NATO fiddles while pirates burn our ships

imported post

Please CLICK, DIGG, and SHARE: http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d19-NATO-fiddles-while-pirates-burn-our-ships

DC Gun Rights Examiner: NATO fiddles while pirates burn our ships

examiner.com — New column explains that the same NATO with the gutsy motto is "an attack on one is an attack on all" is playing catch and release with pirates on the high seas like they are trout fish too small to take home. The unorganized militia is clearly needed at sea now while NATO leaders ponder the issues while eating their mussels in Brussels.

imported post

Letters of Marque and Reprisal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_marque_and_reprisal
against hostis humanis generis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostis_humani_generis

imported post

Here's some common sense gun control for you...allow sailors to be armed with rifles and pirates will have little chance of taking over a ship. Cheap, simple, and effective!

imported post

Swampbeast wrote:

Here's some common sense gun control for you...allow sailors to be armed with rifles and pirates will have little chance of taking over a ship. Cheap, simple, and effective!

Click to expand...

That was the previous column linked to in this column, see http://www.examiner.com/x-2782-DC-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d11-Lets-just-give-the-pirates-our-ships--bullets-first-ARRGH

imported post

Years ago there were privateers who had letters of marque granted by a country authorizing them to legally deal with pirates. I do not believe many pirates made it to trial. Maybe that's what's needed.

imported post

I disagree with most on this topic.

1. Neither our governmenet or NATO as a group should spend a single penny in defending these ships. It is a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

2. You cannot arm common sailors without extensive and expensive training in both firearms and tactics. Additionally, if you open up on a suspected pirate ship, they dump their firearms and sue you for firing on them in the act of fishing peaceably.

My solution is to treat them like an armored car. We dont put government assets out there to protect money as it is transported, we hire professionals to transport it. So if these companies really want to protect their assets, they can hire companies like Blackwater to ride on their ships in these dangerous waters. If they refuse to do this, then the workers fight to get the company to do it. It is cheaper to hire these professionals than maying out multi-million dollar ransoms, it helps the economy a little by creating a few more jobs, and it costs no more of my alreay over stretched taxes.

This is actually already done by private companies in the hostile waters of teh phillipines.

imported post

There was a period when... under maritime law... the Captain of any interested (flagged) warship could intercept pirates on the high seas and exact Admiralty justice upon them. That is...under the flag of any legitimate nation. Pirates being a stateless enemy (same as Al Qeada jihadi's) and deemed Genaris Hostis Humani (General Enemies of Humanity). The British jurist Blackstone laid this out in the 18th century. (Google: Blackstone piracy)

'Seems we've forgotten the lessons of that age and neutred a core function ofthe Navy (to keep the sea lanes open). I s'pose this is the same for anybody's Navy in protection of their or general sea-going commerce.

It's just common sense protection against sea-going brigands and banditry. There are Pirates in the Carribean today... there are Pirates in the Mallaca Straits and off the Thai coast... 'Pirates in the S. China Seas and Pirates in the Tonkin Gulf. This has been on-going for decades... it just now addressed due to the amount of money being demanded and the fact that a US flagged vessel was involved.

Private vesselshave beenunderthreat in the Carribean and Gulf of Mexicoto drug smuggler pirates but ya never hear about that. 'Bad for the tourist trade. Many of those private yachts, fishing boats'n sailboats are armed by their own captains/owners. I say many... butI would suspect 'all'.

imported post

Walkeraviator wrote:

I disagree with most on this topic.

1. Neither our governmenet or NATO as a group should spend a single penny in defending these ships. It is a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

2. You cannot arm common sailors without extensive and expensive training in both firearms and tactics. Additionally, if you open up on a suspected pirate ship, they dump their firearms and sue you for firing on them in the act of fishing peaceably.

My solution is to treat them like an armored car. We dont put government assets out there to protect money as it is transported, we hire professionals to transport it. So if these companies really want to protect their assets, they can hire companies like Blackwater to ride on their ships in these dangerous waters. If they refuse to do this, then the workers fight to get the company to do it. It is cheaper to hire these professionals than maying out multi-million dollar ransoms, it helps the economy a little by creating a few more jobs, and it costs no more of my alreay over stretched taxes.

This is actually already done by private companies in the hostile waters of teh phillipines.

Click to expand...

Ohhh... doI take major isssue with this kind of thinking! Piracy has always been a military (Naval) issue. You cannot arm common sailors without extensive and expensive training in both firearms and tactics. Say what? That's the same as saying those of us on this forum cannot possibly be competent enought to defend ourselves without some mystical exposure to 'training'. Another 'Fort Livingroom' military analyist in action.

Doubtful you've ever been to sea or even have known any merchant sailors. Pirates are not going to dump weapons and sue anybody. There are too many cameras around to refute an act of piracy for innocent fishing.

True enough, Blackwater could well serve the merchant trade and control such small arms as required for point defense. However... it is a long standing American tradition to fight the ship. '

Don't Give Up the Ship 'n all that.

I've got 14 years sea duty under my belt... much of it in that very area. You assume that the Pirates have expensive training in firearms and tactics? The tactic is simple... repel boarders. The weapons are simple: Load, aim, shoot. Repeat as necessary.

imported post

Pax American vis a' vis Pax Roma. Any vessel attacking a U.S-flagged shipped should be sought out and destroyed, including ports and/or ports offering them harbor. Anyone caught engaged in an act of piracy should be summarliy executed, preferably hung. If that was announced by the POTUS, do you thing anyone would mess with a U.S ship? If Euro Union bitches, tell them to*&^% off and not get in the way of the U.S. military.

imported post

I received this today. Unsubstantiated, but I trust the source:



-Subject: Fw: BHO vrs. SEALS

This message contained an html attachment that has been removed by AKO/DKO

in accordance with INFOCON levels 3 and 4.



........Having spoken to some SEAL pals here in Virginia Beach yesterday and

asking why this thing dragged out for 4 days, I got the following:



1. BHO wouldn't authorize the DEVGRU/NSWC SEAL teams to the scene for 36 hours going against OSC (on scene commander) recommendation.



2. Once they arrived, BHO imposed restrictions on their ROE that they couldn't do anything unless the hostage's life was in " imminent" danger.



3. The first time the hostage jumped, the SEALS had the raggies all sighted in, but could not fire due to ROE restriction.



4. When the navy RIB came under fire as it approached with supplies, no fire was returned due to ROE restrictions. As the raggies were shooting at the RIB, they were exposed and the SEALS had them all dialed in.



5. BHO specifically denied two rescue plans developed by the Bainbridge CPN and SEAL teams.



6. Bainbridge CPN and SEAL team CDR finally decide they have the OpArea and OSC authority to solely determine risk to hostage. 4 hours later, 3 dead Raggies.



7. BHO immediately claims credit for his "daring and decisive" behaviour. As usual with him, it's BS.



So per our last email thread, I'm downgrading Obama's performace to D-. Only reason it's not an F is that the hostage survived.



Read the following accurate account:

Philips' first leap into the warm, dark water of the Indian Ocean hadn't worked out as well. With the Bainbridge in range and a rescue by his country's Navy possible, Philips threw himself off of his lifeboat prison, enabling Navy shooters onboard the destroyer a clear shot at his captors - and none was taken.

The guidance from National Command Authority - the president of the United States, Barack Obama - had been clear: a peaceful solution was the only acceptable outcome to this standoff unless the hostage's life was in clear, extreme danger.

The next day, a small Navy boat approaching the floating raft was fired on by the Somali pirates - and again no fire was returned and no pirates killed. This was again due to the cautious stance assumed by Navy personnel thanks to the combination of a lack of clear guidance from Washington and a mandate from the commander in chief's staff not to act until Obama, a man with no background of dealing with such issues and no track record of decisiveness, decided that any outcome other than a "peaceful solution" would be acceptable.

After taking fire from the Somali kidnappers again Saturday night, the on-scene-commander decided he'd had enough.

Keeping his authority to act in the case of a clear and present danger to the hostage's life and having heard nothing from Washington since yet another request to mount a rescue operation had been denied the day before, the Navy officer - unnamed in all media reports to date - decided the AK47 one captor had leveled at Philips' back was a threat to the hostage's life and ordered the NSWC team to take their shots. Three rounds downrange later, all three brigands became enemy KIA and Philips was safe.

There is upside, downside, and spinside to the series of events over the last week that culminated in yesterday's dramatic rescue of an American hostage.


Almost immediately following word of the rescue, the Obama administration and its supporters claimed victory against pirates in the Indian Ocean anddeclared that the dramatic end to the standoff put paid to questions of the inexperienced president's toughness and decisiveness.

Despite the Obama administration's (and its sycophants') attempt to spin yesterday's success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort.

What should have been a standoff lasting only hours - as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location - became an embarrassing four day and counting standoff between a ragtag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.

This information is provided by PURE PURSUIT INFORMATION CENTER, as a service to members of the Military.

imported post

Exact message I got thru the AO Shack... (author not redacted tho) and forwarded to FOX News with the initialismsspelled out. Author is a RADM.

imported post

I think by the time this guy is done Top... we'll be wishin' we HAD Jimmy Carter again in comparison.

imported post

Swampbeast wrote:

Here's some common sense gun control for you...allow sailors to be armed with rifles and pirates will have little chance of taking over a ship. Cheap, simple, and effective!

Click to expand...

Screw that, just give them a stock of RPGs, problem solved and no waste left to sit on the ocean.

imported post

Would it be consider polution if they tied the confiscated weapons to the captured pirates and tossed both overboard?

imported post

SFCRetired wrote:

Someone please, please tell me that we are not seeing a replay of the Iranian hostage crisis back when Jimmy Carter was President. Mr. Carter listened to too many faint-hearted advisors and, when he did take action, it was uncoordinated and too late. This cost him the Presidency.

The only, repeat ONLY, order that the National Command Authority should ever give an on-scene commander is to accomplish the mission with minimum loss of friendly life. Any more restrictive orders are counter-productive.

Were I a yachtsman, there is no way in Hades that I would venture far from port without having the means to defend myself and my vessel.

Treaties that deny the means of self-protection to any seamen, not just American seamen, are a disgrace to the human race.

Click to expand...

I recall someone involved in the Iranian Hostage situation remembering Carter's excessive interference in planning the rescue. The former Prez asked his intelligence people if the men guarding the hostages were 'conscripts or volunteers.'
"It was then," the interviewee recalled dryly, "that we knew the mission was going to go south."

imported post

How easy it is tobash NATO, but how difficult it is to understand what is really happening. Your articles are usually well reasoned and thoughtful. This article is, unprofessional hack job.

The Article 5 reference -An attack on one is an attack on all does not apply in the Indian Ocean, only in North America, Europe and the Arctic Sea, Bearants Sea, Medeterranian Sea Black Sea and Atlantic Ocean above the Tropic of Cancer. That is why the Argentine attack on the Falklandsdid not prompt a NATO response. Come on Mike, if you are going to conduct ad hominem bashing at least get your facts straight.

NATO Navies are strictly observing the rule of law. This is problematic for the prosecution of the Somali Pirates because

1) Fishermen have a protected status under the Hague Convention of 1907. Fisherment who turn into pirates and then back into fishermen are very hard toprove as pirates.

2) No nation, including the United States has seen fit to declare war and announce blockades or exclusion zones to stop the pirates. This puts the Navies at a distinct legal disadvantage.

3) Captured pirate vessels and crews would be required to be brought to the nearest Admiralty Court (Kenya) where the outcome is far from certain, and may only accomplich the further destabilisation of the Kenyan court system.

Also- There can be no unorganized militia at sea. It is forbidden by the US Constitution, The Geneva Convention and partially by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

imported post

insane.kangaroo wrote:

Swampbeast wrote:

Here's some common sense gun control for you...allow sailors to be armed with rifles and pirates will have little chance of taking over a ship. Cheap, simple, and effective!

Click to expand...

Screw that, just give them a stock of RPGs, problem solved and no waste left to sit on the ocean.

Click to expand...

RPG's are only accurate to about 25 yards... after that they wander. I've been on the receiving end. RPG's also have a nasty back blast that you don't want onna ship.

Targeting a small vessel with an RPG at range is not an efficient anti-piracy weapon. A pintle mounted MA-2 .50cal belt fedMG oran M3 belt fed 20mm(or several) however... Couple that with a few M-60 7.62 LMG's... and you'd have an effective point defense system.

imported post

1) Fishermen have a protected status under the Hague Convention of 1907. Fisherment who turn into pirates and then back into fishermen are very hard to prove as pirates.

Very hard to disprove film footage/still photo's of pirates while'pirating'... no matter what they are.

2) No nation, including the United States has seen fit to declare war and announce blockades or exclusion zones to stop the pirates. This puts the Navies at a distinct legal disadvantage.

Pirates are a stateless enemy declared General Enemies of Humanity already. A state of war already exists in perpetuity against all and any.

3) Captured pirate vessels and crews would be required to be brought to the nearest Admiralty Court (Kenya) where the outcome is far from certain, and may only accomplich the further destabilisation of the Kenyan court system.

Why? Pirates could be tried under the national Admiralty laws of any flagged warship by that ship's Captain and officers. 'Used to happen that way. At least... 'til the candyass lawyers 'n do-gooders got into the act. Apparantly they have no knowledge of history.... or the sea.

imported post

Sonora Rebel wrote:

1) Fishermen have a protected status under the Hague Convention of 1907. Fisherment who turn into pirates and then back into fishermen are very hard to prove as pirates.

Very hard to disprove film footage/still photo's of pirates while'pirating'... no matter what they are.

2) No nation, including the United States has seen fit to declare war and announce blockades or exclusion zones to stop the pirates. This puts the Navies at a distinct legal disadvantage.

Pirates are a stateless enemy declared General Enemies of Humanity already. A state of war already exists in perpetuity against all and any.

3) Captured pirate vessels and crews would be required to be brought to the nearest Admiralty Court (Kenya) where the outcome is far from certain, and may only accomplich the further destabilisation of the Kenyan court system.

Why? Pirates could be tried under the national Admiralty laws of any flagged warship by that ship's Captain and officers. 'Used to happen that way. At least... 'til the candyass lawyers 'n do-gooders got into the act. Apparantly they have no knowledge of history.... or the sea.

Click to expand...

Sonora,

Don't get me wrong. I certainly am not "Pro-Pirate" I was just commenting on the weak and cheap shot that Mike made at NATO, when what was really happening was that the Naval Officers are following International Law and the treaties that their nations have signed.

Thundar