Agreed. The media never reports that side of the story. I think many reporters are too afraid to enter Somalia and find out the real story. Islam and Christianity have been just as much of a poison to the society as well.

*Frowns*

 

That's not a very fair criticism of the news, IMHO, Ken. There has been plenty of coverage from mainstream news outlets on the source of Somalian piracy. The BBC has had correspondants over in Somalia for at least a couple of years now.

C-Span has covered it.

Well, alright; yes, that wasn't the best coverage.

 

...But absolutely no US media has covered the story at all? I simply cannot believe that. It's exactly the kind of story that news editors in North America love to tell, for cripe's sakes.

 

*Googley googles s'more...*

I know you were, but I dislike when all of the US or North American media is simply crapped on like that. That are journalistic standards which are generally well-followed and reporters and correspondants who work really damn hard to flesh-out stories to their fullest. I realize that a lot of televised news has become at least partially obsessed with being glamor over content, and I myself get mad with certain stories that are only half-covered, but generally CNN, CBC, C-Span, MSNBC, etc are reliable sources of information.

The US has always taken a dim view of pirates that seize or kidnap our citizens and the Somalians should be cognizant of the likely outcome. The Barbary coast pirate war established the basis for US actions which is no different today. The US does not negotiate with terrorists or criminals and no other outcome should have been expected.

It seems in this instance it is EU countries as well as Arab and African neighbors that may be involved substantially in raping the Somalian resources with complicity of many Somalian warlords and former government officials.

By your logic expressed, it is equally justified that victims of the Madoff scam or simply anyone that has lost their fortunes or livelihood in the current economic crisis can turn to a life of crime and become bank robbers. Kidnapping of any affluent member of society by a victim who has lost all of his retirement can be construed to be a justification as they were raped and pillaged by capitalistic western speculators.

Perhaps not, a viable coast guard based in Somalia to guard against intrusions of foreigners as well as to deter piracy might be part of the solution. Though one might need to first do something about the Somalian warlords and ex-government officials that are complicit in the illegal activities as well. Establishing this form of coast guard likely would cost far less than the efforts by the world's navies to ineffectively patrol the vast areas involved. The US alone has likely spent over $250 million in the last year. Additional costs to shipping as well may be over $750 million. Many small coast guard boats could be purchased and outfitted for far less than this.

In fairness the pirates may have basis in their claims to having their livelihood destroyed but it is partially an outgrowth of Somalian warlords and lawlessness. EU countries as well as African and Arab neighbors are equally to blame for illegal and outlandish behavior.

http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=4060

A very good paper on the history and issues behind the Somalian mess:

http://www.mbali.info/doc331.htm

Other articles discussing the illegal fishing and toxic waste dumping.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-you-are-being-lied-to-about-pirates-1225817.html

http://bariisiyobasto.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/nuclear-and-toxic-waste-tsunami-uncovers-poisons-dumped-off-somali-coast/

 Until Somalia can be brought back to viability as a civilized nation I sincerely doubt that any effort will eliminate the piracy. Acting as if they are justified in lawless actions however is certainly not a solution.

 

You act as if the satellite phones they use to extract ransom are carrier pigeons? The kidnappers/pirates in fact were/have been bitching about news media calling them to get stories and info.

Come on Kevin, did I say shoot 1st.  American policy is that the gov't will do all it can to rescue them from harm short of paying money or giving in to demands, this is pretty well known world-wide. The gov't has no problem in killing the hostages along with the criminals/terrorists if that's what it takes. The US Navy did in fact try to get the pirates to give in prior to their use of force, though it was clear from the arrival of the US Navy that no way were the pirates going to be allowed to get away with the American captain. 

Duh, I attached several links including the one by Mohamed Abshir Waldo that detailed the illegal activities. Perhaps you should read it as well as the one by Abdullahi Elmi Mohamed. What part of the EU and other African neighbors are involved in illegal activities do you not get?

My point was an illegal activity, dumping toxic waste, stealing fish in no way justifies other illegal activities of piracy anymore than does losing one's ass in the economic downturn to justify illegal activities of robbery. 

Dude, I know there's no functioning gov't in Somalia and no one is clean on gun running. I clearly mentioned that warlords and others are involved with EU, Arab and African neighbors is stealing, dumping and more. 

Piracy on the high seas is an illegal activity no matter what your reasons.

 

 Ok let me put this in simple terms. What other option do they have? Does it make it right? No. These aren't the terrorists that you shoot these are the kind you help. Although in this situation if they put innocent people in danger it is justified. The fact this has been going on so long is discusting. It really should of been sorted out long ago. To bad the AU are such dickheads.

Isn't this just a bit of sour grapes since Canada's navy looks like this?:

 

 

 

 

Kevin,

Do you really think that Somalia has no radio or TV? 

What about these?

http://www.radiofreesomalia.com/

http://somalworld.com/tvuniversal.html

http://www.radiosomaliland.com/

http://www.mondotimes.com/1/world/so

I realize their government is a facade but they have one that is supposedly the legitimate gov't, whether or not they truly are is another story.

Also Hillary and Obama have made it clear for those who didn't get it the the US does not pay or negotiate with pirates or criminals.

But, she added, "The United States does not make concessions or ransom payments to pirates."

See Here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/clinton.piracy/index.html

You act as if the pirates were under the impression that the US Navy was just going to spank them or pay them millions though I'm sure they were told in no uncertain terms that weren't going to get to take the kidnapped American captain anywhere, as well as they would be killed in the event he was harmed in any way.

This group of pirates were about 19 so they probably only had 1 or 2 daughters if that.

They probably traded their daughters for satellite phones.

Actually they didn't as the news media was calling them repeatedly to the point they were pissed, see CNN account.

 

I don't care. They knew they were boarding a US flagged ship and we had warships in the vicinity. If they thought the US was going to pat them on their backs for committing crimes they learned from the Navy and the FBI that their only chance was to surrender.

Do bank robbers intend to fight when they have hostages? One should consider they will as well as with this case. SWAT kills criminals in the same way to protect the lives of the innocent. This is no different. The captain was innocent the pirates were not. Paint it any way you want it still comes out that way.

They are engaged in crime. Does the swat team that surrounds a bank with robbers holding hostages ask about the politics of the criminals?

Just how many time have you seen Pirates of the Caribbean?

Piracy is an crime according to International Law. Does Canada not consider piracy a crime? If not why did you send ships there? Planet Canada, other than you seems to think piracy should be stopped as well. Unless your country has decided to withdraw from the treaty.

Ships are hijacked in International waters not on a lake in Somalia.

If you go somewhere else where other laws are in place and break them you commit a crime, whether or not you think so. You can be a legal prostitute in Nevada but you get arrested for it in Seattle. What about this don't you get?

I wouldn't compare a pirate in Somalia to a broker in New York as brokers aren't held in too high esteem right now. A pimp maybe.

Gang bangers and crack dealers are held to be honorable as well in LA and Miami in their hoods, and they could care less about the law. They too are among the most affluent in their neighborhoods. Your premise is the local mores are those to be considered not any other in determining crime. In LA, there are places where the gangs run everything and there is substantially no law. So according to your argument they commit no crimes.

Yes, they are engaged in crime. We have warships in their vicinity. We say it is a crime to capture our ships and our citizens. And so it is a crime to do so. If anyone disagrees and kidnaps a captain, we will treat them like a criminal. We treat them just like a SWAT team treats American hostage-taking criminals. I don't mean to sound arrogant, but what our Navy says is Law at sea. It is so much more powerful than any other Navy in the world that if it declares that capturing US citizens is illegal, its illegal. We will simply act as though it is law breaking, and no one can possibly stop us from getting out way on this matter.

And if we really want to say that seas are lawless and anythings goes, then let us follow that to its conclusion: The seas are lawless, so whomever has the biggest ships and the biggest guns tells everyone else what to do. Our Navy is the most powerful in the world. When it tells you not to do something out at sea, you had better not do it. They can and will fire on people that they unilaterally declare are law breakers. They don't care if your country doesn't consider you a criminal. They don't care if your country doesn't have any laws at all. The simple facts of the matter are that you don't piss them off and if you are a Somalian pirate you don't call their attention on you.

This is how things really are out at see. As a case study: once Libya declared that they controlled waters far from their coast and that no one could enter that water or the Libyan military would respond. We told them that they couldn't do that. We told them that they were laying claim to international waters. They told us that they would attack US vessels that entered that water. The shit was on at that point. We sent Navy ships into what we determined was international waters and what they determined was their waters. They sent Soviet fighter planes out to scare our ships away. We shot the planes down. They agreed that ships could enter that water since they were powerless to stop us from making them let ships enter that water. That's how things work out at sea. Legal debates aside, if the US Navy says not to do something, your life now depends on not doing that thing at sea.

If the US Navy says 'no' to someone, they had better listen. We try to use diplomacy and talk our way out of problems (we tried with the pirates). When that fails, we kill our way into getting what we want (like we did with the pirates). So Libya and Somalian pirates should understand that they can't give our Navy any shit. And Somalians aren't ignorant of what the US Navy is and what the Navy will do to pirates. They understand that we are the world hegemon. They also understand that if the Navy finds pirates, the pirates can hope for imprisonment at best and death at worst.

I don't mean to sound arrogant and I don't mean to overstate the lengths our Navy goes to police the seas. But our Navy really has taken upon itself the role of policemen of the sea. If they think you are a criminal you effectively are one. That is not just and it might not be the right thing, but that is how it is.

No, it isn't. You don't own the world, much as you like to think you do. It is just this sort of backwards attitude that has the world hating you and wanting to blow the shit out of your skyscrapers.

 they aren't n America so your perspective is irrelavant. The point is when they had a government when they signed they don't any more. The point is in somalia it is not a crime, People have a choice to sail those waters they no the risks. My dad is currently  sailing past thier he knows the risks. You can bring as many treaties as you like but aslong as somalia hasn't signed it isn't binding on them. Take an example Every country in the world signs a document saying no watersports allowed except America, the point is It wouldn't be against the law in america so they are not wrong for doing it. Wether it is morally wrong is a different story. Is america breaking the law for allowing water sports? People would have a choice to enter america and be affected by those water sports.  Really the hole situation should be sorted out, not by killing pirates but by geting a functional government in place

Might makes right. That is not moral or just, but it is true. We have the mightiest Navy, so we hold a lot of authority at sea. If our Navy takes it upon itself to capture and kill pirates then it will. And since no one can stop it, it has the authority to do so.

I'm not saying that we own the world. I'm merely saying that might makes right out at sea. If Libya had the world's most powerful Navy they would control a lot more water and no one would enter that water for fear of the Libyan Navy retaliating. But the US has the world's most powerful Navy. That means that people can enter the international waters outside of Libya without fear because we say that they can. Our willingness to kill to protect international waters is what makes us able to force countries like Libya to follow the rules. Pirates rank even lower in our consideration.

I consider our Navy's activities to be nothing at all like that actions that motivated people to fly planes into our buildings. We aren't occupying anyone with our Navy and we aren't propping up horrible dictatorships with it. We are merely keeping the sea lanes open and protecting US ships. The pirates kidnapped a US captain, so our Navy dealt with them. Arguing over law or justification is pointless here. Our Navy doesn't need to consult Somalian law (and it doesn't care that there is no Somalian law) to act on its own and stop pirates.

The first war the US entered as a nation was against pirates. Did we care that they were not breaking any of their country's laws? No. Did we kill until they agreed to leave US ships alone? Yes. That's just how things work. Just make it clear that you will never give into their demands and that they will die or be captured (probably die) if they mess with your ships. That is what upholds our self interest, so that is what we do. And our actions in this matter seem just enough to most people that no one is going to fly planes into buildings over it.

So September 11 was completely justified then. As was Hitler. As was Napoleon. As was Stalin.

See UN resolutions and treaties that nearly every nation on Earth has signed that authorizes action in event of piracy on the high seas.

If you don't think civilization needs or requires rules that people must follow that are jointly agreed upon then world wide chaos must be acceptable in your opinion.

Nearly every nation is not every nation.

Not at all. It's merely unacceptable to me that a nation would be hypocritical and interfere in the activities of other nations, while waging war whenever the favour is returned. Suck it up. There is more than 20 times as many people outside the US as there is inside. There are two countries with equal capacity to destroy as yourselves. There are a further 10-20 that have enough capacity to destroy to take you out in the process of their own destruction. The world is not yours, and proceedes forever further beyond your grasp. Tightening the knot merely makes you target #1, and you still haven't learned.

See vastets post about UN. No all im saying is they should go sort the country out instead of obsesing about pirates. The AU will never do it because they have all agreed not to interfer with other african nations, so it falls to the UN. I do think there needs to be rules but somalia has not agreed to those rules.

I do think what the American did was reasonable. Innocent people were in danger so yes it was justified, all im saying is that from a pure law perspective the pirates have done nothing wrong. Instead of shooting at them I would suggest ships avoid the area or take a longer route instead until it can be sorted out. It would cost a little more but it could save alot for a lot of countries and companies when there ships get high jacked

What part of "This isn't about Canada, this is about the US", do you not understand?

And for your information, I don't support Canada taking part in international manipulation any more than I do the US. But you do it all the time, and without invitation. We do it very rarely, and almost always if not always upon request or in defense of our national borders.

As your country is participating in this "international manipulation" Canada is involved as well. Eventually Canada will become involved in an incident. In the event that sparked this thread they were not. As you concede there is no law on the high seas off Somalia or in International waters then any action the US or any country does in protecting their citizens is just as justified as is the pirates attack. The US or any nation has a right under your interpretation to be judge and jury. It's the law of the "Old West" so to speak. As Jormungmander has pointed out we have a lot of guns out there to use.

 Despite what you may think, I do not support US involvement as the world-wide policeman. I see no reason for troops in Europe, Korea, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Just WTF why are there 40,000 US troops in Germany? I think nations should pay their own way and not expect the USA to be there with cash and support. Iraq in particular was a dumb ass move by a brain damaged president. Afghanistan appears to be headed back to Sharia law. The invasion there was only justified to find and capture bin Ladin and associates, no more. Taking up permanent residence or regime changing is bullshit. As to putting radar and anti-missile systems in Europe, if they want the stuff they can buy it at full cost. Screw free protection to Europe from missiles from Iran. The US gains nothing but shit from its current role, let others take care of their own. So in other words, I'm not far off from your view except that I see attacks on US shipping as something we have a right to resolve, with bullets if needed.

 

OK.

We base or legality on our past, such as the Barbary Coast pirates we beat into submission in the early 1800s, this is no different.

The 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, and then the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (“the Convention&rdquo both outlined an international regime for the repression of piracy and effectively recognised universal jurisdiction on the part of all states to suppress pirate acts. The Convention - which now has 157 State parties - is generally considered to be reflective of customary international law.

Article 101 of the Convention defines an act of ship-based piracy as consisting of acts of violence or detention, or an act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew of a private ship directed against another ship on the high seas, or outside the jurisdiction of any State. Piracy also extends to the operation of a pirate ship which is a ship used by persons for the purposes of committing pirate acts. This general definition of piracy is consistent with the common expression that a pirate is hostis humani generis: an enemy of all mankind.

With that said, once the pirates commit piracy in international waters.....which it does happen, it become a CRIMINAL act, it may not be in Somalia but it sure is in the high seas. So whatever the outcome is, too bad, they ARE criminals at that point. No amount of philisophical debates or opinions changes that fact. Now yes it's too bad for the somalian pirates that they have had to resort to this, and it would benefit everyone if the situation would get fixed in Somalia, however that is unlikely to end anytime soon.

Pirates do have access to phones, radios and Television (incase you haven't heard they have made a few millions out of the randsom demands over the years and have splurged), so to say they don't know about US policy regarding negotiations with kidnappers/randsoms demands/pirates/terrorists is absurd.As well to say that they aren't criminals is also absurd.