Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Simaril on April 20, 2008, 10:33:40 AM
-
Why? Naturally, out of concern for their human rights! We can't have authoritarian men (with guns even!) exercizing power over poor, uneducated Africans off their coasts, can we? Now that we think about it, this may even be a racial issue.... Mustn't be hasty!
It appears that the "ethical" problem the RN would face is this: when the nasties who live by piracy are returned to their home countries, those countries use systems of justice that are impalatable to European consciences. Just like they refuse to extradite potentially capital offenders to the USA, they don't want to deal with sending a murdering thief of the high seas to a court that would chop off his hand (or head). On the other hand (tee hee), over the last 10 years pirates off africa have killed 160 and injured 500, on top of holding several thousand more hostage.
In what would be a surprise to many in the O'Club, the biggest proponent of aggressive legal and military measures is....(drum roll) France. Bonaparte always DID have a ruthless streak...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20burnett.html?th&emc=th (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20burnett.html?th&emc=th)
-
That is just sad beyond description. You can't solve a problem by ignoring it or by a Mr. Rogers approach to truly evil people.
-
Why?
British warships patrolling the pirate-infested waters off Somalia were advised that captured pirates could claim asylum in Britain and that those who were returned to Somalia faced beheading for murder or a hand chopped off for theft under Islamic law...
That is why, we take them back here then they claim asylum and won't leave. We cannot deport them because of the death penalty.
-
Heh, maybe I'm a psychopath but when I read "Britain Orders Royal Navy to NOT detain Pirates" I immediately though "machinegun". *lol*
-
Same here.
My first thought was "sharkbait"
-
That is why, we take them back here then they claim asylum and won't leave. We cannot deport them because of the death penalty.
How would the law (and public opinion) deal with saving the crewmen, detaining the pirates, and delivering them ashore to authorities without ever reaching the sceptered isle?
As it stands, it seems to me that this is a classic problem of competing moral directives. On one hand, it's always been considered the law of the sea to administer aid to those in distress. On the other hand, in Britain it's considered immoral to allow someone to receive the death penalty. So, how do you resolve the conflict?
In that situation, people naturally choose to perform what they consider the MOST moral act of the two, or conversely the least IMmoral one. Apparently the government of Britain believes it better to protect the (probably) guilty than it is to protect their (probably) innocent victims. Have to say that even if I was adamantly against the death penalty I suspect I'd make a different choice.
-
It is not a case of making a moral choice, it is against British extradition law, so there is really only one option.
If the country in question did not hack of limbs, criminals heads etc. then there would be no problem in detaining them and handing them over for trial.
It sounds ridiculous, but not to detain them is the only option, either that or we will be giving the pirates a home in the UK on asylum grounds after they get out of jail for piracy.
Should just shoot em in international waters and be done with the problem. I read that some cruise liners have been hiring Gurkhas as on board security, that should help things :D
-
Sounds like there is going to be a lot more pirate activity due to this. The pirates knowing, no matter how many people they kill, they'll get a free British citizenship. Murdering ship crews equals free health care.
-
Sounds like there is going to be a lot more pirate activity due to this. The pirates knowing, no matter how many people they kill, they'll get a free British citizenship. Murdering ship crews equals free health care.
Xargos, I think what they're saying is that rather than take the chance of that happening, the Brits are choosing to not interfere at all.
Can't imagine what would go on in the gut of a RN officer having to turn his back and sail away.
-
HAAARRR, back in the day, we hung pirates. Now we have girlymen.
-
You have it all wrong. They can't kill pirates because that would add to global warming.
-
:rofl
-
Sink them... the fish need to eat.
-
After thinking about it more --
Doesn't the very act of having such a law mean that Britain WOULD actually rather let the victims die than risk the pirates receiving capital punishment? Putting that absolute prohibition into place is what created the situation....a situation where a British national working on a cruise ship could be allowed to die just so the sensibilities of armchair purists wouldn't be offended.
Come to think about it, the "we would have to give them sanctuary, so we won't do anything" argument places the cost of sanctuary higher than the benefit of stopping piracy. That's a calculation that is as cold blooded as they come.
-
I'd prefer to think of it as Britain adopting a "Take No Prisoners!" stance where the Pirates and their ship are sent to the bottom :aok.
Pity it's not likely to be the case :(
-
Isn't it grand when a criminal has rights yet the victims do not.
:huh
-
Since when did Great Britain stop hanging pirates? Nelson would be shamed.
-
A rather absurd position to take but not surprising. The RN's reputation has taken a battering in recent years, particularly after the debacle with the Iranians.
A possible solution to the problem might be by the use of 'Q' ships, ironically invented by the British. A U boat might spot an innocent looking merchantman and surface to attack it only find the covers stripped off from several big guns on the ship.
It would work well with pirates too. Maybe the French would consider the idea since the British will obviously replace them soon as the butt of surrender jokes.
-
As long as the RN doesn't bring the pirates onboard a RN ship they can't request asylum as they are not "on" British territory. Send over the boarding party and keep them onboard the ship they pirated. Escort that ship into port and turn the bastards over to the locals. Don't arrest them under international law, just detain them. Let the locals arrest them for piracy. Problem solved from the legal standpoint.
Oh wait they're worried about the moral implications. Only suggestion I have for that is to grow a set.
I wonder what would happen if say, a bunch of ex Navy guys got together and bought a small cargo ship, outfitted it with heavy machine guns, and just went tooling around down there for a couple of months?
-
Oh wait they're worried about the moral implications. Only suggestion I have for that is to grow a set.
Grow up.
This is/ not about moral obligations, it's about legal obligations. British forces must work within the bounds of UK law. Get over it.
-
Grow up.
This is/ not about moral obligations, it's about legal obligations. British forces must work within the bounds of UK law. Get over it.
And how are those laws written?? They are written by people who want to make sure they do nothing to offend anyone i.e. we don't want anyone to die because of us so we wont turn over anyone to a country where they might be harmed or killed. Grow a set.
-
It's a shame yours seem to be defying gravity, my friend.
Western democracies hold themselves to be examples of justice and tolerance - that is why these laws exist. I'd rather live under British law than some pseudo-legal system of some African banana republic with their assorted cruel and unusual punishments. Perhaps you should go live there if you see their system as an improvement?
-
My point is they are NOT British citizens so they should be subject to the laws from their own countries, but Britian it seems doesn't want to let those countries handle their people in their own courts. Am I missing something here?
-
Yes, you are missing the key reason why the British government will not extradite - they view the legal system in question to be inferior, specifically with regards to the use of the death penalty. It views the American system in the same way, and therefore has a treaty with the US to negate that part of US law.
-
So the British Navy is superior then in refusing to deal with pirates? Yep that's the high ground there, as long as you aren't the one being dealt with by the pirates.
-
That's not what I said. You can take the straw man down now.
-
Sure that's what your saying. The British system is superior and because you think that, you wont allow a anouther country to deal with criminals that are that countries citizens unless they meet your superior standards. Too bad your moral values get in the way of justice.
Pirates should be tried at sea by the captain of a flagged capital ship, hung from the yard arm if found guilty, and dumped at sea for shark food. But that's just me and my backward way of thinking I guess. Then again the British used to do that before they went soft. Wonder what happened.
-
you wonder what happened ? ,perhaps like the US ,UK signed the UN charter but choose to respect it.
-
Arrrr, harrrrf, where is the nine-tailed cat when you need one?
-
you wonder what happened ? ,perhaps like the US ,UK signed the UN charter but choose to respect it.
And the UN's solution is??
How many pirates has this charter deterred? I'm sure the folks who are taken by the pirates are very happy that the charter is doing it's job.