Pirates Strike Back!

Quote:

---

Pirates using rocket-propelled grenades and automatic weapons attacked a United States-flagged cargo ship on Tuesday off the coast of Somalia, but they failed to board the craft, the ship’s owner said.

---

Link.

Probably the same ship.

Quote:

---

Somali pirates attacked and damaged an American ship carrying humanitarian aid Tuesday, but the ship and crew were safe under Navy escort, the military and shipping company said.

---

Link.

Quote:

---

Somali pirates hijacked two more cargo vessels and opened fire on two others on Tuesday in attacks that showed a determination to go on striking at shipping on the region's strategic trade routes.

---

Link.

Google news links.

Heh Heh, Don't worry!

After the U.S. steps forward and begins enforcing the 'rules of the road', everyone else will fall in line and get their ships safe.


I just hope it don't get the point where any U.S. citizens get deep-sixed and everyone start to whine about why "We didn't do anything about it!":mad:

Please excuse my ignorance but why aren't our ships armed and ready to defend? What have I missed? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medusa

Please excuse my ignorance but why aren't our ships armed and ready to defend? What have I missed? :confused:

---

Most of these ships are merchant ships - cargo ships are not usually armed! Navy ships, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karen

Most of these ships are merchant ships - cargo ships are not usually armed! Navy ships, yes.

---

So is there some legal reason why they can't be armed then?

:) No not that I know of.. Its just we have never had such a problem before.. Like Karen said Cargo & Transport Ships have never been armed.. However that is what they are saying now is for all the Cargo & Transport Ships need to start being with Armed Guns..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medusa

So is there some legal reason why they can't be armed then?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medusa

So is there some legal reason why they can't be armed then?

---

YES - there are some legal reasons; and a lot of moral / personal reasons that
Merchant Ships should NOT be armed with guns ...

Legal Reasons:
* Many ports forbid armed Navy vessels from entering without special permission
* Armed vessels may have to dock far from populated areas
* Seamen's Unions will probably oppose arming their members without offering extra pay
* Without extensive (and expensive) training, an armed Seaman is a liability to
his own shipmates and the general public.

Moral / Personal reasons not to arm:
* Bad guys are more likely to *shoot* if they THINK the Good guys might
* Civilian Ships are not armored - poorly suited to withstand gunfire
* Civilian Seamen joined to sail the ship - not play Marine
* Where do you draw the line? How BIG a gun is OK?

My suggestion - let the Navy Guys *sink* a few more pirates and the
*thrill* of hijacking may start to fade a bit.

GO NAVY!!
:D

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the Constitution.

---

Says WHAT?

(I don't have my pocket reference copy handy.)

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water

Source.

Just a couple quick notes....

Merchant ships being unarmed is a recent anomaly, historically. Until the 20th century merchantmen were routinely armed to deal with (drum roll, please) Pirates. Piracy had largely though not completely) been eradicated by the Royal Navy and the US Navy, removing the need to arm merchant ships. Even into the early 20th century merchantmen normally had a small arms locker to deal with issues.

If Letters of Marque have been granted by Congress anytime in the last 200 years, I'm unaware of it. Handy way to deal with unspoken wars (basically a letter of marque is legalized piracy), but I don't believe we have used them in the post revolutionary period.

Letters of Marque are at least Constitutional. LOMs where also used during the War of 1812 against the BNT.

The bounties on Bin Laden and other terrorists currently in place today seem similar to LOMs.

Allocating Naval vessels to combat piracy would likely be far more expensive then issuing LOMs to private contractors.

I could argue semantics, but I won't. :p (The US wasn't really treated by the Great Powers as a serious player until after the war of 1812, and even after that it was a very, very grudging respect. Hence the post-revolutionary qualifier.....it's like arguing when WW2 started......it all depends on whose perspective you're looking at the question from)

After doing a little looking we used 1 letter of marque in WW2, for an airship used in searching for submarines on the coast.

As to using naval vessels to combat piracy, that's pretty much what got the original 6 frigates constructed. It would be very, very difficult to argue that using the US Navy to combat piracy is unconstitutional. Keeping the sea lanes open for merchant traffic has been priority number one for ANY navy for centuries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

I could argue semantics, but I won't. :p (The US wasn't really treated by the Great Powers as a serious player until after the war of 1812, and even after that it was a very, very grudging respect. Hence the post-revolutionary qualifier

---

I dont really care who treated the US as a serious player, but I would like to see your arguement, I only did a quick search.

Quote:

---

.....it's like arguing when WW2 started......it all depends on whose perspective you're looking at the question from)

---

How can one argue about the spark that started a global inferno?

Quote:

---

After doing a little looking we used 1 letter of marque in WW2, for an airship used in searching for submarines on the coast.

---

Pacific or Atlantic? Link if you saved it. Check out the book Shadow Divers if that sort of war history interests you.

Quote:

---

As to using naval vessels to combat piracy, that's pretty much what got the original 6 frigates constructed. It would be very, very difficult to argue that using the US Navy to combat piracy is unconstitutional. Keeping the sea lanes open for merchant traffic has been priority number one for ANY navy for centuries.

---

Never said using the USN was unconstitutional, only that it would be cheaper to use contractors and LOMs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

Letters of Marque are at least Constitutional.

Allocating Naval vessels to combat piracy would likely be
far more expensive then issuing LOMs to private contractors.

---

Letting the Navies of the World combat high seas piracy rather than farm out the
anit-piracy operations would no doubt result in better control and coordination
of the efforts ... and less bad press when incidents like the Blackwater / Iraq
civilian shootings happen during a Letter of Marque operation. :eek:

PS: NICE to see ya, Fred! ;)

OT, but which spark?

Japanese invasions on the Asian mainland?

Anschluss?

Sudetenland?

German entry into the Ruhr?

The Sitzkrieg?

The Panay?

The war was on long before 1939.

or 1941 (The US Navy was fighting the Germans in the North Atlantic well before any declaration of war)

I agree the good press of the SEAL sniper teams was good.

Using a private contractor, shipping companies could spend less in ransoms and loss of their cargos , using private contractors would also be cheaper for USA tax payers then using the USN.

If the combined Navies of the world were to combat piracy, who would be in charge of the coordination?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

OT, but which spark?

Japanese invasions on the Asian mainland?

Anschluss?

Sudetenland?

German entry into the Ruhr?

The Sitzkrieg?

The Panay?

The war was on long before 1939.

or 1941 (The US Navy was fighting the Germans in the North Atlantic well before any declaration of war)

---

Touche, WWII started on many different fronts but they all led to the same conclusion. It wouldnt have been a World War otherwise.

I wonder what the recent capture/release of the pirates will do for the problem.

Does it buy the countries invovled a 'free pass', Now I don't advocate killing all the pirates, unless they need it- but wouldn't little Muhammad going off to sea and not coming back have more of an effect on the rest?

Quote:

---

but wouldn't little Muhammad going off to sea and not coming back have more of an effect on the rest?

---

No. As abhorrent as I find piracy, what's going on in Somalia is no better. It's a complete collapse of order.

If little Muhammed doesn't go off to sea, he doesn't have much of a life expectancy anyway. When the ransoms from piracy are a considerable chunk of the GDP of the country, there's not much on land to live for.

It's a rats nest that needs to be cleaned out, has needed some cleaning for a long time, but until the piracy started no one gave a damn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

No. As abhorrent as I find piracy, what's going on in Somalia is no better. It's a complete collapse of order.

If little Muhammed doesn't go off to sea, he doesn't have much of a life expectancy anyway. When the ransoms from piracy are a considerable chunk of the GDP of the country, there's not much on land to live for.

It's a rats nest that needs to be cleaned out, has needed some cleaning for a long time, but until the piracy started no one gave a damn.

---

Did you see a news mag report on what goes on inland?

No honor among thieves! The pirates are getting home buying all kinds of nice stuff only to get jacked by the landlocked pirates in their home town, that and gang wars, homicides and general mayhem.


I heard this a few days ago from a comedian. The joke was for the U..S. to take over Mexico, fix it up, then flip it!

I wonder what some Ocean Front property with plenty of room to 4WD in the back yard fetches?:D