If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   India arrests ships crew for carrying weapons to defend themselves from pirates. You're not helping   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 58
    More: Stupid, Tamil Nadu, weapons  
•       •       •

3355 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2013 at 12:07 PM (47 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



58 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-18 12:10:39 PM
That's a standard Maritime law.  Nothing new there.
 
2013-10-18 12:12:48 PM
How are the ships supposed to do the needful without weapons?
 
2013-10-18 12:13:46 PM
And in a couple days, they will all be quietly released, along with their confiscated weapons, and nothing will be said of it.

As they should be.

Part of me wants them to produce GPS records showing they weren't in Indian waters, proving their arrest and detention was illegal.  However, I don't expect a professional to bite the hand of a potential client.

/but it would still be funny
 
2013-10-18 12:14:53 PM
A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?
 
2013-10-18 12:15:09 PM
Yeap; according to international law; it's illegal as hell for civilian ships in international waters to arm their crews. It's kind of silly on one level; but, I can kind of see the point. You don't want some poor sailor hammering away at a boat of Somalis; who might have a RPG.

/ personally; I think that any boat that sails those waters should be required to possess at least one functioning 5 inch deck gun.
 
2013-10-18 12:16:55 PM

Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?


OMFG guns are SCARY!
 
2013-10-18 12:17:45 PM
They should redirect this prosecutorial zeal towards suspected gang rapists. Then, I'll be impressed.
 
2013-10-18 12:18:39 PM

enik: Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?

OMFG guns are SCARY!


Especially big, black ones.

/ grabbers are very thinly veiled racists
 
2013-10-18 12:18:42 PM
You know, international Maritime law still allows for the attack and sinking - without warning - of any vessel caught engaging in Piracy.  It was written back when "pirate ship" usually meant cannon-festooned square-rigged galleons, but it applies just as fully to a zodiac containing a few guys with AK-47s.

If more countries and shipping lines took a tougher approach to this problem, it would very quickly become an extremely rare event.

Mount a couple of .50 cals on every container ship, and watch the problem of Piracy along the African coast vanish very quickly.
 
2013-10-18 12:19:18 PM

Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.


This is India so it wouldn't surprise me if all the paperwork was in order and they were detained anyway.
 
2013-10-18 12:20:39 PM

iheartscotch: enik: Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?

OMFG guns are SCARY!

Especially big, black ones.

/ grabbers are very thinly veiled racists


Don't call them grabbers.  Call them what they really are.  Hoplophobes.
 
2013-10-18 12:21:25 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?


Umm...hapopens every day, and it's perfectly legal, so long as they're stored in compliance with relevant laws and aren't brought ashore.
 
2013-10-18 12:23:09 PM
To be fair, chances that sea pirates will attack jailed crew are quite low
 
2013-10-18 12:23:38 PM

enik: OMFG guns are SCARY!


I know you're a troll account, but are you really going to troll on the position that a sovereign country should have no control over foreigners possessing full auto firearms inside their boarders?  Really, that's what you're going to run with?

To The Escape Zeppelin!: This is India so it wouldn't surprise me if all the paperwork was in order and they were detained anyway.


Hmmm.  True.  Anyone know the rep of the security company?  Fly by night asshole/rambo wannabes or professional hard asses who are more likely to cross their t's and dot their i's?
 
2013-10-18 12:24:09 PM

Smeggy Smurf: iheartscotch: enik: Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?

OMFG guns are SCARY!

Especially big, black ones.

/ grabbers are very thinly veiled racists

Don't call them grabbers.  Call them what they really are.  Hoplophobes.


Dear lord,

That's actually a word; I thought that you had made it up. I'm going to have to use it now.
 
2013-10-18 12:25:13 PM
This was after a different armed crew killed two Indian fishermen who they thought were pirates in Indian waters. They didn't help either
 
TWX
2013-10-18 12:25:36 PM
Meh.  This could be solved by defining a number of firearms and rounds for either a given size of ship or a given crew compliment for ship-defense use, then defining a coastal distance limit where arms must be kept unloaded in secured weapons lockers that are part of the ship itself, only to be brought out within that distance if the ship is under attack or if the weapons are being removed and replaced in-port.
 
2013-10-18 12:25:42 PM
iheartscotch:
Yeap; according to international law; it's illegal as hell for civilian ships in international waters to arm their crews.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Civilian ships can carry small arms pretty much without restrictions in international waters. That is, if their "flag country" allows it.

The issue is that many countries ban foreign ships from entering their waters or ports while carrying weapons that are illegal in those countries.
 
2013-10-18 12:26:18 PM

Quackadam: That's a standard Maritime law.  Nothing new there.


Is this standard Maritime law?
AdvanFort's president, William H. Watson, denied that the ship was navigating in Indian waters.
"The Indian coast guard approached us and asked us to follow them into the port. We would never have entered Indian waters otherwise," Watson said.

If true, that's the equivalent of drinking in your home, having a cop demand you come outside and then arresting you for public intoxication. The GPS data should reveal the truth of what happened here.
 
2013-10-18 12:26:21 PM
So, Maritime Law is derived from corporate policy from 7-11?
 
2013-10-18 12:28:49 PM

cirby: iheartscotch:
Yeap; according to international law; it's illegal as hell for civilian ships in international waters to arm their crews.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Civilian ships can carry small arms pretty much without restrictions in international waters. That is, if their "flag country" allows it.

The issue is that many countries ban foreign ships from entering their waters or ports while carrying weapons that are illegal in those countries.


Bbbbbut; that's what they said on the daily show the other night. Jon had Tom Hanks on to talk about hanks' new movie. If Tom Hanks says it; it has to be true.

/ I'll have to watch the interview again
 
2013-10-18 12:30:02 PM
LewDux: To be fair, chances that sea pirates will attack jailed crew are quite low

Now they just have to worry about butt pirates
 
2013-10-18 12:31:03 PM

iheartscotch: Yeap; according to international law; it's illegal as hell for civilian ships in international waters to arm their crews. It's kind of silly on one level; but, I can kind of see the point. You don't want some poor sailor hammering away at a boat of Somalis; who might have a RPG.

/ personally; I think that any boat that sails those waters should be required to possess at least one functioning 5 inch deck gun.


I think another reason for the stupid law is because they dont want a crew member to go on a shooting spree in a foreign country for whatever reason. But I am all for arming crews and have the weapons locked up. I always thought it was silly fighting armed intruders with fire hoses, yes they can knocked them down but they will get back up jsut wetter and angry.
 
2013-10-18 12:31:14 PM
Were the weapons Glocks and AK-47s? I bet they were Glocks and Ak-47s.
 
2013-10-18 12:32:19 PM
India where rape victims get more punishment then the attacker? yeah please.... move along dot heads
 
2013-10-18 12:34:38 PM

cirby: iheartscotch:
Yeap; according to international law; it's illegal as hell for civilian ships in international waters to arm their crews.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Civilian ships can carry small arms pretty much without restrictions in international waters. That is, if their "flag country" allows it.

The issue is that many countries ban foreign ships from entering their waters or ports while carrying weapons that are illegal in those countries.


Very true.

In International waters, cilvillian vessels can always carry small arms.  Back when I was in the Navy, one of the relevant internaitonal bodies declared that weapons that were permanently mounted on a ship above a certain size (I belive it was 50 cal) meant that the vessel was consiered a warship, and not a civillian vessel, clearing the way for merchant ships to carry small arms.   (CSB:  As a result, one of our unarmed Naval supply ships had a fake 3-inch gun mount built out of wood temporarily added to their foredeck to get through the Panama Canal free as a "warship".  Later on, a CWIS was installed, so it became moot.)
 
2013-10-18 12:34:56 PM

Highroller48: You know, international Maritime law still allows for the attack and sinking - without warning - of any vessel caught engaging in Piracy.  It was written back when "pirate ship" usually meant cannon-festooned square-rigged galleons, but it applies just as fully to a zodiac containing a few guys with AK-47s.

If more countries and shipping lines took a tougher approach to this problem, it would very quickly become an extremely rare event.

Mount a couple of .50 cals on every container ship, and watch the problem of Piracy along the African coast vanish very quickly.


The truth of that has already been established. Companies are now in the business of providing armed guards for ships transiting dangerous areas. There have been a couple of gun battles, but not one of the ships so protected has been boarded by pirates. At a cost of about $30k per transit, it's probably more cost effective and far less hassle than arming your ship, finding crew members who'll volunteer to put their lives in danger defending the ship, and keeping them trained.

Because of these and other measures, piracy off the coast of Somalia has fallen off by 50% from its peak. Make it more risky and costly in life and expense to engage in piracy and the potential pirates won't be inclined to try it.
 
2013-10-18 12:35:21 PM

Misconduc: India where rape victims get more punishment then the attacker? yeah please.... move along dot heads


Swing and a miss
 
2013-10-18 12:36:23 PM
Self defense is a privilege, not a right.
 
2013-10-18 12:38:40 PM
What is the problem if the weapons remain aboard ship? It is not transporting if they never leave ship. Do the charge import duties on all the supplies and personal belongings on board?

It's stupid laws like this that make it possible for 10 guys in speed boats to capture a 200,000 ton ship with a crew of 50.
 
2013-10-18 12:41:06 PM

Quackadam: That's a standard Maritime law.  Nothing new there.


This. If they were caught carrying firearms without licenses in US territory they would be facing 10-20 years in prison.
 
2013-10-18 12:41:42 PM

Highroller48: cirby: iheartscotch:
Yeap; according to international law; it's illegal as hell for civilian ships in international waters to arm their crews.

Actually, it's just the opposite. Civilian ships can carry small arms pretty much without restrictions in international waters. That is, if their "flag country" allows it.

The issue is that many countries ban foreign ships from entering their waters or ports while carrying weapons that are illegal in those countries.

Very true.

In International waters, cilvillian vessels can always carry small arms.  Back when I was in the Navy, one of the relevant internaitonal bodies declared that weapons that were permanently mounted on a ship above a certain size (I belive it was 50 cal) meant that the vessel was consiered a warship, and not a civillian vessel, clearing the way for merchant ships to carry small arms.   (CSB:  As a result, one of our unarmed Naval supply ships had a fake 3-inch gun mount built out of wood temporarily added to their foredeck to get through the Panama Canal free as a "warship".  Later on, a CWIS was installed, so it became moot.)


Again, Tom Hanks said something different. If Tom Hanks said it; it has to be true.

/ I keed, I'm really going to have to watch Jon Stewart interview Tom Hanks again.
 
2013-10-18 12:41:44 PM

jjorsett: Highroller48: You know, international Maritime law still allows for the attack and sinking - without warning - of any vessel caught engaging in Piracy.  It was written back when "pirate ship" usually meant cannon-festooned square-rigged galleons, but it applies just as fully to a zodiac containing a few guys with AK-47s.

If more countries and shipping lines took a tougher approach to this problem, it would very quickly become an extremely rare event.

Mount a couple of .50 cals on every container ship, and watch the problem of Piracy along the African coast vanish very quickly.

The truth of that has already been established. Companies are now in the business of providing armed guards for ships transiting dangerous areas. There have been a couple of gun battles, but not one of the ships so protected has been boarded by pirates. At a cost of about $30k per transit, it's probably more cost effective and far less hassle than arming your ship, finding crew members who'll volunteer to put their lives in danger defending the ship, and keeping them trained.

Because of these and other measures, piracy off the coast of Somalia has fallen off by 50% from its peak. Make it more risky and costly in life and expense to engage in piracy and the potential pirates won't be inclined to try it.


Valid points, for sure.  I'd suggest only that an equally competetive busines model might simply see half a dozen well-trained personnel contracted on board with the weapons and resources required to act as an anti-piracy team.  Unless we want to go back to convoy days, you still need one escort per merchant ship under the escort vessel model.
 
2013-10-18 12:42:29 PM
I cannot think of one nice thing to say about that filthy hell-hole that is India.
 
2013-10-18 12:42:35 PM

Highroller48: You know, international Maritime law still allows for the attack and sinking - without warning - of any vessel caught engaging in Piracy. It was written back when "pirate ship" usually meant cannon-festooned square-rigged galleons, but it applies just as fully to a zodiac containing a few guys with AK-47s.


Or a yacht operating an illegal peer-to-peer network on the high seas...
 
2013-10-18 12:44:24 PM

Highroller48: Satanic_Hamster: Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?

Umm...hapopens every day, and it's perfectly legal, so long as they're stored in compliance with relevant laws and aren't brought ashore.


What part of "illegally" are you not understanding...?
 
2013-10-18 12:45:25 PM

iheartscotch: Again, Tom Hanks said something different. If Tom Hanks said it; it has to be true.

/ I keed, I'm really going to have to watch Jon Stewart interview Tom Hanks again.


Hmm...  I watched one of those Border reality shows only last week where agents boarded a merchant ship because there were small about 30 arms on the manifest.  They ensured they were legally stored, that the manifest matched the inventory, and then left.
 
2013-10-18 12:50:14 PM

Satanic_Hamster: What part of "illegally" are you not understanding...?


Strawman, much?  You clearly implied it was illegal for a civillian ship to bring automatic weapons into U.S. waters.  That's incorrect.   If it's legal, then you can't reall bring them in "illegally', now, can you?
 
2013-10-18 12:52:30 PM
It's made for Hollywood: the story of an average American family man, captain of a cargo ship in dangerous waters, his vessel overtaken by armed Somali pirates demanding ransom, saving his crew by allowing himself to be removed from the boat and taken hostage.

All of this is the basis for "Captain Phillips," starring Tom Hanks as the titular, real-life hero. The only problem, say some members of the real Capt. Phillips' crew, is none of it is true.
 
http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-hero is m/
 
2013-10-18 12:52:35 PM

Highroller48: Strawman, much? You clearly implied it was illegal for a civillian ship to bring automatic weapons into U.S. waters. That's incorrect. If it's legal, then you can't reall bring them in "illegally', now, can you?


By your strawman, that means there's no restrictions on bringing in automatic weapons into US waters.

As I said, illegally.  As in non-compliant with the law.  As in a manner that's against the law.
 
2013-10-18 12:53:37 PM

werty789: What is the problem if the weapons remain aboard ship? It is not transporting if they never leave ship. Do the charge import duties on all the supplies and personal belongings on board?

It's stupid laws like this that make it possible for 10 guys in speed boats to capture a 200,000 ton ship with a crew of 50.


Some countries get kind of twitchy when armed foreign ships sail into their ports, that's all. It might *look* like a freighter, but what if it's the first wave of a Liberian Navy attack?
 
2013-10-18 12:57:12 PM

werty789: What is the problem if the weapons remain aboard ship? It is not transporting if they never leave ship. Do the charge import duties on all the supplies and personal belongings on board?

It's stupid laws like this that make it possible for 10 guys in speed boats to capture a 200,000 ton ship with a crew of 50.


Could be the possibility of events the recent murder of innocent fisherman by gunhappy security personal.
 
2013-10-18 01:04:32 PM

you are a puppet: This was after a different armed crew killed two Indian fishermen who they thought were pirates in Indian waters. They didn't help either


Kind of different.  That armed crew was not a private security company but Government troops-Italian Marines.  But India still got their dhoti in a twist
 
2013-10-18 01:05:11 PM

jjorsett: Quackadam: That's a standard Maritime law.  Nothing new there.

Is this standard Maritime law?
AdvanFort's president, William H. Watson, denied that the ship was navigating in Indian waters.
"The Indian coast guard approached us and asked us to follow them into the port. We would never have entered Indian waters otherwise," Watson said.
If true, that's the equivalent of drinking in your home, having a cop demand you come outside and then arresting you for public intoxication. The GPS data should reveal the truth of what happened here.


True IF they were in International Waters. Additionally there are Maritime laws about armed vessels and unarmed vessels. This is why the Somali pirates and why they are called or can be classified as such, have such a field day taking ships and holding crew and cargo hostage. 
It did say the Captan was unable to produce the documents authorising his cargo, that's a big "no no" and why they could just as easily been suspected as being pirates themselves as opposed to the ones providing protection from pirates.

There is a lot to know when you are out at sea and within another countries "possible" territory.  If you are not "ship shape and above water" (pun intended) it would be best to stay very far from possible water boundary's.
 
2013-10-18 01:18:04 PM

To The Escape Zeppelin!: Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

This is India so it wouldn't surprise me if all the paperwork was in order and they were detained anyway.


This.

and this (although old)

http://www.saveourseafarers.com/families-of-sailors-held-hostage-by- so mali-pirates-protest.html
 
2013-10-18 01:24:46 PM

hasty ambush: you are a puppet: This was after a different armed crew killed two Indian fishermen who they thought were pirates in Indian waters. They didn't help either

Kind of different.  That armed crew was not a private security company but Government troops-Italian Marines.  But India still got their dhoti in a twist


And the difference is? Beyond the person signing the paycheques?

From an Indian perspective there is no difference both are armed foreign security forces entering their territory. Although it may be easier for the Italian marines to bring weapons into Indian waters legally.
 
2013-10-18 01:26:49 PM

hasty ambush: That armed crew was not a private security company but Government troops-Italian Marines.  But India still got their dhoti in a twist


Yeah, 3rd world governments always make such a stink when you go around shooting their innocent citizens. What's their problem?
 
2013-10-18 01:27:11 PM

iheartscotch: enik: Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?

OMFG guns are SCARY!

Especially big, black ones.

/ grabbers are very thinly veiled racists


s22.postimg.org
 
2013-10-18 01:56:06 PM

werty789: What is the problem if the weapons remain aboard ship? It is not transporting if they never leave ship. Do the charge import duties on all the supplies and personal belongings on board?

It's stupid laws like this that make it possible for 10 guys in speed boats to capture a 200,000 ton ship with a crew of 50.


If they were allowed to carry phalanx spears I'm pretty sure they could fend off any number of battleships
 
2013-10-18 02:36:26 PM

enik: Satanic_Hamster: A professional security company should have known to have all their ducks in a row.

Say derpmitter; I'm sure you'd be fine with, say, a Liberian flagged vessel in US waters with dozens of fully automatic weapons on board illegally, right?

OMFG guns are SCARY!


I put up fully automatic weapons all over the country, in cities, in rural areas, etc. Why worry about a few more on a ship? They're the least likely to be a threat.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report