News Somali Pirates seize super tanker

[LowlyPion]

Nothing against the Canadian Navy, but this is another example of employing the wrong tactics, just like everyone else (including the Americans) is doing. If someone is dumping weapons off of their boat when challenged by a warship, that tells you unequivocably that they are pirates and they shouldn't be allowed to exist, they should be destroyed where they sit. We shouldn't merely be "thwarting attacks", we should be destroying pirate ships.

I think if they have any indications that shots were fired from a boat they should at a minimum take the passengers off and then at their choice, seize or sink the ship. If the boat is of foreign registry previously seized by pirates in the first place then maybe even return it to the registered owners.

There was that dhow that I saw pictures of towing satellite boats. There can't have been any doubt they were a forward staging platform. Who would cry but the pirates if that ship was put to the bottom?

 

[WhoWee]

I didn't indicate that any village should be razed, not how it would be done, nor do I condone it.

Allegedly. Perhaps it's time to change the government. There a legal methods to deal with infringement of foreign fishing trawlers. So let the pirates go after the trawlers, but legally.

With about 2,000 miles of coastline to launch attacks from and an operating distance of 200 to 500 miles, the "pirates" ...in reality a floating street gang... will be hard to pinpoint at the moment of attack.

Instead, their "mother ships" need to be tracked, cargo ships should be provided military communications channel (access) to provide real-time info ...then fast moving fighters or attack helicopters (depending upon location/distance) can react accordingly to deal with attacking craft (the latest attack was reported to take a week) and the Navy can deal with the "mother ships".

We need to stay out of Somalia...we don't need to try and "fix" it (which is what happens every time we get involved militarily)...we have enough problems. Find the "pirates", equip the ships with communications equipment, wait for an attack and blow them out of the water...repeat. They'll go back to fishing eventually.

 

[LowlyPion]

The changing life ashore for Somali Pirates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/africa/09pirate.html

 

[WhoWee]

The changing life ashore for Somali Pirates:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/09/world/africa/09pirate.html

I guess you are outraged over the religious oppression?

Cut their thieving hands off!

Once again, we don't need to go ashore.

 

[elect_eng]

Cut their thieving hands off!

Once again, we don't need to go ashore.

I saw something very ironic about the pirates on the news just now. Apparently two pirate boats were captured. The people on board claimed to be fishermen, but when the boats were searched, all kinds of weapons were found. However, since they were not found of the act of piracy, and since it is not illegal to posses weapons in international water, they could not be charged with any crime. So, the Navy took the weapons and released the people in their boat.

No laws were broken and no charges were made, but the property was confiscated. Does anyone know the legality of the confiscation? I find it so ironic that the pirates were pirated. I'm not saying that I have any sympathy for the pirates or disapprove of taking weapons that were going to be used to hurt or threaten other people. I'm just curious of what the legal limits are in dealing with this threat. If you can steal someone's property because you believe they are criminals, can you also "cut off their hands" or execute them on the spot? Also, once you know the limits, what are the consequences of crossing the line? Will the Navy of any country be in any way accountable if they decide strong action is needed?

 

[Astronuc]

British couple freed by Somali pirates after 1 yr

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101114/ap_on_re_af/piracy

NAIROBI, Kenya – A British couple kidnapped off their private yacht by Somali pirates more than a year ago were set free Sunday, ending one of the most drawn-out and dramatic hostage situations since the rash of piracy began off East Africa.

Paul and Rachel Chandler looked relaxed and smiled through a small ceremony held in the Somali town of Adado after their morning release. Rachel Chandler told The Associated Press by phone: "We are happy to be alive."

Pirates boarded the Chandler's 38-foot yacht the night of Oct. 23, 2009, while sailing from the island nation of Seychelles. . . . .

A good ending considering the beginning.

 

[CRGreathouse]

No laws were broken and no charges were made, but the property was confiscated. Does anyone know the legality of the confiscation? I find it so ironic that the pirates were pirated. I'm not saying that I have any sympathy for the pirates or disapprove of taking weapons that were going to be used to hurt or threaten other people. I'm just curious of what the legal limits are in dealing with this threat. If you can steal someone's property because you believe they are criminals, can you also "cut off their hands" or execute them on the spot? Also, once you know the limits, what are the consequences of crossing the line? Will the Navy of any country be in any way accountable if they decide strong action is needed?

Admiralty law is notoriously complex.

 

[mugaliens]

Admiralty law is notoriously complex.

I think the command "Repel Boarders!" would fly in any international court, provided those boarders weren't an officially-recognized coast guard or military naval force.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I think the command "Repel Boarders!" would fly in any international court, provided those boarders weren't an officially-recognized coast guard or military naval force.

Yes, but the topic at hand was confiscation, which is less clear. Generally my understanding is that when you're dealing with pirates on the high seas (international waters) they are considered hostis humani generis and any country's navy/cost guard/etc. can deal with them pretty much however they want. But since in this case they were unwilling to arrest them for piracy for lack of proof, it's not clear what right they had to effect the seizure.

To be clear: I'm not saying that it was wrong -- just that elect_eng and I don't know where to draw the line.

 

[mugaliens]

Yes, but the topic at hand was confiscation, which is less clear. Generally my understanding is that when you're dealing with pirates on the high seas (international waters) they are considered hostis humani generis and any country's navy/cost guard/etc. can deal with them pretty much however they want. But since in this case they were unwilling to arrest them for piracy for lack of proof, it's not clear what right they had to effect the seizure.

Kidnapping is a much worse crime than simple piracy. Regardless, if one is armed and capable of repelling boarders, the whole piracy issue becomes a moot point.

Here in the US, nearly all states allow homeowners to repel intruders, by deadly force, if necessary. Many states have "castle laws" which explicitely protect the rights of occupants to defend their home, persons, and property.

Admiralty law needs to adopt this so that citizens on the high seas, or even in territorial waters, retain the same right.

 

[Office_Shredder]

mugaliens, I don't see how the right for civilian ships to arm themselves has anything to do with the rules for military seizure of weapons on a pirate ship.

In general, if you catch a pirate the UN Convention on the Laws of the Sea says you can do whatever you want, including imprisoning the pirate and seizing his stuff. If you choose to go leniently because your country's laws say you can't do that, there's nothing that says it's an all or nothing affair. The choice to let pirates go is not because of international convention but because of national convention; most navies aren't allowed to blast whoever they want out of the water, and once you arrest a pirate you have to either prosecute them (which most countries for whatever reason don't actually have the laws to do it seems) or let them go, and now you have a pirate in your country. I'm assuming most other treaties follow a similar procedure where it never says it's an all or nothing deal when you capture a suspected pirate

Also mugaliens; the reason that boats don't carry weapons is because most ports won't accept armed ships. This isn't admiralty law, unless you're suggesting every port be forced to allow armed ships into their port, which probably won't fly

 

[CRGreathouse]

Also mugaliens; the reason that boats don't carry weapons is because most ports won't accept armed ships. This isn't admiralty law, unless you're suggesting every port be forced to allow armed ships into their port, which probably won't fly

I think there are also insurance issues with armed ships. Can anyone with knowledge/experience comment on this?

 

[WhoWee]

This is a perspective from the insurance industry.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/05/12/100437.htm
""Arming cargo ships has been a sensitive issue because some countries will not allow armed vessels to enter their ports. Additionally, arming the ships can raise insurance costs.

U.S.-flagged ships that carry military cargo already are armed, Watson said.

He said the State Department was working with countries in pirate-plagued regions to learn what weapons laws apply in their ports in order to clarify the issue for U.S. mariners.

 

[mugaliens]

mugaliens, I don't see how the right for civilian ships to arm themselves has anything to do with the rules for military seizure of weapons on a pirate ship.

It doesn't. It has to do with the inalienable right each and every one of us has to defend ourselves against those who are breaking the law, particularly when their actions may cause harm or death.

More: http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm" .

 

[JaredJames]

I know it's a bit late into the discussion, but I watched a Ross Kemp documentary where he was with the Somali pirates.

They showed him how they get aboard the ships:

They move alongside the large vessels in their tiny boats, thanks to the hull shape they can't be seen from above. They then climb up using any anchor chains or various other rigging hanging off the side of the ship. It isn't until they are on board that the crew are aware of their presence.

A lot of the solutions here rely heavily on seeing them coming or detecting them pre-boarding. This doesn't appear to be the case from watching that documentary. They don't seem to know the pirates are there until it's too late. In which case a short range, small arms on board stand off between them would be the only option.

The problem with this is that the pirates could either go in all guns blazing or quietly pick the crew off, either way they have the element of surprise and can catch the crew off guard.

Personally, I agree with the convoy system proposed earlier. Safety in numbers, throw in a few Navy vessels to protect them. You'd soon see a drop in large ships being hijacked. That or simply post a few marines to each vessel, I'm sure the cost of that wouldn't be too high.

I suppose you could give a better detection system to the merchant vessels (remember, night is a good time to sneak up on a big ship). Then provide them with a way to blast them out of the water. I would say a big problem with this is that you are relying on a civillian crew to identify and destroy pirate ships, I think they'd have trouble doing the former. One advantage of being a Navy vessel is that you are trained and able to take a bit of time to identify who these people are, without immediately panicking and blowing them out of the water - as I'm sure most merchant ships would start doing to every ship they felt 'presented a threat'.

 

[Office_Shredder]

You'd soon see a drop in large ships being hijacked. That or simply post a few marines to each vessel, I'm sure the cost of that wouldn't be too high.

A few marines who would engage in a short range firefight with the pirates once they've boarded? Is that really so much better than the crew doing it? It's not like these boats are just sailing in blind and hoping nothing happens

http://www.570news.com/news/world/article/32436--arms-race-on-high-seas-gunfire-rpg-attacks-by-somali-pirates-soar-as-crew-defences-improve

 

[JaredJames]

A few marines who would engage in a short range firefight with the pirates once they've boarded? Is that really so much better than the crew doing it? It's not like these boats are just sailing in blind and hoping nothing happens

http://www.570news.com/news/world/article/32436--arms-race-on-high-seas-gunfire-rpg-attacks-by-somali-pirates-soar-as-crew-defences-improve

Are you comparing trained marines to the crews of a merchant vessel? You best not make that comparison in front of a marine.

To have a team of marines on board the ship would be a deterrent in itself, let alone trying to board a ship and then coming face to face with some of the best in the business.

If they are trying to board, the marines have the advantage. If they are approaching and have been spotted, the marines have the advantage. If they are physically on board the ship and trying to take it, the marines are far better trained and have better weapons than a bunch of pirates with AK-47's. (Despite it's power, the AK47 isn't the most accurate of weapons in full-auto).

 

[Office_Shredder]

EDIT: Oops, it says few, not couple. I was thinking like 2 guys on each boat

 

[JaredJames]

EDIT: Saw your edit after posting.

I'd say between 5 - 15 guys per boat depending on its size.

I mean come on, a bunch of well trained marines is going to be something of an obstacle to even the most hardened pirates.

 

[russ_watters]

After all - that's what the Marine Corps was originally for!

 

[JaredJames]

After all - that's what the Marine Corps was originally for!

Well let's face it, what's the point in having one of the best Navies on the planet when you can't even defend against a few pirates?

 

[russ_watters]

Well let's face it, what's the point in having one of the best Navies on the planet when you can't even defend against a few pirates?

Agreed - I've said that before. Having been in the navy, that's why this issue really irritates me. At anyone time, we have somewhere on the order of 100 ships deployed, mostly driving around in circles. So why not have a dozen drive around in circles off the coast of Somalia?

 

[JaredJames]

Agreed - I've said that before. Having been in the navy, that's why this issue really irritates me. At anyone time, we have somewhere on the order of 100 ships deployed, mostly driving around in circles. So why not have a dozen drive around in circles off the coast of Somalia?

Exactly, stick them around that area and deploy the troops onto ships to protect them.

I watched something the other day where an aircraft carrier went through this exact route. During the transit they had a bunch of new recruits wandering around on deck with SA80 rifles and manning the fixed gun emplacements. Couldn't have been more than 30 of them.

Just do the same for the merchant ships. A few troops wandering their decks and some ships prowling close by and the threat will drop rather swiftly. They'd only need troops on board during the transit.

 

[mheslep]

Well let's face it, what's the point in having one of the best Navies on the planet when you can't even defend against a few pirates?

Agreed - I've said that before. Having been in the navy, that's why this issue really irritates me. At anyone time, we have somewhere on the order of 100 ships deployed, mostly driving around in circles. So why not have a dozen drive around in circles off the coast of Somalia?

Gates made the point in detail as to the ridiculous overwhelming superiority of the US Navy http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/navy-league-seaairspace-exposition-gates%E2%80%99-shot-across-the-bows/"

“The U.S. has 57 nuclear-powered attack and cruise missile submarines – again, more than the rest of the world combined.
“Seventy-nine Aegis-equipped combatants carry roughly 8,000 vertical-launch missile cells. In terms of total missile firepower, the U.S. arguably outmatches the next 20 largest navies.
“All told, the displacement of the U.S. battle fleet – a proxy for overall fleet capabilities – exceeds, by one recent estimate, at least the next 13 navies combined, of which 11 are our allies or partners.
“And, at 202,000 strong, the U.S. Marine Corps is the largest military force of its kind – exceeding the size of most world armies.”

I didn't realize the scope. The US still has 57 nuke subs? The US could deploy 40 nuke subs off Somalia and never miss them.

 

[JaredJames]

Problem is, subs wouldn't be effective.

A few ships would be a fantastic deterrent and fighting force when deployed roughly as I said above.

 

[WhoWee]

A single helicopter gunship could protect a whole fleet of ships against the Somali Pirates.

 

[Argentum Vulpes]

...

I didn't realize the scope. The US still has 57 nuke subs? The US could deploy 40 nuke subs off Somalia and never miss them.

That would be great but a sub dose not do a good job of waving the big stick. They do a good job of not being found, and the only way that their presence is known is when there are fish in the water running hard up your rear or when a SLBM breaks the water surface.

Park several Arleigh Burke class destroyers in a race track pattern or bring the USS Iowa out of retirement and park that off the coast of Somali. I think those two messieurs would definitely fly the colors and make the pirates think twice.

 

[mheslep]

I only meant to use the subs as a metaphor for the overkill size of the US Navy.

 

[JaredJames]

So what is stopping us deploying some battleships out to these areas and blasting these pirates out of the water?

Sounds like a silly question I know, but I honestly don't know why any world government is willing to stand for this so easily.

 

[WhoWee]

They would need to fire at the Navy vessel first - not likely to happen.