Seriously, I thought at least one of you guys would be all over this:
Somali pirates have hijacked a ship with at least 20 US crew on board, after what maritime officials described as a sustained night-time attack.
The US-operated container vessel, Maersk Alabama, was seized in the Indian Ocean about 400 miles (645km) east of the capital, Mogadishu.
The Danish-owned ship's crew members are believed to be safe, the European Union's maritime security force said.
It is the sixth seizure in recent days, including a British and Taiwanese ship.
And I know, I know, piracy is a serious problem stemming from Somalia's instability, but how can you ignore priceless quotes like those found here:
"The bottom line is you have to stop them from being able to use their booty," says Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, director of the Center for Terrorism Research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington.
I still can't figure out why the crew (or at least the captain and mates) of the ship weren't armed while going through those waters . . . is there some sort of international law?
3
Paisley
USA
September 2006
APR 09, 2009 10:49 AM
A little while back the NYTimes ran an article based on the 45-minute phone conversation they had with the Somalian pirates that captured that Ukranian military vessel. I would love to have been in the room when that was going on; I mean, who was the person that said, "hey, you know what would be fun? Trying to call the pirates." And then they're all standing around one telephone on speaker-phone, and it's ringing, and then a pirate actually picks up the phone! And one reporter grabs it quickly and fumbles for words to explain that he'd like to interview them...and they agree! What? Amazing! Here's the Q&A.
You can kind of see where they're coming from. Somalia's a pretty messed up place to live, and these guys have to find some way to get by. $20 million seems like a lot, though, but I guess go for what you can get?
Coyotemike said:
I still can't figure out why the crew (or at least the captain and mates) of the ship weren't armed while going through those waters . . . is there some sort of international law?
as i understand it, the main problem is coming into port with weapons on your ship. many countries don't allow private ownership of guns, so if you bring your private gun into their port, you're breaking the law.
Paisley said:
A little while back the NYTimes ran an article based on the 45-minute phone conversation they had with the Somalian pirates that captured that Ukranian military vessel. I would love to have been in the room when that was going on; I mean, who was the person that said, "hey, you know what would be fun? Trying to call the pirates." And then they're all standing around one telephone on speaker-phone, and it's ringing, and then a pirate actually picks up the phone! And one reporter grabs it quickly and fumbles for words to explain that he'd like to interview them...and they agree! What? Amazing! Here's the Q&A.
You can kind of see where they're coming from. Somalia's a pretty messed up place to live, and these guys have to find some way to get by. $20 million seems like a lot, though, but I guess go for what you can get?
The story ran in last month's GQ about the phone call. It was actually part of a pretty good article by Jeffrey Gettleman. He detailed the organization of the pirates (and these are no fly-by-night buccaneer enterprises...they are funded by hidden interests and corrupt officials mostly).
re: coyotemike- he also explains that these ships are unarmed because it is required by the ports along the African coasts....not that I don't think they could hide some small arms on a freeking tanker, but any evidence that they do so can get them banned from a port. The whole point of the law is to keep pirate and military vessels from entering their commercial ports. :/
allegedly.
Some shipping companies are now hiring their own defenders, private security contractors fresh from Iraq who are taking gigs riding along as extra muscle on merchant voyages. I met a bunch of these guys lounging on a beach in Oman, swigging Heineken and talking about how, if it were up to them, they’d make the pirates walk the plank. Most had shaved heads and thick, tattooed arms, but that was it. No guns, no armaments. The ports in this region—with the exception of those in Somalia—don’t allow weapons, and the guards are forced to confront machine-gun-toting pirates with fire hoses. (In one attack, Filipino sailors unsuccessfully pelted pirates with tomatoes.)
Coyotemike said:
I still can't figure out why the crew (or at least the captain and mates) of the ship weren't armed while going through those waters . . . is there some sort of international law?
From what I understand, merchant vessels are generally required to travel unarmed and would be denied entry into many ports if they were. Plus, there's the belief that small arms on ships could be misused and would do little to actually deter pirates. In fact, the concern is that it would only escalate the force used when boarding attempts are made.
-Edit- Slow post job. The dangers of posting while taking phone calls. Pardon the redundancy.
one thing worth thinking about is that this threat, which caused ~$100 million in losses last year, comes from an almost completely failed state. it's not coming from some network, it's not coming from some cartel, it's not coming from some military--it's 100% DIY.
Volkov said:
sheesh. I already know the solution...they just have to hire ninjas. Ninjas trump pirates, always.
Piracy on the high seas, particularly with the Barbary Pirates has been around for centuries.
That's what struck me with this story.
American ships sailing in the Mediterranean chose to travel close to larger convoys of other European powers who had bribed the pirates. Payments in ransom and tribute to the Barbary states amounted to 20% of United States government annual expenditures in 1800.[23] In the early nineteenth century, President Thomas Jefferson proposed a league of smaller nations to patrol the area, but the United States could not contribute. For the prisoners, Algeria wanted $60,000, while America offered only $4,000. Jefferson said a million dollars would buy them off, but Congress would only appropriate $80,000. For eleven years, Americans who lived in Algeria lived as slaves to Algerian Moors. For a while, Portugal was patrolling the Straits of Gibraltar and preventing Barbary Pirates from entering the Atlantic. But they made a cash deal with the pirates, and they were again sailing into the Atlantic and engaging in piracy. By late 1793, a dozen American ships had been captured, goods stripped and everyone enslaved. Portugal had offered some armed patrols, but American merchants needed an armed American presence to sail near Europe. After some serious debate, the United States Navy was born in March 1794. Six frigates were authorized, and so began the construction of the United States, the Constellation, the Constitution and three other frigates.
Coyotemike said:
I still can't figure out why the crew (or at least the captain and mates) of the ship weren't armed while going through those waters . . . is there some sort of international law?
For one, shipping companies are concerned about escalation and damage to their ships, safety of cargo and crew, and insurance rates. Pirates have RPGs and heavy machine guns, so if they wanted to pre-emptively blow a hole in a ship from a distance they could do do.
Also, having a well-trained armed force aboard every ship (or even just a decent portion of ships in any given area) costs a lot of money. The shipping industry isn't doing well now anyway since the global collapse of shipping demand.
Coyotemike said:
I still can't figure out why the crew (or at least the captain and mates) of the ship weren't armed while going through those waters . . . is there some sort of international law?
For one, shipping companies are concerned about escalation and damage to their ships, safety of cargo and crew, and insurance rates. Pirates have RPGs and heavy machine guns, so if they wanted to pre-emptively blow a hole in a ship from a distance they could do do.
Also, having a well-trained armed force aboard every ship (or even just a decent portion of ships in any given area) costs a lot of money. The shipping industry isn't doing well now anyway since the global collapse of shipping demand.
I ask, at least in this case, because the unarmed crew was able to fight off the pirates to the point of capturing one (which they tried to trade for the captain). I don't know if having guns would have helped, and I'm not even sure if I'm talking about small-arms as a weapon to deter piracy. I don't know what would work, but it seems odd to me that these huge ships are being sent out into known pirate areas without any way to prevent boarding.
Which leads me to my next question . . . why can't the big ships see the small boats on their radar?
motorfirebox said:
one thing worth thinking about is that this threat, which caused ~$100 million in losses last year, comes from an almost completely failed state. it's not coming from some network, it's not coming from some cartel, it's not coming from some military--it's 100% DIY.
This seems to be contradicting what Volkov posted earlier:
The story ran in last month's GQ about the phone call. It was actually part of a pretty good article by Jeffrey Gettleman. He detailed the organization of the pirates (and these are no fly-by-night buccaneer enterprises...they are funded by hidden interests and corrupt officials mostly).
There was a story about this on the radio last night. The person they were interviewing said that the only way to cut down on Somalian piracy was to fix Somalia. There is a terrible need for law and order in the country and a bigger need for viable job options. Right now piracy looks pretty good to a lot of people.
FreakPirate said:
There was a story about this on the radio last night. The person they were interviewing said that the only way to cut down on Somalian piracy was to fix Somalia. There is a terrible need for law and order in the country and a bigger need for viable job options. Right now piracy looks pretty good to a lot of people.
If you're interested in more information on this, the USA Today article I linked above was pretty good (even though it is USA Today).
motorfirebox said:
one thing worth thinking about is that this threat, which caused ~$100 million in losses last year, comes from an almost completely failed state. it's not coming from some network, it's not coming from some cartel, it's not coming from some military--it's 100% DIY.
This seems to be contradicting what Volkov posted earlier:
The story ran in last month's GQ about the phone call. It was actually part of a pretty good article by Jeffrey Gettleman. He detailed the organization of the pirates (and these are no fly-by-night buccaneer enterprises...they are funded by hidden interests and corrupt officials mostly).
On what evidence are you making this assertion?
whoops, i'm a bit behind the times. it was pretty much DIY--a few fishermen got sick of not catching anything, traded in their nets for AKs and a few RPGs, and grabbed some ships for ransom. i guess it's silly to think that much money would actually stay in Somalia.
Katieesq
USA
June 2008
APR 09, 2009 10:36 AM