Poll - What Does the US do to rescue the Maersk-Alabama Captain

[Ravi]

I'm kind of surprised we don't have the ability to gas them all so they pass out and then the captain can be rescued.

 

[Gunny]

Gee, this never happened to Bush. ......

Under Bush, this is war, ......

Americans taken hostage, while on a US drug erradication mission, were left unadressed by the Bush administration for five years.

No war.

No military action.

Nothing.

That's what Bush did.

Who fucking cares?

 

[Gunny]

it is up to the dutch shipping company to pay the ransom....that is how it works and has worked...now if the us goes in and moves to kill the pirates...not only will this captain die but the fates of the other 200 men/women being held is in danger... the pirates have the upper hand...the governments of these countries are not going to do a thing....the pirates are bringing money into the country...now ships can avoid this totally by what....sailing around southern africa and avoiding the suez canal....longer and more costly but much safer...so who is suffering....well the cost is added to oil shipments...takes 15 or so days longer and adds maybe 20% or more...to costs....

Major Shippers Skirt Gulf Of Aden To Avoid Pirates - World - Javno


now i wonder how many americans are being held hostage in other countries etc...and how much effort is being made to get them back...

may the fates and muses be kind to this man....

much kinder than the people who should have blown that dingy to hell and back the minute the captain hit the water.....i wonder how he feels at this point..knowing he cant depend on anyone to help him..he gave it his best and was let down

I disagree here...

The only reason the Pirates have the upper hand is that they believe that we, the civilized west, will not risk 'innocent life' and will pay the ransom...

However, those being held captive are not innocent; they willingly undertook the voyage which they knew would take them directly into harms way.

The US should prosecute total, open, uncompromising war on those Pirates... in every facet of their existence... seeking them out, closing with and destroying them wherever their found; merciless, total annihilation...

But what we will get is more misrepresentation of the meaning of human rights... more projection that 'Pirates have rights too...' (which they do not) by the usual suspects and thus encouraging more of the same and of course, they'll be blaming everyone and everything ELSE... for the failure born of their fatally flawed reasoning.

Lord you are dumber than a box of rocks.

 

[Gunny]

The Captain who commanded the Maersk Alabama volunteered to be taken hostage to save his crew in a characteristic act of courage, his family says. The captain’s brother is now in command of the Maersk Alabama, and captain Richard Phillips is being held in a “life-boat by the pirates; a small, orange, enclosed craft.

At least a dozen ships and more than 200 crew members are currently being held by pirates off the coast of Somalia. It’s believed in an effort to provide assistance to the pirates holding Captain Phillips, at least four of these pirate-held ships, with their crews as prisoners, are heading toward the lifeboat, possibly to provide transportation for them and Phillips to another location while waiting for the ransom, or as cover for the pirates once a ransom is paid.

Just after Captain Phillip’s failed attempt to escape, French commandos stormed a yacht held by Somali and one male hostage and two pirates were killed in the assault. It was reported three other adults and a three-year-old child were rescued.

This is the first pirating of a US flagged ship since the days of the Barbary Wars, the first war waged by the United States, and involved the US Navy and the US Marine Corps against the “Barbary Pirates”, behaving then the way they are now.

We assume that our ships will prevent these rogue and pirated ships from getting very close to the pirates holding the captain, or perhaps there will be some other strategy.
The “life-boat” he and the pirates are in is a small 28-foot, orange enclosed emergency type craft, without any visible hatches or portholes. It carries provisions for 34 people for about ten days.

But what then; or what do we do in the meantime?
What is the best way to conclude this sorry affair, and get the ship’s captain back?

We can only pray that the whole question will be successfully rendered moot before the week-end is out.


Here’s an ABC link with a U-Tube Video imbedded
ship alabama and pirates "life-boat" - Google News

I'd have two SEAL teams sitting in their birds, pay the ransom, get the captain back, then wipe those fuckers off the planet.

I concur, 100%. Do what is needed to get this hostage out alive. Pay ransom, whatever.
A SEAL sneak attack may not rescue Phillips alive, but the SEALs are ready to go. They are on sight.
After this standoff is ended, unleash surgical attacks to put the pirates out of business. They are a loose collection of groups that operate out of Somalia, and still hold more than a dozen ships and more than 200 hostages for whom no ransoms have been paid.
We don't want hostages to be killed, but international Special Ops can seek and capture the 'business' men and tribal leaders who are the brains of the pirate ops and hold them for ransom.
Messy business, but this is why Special Ops units were created.

The Straits of Aden is one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, it is vital to our military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to oil shipping. The US and UN need to take serious measures immediatly to maintain safe transit.

I'm looking at this:

Haven't the pirates in the past released their hostages? Yes. Their wouldn't much advantage to them not doing so and sending the message that pay or not, the hostage dies.

So, we pay up. No reason getting a hostage killed if it can be avoided.

Despite the claims of some, an attempted rescue would likely just get the hostage killed. There is no element of surprise in the open sea. Everything is telegraphed.

We pay up and once the hostage is released use the lifeboat for target practice.

 

[Gunny]

I'm kind of surprised we don't have the ability to gas them all so they pass out and then the captain can be rescued.

The gas wouldn't act fast enough. They are in an enclosed space. Last I read, even the portholes were shut. Getting the gas into the cabin would be dicey indeed.

Any rescue attempt in this scenario will likely get the hostage killed. Even if they sent divers from the ship to the lifeboat, once they touched the side of a boat that small, the pirates would know it. Anything else we tried the pirates would be able to clearly see long before we ever get to the boat.

 

[Burp]

The case that now vexes the Obama administration involves Richard Phillips, the captain of an American cargo ship, who was taken hostage Wednesday after a failed hijacking attempt on his ship.

The Pentagon has dispatched naval firepower, and the FBI sent in hostage negotiators But Obama has remained silent on the standoff so far.

His top lieutenants have fired back with broad pledges to solve the problem of piracy in the region -- without providing detailed plans for doing so.

Attorney General Eric Holder said this week the United States will take whatever steps are needed to protect U.S. shipping interests against pirates, but he also said it is too early to tell what action the U.S. government might take against the pirates if they are captured.

Somali Pirates Hand Obama Foreign Policy Emergency With No Easy Solution - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

We have an administration of weenies.

As usual, lots of pledges to "fix the problem" but when pressed, no details.

And then...and then..."too early to tell what action we might take if the pirates are captured?"

They are probably drafting an apology for Obama to give to the pirates.

 

[WillowTree]

No, it's not too early to tell. I'll tell ya. They won't do a damn thing to the pirates. After all, they are under priviledged freedom pirates.

 

[driveby]

No, it's not too early to tell. I'll tell ya. They won't do a damn thing to the pirates. After all, they are under priviledged freedom pirates.

you damn bigot, its merchant marine organizers .....

 

[WillowTree]

No, it's not too early to tell. I'll tell ya. They won't do a damn thing to the pirates. After all, they are under priviledged freedom pirates.

you damn bigot, its merchant marine organizers .....

yer just a mean ole piraroxenophoracbot

 

[ReillyT]

The case that now vexes the Obama administration involves Richard Phillips, the captain of an American cargo ship, who was taken hostage Wednesday after a failed hijacking attempt on his ship.

The Pentagon has dispatched naval firepower, and the FBI sent in hostage negotiators But Obama has remained silent on the standoff so far.

His top lieutenants have fired back with broad pledges to solve the problem of piracy in the region -- without providing detailed plans for doing so.

Attorney General Eric Holder said this week the United States will take whatever steps are needed to protect U.S. shipping interests against pirates, but he also said it is too early to tell what action the U.S. government might take against the pirates if they are captured.

Somali Pirates Hand Obama Foreign Policy Emergency With No Easy Solution - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

We have an administration of weenies.

As usual, lots of pledges to "fix the problem" but when pressed, no details.

And then...and then..."too early to tell what action we might take if the pirates are captured?"

They are probably drafting an apology for Obama to give to the pirates.

A coastline on the Somalia side roughly the length of the US eastern Seaboard. [Not even discussing Yemen-based pirates]

Loose coalitions of criminals set in a chaotic area that has already been the subject of a failed UN and US military mission.

Rising Islamic tensions throughout the area.

US, European and Russian naval ships currently in the Gulf having limited if any effect.

It doesn't seem like such an easy problem to solve. We could send the entire US naval forces into this area to prevent the hijacking of ships from all over the world, but that doesn't seem cost effective from the point of view of US shipping interests. What are the details of your solution?

 

[Burp]

The case that now vexes the Obama administration involves Richard Phillips, the captain of an American cargo ship, who was taken hostage Wednesday after a failed hijacking attempt on his ship.

The Pentagon has dispatched naval firepower, and the FBI sent in hostage negotiators But Obama has remained silent on the standoff so far.

His top lieutenants have fired back with broad pledges to solve the problem of piracy in the region -- without providing detailed plans for doing so.

Attorney General Eric Holder said this week the United States will take whatever steps are needed to protect U.S. shipping interests against pirates, but he also said it is too early to tell what action the U.S. government might take against the pirates if they are captured.

Somali Pirates Hand Obama Foreign Policy Emergency With No Easy Solution - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

We have an administration of weenies.

As usual, lots of pledges to "fix the problem" but when pressed, no details.

And then...and then..."too early to tell what action we might take if the pirates are captured?"

They are probably drafting an apology for Obama to give to the pirates.

A coastline on the Somalia side roughly the length of the US eastern Seaboard. [Not even discussing Yemen-based pirates]

Loose coalitions of criminals set in a chaotic area that has already been the subject of a failed UN and US military mission.

Rising Islamic tensions throughout the area.

US, European and Russian naval ships currently in the Gulf having limited if any effect.

It doesn't seem like such an easy problem to solve. We could send the entire US naval forces into this area to prevent the hijacking of ships from all over the world, but that doesn't seem cost effective from the point of view of US shipping interests. What are the details of your solution?

1. We can patrol the area with P-3 Orions. Once we identify the pirates, we wait for them to cross into international waters.

Then we take them out.

We'd only have to blow a few of them out of the water to get the point across.

2. The administration is already wondering what to do with Al-Shabab (Somalian extremist group). We find out where their training centers are, along with where the pirates "live" and take them both out.

Problems solved.

 

[ReillyT]

The case that now vexes the Obama administration involves Richard Phillips, the captain of an American cargo ship, who was taken hostage Wednesday after a failed hijacking attempt on his ship.

The Pentagon has dispatched naval firepower, and the FBI sent in hostage negotiators But Obama has remained silent on the standoff so far.

His top lieutenants have fired back with broad pledges to solve the problem of piracy in the region -- without providing detailed plans for doing so.

Attorney General Eric Holder said this week the United States will take whatever steps are needed to protect U.S. shipping interests against pirates, but he also said it is too early to tell what action the U.S. government might take against the pirates if they are captured.

Somali Pirates Hand Obama Foreign Policy Emergency With No Easy Solution - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

We have an administration of weenies.

As usual, lots of pledges to "fix the problem" but when pressed, no details.

And then...and then..."too early to tell what action we might take if the pirates are captured?"

They are probably drafting an apology for Obama to give to the pirates.

A coastline on the Somalia side roughly the length of the US eastern Seaboard. [Not even discussing Yemen-based pirates]

Loose coalitions of criminals set in a chaotic area that has already been the subject of a failed UN and US military mission.

Rising Islamic tensions throughout the area.

US, European and Russian naval ships currently in the Gulf having limited if any effect.

It doesn't seem like such an easy problem to solve. We could send the entire US naval forces into this area to prevent the hijacking of ships from all over the world, but that doesn't seem cost effective from the point of view of US shipping interests. What are the details of your solution?

1. We can patrol the area with P-3 Orions. Once we identify the pirates, we wait for them to cross into international waters.

Then we take them out.

We'd only have to blow a few of them out of the water to get the point across.

2. The administration is already wondering what to do with Al-Shabab (Somalian extremist group). We find out where their training centers are, along with where the pirates "live" and take them both out.

Problems solved.

No. 1: Rests on the idea that we can easily identify and distinguish the pirates from any other small ship off of these thousands of miles of coastline. If it were that easy, I would guess that it would already be done.

No. 2: Just identify the training grounds and kill them? That sounds easy. How has it worked in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Columbia or anywhere else there are rebel training groups?

We sanctioned the Ethiopian army to go into Somalia to root out the extremists and they couldn't do it over the course of a year. Why would you think we could do it so easily? Perhaps we would just fuel the legitimacy of these groups vis-a-vis the more moderate political forces in Somalia?

Your solutions sound easy and simple. If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

Sorry. That post sounded condescending, which is not how I meant it. Good suggestions, but I doubt they are practicable.

 

[Burp]

A coastline on the Somalia side roughly the length of the US eastern Seaboard. [Not even discussing Yemen-based pirates]

Loose coalitions of criminals set in a chaotic area that has already been the subject of a failed UN and US military mission.

Rising Islamic tensions throughout the area.

US, European and Russian naval ships currently in the Gulf having limited if any effect.

It doesn't seem like such an easy problem to solve. We could send the entire US naval forces into this area to prevent the hijacking of ships from all over the world, but that doesn't seem cost effective from the point of view of US shipping interests. What are the details of your solution?

1. We can patrol the area with P-3 Orions. Once we identify the pirates, we wait for them to cross into international waters.

Then we take them out.

We'd only have to blow a few of them out of the water to get the point across.

2. The administration is already wondering what to do with Al-Shabab (Somalian extremist group). We find out where their training centers are, along with where the pirates "live" and take them both out.

Problems solved.

No. 1: Rests on the idea that we can easily identify and distinguish the pirates from any other small ship off of these thousands of miles of coastline. If it were that easy, I would guess that it would already be done.

No. 2: Just identify the training grounds and kill them? That sounds easy. How has it worked in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Columbia or anywhere else there are rebel training groups?

We sanctioned the Ethiopian army to go into Somalia to root out the extremists and they couldn't do it over the course of a year. Why would you think we could do it so easily? Perhaps we would just fuel the legitimacy of these groups vis-a-vis the more moderate political forces in Somalia?

Your solutions sound easy and simple. If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

1. Our jets can overfly the small ships to identify if they are pirates or not.

2. The administration speaks as if they know where some of the extremist groups already are. Problem is two-fold. Bushn sanctioned at least 5 strikes in Somalia. BO would do anything (rather, do nothing) to not look like Bush. Also, there are Americans and Canadians who belong to the groups. That is why the dilemma of whether or not to take them out.

3. The Ethiopian army is defenseless. That is why we are where we are.

4. Finding where the pirates live isn't difficult. Reporters have already visited the towns.

It really is simple. All "someone" needs to do is dedicate the assets.

 

[ReillyT]

1. We can patrol the area with P-3 Orions. Once we identify the pirates, we wait for them to cross into international waters.

Then we take them out.

We'd only have to blow a few of them out of the water to get the point across.

2. The administration is already wondering what to do with Al-Shabab (Somalian extremist group). We find out where their training centers are, along with where the pirates "live" and take them both out.

Problems solved.

No. 1: Rests on the idea that we can easily identify and distinguish the pirates from any other small ship off of these thousands of miles of coastline. If it were that easy, I would guess that it would already be done.

No. 2: Just identify the training grounds and kill them? That sounds easy. How has it worked in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Columbia or anywhere else there are rebel training groups?

We sanctioned the Ethiopian army to go into Somalia to root out the extremists and they couldn't do it over the course of a year. Why would you think we could do it so easily? Perhaps we would just fuel the legitimacy of these groups vis-a-vis the more moderate political forces in Somalia?

Your solutions sound easy and simple. If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

1. Our jets can overfly the small ships to identify if they are pirates or not.

2. The administration speaks as if they know where some of the extremist groups already are. Problem is two-fold. Bushn sanctioned at least 5 strikes in Somalia. BO would do anything (rather, do nothing) to not look like Bush. Also, there are Americans and Canadians who belong to the groups. That is why the dilemma of whether or not to take them out.

3. The Ethiopian army is defenseless. That is why we are where we are.

4. Finding where the pirates live isn't difficult. Reporters have already visited the towns.

It really is simple. All "someone" needs to do is dedicate the assets.

This conversation is suffering from a knowledge deficit. I would guess that there are thousands of small ships that set off from Somalia each day. It would be impracticable for US jets to overfly all of these. However, I don't know this. I just guess it. I am guessing you are in the same boat (no pun intended).

Bush did sanction strikes into Somalia. He also sanctioned the entry of the Ethiopian army. In the intervening period, Al-Shabab has gotten stronger and the government of Somalia (which was always a joke) is now confined to about 3 square blocks. This suggests that this strategy didn't produce the intended results.

The Ethiopian army is not defenseless. It has the strongest army in the Horn and has been engaged in nearly two decades of constant conflict with its neighbors. It isn't the US army, but as the armies of developing countries go, it is pretty strong.

We know where they are. We also had a pretty good idea where Adid was, but military force in extremely hostile and potentially explosive urban centers carries its own risks. The generation of additional support for groups like Shabab being just one political one.

Obama hasn't had qualms about continuing the Bush policy of strikes into Pakistan or using the states secret privilege. I don't know why you would attribute his actions here to a desire to be other than Bush.

 

[Burp]

No. 1: Rests on the idea that we can easily identify and distinguish the pirates from any other small ship off of these thousands of miles of coastline. If it were that easy, I would guess that it would already be done.

No. 2: Just identify the training grounds and kill them? That sounds easy. How has it worked in Afghanistan or Pakistan or Columbia or anywhere else there are rebel training groups?

We sanctioned the Ethiopian army to go into Somalia to root out the extremists and they couldn't do it over the course of a year. Why would you think we could do it so easily? Perhaps we would just fuel the legitimacy of these groups vis-a-vis the more moderate political forces in Somalia?

Your solutions sound easy and simple. If it looks to good to be true, it probably is.

1. Our jets can overfly the small ships to identify if they are pirates or not.

2. The administration speaks as if they know where some of the extremist groups already are. Problem is two-fold. Bushn sanctioned at least 5 strikes in Somalia. BO would do anything (rather, do nothing) to not look like Bush. Also, there are Americans and Canadians who belong to the groups. That is why the dilemma of whether or not to take them out.

3. The Ethiopian army is defenseless. That is why we are where we are.

4. Finding where the pirates live isn't difficult. Reporters have already visited the towns.

It really is simple. All "someone" needs to do is dedicate the assets.

Obama hasn't had qualms about continuing the Bush policy of strikes into Pakistan or using the states secret privilege. I don't know why you would attribute his actions here to a desire to be other than Bush.

An attack against al-Shabab camps in southern Somalia would mark the administration's first military strike outside the Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan war zones. The White House discussions highlight the challenges facing the Obama team as it attempts to distance itself from the Bush administration, which conducted at least five military strikes in Somalia. The new administration is still defining its rationale for undertaking sensitive operations in countries where the United States is not at war.

washingtonpost.com

 

[ReillyT]

1. Our jets can overfly the small ships to identify if they are pirates or not.

2. The administration speaks as if they know where some of the extremist groups already are. Problem is two-fold. Bushn sanctioned at least 5 strikes in Somalia. BO would do anything (rather, do nothing) to not look like Bush. Also, there are Americans and Canadians who belong to the groups. That is why the dilemma of whether or not to take them out.

3. The Ethiopian army is defenseless. That is why we are where we are.

4. Finding where the pirates live isn't difficult. Reporters have already visited the towns.

It really is simple. All "someone" needs to do is dedicate the assets.

Obama hasn't had qualms about continuing the Bush policy of strikes into Pakistan or using the states secret privilege. I don't know why you would attribute his actions here to a desire to be other than Bush.

An attack against al-Shabab camps in southern Somalia would mark the administration's first military strike outside the Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan war zones. The White House discussions highlight the challenges facing the Obama team as it attempts to distance itself from the Bush administration, which conducted at least five military strikes in Somalia. The new administration is still defining its rationale for undertaking sensitive operations in countries where the United States is not at war.

washingtonpost.com

I don't disagree that the Obama administration doesn't want to appear similar to the Bush administration, although it appears to be willing to act in the same manner when it appears best policy. The general though says little about the specific.

If piracy were easy to disrupt or Al-Shabab easy to destroy, why didn't Bush do it? Why don't any of the European powers who have greater shipping interests than the US do it? Why couldn't the Ethiopians do it?

The answers to these questions are actually simple. The solutions aren't easy. They are complicated and the outcomes uncertain. Instead of assuming Obama (and everyone else as well) isn't resolving an easily solvable international problem because he doesn't want to appear similar to the Bush administration (which he wouldn't be the way, as he would actually be solving a problem), why not accept it is not an easy problem?

 

[Annie]

Obama hasn't had qualms about continuing the Bush policy of strikes into Pakistan or using the states secret privilege. I don't know why you would attribute his actions here to a desire to be other than Bush.

An attack against al-Shabab camps in southern Somalia would mark the administration's first military strike outside the Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan war zones. The White House discussions highlight the challenges facing the Obama team as it attempts to distance itself from the Bush administration, which conducted at least five military strikes in Somalia. The new administration is still defining its rationale for undertaking sensitive operations in countries where the United States is not at war.

washingtonpost.com

I don't disagree that the Obama administration doesn't want to appear similar to the Bush administration, although it appears to be willing to act in the same manner when it appears best policy. The general though says little about the specific.

If piracy were easy to disrupt or Al-Shabab easy to destroy, why didn't Bush do it? Why don't any of the European powers who have greater shipping interests than the US do it? Why couldn't the Ethiopians do it?

The answers to these questions are actually simple. The solutions aren't easy. They are complicated and the outcomes uncertain. Instead of assuming Obama (and everyone else as well) isn't resolving an easily solvable international problem because he doesn't want to appear similar to the Bush administration (which he wouldn't be the way, as he would actually be solving a problem), why not accept it is not an easy problem?

Actually not that difficult. There's a limit to what navies can do. The ships being pirated are commercial and the navies of the world cannot escort them all. It's a matter of arming the commercial ships. Links at site. Problem is the UN, "Law of the Sea":

ThreatsWatch.Org: RapidRecon: Somali Pirates Seize U.S. Ship - Updated

Somali Pirates Seize U.S. Ship - Updated
There is likely to be some uncertainty over the appropriate response to the seizing of a U.S. cargo container ship carrying 20 Americans. The ship, the Maersk Alabama was attacked, boarded and hijacked more than 300 miles off the coast of Somalia in open waters. The Alabama was reportedly carrying "general cargo." However given that the Maersk Line is a Defense Department prime shipping contractor, it is possible the ship was targeted because the pirates believed there might be military materials on board.

So, now here is the question. The Alabama is a U.S. flagged ship and 20 American sailors were on board when it was hijacked. Who has jurisdiction over the affair, and would the U.S. Navy pursue? While written in 2006, this article suggests that the F.B.I. might indeed have jurisdiction over this event.

When a crime does occur at sea, several factors determine whether the U.S. has legal jurisdiction. A complicated weave of international law applies, but as a rule, the FBI leads investigations of the following scenarios:
● If the ship is U.S.-owned, regardless of the nationality of the victim or perpetrator;

● If the crime occurs in U.S. territorial waters (within 12 miles of the coast);

● If the victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on a ship that departed or is arriving at a U.S. port;

● If it's an act of terrorism against the U.S.
Somalia is a lawless country with, as the CIA Factbook says has no permanent national government, and currently has a transitional, parliamentary federal government.

It is unclear who has the jurisdiction here or even what the rules of engagement are in a case where an American ship with an American crew is hijacked. This should be "interesting" to watch as the situation unfolds.

UPDATE: This comes as no surprise to anyone who sees the "inadequacies" of the UN in dealing with non-state actors ("only"???). This morning, the nearest USN ship was 300 nautical miles away. Now, after holding the Captain of the Alabama hostage, the destroyer USS Bainbridge has reached the site.

Joe Murphy, whose son Shane is the ship's first officer, said the hijacking is "a wake-up call for America."
"They're making more money in piracy than the gross national product of Somalia, so it's not going to go away any time soon until there's international concern and international law enforcement," said Murphy, an instructor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

The Maersk Alabama is the first U.S. ship to be seized in the latest wave of piracy off largely lawless Somalia.
The merchant sailors are unarmed. So I wonder about the rules of engagement and how we protect American interests in this "new World."

 

[ReillyT]

An attack against al-Shabab camps in southern Somalia would mark the administration's first military strike outside the Iraq and Afghanistan-Pakistan war zones. The White House discussions highlight the challenges facing the Obama team as it attempts to distance itself from the Bush administration, which conducted at least five military strikes in Somalia. The new administration is still defining its rationale for undertaking sensitive operations in countries where the United States is not at war.

washingtonpost.com

I don't disagree that the Obama administration doesn't want to appear similar to the Bush administration, although it appears to be willing to act in the same manner when it appears best policy. The general though says little about the specific.

If piracy were easy to disrupt or Al-Shabab easy to destroy, why didn't Bush do it? Why don't any of the European powers who have greater shipping interests than the US do it? Why couldn't the Ethiopians do it?

The answers to these questions are actually simple. The solutions aren't easy. They are complicated and the outcomes uncertain. Instead of assuming Obama (and everyone else as well) isn't resolving an easily solvable international problem because he doesn't want to appear similar to the Bush administration (which he wouldn't be the way, as he would actually be solving a problem), why not accept it is not an easy problem?

Actually not that difficult. There's a limit to what navies can do. The ships being pirated are commercial and the navies of the world cannot escort them all. It's a matter of arming the commercial ships. Links at site. Problem is the UN, "Law of the Sea":

ThreatsWatch.Org: RapidRecon: Somali Pirates Seize U.S. Ship - Updated

Somali Pirates Seize U.S. Ship - Updated
There is likely to be some uncertainty over the appropriate response to the seizing of a U.S. cargo container ship carrying 20 Americans. The ship, the Maersk Alabama was attacked, boarded and hijacked more than 300 miles off the coast of Somalia in open waters. The Alabama was reportedly carrying "general cargo." However given that the Maersk Line is a Defense Department prime shipping contractor, it is possible the ship was targeted because the pirates believed there might be military materials on board.

So, now here is the question. The Alabama is a U.S. flagged ship and 20 American sailors were on board when it was hijacked. Who has jurisdiction over the affair, and would the U.S. Navy pursue? While written in 2006, this article suggests that the F.B.I. might indeed have jurisdiction over this event.

When a crime does occur at sea, several factors determine whether the U.S. has legal jurisdiction. A complicated weave of international law applies, but as a rule, the FBI leads investigations of the following scenarios:
● If the ship is U.S.-owned, regardless of the nationality of the victim or perpetrator;

● If the crime occurs in U.S. territorial waters (within 12 miles of the coast);

● If the victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on a ship that departed or is arriving at a U.S. port;

● If it's an act of terrorism against the U.S.
Somalia is a lawless country with, as the CIA Factbook says has no permanent national government, and currently has a transitional, parliamentary federal government.

It is unclear who has the jurisdiction here or even what the rules of engagement are in a case where an American ship with an American crew is hijacked. This should be "interesting" to watch as the situation unfolds.

UPDATE: This comes as no surprise to anyone who sees the "inadequacies" of the UN in dealing with non-state actors ("only"???). This morning, the nearest USN ship was 300 nautical miles away. Now, after holding the Captain of the Alabama hostage, the destroyer USS Bainbridge has reached the site.

Joe Murphy, whose son Shane is the ship's first officer, said the hijacking is "a wake-up call for America."
"They're making more money in piracy than the gross national product of Somalia, so it's not going to go away any time soon until there's international concern and international law enforcement," said Murphy, an instructor at the Massachusetts Maritime Academy.

The Maersk Alabama is the first U.S. ship to be seized in the latest wave of piracy off largely lawless Somalia.
The merchant sailors are unarmed. So I wonder about the rules of engagement and how we protect American interests in this "new World."

Perhaps that is the answer, but up until now, commercial interests have made the cost-benefit analysis that it is more profitable to send the ships through without protection (either accompanying or on board) and chance getting through than pay for the protection. I have no problem leaving it to the shippers. Either they can protect the ships or pay the ransom. I don't think it is the responsibility of the US Navy. Cheers.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,715
Thanks: 269
Thanked 46 Times in 38 Posts
Rep Power: 9



There are already protocols for just such a contengency... I'll not discuss them here... but what we're looking at here is an administration which has all the tools available to it, to rescue the Captain and shove a sovereign boot in the ass of Islamic Piracy.

This is old news, Muslims intentionally stripping free people of their rights and lives to make illicit profits... and feminized, worthless human beings appeasing them, thus encouraging more of the same.

CNN is even touting the perspective that Islamic Piracy is a: "Sound Business Model..." as if to say 'Sound business models commonly include stripping people of their rights and lives for the purposes of enriching special interests...'

It's idiocy of the first order and we can be certain that where the US Administration treats PIRATES WITH THE SAME, IF NOT MORE CONSIDERATION THAN THEY TREAT US BUSINESS... that there is very little good news in the near future for anyone that considers themselves an American.

Edit: Ravi would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid response to this post, but lacking the slightest means to reason, she opted for a flaccid neg-rep which projected some irrelevant point regarding a hate of women.

BUT! I believe in giving credit where credit is DUE and it's clear to me as I am sure it is to everyone; that SHE HAS DONE THE BEST SHE CAN, Godbless'er; such flaccid efforts are a function of the impotent rage born of idiocy... wherein the leftist of this board are coming to understand that their attempts to post open arguments on the thread as futile, as they simply lack the means to reason... so they've begun to run to neg-rep and it is ADORABLE! Ravi will now receive 6 neg-reps from me for her efforts...

CONGRATS SIS! You've made an impression and you're now going to reap what you have sowed... Enjoy. __________________

 

[ReillyT]

Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,715
Thanks: 269
Thanked 46 Times in 38 Posts
Rep Power: 9



There are already protocols for just such a contengency... I'll not discuss them here... but what we're looking at here is an administration which has all the tools available to it, to rescue the Captain and shove a sovereign boot in the ass of Islamic Piracy.

This is old news, Muslims intentionally stripping free people of their rights and lives to make illicit profits... and feminized, worthless human beings appeasing them, thus encouraging more of the same.

CNN is even touting the perspective that Islamic Piracy is a: "Sound Business Model..." as if to say 'Sound business models commonly include stripping people of their rights and lives for the purposes of enriching special interests...'

It's idiocy of the first order and we can be certain that where the US Administration treats PIRATES WITH THE SAME, IF NOT MORE CONSIDERATION THAN THEY TREAT US BUSINESS... that there is very little good news in the near future for anyone that considers themselves an American.

Edit: Ravi would have LOVED to have advanced a well reasoned, intellectually sound, logically valid response to this post, but lacking the slightest means to reason, she opted for a flaccid neg-rep which projected some irrelevant point regarding a hate of women.

BUT! I believe in giving credit where credit is DUE and it's clear to me as I am sure it is to everyone; that SHE HAS DONE THE BEST SHE CAN, Godbless'er; such flaccid efforts are a function of the impotent rage born of idiocy... wherein the leftist of this board are coming to understand that their attempts to post open arguments on the thread as futile, as they simply lack the means to reason... so they've begun to run to neg-rep and it is ADORABLE! Ravi will now receive 6 neg-reps from me for her efforts...

CONGRATS SIS! You've made an impression and you're now going to reap what you have sowed... Enjoy. __________________

Idiots generally rely on clapping hands, odd little faces or oversized bold letters.

You compounded oversized letters with exciting red font.

You are a fucking moron.