The browbeating of Somalia continues

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
The browbeating of Somalia continues

No doubt most here have already heard; yesterday three Somalian 'pirates' were killed after a confrontation with the United States navy after refusing to release an American captain they held captive. Now, in fairness, the SEAL snipers only acted after the captain was (allegedly) endangered by his captors and, prior to the escalation to violence, the Americans had tried 'playing nice' by using negotiators to attempt to get the pirates to surrender.

Nevertheless, I remain disgusted at how the industrialized world still treats Somalia.

The 'pirates' have only become such after being stripped of their prior livlihoods as fisherman by illegal, intrusive fishing operations from other countries (many times even having their nets slashed or boats capsized) and/or the equally illegal dumping of toxic waste along Somalia's shoreline. With revenue from fishing steeply declining as a result, the fisherman turned to regional warlords (one of the core problems of the country, which the G8 nations refuses to deal with due to the profits they reap from running guns to them) and were armed for piracy operations. This trade has now become arguably one of the most lucrative in Somalia (next to gun running), further exacerbating the problems in that region by effectively exterminating what was left of the fishing industry.

Needless to say, this is not a problem that is terribly likely to be solved by sending-in warships to blow dingies out of the water.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3977
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
Agreed. The media never

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.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
The Two Piracies in Somalia

  Right On Kevin,you've hit  the nail on the head.I was watching "Democracy Now"today and heard the story that the corporate media ain't reporting.check it out  www.democracynow.org/2009/4/14/analysis_somalia_piracy_began_in_response

Signature ? How ?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
*Frowns* That's not a very

*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.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Mohamed Abshir Waldo

 Even thought your not a fan of the show,they still had a excellent Interview with Mohamed Abshir Waldo,who wrote a paper in January,were he states that this story is no secret,but the US media won't cover it.And he goes on to say that since 1992 European fishing boats has been depleting the waters off of Somalia,along with dumping toxic waste and nuclear waste in their waters .   PS. Democracy Now is by far the best news out there .

Signature ? How ?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:were he states that

Quote:
were he states that this story is no secret,but the US media won't cover

C-Span has covered it.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin wrote

 C-Span covered it.What are you kidding me,you call that coverage. 3 minutes into the clip a Kenyan agent briefly mentions that the pirates state that their fishing water were be fished by other states but then he says that this was only leading up to attacking larger boats. Yeah real good coverage Kev.

Signature ? How ?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Well, alright; yes, that

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...*

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin wrote

 But absolutely no US media has covered the story at all,then you say that this kind of story is what news editors love to cover. I whole heartily disagree,when a story like this is told ,it first appears in the foreign press , then the US picks it up and does a white wash job of it.Tell me of one single US media outlet that says that since 1992 ships from western nation has been dumping toxic waste and nuclear waste in these waters.     PS. I was only agreeing with your original post

Signature ? How ?


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:PS. I was only

Quote:
PS. I was only agreeing with your original post

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.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Alternative media

 coverage is in my opinion the best sources,they don't have to please the masters who own stations like  CBS,MSNBC ,I don't know who owns CNN. I do watch "Countdown with Keith Olberman" I like how he has the three "Worst"people . I also read media matters which was started by a 60 minutes producer ,who has stated that he left the show because to many very important stories were squashed by corporate headquarters. I like the progressive magazine,The Real News.org and Gorilla News Network.com and of course Democracy Now . whoops I almost forgot DUTV from Drexel University ,here in Philly.The students don't pull their punch.  

Signature ? How ?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:No doubt

Kevin R Brown wrote:

No doubt most here have already heard; yesterday three Somalian 'pirates' were killed after a confrontation with the United States navy after refusing to release an American captain they held captive. Now, in fairness, the SEAL snipers only acted after the captain was (allegedly) endangered by his captors and, prior to the escalation to violence, the Americans had tried 'playing nice' by using negotiators to attempt to get the pirates to surrender.

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.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Nevertheless, I remain disgusted at how the industrialized world still treats Somalia.

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.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

The 'pirates' have only become such after being stripped of their prior livelihoods as fisherman by illegal, intrusive fishing operations from other countries (many times even having their nets slashed or boats capsized) and/or the equally illegal dumping of toxic waste along Somalia's shoreline. With revenue from fishing steeply declining as a result, the fisherman turned to regional warlords (one of the core problems of the country, which the G8 nations refuses to deal with due to the profits they reap from running guns to them) and were armed for piracy operations. This trade has now become arguably one of the most lucrative in Somalia (next to gun running), further exacerbating the problems in that region by effectively exterminating what was left of the fishing industry.

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.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Needless to say, this is not a problem that is terribly likely to be solved by sending-in warships to blow dingies out of the water.

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.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The US has always

Quote:
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.

WHAT!?

How could they be cognizant of the likely outcome? You're aware that they don't exactly have cable news and a computer in every home in Somalia, right?

A 'shoot first and deal with the repercussions later' policy is almost always stupid (thankfully, that's not what was done in this occasion). You're presumably aware that the world isn't filled with 'good guys' and 'bad guys', right?

Quote:
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.

...?

How in the world do you figure that? First, the fishermen who are now pirates were not 'scammed'; they were attacked and stolen from, with absolutely no recourse (Western nations to this day refuse to penalize their own sailors for violating the fisheries of Somalia... and, well, most 3rd world nations). Second, Somalia has no functioning government or rule of law - there was nothing to turn to other than the local warlords. They didn't turn to a 'life of crime' within their own zeitgeist at all; on the contrary, becoming a Somali pirate is among one of highest socioeconomic positions one can attain in that country.

Quote:
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.

*Beats head against wall*

The warlords are the government. This is what the problem is! Piracy and gun running (and America is not innocent of selling weapons to Somalia) jin the country is not an illegal activity, because there is no rule of law. There hasn't been a functional central government in Somalia since the beginning of the 90s.

Attempting to isolate the piracy issue from the central issues plaguing Somalia is an endeavor doomed to failure.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
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.

WHAT!?

How could they be cognizant of the likely outcome? You're aware that they don't exactly have cable news and a computer in every home in Somalia, right?

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.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

A 'shoot first and deal with the repercussions later' policy is almost always stupid (thankfully, that's not what was done in this occasion). You're presumably aware that the world isn't filled with 'good guys' and 'bad guys', right?

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. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
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.

...?

How in the world do you figure that? First, the fishermen who are now pirates were not 'scammed'; they were attacked and stolen from, with absolutely no recourse (Western nations to this day refuse to penalize their own sailors for violating the fisheries of Somalia... and, well, most 3rd world nations). Second, Somalia has no functioning government or rule of law - there was nothing to turn to other than the local warlords. They didn't turn to a 'life of crime' within their own zeitgeist at all; on the contrary, becoming a Somali pirate is among one of highest socioeconomic positions one can attain in that country.

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. 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
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.

*Beats head against wall*

The warlords are the government. This is what the problem is! Piracy and gun running (and America is not innocent of selling weapons to Somalia) jin the country is not an illegal activity, because there is no rule of law. There hasn't been a functional central government in Somalia since the beginning of the 90s.

Attempting to isolate the piracy issue from the central issues plaguing Somalia is an endeavor doomed to failure.

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.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You act as if the

Quote:
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.

...So, your argumnt contains the premise, then, that even though Somalia has had no government at all for 20 years and has been embroiled in tribal warfare, there somehow magically exists sufficient communications infrastructure in the country for them to have a sense of the international (rather than just the local) zeitgeist?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
 Ok let me put this in

 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.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3977
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is onlineOnline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 The US does not negotiate with terrorists or criminals

Except those involved in money lending, of course.

 

Isn't part of the reason why Somalia doesn't have a functioning government is Islamic fundamentalists that want Sharia law. There is total anarchy in Somalia because you have one group that wants Sharia and another group that wants freedom. So part of the USA policy in Somalia needs to be getting a secular government in place.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Isn't this just a bit of

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

 

 

 

Photobucket

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:pauljohntheskeptic

EXC wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 The US does not negotiate with terrorists or criminals

Except those involved in money lending, of course.

No, we just give them the billions that they request.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
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.

...So, your argumnt contains the premise, then, that even though Somalia has had no government at all for 20 years and has been embroiled in tribal warfare, there somehow magically exists sufficient communications infrastructure in the country for them to have a sense of the international (rather than just the local) zeitgeist?

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.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
pauljohn wrote:Do you really

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

 

It isn't whether or not it is available, but rather do the pirates have the luxury of being able to see it.

Broadcast and Viewing are different things. One may have to trade three daughters and a camel for a television or even a laptop.

I guarantee that the first action taken was to attempt to disable communications to and from the pirates. The fact that there were members of the media already present in the area is the only way we would find out about this.

[Another example: It was 24 days between the predator being shot down over Pakistan in February and our knowledge of it.]

I can see three things wrong with any of us making a judgment as to the ethics of the pirates concerning the recent Maersk Alabama incident.

1. We don't know what they knew when they boarded her. i.e. Did they know it was an aid ship? Would they care if she was? If they knew she was an aid ship then did that make it a particularly juicy target for them?

2. Did they fully intend to fight for their ransom in the face of what we could throw at them? i.e. If we had told them to release the captain or we would send snipers then would they have relented?

3. Are the pirates engaged with 'known' terrorist groups or is the administration just alleging ties to Al-quaeda and terrorism in order to justify the actions taken?

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: It isn't

darth_josh wrote:

 

It isn't whether or not it is available, but rather do the pirates have the luxury of being able to see it.

Broadcast and Viewing are different things. One may have to trade three daughters and a camel for a television or even a laptop.

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.

darth_josh wrote:

I guarantee that the first action taken was to attempt to disable communications to and from the pirates. The fact that there were members of the media already present in the area is the only way we would find out about this.

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

 

darth_josh wrote:

I can see three things wrong with any of us making a judgment as to the ethics of the pirates concerning the recent Maersk Alabama incident.

1. We don't know what they knew when they boarded her. i.e. Did they know it was an aid ship? Would they care if she was? If they knew she was an aid ship then did that make it a particularly juicy target for them?

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.

darth_josh wrote:

2. Did they fully intend to fight for their ransom in the face of what we could throw at them? i.e. If we had told them to release the captain or we would send snipers then would they have relented?

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.

darth_josh wrote:

3. Are the pirates engaged with 'known' terrorist groups or is the administration just alleging ties to Al-quaeda and terrorism in order to justify the actions taken? 

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

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:They are engaged in

Quote:
They are engaged in crime.

No. They. Are. Not. Engaged. In. Fucking. Crime.

 

What about the phrase 'no functioning government in Somalia' is diffcult for yo to understand? Or maybe it's that you think because there are laws in America, there must also be laws everywhere on Earth that are similar to them?

Being a pirate in Somalia is not a criminal act. There is, in fact, arguably nothing that one could do while in Somalia that would be considered criminal, because the country does not have a functional government. Is this getting through to you yet? There are no laws in Somalia, because it has no government to pass laws with. There are no cops in Somalia, because there is no government to fund cops. There are no jails in Somalia, because there is no government to run said jails.

What about this concept is so impossible to grasp? Being a Somali Pirate is the Somalian equivalent of being a broker on Wall Street, okay? They have among the most affluent and respectable professions in the country. You are not living on planet America, with equal standards for right and wrong or criminal and not criminal everywhere you go.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
They are engaged in crime.

No. They. Are. Not. Engaged. In. Fucking. Crime.

 

What about the phrase 'no functioning government in Somalia' is diffcult for yo to understand? Or maybe it's that you think because there are laws in America, there must also be laws everywhere on Earth that are similar to them?

Being a pirate in Somalia is not a criminal act. There is, in fact, arguably nothing that one could do while in Somalia that would be considered criminal, because the country does not have a functional government. Is this getting through to you yet? There are no laws in Somalia, because it has no government to pass laws with. There are no cops in Somalia, because there is no government to fund cops. There are no jails in Somalia, because there is no government to run said jails.

What about this concept is so impossible to grasp? Being a Somali Pirate is the Somalian equivalent of being a broker on Wall Street, okay? They have among the most affluent and respectable professions in the country. You are not living on planet America, with equal standards for right and wrong or criminal and not criminal everywhere you go.

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.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Ken G.
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Kevin wrote; determining crime,etc.

   Well you might like this one,it's from your favorite author and speaker Noam Chomsky : On Pirates and Emperors from the BBC 12-02  video.google.com/videoplay

Signature ? How ?


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
They are engaged in crime.

No. They. Are. Not. Engaged. In. Fucking. Crime.

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.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 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.

 

They haven't done anything lawless. It's happening in their or international waters, and there is no world court that has been authorized by the world. In FACT, the US has tried to subvert and prevent it at every opportunity. No leg to stand on.

darth_josh wrote:

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

At least 20 years out of date. Probably closer to 40. Good to know. The world won't see us coming.

 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Kevin R

Jormungander wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
They are engaged in crime.

No. They. Are. Not. Engaged. In. Fucking. Crime.

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.

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 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. 

They haven't done anything lawless. It's happening in their or international waters, and there is no world court that has been authorized by the world. In FACT, the US has tried to subvert and prevent it at every opportunity. No leg to stand on.

From the perspective of the US:

The US constitution in article 1 section 8 gives Congress the power to define and punish piracies on the high seas.

Since 1790 the US has had a law justifying it's position.

In 1818 the US Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional. Congress responded with the 1819 law extending enforcement to all nationalities.

In 1847 the last major change of US law passed in the Piracy Act of 1847

Current US law is in title 18, chapter 81, of the United States Code - see here

International Law.

The 1958 UN Convention signed and approved by UN members.:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/8_2.htm

The 1982 Sea Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

This has been signed by the US but not ratified due to issues with part XI. Canada has ratified it.  Somalia however signed and ratified all of it when it was a viable nation.

UN resolution authorizes force specifically in Somalia:

http://www.un-somalia.org/docs/Resolution%201816%202.6.08.pdf

Canadian perspective:

Your country signed signed both treaties:

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp322-e.htm

 Clearly in the past your nation of Canada has thought it had a right to detain ships as witnessed by this spat between Spain and Canada:

http://www.amun.org/uploads/07_Final_Report/ICJ-Memorial-Spain.pdf

 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 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. 

They haven't done anything lawless. It's happening in their or international waters, and there is no world court that has been authorized by the world. In FACT, the US has tried to subvert and prevent it at every opportunity. No leg to stand on.

From the perspective of the US:

The US constitution in article 1 section 8 gives Congress the power to define and punish piracies on the high seas.

Since 1790 the US has had a law justifying it's position.

In 1818 the US Supreme Court found this law unconstitutional. Congress responded with the 1819 law extending enforcement to all nationalities.

In 1847 the last major change of US law passed in the Piracy Act of 1847

Current US law is in title 18, chapter 81, of the United States Code - see here

International Law.

The 1958 UN Convention signed and approved by UN members.:

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/8_1_1958_high_seas.pdf

http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/summaries/8_2.htm

The 1982 Sea Convention:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea

This has been signed by the US but not ratified due to issues with part XI. Canada has ratified it.  Somalia however signed and ratified all of it when it was a viable nation.

UN resolution authorizes force specifically in Somalia:

http://www.un-somalia.org/docs/Resolution%201816%202.6.08.pdf

Canadian perspective:

Your country signed signed both treaties:

http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/BP/bp322-e.htm

 Clearly in the past your nation of Canada has thought it had a right to detain ships as witnessed by this spat between Spain and Canada:

http://www.amun.org/uploads/07_Final_Report/ICJ-Memorial-Spain.pdf

 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

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 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. 

They haven't done anything lawless. It's happening in their or international waters, and there is no world court that has been authorized by the world. In FACT, the US has tried to subvert and prevent it at every opportunity. No leg to stand on.

From the perspective of the US:

The perspective of the US is irrelevant. Unless or until the entirety of the world takes part in American elections, you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

Edit:

And by participation, I don't just mean voting, I mean having the capability to be elected.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:you have no

Vastet wrote:

you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

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.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Vastet

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:

you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

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.

Lol then you have no problem with the them taking over ships? they have the might to do so and if they retreat fast enough what they are doing is 100% cool because might makes right. Long story short it doesn't. If no one could stop russia launching a nuke into the sea does that make it right? killing a crap load of fish etc.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Jormungander wrote:Vastet

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:

you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

Might makes right.

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

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 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. 

They haven't done anything lawless. It's happening in their or international waters, and there is no world court that has been authorized by the world. In FACT, the US has tried to subvert and prevent it at every opportunity. No leg to stand on.

From the perspective of the US:

The perspective of the US is irrelevant. Unless or until the entirety of the world takes part in American elections, you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

Edit:

And by participation, I don't just mean voting, I mean having the capability to be elected.

Keep that in mind the next time Canada's coast guard tries another stunt.

As I mentioned earlier, your country quickly joined the fray by sending warships as well, so go wash your hands of participation.

There is a world court where your country was charged by Spain, see link in my last post.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Jormungander

Tapey wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:

you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

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.

Lol then you have no problem with the them taking over ships? they have the might to do so and if they retreat fast enough what they are doing is 100% cool because might makes right. Long story short it doesn't. If no one could stop russia launching a nuke into the sea does that make it right? killing a crap load of fish etc.

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.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 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. 

They haven't done anything lawless. It's happening in their or international waters, and there is no world court that has been authorized by the world. In FACT, the US has tried to subvert and prevent it at every opportunity. No leg to stand on.

From the perspective of the US:

The perspective of the US is irrelevant. Unless or until the entirety of the world takes part in American elections, you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

Edit:

And by participation, I don't just mean voting, I mean having the capability to be elected.

Keep that in mind the next time Canada's coast guard tries another stunt.

This isn't about Canada, this is about the US.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, your country quickly joined the fray by sending warships as well, so go wash your hands of participation.

There is a world court where your country was charged by Spain, see link in my last post.

A world court that has no authority because some of the most powerful countries on Earth won't support it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:See

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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

Nearly every nation is not every nation.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This isn't

Vastet wrote:

This isn't about Canada, this is about the US.

So explain the HMCS Winnepeg's actions.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/05/canada-pirates.html

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Jormungander wrote:

Vastet wrote:

you have no authority beyond your own borders. Period.

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.

Lol then you have no problem with the them taking over ships? they have the might to do so and if they retreat fast enough what they are doing is 100% cool because might makes right. Long story short it doesn't. If no one could stop russia launching a nuke into the sea does that make it right? killing a crap load of fish etc.

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.

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.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote: See vastets

Tapey wrote:

 

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.

What is it you want, UN Peacekeepers?

I agree the problems in Somalia need to be addressed to solve the piracy problems. I also agree the EU counties, Italy, Spain etc and African countries, Kenya, Ethiopia etc as well as Arab counties, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc did violate Somalian waters and steal fish illegally. As to EU countries dumping toxic waste and nuclear waste this also seems to be true. I understand the reasons that Somalian fisherman have turned to piracy. I also understand why gang bangers turn to crime in Los Angeles. Neither can be allowed to go unanswered. Piracy is the sympton of the problems in Somalia. The problems need to be addressed or the piracy will never end.

In the meantime, attacks on International shipping need to be halted. Maybe it will take a UN force to institute law again in Somalia since the AU has failed to address the problem. So far, no one seems interested in correcting the mess by commiting resources to a solution, though plenty of nations have sent warships to shoot up dingys and fishing boats. India, China, Russia and every NATO country has sent warships to target practice. Several have sunk ships. The US has not done that. Both the US and France have attacked and killed pirates that were holding kidnapped citizens of their respective countries. India on the other hand sank a likely Thai trawler not a pirate ship. The lack of coordination will likely result in innocent lives being taken while the navies of the world target practice on dingys. The solution is to address the problem, but in the meantime those with navies will in fact attempt to protect their interests making piracy costly in terms of lives to the Somlians. Everything costs something and up to now the pirates have had a feast courtesy of shipping companies taking the least cost method.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Tapey wrote:

 

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.

What is it you want, UN Peacekeepers?

I agree the problems in Somalia need to be addressed to solve the piracy problems. I also agree the EU counties, Italy, Spain etc and African countries, Kenya, Ethiopia etc as well as Arab counties, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc did violate Somalian waters and steal fish illegally. As to EU countries dumping toxic waste and nuclear waste this also seems to be true. I understand the reasons that Somalian fisherman have turned to piracy. I also understand why gang bangers turn to crime in Los Angeles. Neither can be allowed to go unanswered. Piracy is the sympton of the problems in Somalia. The problems need to be addressed or the piracy will never end.

In the meantime, attacks on International shipping need to be halted. Maybe it will take a UN force to institute law again in Somalia since the AU has failed to address the problem. So far, no one seems interested in correcting the mess by commiting resources to a solution, though plenty of nations have sent warships to shoot up dingys and fishing boats. India, China, Russia and every NATO country has sent warships to target practice. Several have sunk ships. The US has not done that. Both the US and France have attacked and killed pirates that were holding kidnapped citizens of their respective countries. India on the other hand sank a likely Thai trawler not a pirate ship. The lack of coordination will likely result in innocent lives being taken while the navies of the world target practice on dingys. The solution is to address the problem, but in the meantime those with navies will in fact attempt to protect their interests making piracy costly in terms of lives to the Somlians. Everything costs something and up to now the pirates have had a feast courtesy of shipping companies taking the least cost method.

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

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:I do think what

Tapey wrote:

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

I agree that a solution to piracy would be to avoid the area or to travel in convoys with armed escorts. Failing that perhaps armed guards or such should be placed on ships. The shipping companies operating on least cost up to now have paid because it costs less to pay a ransom on one ship versus paying for increased fuel and longer shipping times on all their ships. Armed guards would bring more death and injury to both sides though it's likely to happen soon anyway.

I agree with both you and Vastet that the solution is to address the problems in Somalia not just the symptom of piracy. On the other hand, I support the right of nations to protect their citizens in International waters from harm and piracy, though dingy target practice is stupid.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

This isn't about Canada, this is about the US.

So explain the HMCS Winnepeg's actions.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/05/canada-pirates.html

 

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.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Tapey wrote:

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

I agree that a solution to piracy would be to avoid the area or to travel in convoys with armed escorts. Failing that perhaps armed guards or such should be placed on ships. The shipping companies operating on least cost up to now have paid because it costs less to pay a ransom on one ship versus paying for increased fuel and longer shipping times on all their ships. Armed guards would bring more death and injury to both sides though it's likely to happen soon anyway.

I agree with both you and Vastet that the solution is to address the problems in Somalia not just the symptom of piracy. On the other hand, I support the right of nations to protect their citizens in International waters from harm and piracy, though dingy target practice is stupid.

Yes that is reasonable, but I support government not endorsing stupidity more than I support that.  An example the american government made it illegal for businesses to own property in south africa in 1987 because of apartied. they avoided the situation and didn't endorse stupidity. It cost the businesses money but look what happened. If there were not ships in that area would there be piracy there for long? no. not the best example but im righting an essay on a related topic atm so it will have to do. 

 

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

This isn't about Canada, this is about the US.

So explain the HMCS Winnipeg's actions.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/05/canada-pirates.html

 

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.

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13211
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Vastet wrote:

This isn't about Canada, this is about the US.

So explain the HMCS Winnipeg's actions.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/05/canada-pirates.html

 

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.

So then you and the US have no right to complain about pirates taking ships. Do what you want to them, I could care less. That wasn't the purpose of my post, and I'll not allow you to turn my arguments into something they weren't structured for.

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 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.

 

And I have no problem with you returning violence with violence in defense of your shipping. My problem is with the suggestion that you are legally entitled to do so, and that they are not legally entitled to take part in their own activities. Legalities have nothing to do with it, because there are no global legalities. And any legalities taking part between numerous nations must be agreed upon by all participants to be used as a basis for law that they are all subject to. 

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So then you and

Vastet wrote:

So then you and the US have no right to complain about pirates taking ships. Do what you want to them, I could care less. That wasn't the purpose of my post, and I'll not allow you to turn my arguments into something they weren't structured for.

OK.

Vastet wrote:

And I have no problem with you returning violence with violence in defense of your shipping. My problem is with the suggestion that you are legally entitled to do so, and that they are not legally entitled to take part in their own activities. Legalities have nothing to do with it, because there are no global legalities. And any legalities taking part between numerous nations must be agreed upon by all participants to be used as a basis for law that they are all subject to. 

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.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1477
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:We

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

times have changed, besides what does thet even mean? we base our legality on our past? As far as I can see there is no relation. correct me if im mis representing you

 

It is legal for us to shoot pirates

Because in the past we shot pirates

Doesn't ad up to it being legal

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
International Waters...aka the High Seas

The 1958 Geneva Convention on the High Seas, and then the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) (“the Convention&rdquoEye-wink 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.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Tapey

Tapey wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

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.

times have changed, besides what does thet even mean? we base our legality on our past? As far as I can see there is no relation. correct me if im mis representing you

 

It is legal for us to shoot pirates

Because in the past we shot pirates

Doesn't ad up to it being legal

No, that's not what I meant. It's based on our past involvements that we incorporated into our laws. Very specific rules are in place for our navy to take deadly action.

Whether or not there was general agreement internationally in the early 1800s we sent our navy to the the Barbary Coast to defend our rights on the high seas to trade where we choose. Many nations were simply paying the pirates. In the case of the US the tribute demanded amounted to a substantial portion of the US budget in the late 1790s and when Thomas Jefferson became President he sent the navy instead of paying. . See wiki article for short summary. Previous US law on the subject was from 1790 as I mentioned it was changed first in 1819 and later in 1847. This established how the US would deal with piracy in the future and all stems from the early 1800s.

A note of irony, the USS Bainbridge that was involved in the recent action against the Somalian pirates is named for Commodore William Bainbridge who was captured by the Tripoli pirates with his crew from the USS Philadelphia in 1803. He became a US hero in the war of 1812.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.