[blackshoe]

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Apr 17 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

[PassedOut]

Winstonm, on Apr 18 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 17 2009, 11:22 PM, said:

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

I remember Blackshoe's quote from school. I liked it then and I still do.

We shouldn't be torturing and we shouldn't be invading countries that haven't attacked us. But the US should be going after groups who attack US citizens and pirates who hold people for ransom. That's a traditional value I share.

To hell with bin Laden and to hell with pirates.

[hrothgar]

blackshoe, on Apr 18 2009, 07:22 AM, said:

Whatever happened to "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute!"?

I commend to you the history of US relations with the Bey of Tunisia and the Barbary Pirates in the early years of this country.

I think that you are confusing US government policy with that of insurance providers and shipping companies.

The self defense policies that are followed by ships are set by shipping companies. In turn, these companies respond to the cost structures imposed by their insurance carriers and the folks who own/manage majors ports (both of whom are quite opposed to having armed freighters floating out on the seven seas and ratchet up insurance premiums and port fees for armed vessels)

US government policy really doesn't factor into things all that much...

Unless we decide that we're going to invade Somalia and try to "fix" the country, we're probably going to be forced to deal with a fairly unstable part of the world.

In theory, we could go and bomb/kill a bunch of folks who we suspect of being pirates. Regretfully, I don't think that this would have any long term impact on the stability of the region in question.

BTW, US propaganda aside, what ended the threat from the Barbary pirates was the French invading/colonizing Algeria, Morocco, etc. Yes the US scored some impressive tactical victories. Yes Old Ironsides is cool. But the "game changer" was the French seizing control of Algeria. I don't think anyone is stupoid enough to try anything similar in Somalia any time soon.

[Winstonm]

Quote

I don't think anyone is stupoid enough to try anything similar in Somalia any time soon.

It has once or twice before been proven dangerous to underestimate the stupidity of the neocon hawks.

Quote

Judge Smails: You know, you should play with Dr. Beeper and myself. I mean, he's been club champion for three years running and I'm no slouch myself.
Ty Webb: Don't sell yourself short Judge, you're a tremendous slouch.

[helene_t]

Big deal that the americans freed one hostage - the Dutch marine just freed 20:
http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/8005730.stm

[PassedOut]

Quote

The spokesman said the pirates were set free because Nato does not have a maritime detainment policy, meaning Dutch national law would apply in this case.

Set free to plunder again.

[blackshoe]

Winstonm, on Apr 18 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

If you want to advocate completely ridiculous policies for the US government to adopt, you go right ahead.

For myself, I would suggest that in furtherance of one of the primary missions of the US Navy - control of the seas - we put warships to patrol in places where piracy is common, tasked to put a stop to it.

Pirates do what they do because it seems to them a reasonable way to make a living. If we make it unreasonable, they'll find something else to do. If that something else also involves attacks on Americans or American property, then we'll have to deal with that, but short of instituting the death penalty for mere suspicion (which I do not advocate) I don't see a better solution. Do you?

[Winstonm]

blackshoe, on Apr 18 2009, 03:33 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Apr 18 2009, 09:27 AM, said:

No doubt we should spend millions in defense against an invasion of San Diego by the Somali pirates - just make sure the right contractors get paid.

If you want to advocate completely ridiculous policies for the US government to adopt, you go right ahead.

No, thanks. I would never usurp the responsibilities the neocons have adopted as their own.

[blackshoe]

How's that go? Oh, yeah. "Never wrestle with a pig. It just gets you dirty and annoys the pig."

[Winstonm]

Oink, oink.

[Winstonm]

I didn't know this about the U.S. Constitution:

Quote

9:33 AM PDT, April 18, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and darling of Libertarians everywhere, has an idea on how the United States can deal with the Somali pirates plaguing international shipping in the Indian Ocean: hire and train some bounty hunters.

The idea, unlike some of Paul's proposals, is actually gaining traction in Congress. The U.S. Navy, designed to do battle against other nations' navies, is too big for the mission. So, hiring and training bounty hunters to go after the pirates is, as Political Machine put it, "a classic case of fighting fire with fire."

The mechanism would be a little-known power in the Constitution called marque and reprisal. Leave it to a strict constitutionalist like Paul to have read that far into the document.
The provision was used often during the Revolution and the War of 1812, but not since. Basically, the law allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

"If we have 100 American wannabe Rambos patrolling the seas, it's probably a good way of getting the job done," said Competitive Enterprise Institute's Eli Lehrer.

If Congress does start using the procedure, it might want to consider a few amendments. Under current law, bounty hunters are allowed to keep the ship and any treasure they capture.

[helene_t]

don't think it is the constitution. Just an ordinary law. My guess.

[onoway]

It was interesting to gain some sort of idea of what might have led to the pirates taking up that line of "work" . It is difficult to imagine the sort of life people are dealing with there if even half of this is true. I suppose if you just keep shooting them all eventually Somalia will run out of young men....
http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/8001183.stm

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Apr 19 2009, 11:19 PM, said:

I didn't know this about the U.S. Constitution:

Quote

9:33 AM PDT, April 18, 2009
Reporting from Washington -- Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and darling of Libertarians everywhere, has an idea on how the United States can deal with the Somali pirates plaguing international shipping in the Indian Ocean: hire and train some bounty hunters.

The idea, unlike some of Paul's proposals, is actually gaining traction in Congress. The U.S. Navy, designed to do battle against other nations' navies, is too big for the mission. So, hiring and training bounty hunters to go after the pirates is, as Political Machine put it, "a classic case of fighting fire with fire."

The mechanism would be a little-known power in the Constitution called marque and reprisal. Leave it to a strict constitutionalist like Paul to have read that far into the document.
The provision was used often during the Revolution and the War of 1812, but not since. Basically, the law allows the United States to hire private citizens to keep international waters safe.

"If we have 100 American wannabe Rambos patrolling the seas, it's probably a good way of getting the job done," said Competitive Enterprise Institute's Eli Lehrer.

If Congress does start using the procedure, it might want to consider a few amendments. Under current law, bounty hunters are allowed to keep the ship and any treasure they capture.

Wow...

Just when you thought Ron Paul couldn't get any stupider, he starts babbling about letters of marque.

Admittedly, this will give the lunatic fringe a chance to dream of a new and perfect world where lifting the oppressive arms of the government will allows robust young Aryan warriors to go off and slaughter the dark skin hordes; however, I fail to see the practical benefit.

Let's look at all the things that this plan WON'T accomplish:

One of the factors limiting the US Navy is cost. It's too damn expensive to patrol the entire coast of Somalia. Will privatizing the fight reduce costs in any appreciable manner? I doubt it. Back in the day, privateers were highly cost effective because they (primarily) worked as pirates. They captured and looted enemy merchant vessels. On rare occasion, they also seized ships/loot from pirates. However, I don't see that as particularly feasible in this day and age. The only way that I see private companies being willing to take up a job like this is if we start paying bounties for dead pirates. My suspicion is that this would almost immediate transform itself into "bounties for dead Somalis"...

A second factor limiting the Navy is lack of information. It's very difficult to find pirates in the deep blue sea. Somehow, I suspect that the Navy has much better command and control than some random group of yahoos...

For the life of me, I can't figure out what this is supposed to accomplish... Personally, I think that "100 American wannabee Rambos" sounds like "50 dead idiots" and a bunch of brand new hostages that the real military is going to need to rescue...

[blackshoe]

US Constitution, on Art. I, Sect. 8, said:

The Congress shall have Power ...
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water...

Quote

The right to issue letters of marque was relinquished by signatories to the Declaration of Paris, which was an annex to the 1856 Treaty of Paris, which ended the Crimean War.

That second quote is from a wikipedia article on letters of marque. The US is not a signatory to this declaration. My understanding is that the reason for this is that it would have voided the above quoted power granted Congress in the Constitution.

The USN is not "too big" to fight piracy. It is, however "designed to fight other nations' navies" in large scale battles, which is a completely different mission. The Navy needs completely different kinds of ships for the anti-piracy mission than the ones we have. There has been an effort to design and build such ships, but it's slow going. For one thing, the admirals (particularly the aviation types) want to keep as many carriers as they can, partly because carrier battle groups are billets for aviation flag officers. Perhaps the littoral combat ship will fit the bill — eventually.

There is "the deep blue sea" and there is "the not so deep littoral sea". The latter is where pirates operate. The problem with tracking pirates there is two-fold: a lot of ships around these areas, and satellite coverage can only do so much. We need eyes on the surface - iow more small(ish) combatants. This is the kind of thing that cruisers, historically, were made for.

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

[jdonn]

onoway, on Apr 19 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

It was interesting to gain some sort of idea of what might have led to the pirates taking up that line of "work" . It is difficult to imagine the sort of life people are dealing with there if even half of this is true. I suppose if you just keep shooting them all eventually Somalia will run out of young men....
http://news.bbc.co.u...ica/8001183.stm

This was a very intelligent article. If you want to rid your house of an ant infestation, trying to stomp on every ant you can find won't work.

[Oof Arted]

helene_t, on Apr 17 2009, 11:02 AM, said:

That interpretation makes sense, but here the alleged pirate ships carry no flag and even if they did they shouldn't expect legal support from either Somalia, Puntland or any other country.

Helen I rather suspect that they would recieve backing from the Eoropean Union Courts in Strasbourg for going against 'their' Human rights

[PassedOut]

blackshoe, on Apr 19 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

[luke warm]

PassedOut, on Apr 20 2009, 12:16 PM, said:

blackshoe, on Apr 19 2009, 09:26 PM, said:

One reason for the aforementioned Declaration of Paris is that in practice, one country's "privateer" was another country's "pirate", letter of marque or no letter of marque. Agreeing not to issue such letters is one way to avoid this controversy.

Whether the US issuing such letters is a good or bad idea I'm not prepared to debate. I will say that I don't think Ron Paul is a stupid man.

I don't think Ron Paul is stupid either, but he does promote a single ideology as the solution to all problems. In this case, Ron Paul's "solution" to the piracy problem is utterly, hopelessly, stupid.

what would your solution be? feel free to form one in consultation with richard