asking what are currently legally defined as international maritime policemen operating under legal systems designed for domestic criminal acts to to wage a low-grade war far from home in a place where no-one gives a shiat about your laws.

Problem is if we declare war, there is always the possibility of collateral damage and that is what freaks people out. We can either admit that the cause is worth the risk of regrettable collateral damage or continue futily trying to act like a policeman acting under laws in a region that currently is without law.

For the record, I am not advocating a particular course of action, just putting out there the hypothetical scenarios that will need to be addressed before coming to a decision.

The bastards wouldn't sign my trade agreement so I had to muster my forces and wipe them out entirely.