OT – Errrrrrrr Pirates

[bobogoboom]

there need to be more naked nuns.

[witpqs]

Maybe because there are a lot of smart guys on here, and smart guys who have a lot of knowledge and wisdom about warfare and politics naturally are prone to want to engage in a dialogue with other smart guys about current events that involve warfare and politics?

Wow that sounded good!

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Maybe because there are a lot of smart guys on here, and smart guys who have a lot of knowledge and wisdom about warfare and politics naturally are prone to want to engage in a dialogue with other smart guys about current events that involve warfare and politics?

Wow that sounded good!

Yeah, in the same way it sounded good when US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently said that he hoped the US Congress could rise above parochial interests and do what was in the country's best interest.[8|]

My point being the same as usual... people are morons.

[witpqs]

But do you know how the moron got his name?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Okay, will this thread be clamped before the end of page 1 or not? Place your bets!

I'm going with a lock shortly into page 2. [;)]

As far as arming merchant ships go, my Dad for one is against it. He's got an interest in the matter seeing as he's been through the area several times in the last year.

The howls for arming merchant ships all come from people who will never sail into Pirate Alley on one. The crews themselves don't want it.

[marky]

if i was on a merchant going through that area with weapons and some good old deck guns id sure feel safer. 

[Terminus]

But you're NOT, and that's the point...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The crews themselves don't want it.

I'm not so sure about that. Also, I suppose it depends on what kind of armament you are talking about. My understanding is that it doesn't take much much to turn pirates away from larger ships as the ship already has an advantage.

The 'unarmed' security guards on a (IIRC) British vessel a few weeks ago were only able to say "Stop! Or - I shall say 'STOP' again!"

[Terminus]

Well, I can only comment on the fact that crews who have been asked about it have said "no thanks", and the people crying out for arming them aren't going to be there themselves.

[marky]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, I can only comment on the fact that crews who have been asked about it have said "no thanks", and the people crying out for arming them aren't going to be there themselves.

well if it saves lives and stops it i think it should be done

[witpqs]

Two things. First, those are the only ones you've seen on TV. In 'news' they edit, and (unfortunately) they often edit to get what they want.

But the big unknown is: exactly what question were they answering and what was the context?

Where they being asked about deck guns or about a few of the crew (master at arms, etc.) having small arms to repel attempted boardings?

[Curty]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

My point being the same as usual... people are morons.

Thats the attitude your typical sociapath would take though isn't it...insulting everyone!!![:-]

[witpqs]

Page 2!


My work here is done.

[Curty]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Two things. First, those are the only ones you've seen on TV. In 'news' they edit, and (unfortunately) they often edit to get what they want.

But the big unknown is: exactly what question were they answering and what was the context?

Where they being asked about deck guns or about a few of the crew (master at arms, etc.) having small arms to repel attempted boardings?

WAR IN THE SPECIFIC: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST...PIRACY!!

[spence]

It is surprising that this thread continues. I took a Maritime Law Course ages ago.

From that time I remember the following:

Under international law, a warship may board a merchant ship on the high seas (without committing an act of war) for the following reasons:

1) to determine nationality
2) to investigate marine cable (telephone/telegraph) breaks
3) to suppress the slave trade
4) to suppress piracy

No court anywhere on earth has jurisdiction on the high seas. Some nations might accede to the jurisdiction of the International Court in the Hague but that court has no means to enforce jurisdiction thus it is in effect impotent unless some nation will do its bidding with its own armed forces.

The nation whose flag is flown by a merchant ship/yacht has legal jurisdiction on ships flying its flag so long as such ship is not in the territorial sea of another nation (in which case jurisprudence may be exercised on said merchant ship/yacht by the 'host country'). Thus a person on a French yacht/merchie who commits murder would be subject to French justice unless the French ship was in some other country's territorial sea (usually within 3 miles {cannon range in 1800}) in which case that 2nd country would exercise its justice on the murderer.

If a ship is a warship the nation whose flag the warship flies exercises jurisdiction over crimes committed aboard.

If a ship claims a certain nationality or flies a certain flag and that country denies that the ship is actually of that nationality the ship becomes "stateless" in which case any nation may choose to exercise jurisdiction over the conduct of the persons on board on the high seas. A ship may make only one claim of nationality if challenged by a warship on the high seas. If a merchant ship's claim of nationality is legally valid by the assertion of the "flag government" then boarding officers from a warship of another nation must withdraw and allow that nation to exercise legal jurisdiction for any perceived wrongs committed by those on board.

By inference a country which allows a ship to fly its flag asserts that it will enforce commonly acceptable (international) laws/rules of conduct with respect the property and persons of other nations so that the other nations will allow commerce and social intercourse to occur. A country such as Somalia which can not enforce much of anything outside the presidential palace becomes a real problem in this regard.

[Curty]

Item 1) What about the flag
Item 2) Is it a cable layer
Item 3) Slave ships in the year of our Lord 2009!!?
Item 4) ...

[rogueusmc]

What I thought was funny was when the journalists asked what they could do to the pirates under the Geneva Convention...(1. The Geneva Convention covers conduct of men IN UNIFORM during time of war 2. The United States never ratified it (though we are one of the few who follow it))

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The crews themselves don't want it.

I'm not so sure about that. Also, I suppose it depends on what kind of armament you are talking about. My understanding is that it doesn't take much much to turn pirates away from larger ships as the ship already has an advantage.

The 'unarmed' security guards on a (IIRC) British vessel a few weeks ago were only able to say "Stop! Or - I shall say 'STOP' again!"

What it takes is maintaining a good watch and a decent speed. As for the crews themselves not wanting to be armed, I'm sure they don't want it. None of the guys he works with are in favour of arming merchants vessels. Maybe American crews feel differently about it, the old man doesn't generally speak with American crews so I wouldn't know.

marky

well if it saves lives and stops it i think it should be done

It won't save lives, in fact it would have the opposite effect in all probability.

[spence]

The international laws with regards the high seas were developed when Britannia ruled the waves. Such changes as have been effected have been imposed upon that framework.

Flag and nationality in this context are interchangeable.

Cable breakers include fishing boats.

Human trafficking/slavery is a current global problem. Ships are used to transport slaves.

Piracy is an increasing problem drawing little media attention most of the time in the US (most likely because until now the pirates had not seized any American ships/citizens).

Nations and publics choose and are abetted in ignoring that which goes on at sea because:

a)it's hard to know what goes on there. The 24 hour news cycle finds it too expensive to cover what goes on there.
b) it's even harder to get agreement on how to fix what goes on there since by international agreement nobody owns the ocean and any claim to the contrary must be backed up by force.

An example: Cuban claims a 13 mile territorial sea. The US recognizes (and claims) a 3 mile territorial sea plus a 9 mile Customs Zone extension (total = 12 miles). The USN routinely sends warships into the claimed Cuban territorial sea to a distance of 12.0000001 miles to ask/dare Fidel/brother Raul to enforce his 13 mile claim. So far the Cubans have declined to dispute the US interpretation of territorial sea claims. Back in the early 80s some Cuban Migs did enforce that Cuban claim against a Bahamian gunboat by sinking it though. International Law has much to do with "Might Makes Right".

[Gregg]

Bring back Q Ships.