Somali Pirate Standoff

[ParanoiA]

I'm sure everyone's heard enough about pirates, and this latest standoff sure resembles a Hollywood movie script. The selfless captain that offers himself as hostage for the safety of his crew. He later attempts his own escape, only to be recaptured. Out of fuel, running out of food. Nothing but threats of murder keeping them from being blown up.

 

Some may not know this, but apparently pirates are a status of enemy set apart from mere criminal activity, and even terrorism - they are an "enemy of mankind", dating back to 18th century maritime law - hostis humani generis. And there's some interesting historical reasoning behind that concept - one major component being that the high sea belongs to no one, and thus belongs to everyone. And since pirates threaten the high seas, they are said to threaten all nations. And in practice, this would appear to be true. So yeah, enemy of all mankind. I can dig it.

 

Ok, so here we are with the classic moral dilemma. Do we negotiate and work with the pirates to free the innocent, at the risk of that "weakness" prompting more and more attacks on our vessels and citizens? Or should we give them our own ultimatum and give them an hour to return him or die, in hopes that will dissuade any future attacks? Something else? I'm sure there's no shortage of ideas here.

 

So far, I'm more for a reverse ultimatum. We don't negotiate. We just give you a few minutes to return our people, and then we won't kill you...immediately. Attacking a US ship should be a dead-end cause. Well, any ship, actually. They should have to consider that they will only die - they will not achieve anything other than that. I think that could save exponentially more lives in the long run.

 

But I also understand that could be a bit specious. What do you all think?

[Kyrisch]

I think that the main issue with parties that take hostages is that we 'value human life above all.' And there is that inherent guilt in acting against the pirates and causing them to kill the captain. This is something I don't understand, though, because no one would be guilty if the pirates had just decided to kill the captain in the first place. So we have to cases: Either they've already decided to kill the captain, in which case moving against the pirates (who obviously will not negotiate) will result in no greater consequence than if they had decided to act on their decision formerly, or they aren't really going to kill the captain and we get the ship back, captain and all, once we apply a little real pressure.

 

So in all, I agree. Saving many at the cost of the few has always been a tough moral issue, but whose answer is decidedly obvious.

[Phi for All]

There should be no negotiation, that would eventually stop the piracy if we made stiff penalties for anyone who buys the pirated goods that would be their only treasure. The problem with that is not the pirates, it's the fact that few people would agree to work on a ship if there was no chance of negotiation once boarded.

 

The biggest reason for pirates being considered hostis humani generis, besides the territorial neutrality of the open seas, is the sheer size and natural malevolence of the oceans. Trouble at sea, or anything that unnecessarily puts a ship in even more danger than normal, MUST be treated severely. This is the reason China needs to be heavily reprimanded for the actions of their boats against the USNS Impeccable recently. You simply don't act recklessly with fragile vessels on open water. It's an ethical concern that transcends even human lives, because it threatens human life at sea in general.

 

If space exploration is in our future, this ethical concern must be heavily ingrained in our very psyche. You just don't mess with a ship unless you want war.

[ydoaPs]

If we put an end to piracy, how would Sayo get any music?

 

 

Seriously, though......I'm surprised that a carrier hasn't been sent in as aggressive negotiation.

[padren]

I understand the "enemy of mankind" thing, it is an idea I've thought about more than once though it seems to border on an emotional evaluation more than a literal one. It's easy to see sexual predators as monsters that live among us like wolves in sheep's clothing, but no loyalties to any human kind above their tastes for their preferred prey - our young - which makes it very easy to feel they are outside the "human circle" and just a predatory beast that blends in well. Piracy has the distinction of course as you said, to target ships of all nations, which does cause an additional distinction.

 

With piracy, the emotional fears of all the things sailors and passengers faced (food, weather, shallows, navigational mishaps) to know your loved ones faced those challenges only to die at the hands of lawless, nationless pirates would really feel like loosing them to a pack of jackals. At least wars have ideology - pirates just hunt your kind for food and their own pack's strength.

 

 

When it comes to the issue of negotiation, I don't think fear of death is a very valid deterrent. I don't think many people ever say "I can live with life imprisonment, but not death" - instead they say "I am way too good to get caught" because if they thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't do it. You don't make a profit if you are caught.

 

That said, I do think that negotiating ransoms in which the pirates get paid and can pirate again does a disservice to all mariners, because it increases the profit side while lowering the loss side of the equation, making piracy that much more appealing and profitable.

 

Negotiating life imprisonment instead of death at sea would be a fair ultimatum to put forward, but anything that allows the pirate's escape may as well be a death sentence for future mariners.

 

 

 

 

Edit, Just on the death as a deterrent note:

When a family faces possible eviction from their home and they struggle pay bills, attempts to get credit or second jobs or negotiate family loans or write their landlords for arrangements - things that don't arguably have a high chance of success, but if they do would save the day.....when those people do get evicted, how many have a well prepared back up plan? I would argue almost none because they put all their effort into keeping that from happening because the alternative was unimaginable. They placed the "eviction" as the "end game you loose" marker in their mind, and put everything into not loosing that game. Once they have, they wake up, blink, and wonder "what the heck are we going to do now??" because they haven't considered it in a real sense. When it comes to risk, it's easy for a human to mentally displace a horrible fail with ultimate fail in their mind, and put all their energy into avoiding that fail. When someone faces eviction, they'll saddle themselves with an extra 30k of debt just for a 5% chance of keeping their place if loosing their place is unimaginably bad.

 

I think the psychology behind criminals that risk life imprisonment vs the death penalty is probably quite similar.

Edited April 11, 2009 by padren

[Mr Skeptic]

On the other hand, if we did not negotiate for the hostages, then they wouldn't bother to take hostages. If the pirates wanted mostly the ship and cargo, this would be deadly. If they were more interested in the ransom, this would be protective.

[Bettina]

I don't understand why it's gone on this long. I thought we (usa) had trained snipers, navy seals, or someone who could sneak/swim/minisub/portable motorized something/ over there and take these guys out.

 

I don't see any other viable option. Paying ranson just feeds them.

 

Bee

[scrappy]

In a sailing magazine I read regularly—Latitude 38—there was a Letter to the Editor from a circumnavigator (sorry, I can’t recover it), stating that Somalia’s fishing grounds have been devastated by large-scale commercial fishing from other nations. Adding to that, other nations have used large areas off Somalia’s coast to dump their toxic and hazardous wastes. I don’t think this justifies piracy, if it is true, but it adds to the complexity of the issue

[Baub]

My opinion may seem harsh. However, I think we should show this Sea Captain the respect he deserves. He made an honorable decision when he bartered himself for his crews safety, knowing it could mean his life. We should give the enemy one hour to release the Captain. One hour later, two Seals should silently surface at the boat and kill all the pirates.

[Dudde]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/12/somalia.pirates/index.html

 

NICE!

[Mr Skeptic]

Game over. Pirates lose.

[ParanoiA]

So the Hollywood script is complete. They won't even have to embellish.

 

I'm very happy with this ending.

[Phi for All]

I say Presidential Medal of Freedom for Capt. Richard Phillips. Well done, well done all.

[iNow]

It's funny. I was having coffee with my girlfriends dad this morning and we were both saying, "They should just send a team of Seals in and this whole thing will be over in less than 20 seconds."

 

Then, sure enough, a coupla hours later... from our lips to gods ears.

[Sisyphus]

That was the only acceptable ending, really. I'm not going to ask "why did that take so long" because I don't know how long such things usually take, nor what was going on behind the scenes.

 

What I'm wondering now is whether this will push the United States or other nations into more aggressively dealing with piracy at its source, a la "shores of Tripoli." I don't know whether that would be a good idea or not. If pirates learn that attacking American or allied ships can only end in death, I'm thinking that would solve our problem anyway, without having to enter what would undoubtably be a very sticky situation. Or maybe it could be accomplished quickly and with few losses: insufficient data. I will predict, however, that we're not going to be doing any nation building in Somalia.

[Lan(r)12]

I cant believe the pirates were stupid enough to let all three of themselves be exposed...did they not know that there would be snipers just waiting to take them out?

 

But...I just cant side with an ultimatum that would kill one of our people.

I think this was handled beautifully, and this is what navy SEALS are for. They did an amazing job.

 

I think that we should just arm our ships...dont tell me that that will just get the crew killed. They have the high ground. If there is a security detail of 20 men with SAWs and high caliber rifles, maybe some anti-ship turrets on the ship...four guys with AK-47s dont have a chance.

 

Back then, merchant ships armed themselves, and they were successful in defending themselves, only now, our ships could have 20 times the firepower any somali pirates could muster.

[ParanoiA]

It's funny. I was having coffee with my girlfriends dad this morning and we were both saying, "They should just send a team of Seals in and this whole thing will be over in less than 20 seconds."

 

Then, sure enough, a coupla hours later... from our lips to gods ears.

 

If I read that article correctly, Obama signed off on that kind of plan twice. I was surprised and impressed.

[Dudde]

Sorry my sources keep coming from CNN but I don't have time to read anything else =D

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/04/13/somalia.pirates.revenge/index.html

 

did pirates essentially just declare war on the U.S and France? That sounds ridiculous... I'm all for keeping armed escorts for ships, or setup some convoy to transport groups of ships or something, like a ferry!

[iNow]

I think that we should just arm our ships...dont tell me that that will just get the crew killed. They have the high ground. If there is a security detail of 20 men with SAWs and high caliber rifles, maybe some anti-ship turrets on the ship...four guys with AK-47s dont have a chance.

 

Back then, merchant ships armed themselves, and they were successful in defending themselves, only now, our ships could have 20 times the firepower any somali pirates could muster.

 

That's not a very feasible idea. You'd have the extra cost of all of those armed people. That's a lot of extra mouths to feed on a boat. You'd also have some serious licensing issues, and training/certification problems. Remember, simply having a firearm on board does not guarantee that the ones holding it are capable. Finally, many of these pirates have shoulder mounted RPG launchers, so it's not exactly like they'd need to board the ship to take its contents.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but your proposal is no solution at all. You're treating the symptom and not the cause, and further, your treatment has several holes and problems, and is likely to be terribly ineffective.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm all for keeping armed escorts for ships, or setup some convoy to transport groups of ships or something, like a ferry!

 

Like I mentioned to Lan®, who is going to pay for that? When you add up the sheer number of ships out there, the scale of what you propose makes it terribly impractical and costly.

Edited April 13, 2009 by iNow
Consecutive posts merged.

[Dudde]

I agree, and you can't really train and arm the ships crew either, which is kinda stupid - so then the best option starts to be to try to find an alternate route that would be more difficult and unattractive to pirates.

 

It would be equally as unfeasible though to just carry on from here forward as we always have, I have doubts that pirates would just roll over

[Lan(r)12]

It was just something I threw out there, its not like I planned for every contigency.

And if I were going to hire armed security...Id make sure they were capable.

 

And no, this would be easily solvable if I were a cold heartless person. Id side with the ultimatum, and every time I was forced to kill a US Citizen, a hundred somalian people would be executed with missiles.

This would stop any future threats, but it is incredibly evil and cold.

 

And yes, cost is a problem for this...what is your propsal iNow?

The only thing people like this understand is violence, so dont say diplomacy.

 

 

**************Excellent point Dudde

[Dudde]

I would also like to say that while difficult to fund, it's equally as difficult to pay 25 million every time the pirates want to board a ship

[YT2095]

pay the ransom, get the good guy, blow the bad guys out the water, charge them the ransom amount for rescue, take the cash and leave them in the drink.

 

put the whole lot on Youtube as a lesson

[iNow]

what is your propsal iNow?

Well, since it's failed nation states and poor economies which lead people to piracy, what do you say we start there, eh?

[ParanoiA]

That's sounds a lot more expensive than arming our ships.