Piracy Somalia

[JoeMcFriday]

Mac, can we please not over simplify the discussions on legal concepts and malign the legal profession (via generic lawyer bashing), given that we have a few members on this forum who are legally trained and also have a military service record. Some of the more astute bloggers informing the public on the issue of Somali pirates are in fact lawyers. To give one example, Eagle1, is an attorney and a retired Navy Reserve Captain (Surface Warfare) officer (link to his blog provided).

OPSSG,

I too am legally trained, in four years of commercial not criminal law, though I have assisted a number of criminal lawyers on commercial aspects of their brief.

A couple of my best friends are Barristers and there was no attempt on my part to generically bash lawyers, I have no reason to do this.

I wholeheartedly apologise if my choice of words contributed to such an impression but I deny it emphatically.

I did deliberately simplify what could happen if a seemingly straight forward case of self defence was contested by a prosecution team [lawyers] and tried to highlight, simplistically I agree, why and how that team [lawyers] may choose to do so. This to show that objectivity in all cases cannot be guaranteed. It depends where it's heard and if there is any political pressure etc.

I stated it simplistically so non-legal minds would see my point, which is to give an example of a possible legal consequence of "bad timing", as introduced by GF and Greendeath with regards to GD's occupational hazards.
"Lawyers" played a very minor role in my post.

It is a real life problem [Prosecutors choice], for all people who act in self defence, so I mentioned it. In jurisdiction "A" a particular case of self defence may declared justified, yet across the border in jurisdiction "B" our hero may well face years behind bars for excessive force.

I would be more than happy for members who are well versed in this area to give a better example, I wasn't trying to give a law lecture, chapter and verse, just a simple example to highlight the pitfalls in GD's profession and of course how lawyers can detrimentally influence that.

Not all lawyers in the world are equal in ethics or nobly motivated ie. non-political, that's a fact of life. I can't change that and I most certainly wouldn't lump all lawyers in one "generic" basket. It can't be a world first that a prosecutor may take a case to advance his career, again I would ask those more learned amongst us to search their memories. I suspect the answer could be "how many examples do you want?"

As there are well qualified legal minds on the forum I would ask them how many examples can they give where the original victim in an assault or home invasion case has also had to face charges? Again, I suspect the answer would be the same.

I would also ask them how often the question has been asked in these cases "can you prove [the deceased/injured intruder] had the intent to use his weapon on you? This to justify the his/her actions in defence in face of an armed assault on his own property? Whether owner or guard.

Lawyers ask and lawyers advise on refuting these question. Lawyers sit as judges. Does this mean there all immoral and must be "maligned", of course not and that was never my intention nor my words.

Many lawyers, to their credit, take " Pro Bono" cases because they think it's the right thing to do. In other words they act on personal choice, they may choose to help a crippled child, they may equally choose to prosecute [if in a position to do so] say, a foreign anti-pirate security guard for their own reasons.

As the defendant, the original victim, is defended by lawyers, so equally is he/she prosecuted by lawyers, who all in my experience, can do so for personal reasons.
That is not denigrating lawyers, just relating the facts.

I most certainly had an acid bite in my comment on "pirates rights", I was being sarcastic, I admit, about a situation that more often than deserves it IMO.

I have been over and over my post and still can't see where I slandered "all" lawyers. I certainly don't hold in high regard any who would abuse the law for their gain.

I don't see it in my words but as already stated if I somehow gave that impression I apologise for any unintended offense, though no lawyer of my acquaintance would have given my words a second thought.

This is a long post because wanted you to understand exactly what my opinions are and why I hold them on this issue. I do not and have no reason to vilify or in any way denigrate or slander ALL lawyers.

Thanks for the link, I'll certainly visit there.

Best Regards,
Mac

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Because I was contemplate of the foolishness of those who wrote the laws that now render them impotent to act. You have to be [very] drunk for their logic to begin to make any kind of sense, much less that of the public that keeps them in power.:splat

Cheers,
John almost got it, I wasn't even close. LOL
Cheers,
Mac

 

[JoeMcFriday]

Mac, can we please not over-simplify the discussions on legal concepts (such as, 'reasonableness' and 'proportionality')? I would loath to malign the legal profession in advising the various maritime forces deployed in support of the counter-piracy mission (via generic lawyer bashing, as is the norm in many forums), given that we have members on this forum who are legally trained and also have a military service record. BTW, some of the more astute bloggers informing the public on the issue of Somali pirates are, in fact, lawyers. To give one example, Eagle1, is an attorney and a retired Navy Reserve Captain (Surface Warfare) officer (see link to his blog provided).

The issues that arise in counter-piracy are complex and at times may be a lacuna involved due to fact that many of the issues involved are complex and multi-faceted. I also choose not to deal with the conflict of laws issue (as this is a matter for legal experts) for piracy matters within territorial waters as that is fairly complex.

To start, let us deal with the applicability of the 1988 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (SUA Convention) and it's conflicting provisions relative to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982 UNCLOS). If you are interested, please read paragraphs 42 to 49 of the link for some basic information. I'll try my best to state the issues accurately without going too much into the complex legal details that is frankly dry and boring.

At the risk of repeating myself (as I have previously posted some of the information below), please note that the 1982 UNCLOS provides the legal framework setting out which States have jurisdiction over illegal activities at sea. Dr Bev Mackenzie has written a guide explaining 'What is UNCLOS' and he provides an explanation of the key provisions.

(1) As of 5 Feb 2009, 156 States and EU are parties to the 1982 UNCLOS. Other than the US, all other States with warships in the area are parties to the 1982 UNCLOS. BTW, the piracy provisions in 1982 UNCLOS are identical to those in the 1958 Convention on the High Seas.

(2) Article 58(2), provides that the piracy provisions are applicable in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and under Article 107, the navy ships on patrol are entitled to seize the pirate ships. If a vessel is hijacked by pirates and remains under their control, it is a pirate ship.

(3) The right of all States to seize pirate ships on the high seas and arrest persons on board is also an exception to the principle of exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State and these rules regarding piracy also apply to ships in the EEZ of any State.​

Under the United Nations Charter, the Security Council (SC) has primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. If the SC acts under Chapter VII of the Charter, its decisions are legally binding on all UN members and they prevail over obligations in other conventions. And under SC Resolution 1816 of 2 June 2008 (whose authority has been renewed in other resolutions), States cooperating with the Transitional Somali Federal Government (TSFG) in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, for which advance notification has been provided by the TSFG to the Secretary‐General, may:

(1) Enter the territorial waters of Somalia for the purpose of repressing acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea, in a manner consistent with such action permitted on the high seas with respect to piracy under relevant international law; and

(2) Use, within the territorial waters* of Somalia, in a manner consistent with action permitted on the high seas with respect to piracy under relevant international law, all necessary means to repress acts of piracy and armed robbery.​

Just having a warship presence in the area is insufficient, there must be facilities for intelligence collection, a law enforcement detachment to preserve evidence and holding facilities issues must also be addressed as part of the counter-piracy naval logistics.

Let me give another example. When a Singapore naval officer, RADM Miranda, took command of CTF-151 last year, he deployed with a Singaporean military lawyer as part of his command team. That Singapore military lawyer (CPT Kim Jixian), as part of his pre-deployment preparations was even attached to Singapore's MINDEF Legal Services for two-weeks on top of pre-deployment meetings with legal advisers in Combined Maritime Force (CMF). CMF is commanded by USN's VADM William Gortney and the USN has law enforcement type of resources in place to enable the US Government to prosecute pirates where appropriate. In the case the the sole surviving pirate in the Maersk Alabama hijacking incident, he is being tried in New York. To quote Singapore Navy's CPT Kim, who was interviewed in Issue No. 1 2010 of "Navy News" (page 11):

"Balancing our legal obligations under international law with operational realities is a key challenge that I have to overcome on a daily basis. This requires us to be creative in discussing the various options available to ensure compliance with our legal obligations, in a way that minimises operational impact.”​

The above quote is indicative of the mindset of the military lawyers at work. And I know that Australian generals when deployed for coalition operations do seek legal advice. The older closed thread on 'Pirates' discusses some of the legal issues and you might want to take a look at some the links provided. In particular, there is an ISEAS viewpoint published in Nov 2008 on how the nations in maritime South East Asia acted together to reduce the pirate scourge in the Malacca Straits.

As gf0012-aust has mentioned before, "a couple of the people in here have direct experience in either track managing pirates, engaging them, protecting unarmed vessels and or have done VBSS - so they certainly have direct experience in the things that matter - to them."

*Note: Territorial waters is waters within the 12 nautical miles limit (22 km) of the Somalia coast.

Now I really am confused,

I just got home from a trip to the airport and read your edited post.

Much of what you appear to be correcting me on agrees with what I argued in posts #42 and #44 re. the EEZ and Territorial waters etc.

It was not me who was arguing that piracy was no longer a crime and that foreign nations couldn't operate within an EEZ in opposition to pirates.

I did agree it was a legal minefield and I did not make any claims that I knew the answers definitively but that I knew enough to quote relevant passages and post links to UN sites etc.

From reading my posts and yours one can see we are largely in agreement, ["Largely" not because we disagree but you have addressed issues I didn't touch upon] though you provide much more detail.

Please reread my posts again esp.#42/44 as the detail you've posted proves ie supports, the points I was trying to make against another posters diametrically opposing view.

I thank you for the additional information but I remain confused as to how you allocated me a point of view I do not hold and am, in print, in opposition to ie. to #40.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[greendeath539]

hi mac

hello again, a lot of what i am reading is informative but hardly applicable in real life scenarios, i feel very confident that if an encounter with armed pirates occured,in international waters i.e unauthorised attempted boarding , faliure to desist after clear warnings .. a prosecution of a licenced security operative would be futile,as numerous cases against blackwater operators working in iraq were dropped due to flaws in collecting evidence, i feel the same would happen in piracy cases

 

[JoeMcFriday]

hello again, a lot of what i am reading is informative but hardly applicable in real life scenarios, i feel very confident that if an encounter with armed pirates occured,in international waters i.e unauthorised attempted boarding , faliure to desist after clear warnings .. a prosecution of a licenced security operative would be futile,as numerous cases against blackwater operators working in iraq were dropped due to flaws in collecting evidence, i feel the same would happen in piracy cases

Hi GD,
No argument from me on that probable outcome.

By the way, I wasn't suggesting you or your team were thugs [or cowboys], just that they are the polar opposites to pros. in private contracting. One sleeps better with the latter on the job is my point.

More later,
Mac

 

[greendeath539]

mac

hi again,cowboy comment not aimed at you in any way.just for the benefit of people who tar us all with the same brush.regulation & discipline is paramount in most pmc's iv'e encountered . although of course some are pretty lax im sad to say

 

[JoeMcFriday]

hi again,cowboy comment not aimed at you in any way.just for the benefit of people who tar us all with the same brush.regulation & discipline is paramount in most pmc's iv'e encountered . although of course some are pretty lax im sad to say

Hi Greendeath,

For all my human foibles, the number varies depending on who you ask, "tarring people with the same brush", a form of bigotry, is definitely not included.

As much as I like facts, I had already assumed from the manner of your posts you were not a cowboy, just wanted to make that clear.

I've had a look at Eagle's blog, link in OPSSG's post, you might like to take a peek yourself.

Cheers.
Mac

 

[greendeath539]

blog

hi again mac
thanks for the link mac,as i feared, didnt really agree with its tone,although not anti american in any way the saying "some are more equal than others" springs to mind , i give you the maersk alabama where direct action by the us navy was sanctioned when u.s citizens were at risk,the assumption that crews on vessels not privately protected will suffer dire consequences is also bogus..this atmosphere of appeasement & impotence just perpetuates & compounds the problem.. have to disagree with assumption that ships engaging PMC's are the minority, not in my experience, its on the rise,more forward thinking companies ( who's people/equipment & cargo im entrusted to protect) employ a rather different maxim . hope for the best, prepare for the worst!

 

[STURM]

There was some resistance to RAAF providing ISR via the Orions etc....

It is a sensitive issue because no one wants to take away anyones rights and they all want to deal with the problem.

I was under the impression that RAAF Orions have already been running patrols over the Straits of Melaka for many years as part of their deployments to Butterworth. The reluctance to have the USN patrol the straits is driven largely by the foreign policies and internal politics of both countries.

 

[JoeMcFriday]

hi again mac
thanks for the link mac,as i feared, didnt really agree with its tone,although not anti american in any way the saying "some are more equal than others" springs to mind , i give you the maersk alabama where direct action by the us navy was sanctioned when u.s citizens were at risk,the assumption that crews on vessels not privately protected will suffer dire consequences is also bogus..this atmosphere of appeasement & impotence just perpetuates & compounds the problem.. have to disagree with assumption that ships engaging PMC's are the minority, not in my experience, its on the rise,more forward thinking companies ( who's people/equipment & cargo im entrusted to protect) employ a rather different maxim . hope for the best, prepare for the worst!

GD,
As your are actually working in the field [though the field is an ocean. LOL], your comments are well worth hearing. Thanks for taking the time to visit the blog, I found it interesting though it quoted many of the same sources I've already used.

Current involvement of the commentator adds a degree of defensibility to the validity of a viewpoint/s that others may be criticized for holding, though they are identical in substance and arrived at by different means.

I don't wish to be misquoted so I'll only say I value your input and note I'm not arguing against it.

Cheers,
Mac

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was under the impression that RAAF Orions have already been running patrols over the Straits of Melaka for many years as part of their deployments to Butterworth. The reluctance to have the USN patrol the straits is driven largely by the foreign policies and internal politics of both countries.

The RAAF already were, but there was a brief moment where because of the position stated by PACOM to step in and assist that everyone not bordering the Straits copped a bit of sidewipe. local politics, but all is fine now.

the other issue is that warships are visible to all and sundry, aircraft and UAV's are not. so aircraft are more palatable at a local politics level.

 

[Blas de Lezo]

An interesting interview to the new boss of Atalanta
AP Interview: Somali pirates torturing hostages

 

[sgtgunn]

Pirates hijack 4 Americans; US mulls responses - Yahoo! News

So despite the International anti-piracy patrols, the attacks of Somali Pirates continues unabated, with 30 ships and 660 hostages currently held. In addition, the pirates are becoming increasingly violent in their attacks, and are in some cases torturing their hostages. How have we reached a point where "great power" status means so little that a tiny band of rag-tag pirates, (comparatively) poorly armed with no "national" backing, and using small ramshackle vessels can render the most powerful and sophisticated navies the world has ever seen impotent? One of the original purposes of having a navy in the first place was protection of commerce and suppression of piracy. The Romans drove pirates from the Mediterranean, followed by the Venetians and later the United States along the Barbary Coast. The British suppressed piracy in the Caribbean, and off the coasts of India, Madagascar and China - and in those days the odds were far more even between the naval vessels and the pirates!

Has the west become so timid - worried about "how things will look" on the 24 hour news cycle, that we're unable to mount an effective response against this new threat?

When you've reached a point when you're neither liked, respected or feared it becomes pretty hard to effectively protect your national interests. We've tried so hard to make people "like" us - usually a fools errand, that no-one fears us anymore - and sadly for good reason. You may just as well become a pirate, because we by-and large lack the balls to do anything about it.

Pathetic.

Adrian

 

[swerve]

The US actions along the Barbary coast were just minor episodes. British, Dutch, Spanish & French fleets did more damage than the US raids without ending piracy. The USA resumed paying protection money after the first 'Barbary war', & it took action by the Royal Navy & Dutch to induce Algiers to comply with the terms of the treaty which ended the second one. Piracy wasn't suppressed until 20 years later, mostly as a result of French occupation of Algeria.

 

[HKP]

somalia

i just saw on the news in fox news that somali pirates hijacked a yatch with 4 Americans on board. The USN is now monitoring the situation. Just as I said these pirates should all be shot and killed. This commercial vessels should start hiring PMCs. Its really not hard to protect the ships, as soon as the pirates or suspicious vessels especially small boats in the direction of the stern, PMCs can start shooting these pirates before they even attempt to board the ships.

 

[My2Cents]

The Romans drove pirates from the Mediterranean, followed by the Venetians and later the United States along the Barbary Coast. The British suppressed piracy in the Caribbean, and off the coasts of India, Madagascar and China - and in those days the odds were far more even between the naval vessels and the pirates!

The Romans mounted numerous punitive raids on the Cilician pirates over several centuries with little effect, until their activities threatened the very existence of the Republic in 67 BC, and which point they gave command of the entire navy and any lands within 50 miles of the shore to Pompey the Great with orders to end it. He wiped them out in a 3 month campaign, destroying 1200 pirate vessels with less than 500 Roman vessels, and conquering their homeland. Part of the speed can be attributed to the fact that Pompey did not physically conquer Cilicia, but negotiated a surrender in return for very lenient terms (which included moving the entire population inland so they no longer had access to the coast), undoubtedly while offering to the example of Carthage less than a century earlier as the alternative.

The Barbary corsairs/pirates were subject to numerous punitive blockades and punitive raids every couple of years from the late 16th through the early 19th centuries, usually as part of negotiations after they broke a previous treaty, which they did routinely every few years. The Americans mounted two of these campaigns in 1801 and 1815, but it took a general alliance including the British to finally enforce them. Note that as part of these campaigns the port of Tripoli was successfully blockaded by as few as 6 US frigates. The Barbary pirates finally ended in 1830 when the Barbary States were conquered and occupied by France.

As shown here, the odds in an engagement between pirates and navy vessels were not good, because pirates vessels are seldom true full sized warships. In the case of the Barbary pirates, the flagship of their fleet was the 44 gun frigate Meshuda. The majority of the pirate ships were below 6th rate with less than 16 guns. Think about what it would have been like going up against a 44 gun American frigate with 3 to 4 times as many guns, and 6 to 12 times the broadside weight. Then think about going up against British ships of the line with 74 to 100 guns.

Notice another trend here. Pirate states continue to exist until they are conquered and occupied, or utterly destroyed. It does not do any good to destroy port facilities, they just rebuild and continue as before. Proposals to shut the pirates down by going ashore and attacking facilities and either chasing away or capturing the pirates, then leaving, will only stop the piracy for a very limited time, certainly less than 2 years, and probably less than 1, unless there is a force in place to keep them out or nothing to go back to.

 

[HKP]

hello again, a lot of what i am reading is informative but hardly applicable in real life scenarios, i feel very confident that if an encounter with armed pirates occured,in international waters i.e unauthorised attempted boarding , faliure to desist after clear warnings .. a prosecution of a licenced security operative would be futile,as numerous cases against blackwater operators working in iraq were dropped due to flaws in collecting evidence, i feel the same would happen in piracy cases

GD
how much do PMCs working in shipping vessels get paid now and what shipping companies are hiring.?

 

[swerve]

The Barbary pirates finally ended in 1830 when the Barbary States were conquered and occupied by France.

The French only took Algiers in 1830, & the other pirate havens in what is now Algeria were subdued (initially by the installation of compliant beys supported by French troops) over the next few years, the last significant port falling in 1837.

BUT - Tunis was not conquered until the 1880s, & Tripoli didn't come under European control until conquered by Italy in 1911. Despite this, they ceased to be pirate havens in the 1830s.

You don't need to conquer every pirate port, just enough of them to scare the others into giving up, or weaken the pirates sufficiently for non-pirate locals to establish control. Tripoli was taken back under Ottoman authority, after a century & a half of effective independence, in 1835, with the collapse of the pirate economy. Tunisia became a relatively civilised & effectively independent (nominally Ottoman) state in the 1830s, & traded peacefully for a living until the French manufactured an excuse to take over in 1881.

 

[John Sansom]

The French only took Algiers in 1830, & the other pirate havens in what is now Algeria were subdued (initially by the installation of compliant beys supported by French troops) over the next few years, the last significant port falling in 1837.

BUT - Tunis was not conquered until the 1880s, & Tripoli didn't come under European control until conquered by Italy in 1911. Despite this, they ceased to be pirate havens in the 1830s.

You don't need to conquer every pirate port, just enough of them to scare the others into giving up, or weaken the pirates sufficiently for non-pirate locals to establish control. Tripoli was taken back under Ottoman authority, after a century & a half of effective independence, in 1835, with the collapse of the pirate economy. Tunisia became a relatively civilised & effectively independent (nominally Ottoman) state in the 1830s, & traded peacefully for a living until the French manufactured an excuse to take over in 1881.

I'll buy the pirate ports atack and punish concept (and have done so in darned near every post I have put forrward on this subject) but I would like to persist in the concept of onshore interdiction of pirate-associated traffic. Couple this with stepped up intelligence campaigns where the money is managed and deals are made and we may get somewhere.

Truth is, we have indeed become timid in the matter of defending legitimate traffic on the high seas. Whatever happened to the principle of "Jenkins' Ear"?:flame

 

[sgtgunn]

Pirates commit piracy because it is profitable - as long is there a favorable risk vs. benefit ratio for the pirates, they'll keep doing it.

If western powers change the equation, by refusing to pay ransoms, launching military operations to recover captured vessels, launching punitive strikes against pirate strong holds - no point in getting money if anything you wish to spend it on keeps getting blown up - and hanging every bloody pirate that gets caught, the I suspect the allure of flying the Jolly Rodger will diminish. That helps short term - long term we need to work harder collectively to help Somalia un-f$@*k itself, so It can re-establish some sort of law and order internally. The bottom line is the west needs to develop some balls and deal with this issue forcefully, and worry less about what some bleeding-heart NGO or politician is going to whine about on TV afterward. The world is a tough neighborhood, and if you act weak, you are going to keep getting rolled.

Adrian