Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Swoop on June 05, 2009, 03:55:13 AM
-
Story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/5440087/Pictured-Royal-Navy-defeats-pirates-armed-with-grenades.html
Video: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/5444622/Video-Royal-Navy-intercepts-pirates-with-grenades-and-machine-guns.html
Scratch one.
-
Wtg Royal Navy! Those pirates are a sorry lookin' lot, aren't they :lol
-
While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.
-
Im confused :confused:
RN arrested pirates, took their weapon, sunk boat, just to give them bigger boat and leave free later? :huh
Something ****ing wrong here :rolleyes:
-
That's some nice footage of the 30mm and 4.5" gun, i'm positive the matelows enjoyed that.
Oleg, the pirates still have the big boat, which is a lesser effective pirate vessel than a small fast boat. Basically the RN has let them go because we don't want them to claim asylum in the UK.
edit: In my opinion sending a pirate back to somalia is a far greater punishment than spending 10 years in a UK prison. Over here a prisoner can play on a ps3 or xbox all day long in their cell- prison is hell. :rolleyes:
-
Uh, thanks. Article isnt very clear,not for me, at least.
-
While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.
It sets a "dangerous precedent" for the pirates. If only other nations' navies would follow suit and close that loophole the pirates have been using to escape, it might give them pause as to the seriousness of what they are doing out there trying to "pirate" innocent commercial shipping vessels.
I'd rather the incident not been captured on film and post on the Net, cause now you know somewhere the "pirates" are changing tactics and sometime in the future there will be an incident with loss of life from a firefight (no great loss if all the pirates get killed IMHO, just hate to see any serviceman lose his life to those scum) and the media will be all over it, asking the same thing you did. Better to just capture the thugs (that's all they are honestly), sink their vessel, then apply old time naval justice and hang em high.
As far as the pirate "family", all they would ever need to know is their relative was lost at sea. Lose enough of them and you will see fewer and fewer hijackings.
What would your excuse be for having RPG's and other military type weapons if you were just out fishing? Defend yourself from the fish?
Now that the media has access to it, only God knows what kind of stories will come out about those poor hapless, defenseless fishermen, only out there trying to support their families.............. :rolleyes:
-
While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.
If they weren't Pirates, the POS boat they had, might still be floating.
I have NO sympathy for these Pirates. WTG RN! Awesome target practice with that 30mm.
-
While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.
Yeah your right, they should wait until after they've attacked a boat before they do something.
-
If they weren't Pirates, the POS boat they had, might still be floating.
We don't know for sure that they were pirates, and that's the point. For instance they could simply be Somali militiamen out paroling; unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Should the RN (and other navies) really have the power to board foreign vessels, "confiscate" any weapons they find, and sink some or all of them just on the suspicion of piracy? Is that really the power we want to give, say the Iranian navy? Or the Chinese navy?
Here's the problem: If the RN didn't have enough evidence to actually arrest them (and the article said they didn't) how can they be justified in confiscating and destroying their property? If the cops can't prove you were speeding, should they be allowed to just confiscate any legal weapons you have and set fire to your car? Is it OK as long as they give you cab money to get home?
I don't give a flying twittle about the Somali pirates; I hope they capsized and drowned on the way home. However I do care a great deal about the abuse of power by, and unaccountability of armed government agencies, in this case the Royal Navy.
-
We don't know for sure that they were pirates, and that's the point. For instance they could simply be Somali militiamen out paroling; unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Should the RN (and other navies) really have the power to board foreign vessels, "confiscate" any weapons they find, and sink some or all of them just on the suspicion of piracy? Is that really the power we want to give, say the Iranian navy? Or the Chinese navy?
Here's the problem: If the RN didn't have enough evidence to actually arrest them (and the article said they didn't) how can they be justified in confiscating and destroying their property? If the cops can't prove you were speeding, should they be allowed to just confiscate any legal weapons you have and set fire to your car? Is it OK as long as they give you cab money to get home?
I don't give a flying twittle about the Somali pirates; I hope they capsized and drowned on the way home. However I do care a great deal about the abuse of power by, and unaccountability of armed government agencies, in this case the Royal Navy.
So your "average Somali" goes around the Indian Ocean with RPG's? Stop being the BBS Devil's Advocate, you're sounding like Lasersailor right now and have for a while.
-
I don't think I've ever seen a group of "average Somalis" without some of them being armed. The result of 50 years of civil war and anarchy. I bet most if not all Somali fishing boats have weapons on board.
-
I don't think I've ever seen a group of "average Somalis" without some of them being armed. The result of 50 years of civil war and anarchy. I bet most if not all Somali fishing boats have weapons on board.
A run-of-the-mill AK-47 is extremely different than an RPG-7. Have you been to Somalia? You know the above as FACT?
-
I bet most if not all Somali fishing boats have weapons on board.
That wasn't a fishing vessel, there was like 10 of them in a small boat, that had an even smaller fast boat next to it, armed to the teeth with RPG's & automatic weapons, thats your standard pirate boat, like I said earlier, what should they do, wait until they attack a boat before they take any action?
With all the pirates that have been out in the waters off Somalia lately what else would a group of men be doing out there looking exactly like they themselves are pirates. There's an old saying, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
-
That wasn't a fishing vessel, there was like 10 of them in a small boat, that had an even smaller fast boat next to it, armed to the teeth with RPG's & automatic weapons, thats your standard pirate boat, like I said earlier, what should they do, wait until they attack a boat before they take any action?
The obvious answer is yes. How hard can it be for a modern navy to keep an eye on suspected pirate vessels and take action when they make a move?
With all the pirates that have been out in the waters off Somalia lately what else would a group of men be doing out there looking exactly like they themselves are pirates. There's an old saying, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
Do you wish U.S. Law was practiced like that? If you look like a criminal you are a criminal?
-
A run-of-the-mill AK-47 is extremely different than an RPG-7. Have you been to Somalia? You know the above as FACT?
No I've never been to Somalia. Have you?
I know for a FACT that I don't think I've ever seen a group of "average Somalis" without some of them being armed. I bet most if not all Somali fishing boats have weapons on board.
-
While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.
I don't believe you know the definition of piracy and so have come to a faulty conclusion.
Article 101 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) defines an act of ship-based piracy as consisting of acts of violence or detention, or an act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew of a private ship directed against another ship on the high seas, or outside the jurisdiction of any State. Piracy also extends to the operation of a pirate ship which is a ship used by persons for the purposes of committing pirate acts. This general definition of piracy is consistent with the common expression that a pirate is hostis humani generis: an enemy of all mankind. However, by limiting the definition to acts committed for ‘private ends’ any actions taken for political motives are excluded.
-
See Rule #2
-
No the conclusion stands. The people were not caught in an act of piracy and there is no evidence either of the two boats have been used "for the purposes of committing pirate acts".
The whole point is that anyone has the right to sail in international waters, no matter how many guns they have on board. As long as they don't actually commit acts of piracy there can be no justifiable reason to attack them, steal their property and sink their vessels.
-
See Rule #2
-
The obvious answer is yes. How hard can it be for a modern navy to keep an eye on suspected pirate vessels and take action when they make a move?
Yeah that's what they need to do, put a ship on every pirate boat they come across and just watch them.
There's no legal reason to be in the kind of boats they were in with that kind of armaments on board.
-
See Rules #2, #4
-
Yeah that's what they need to do, put a ship on every pirate boat they come across and just watch them.
Your knowledge of the surveillance capabilities of modern navies seems a bit... limited.
There's no legal reason to be in the kind of boats they were in with that kind of armaments on board.
That's just bull. Do you support "gun control" in America as well, or just in international waters?
-
See Rule #2
-
Your knowledge of the surveillance capabilities of modern navies seems a bit... limited.
That's just bull. Do you support "gun control" in America as well, or just in international waters?
Yeah thats a good allocation of navel resources, lets watch these guys who we know are pirates and do nothing until they actually attack someone, and maybe even kill a person, that definitely sounds like the better way to go.
And as for gun control, yeah 10 guys on a tiny boat off the coast of Somalia armed with RPG's, yeah there not up to anything illegal, so hey they can arm themselves with what ever they want, but when you dress yourself up like a pirate off the coast of Somalia in this day & age don't be shocked when your treated like a pirate.
-
No the conclusion stands. The people were not caught in an act of piracy and there is no evidence either of the two boats have been used "for the purposes of committing pirate acts".
The whole point is that anyone has the right to sail in international waters, no matter how many guns they have on board. As long as they don't actually commit acts of piracy there can be no justifiable reason to attack them, steal their property and sink their vessels.
Hmm, doesn't know the definition of piracy, has never visited the area, was not present at the scene of the incident... I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about will not concede they don't know what they are talking about. Here ya go, take care of those bad Royal Navy pirates, maybe you can get a reality show on the Discovery Channel or FX or something... :lol (Sry, I can't resist a funny picture)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm162/jonjdoe/cap6.jpg)
-
A small, fast craft tethered to a larger boat, in addition to the crew armed with rpg's and machine guns is enough evidence to suggest they were indeed pirates, I can't claim i saw any fishing nets in the video either.
Diehard, piracy isn't an easy thing to combat with such few ships available, somalia has a coastline of 2000 miles, with attacks occuring up to 300 miles offshore.
-
A small, fast craft tethered to a larger boat in addition to the crew armed with rpg's and machine guns is enough evidence to suggest they were indeed pirates, I can't claim i saw any fishing nets in the video either.
Diehard, piracy isn't an easy thing to combat with such few ships, somalia has a coastline of 2000 miles, with attacks occuring up to 300 miles offshore.
Exactly, piracy's not the type of thing you want to adopt a wait & see attitude with.
-
Hmm, doesn't know the definition of piracy, has never visited the area, was not present at the scene of the incident... I love it when people who have no idea what they are talking about will not concede they don't know what they are talking about. Here ya go, take care of those bad Royal Navy pirates, maybe you can get a reality show on the Discovery Channel or FX or something... :lol (Sry, I can't resist a funny picture)
(http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm162/jonjdoe/cap6.jpg)
Exactly!
-
Do you wish U.S. Law was practiced like that? If you look like a criminal you are a criminal?
You know it wouldn't be too hard to come up with examples showing that's exactly how US law (or at least law enforcement) works.
-
No I've never been to Somalia. Have you?
Actually, yes.
And there really is a BIG difference between an AK47 armed Somali (pretty much all of em) and an RPG armed Somali. RPGs aren't cheap ya know, you take one of those out then you mean to use it.
And as for waiting for them to attack, do you really think a Somali pirate boat is going to do anything silly with a Royal Navy destroyer parked 800 yards off their stern displaying a sign that says "We're watching you pal."? Somali's might not be as sophisticated as us westerners but they're not stupid.
In this particular case there was a big, slow mothership with a small, fast skiff in tow and the crew were armed with small arms and high explosive projectile weapons. If they're not pirates then my name is Angus McTavish and I wrestle polar bears for a living.
As for the legality......dunno what law in your part of the world says but in this country you can be arrested for "going equipped" to commit a crime. For example, if you're discovered outside a bank at 3am with a crowbar and a ski-mask you're getting nicked chummy.
-
These guys are lucky that the Brits don't string pirates up from the yardarm anymore.
ack-ack
-
http://www.southparkstudios.com/crap/downloads/sounds.php
-
See Rule #4
-
Unfortunately you lost your argument long ago.
Royal Navy: 1 Die Hard: 0
-
To suggest they were pirates... I don't think that's enough of a reason to confiscate and destroy someone's property. What the RN did in this incident was an act of war against Somalia; not a big deal these days when might makes right and "justice" is delivered at the tip of a cruise missile or bomb, I know.
I didn't make myself properly understood, there was enough evidence to suggest they were pirates, hence the boarding. Consequently the crew on board were confirmed to be pirates. You are misguided if you believe the Royal Navy confiscates property and destroys boats on a whim. Why you are attempting to defend the indefensible is beyond me.
From the Royal Navy:
In co-ordination with a Spanish maritime patrol aircraft, HMS Portland's crew identified, pursued and subsequently conducted a boarding of the suspicious vessels. They found articles that indicated the skiffs had been involved in or were about to conduct an act of piracy, and were clearly not those of innocent fishing vessels.
The skiffs, with ten people aboard, were equipped with extra barrels of fuel, grappling hooks and a cache of weapons that included rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and ammunition.
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-23-frigates/hms-portland/news/hms-portland-intercepts-and-disarms-pirates/*/changeNav/6568 (http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-23-frigates/hms-portland/news/hms-portland-intercepts-and-disarms-pirates/*/changeNav/6568)
-
What the RN did in this incident was an act of war against Somalia.
Alright then.
In that case what is it when a Somali boat attacks, boards, captures and ransoms a British merchant vessel? Would that be an act of war as well?
If so.....well then they started it so all Somali boats are fair game whether they're fishing or not.
-
In co-ordination with a Spanish maritime patrol aircraft, HMS Portland's crew identified, pursued and subsequently conducted a boarding of the suspicious vessels. They found articles that indicated the skiffs had been involved in or were about to conduct an act of piracy, and were clearly not those of innocent fishing vessels.
The skiffs, with ten people aboard, were equipped with extra barrels of fuel, grappling hooks and a cache of weapons that included rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and ammunition.
Well thats just not enough evidence that they were pirates for Die Hard, who knows they might have just been some Somalia fishermen who like to fish with RPG's & grappling hooks, sometimes you need all that firepower to fish with.
-
The skiffs, with ten people aboard, were equipped with extra barrels of fuel, grappling hooks and a cache of weapons that included rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and ammunition.
Sir, that proves nothing. They could not possibly have been pirates because they were not flying the Jolly Rogers, did not have an eye patch, peg leg, nor a parrot. It was not reported whether they said arrrgh or not.
-
Folks, dh is just trolling and he's hooked a line full here. Just ignore him and he will go away. Perhaps dh can go there himself on his own little boat and then report on his travels. Hopefully it won't be a swift return.
Kudo's to the RN there and I hope they have further success in ridding the water way's of pirates.
-
Sir, that proves nothing. They could not possibly have been pirates because they were not flying the Jolly Rogers, did not have an eye patch, peg leg, nor a parrot. It was not reported whether they said arrrgh or not.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I cannot believe anyone here is actually sticking up for these guys. :huh
Lets just wait and let them attack/kidnap/kill before we capture them and destroy their weapons and equipment. :rolleyes:
If a man walks into a bank with a ski mask, duffel bag and sawed off shotgun, he's not there to make a deposit.
The only thing I do not understand is why they got them off the boat before pounding it.
-
also you do not know what type of intelligence was passed onto the royal navy
-
also you do not know what type of intelligence was passed onto the royal navy
Die Hard does, he was there filming a Documentary on "Somalian Culture and the availability of Weapons."
-
:rock
Leave it to the British and the Royal Navy to best know how to deal with the pirates and get the job done.
:salute
As for the idea that the Brits commited piracy themselves... sure... ok... but, which third-world government is stupid enough to declare that and defend the pirates as their own? Doing so would expose that government to paying reparations and potential military counter-actions, and there aren't many countries left in this world today that are that stupid.
-
So your "average Somali" goes around the Indian Ocean with RPG's? Stop being the BBS Devil's Advocate, you're sounding like Lasersailor right now and have for a while.
Maybe Die Hard's just pissed he won't get his deposit back on that boat :D
-
Maybe Die Hard's just pissed he won't get his deposit back on that boat :D
:rofl
-
While there can be little doubt that these Somalis were not out fishing, what the RN have done here is itself an act of piracy; they've boarded a foreign vessel and robbed the occupants of their weapons and sunk one of their boats. It sets a dangerous precedent if navy ships can just board and "confiscate" weapons in international waters without any actual proof that they were pirates or had done anything illegal.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
So how much maritime law do you know? Proper conduct and policies on the sea's have been evolving for centuries and proper conduct specific to suspected piracy is well established. The problem is that most piracy laws date back to the 16th century and have no clear modern equivalent since the problem was dealt with in the 19th century for the most part. The US position is clear since its specifically covered in the constitution however international law gives any nation (or citizen for that matter) the legal right and authority to deal with piracy in international waters. A ships captain would be within his authority to catch and execute a pirate or pirates. Admiralty law specifically identifies piracy as treason and empowers summary execution at the Captains discretion....
So the royal navy had every right to board and inspect the vessel in question, if for any reason such a request is denied or the captain has reason to believe the vessel is in fact a pirate ship he is not only "allowed" to fire it up, he's obligated to under admiralty law.
-
I'm afraid both you and British Admiralty Law are outdated with regard to international law. Under customary international law, pirates were considered "hostis humani generis" or "the enemy of mankind" and any country could arrest and try them under their jurisdiction. The modern international law governing piracy is the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, and its successor, the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). UNCLOS defines piracy as:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).
The same acts, when committed inside the territorial waters of a country, do not fall under the definition of piracy, but are simply considered "sea robbery" under international law, and are dealt with by the laws of that country. Domestic laws seldom permit a vessel or warship from another country to intervene. Illegal acts committed for political rather than private ends also fall outside the international law definition of piracy.
Under UNCLOS, all signatory countries are required to cooperate to the fullest possible extent in the repression of piracy on the high seas. Any country may seize a pirate ship or a ship taken by pirates, arrest the pirates, and that country's courts are entitled to decide on the penalties to be imposed. However, UNCLOS does not apply to sea robbery taking place within the territorial waters of a country, meaning that any rights and obligations it imposes are useless outside of the high seas. Most piracy this year, particularly that taking place off the coast of Somalia, has occurred inside territorial waters and is not covered by UNCLOS. This has left the victims of Somali piracy in a perilous situation, with no grounds to intervene under international law, and given the political climate in Somalia, no enforceable domestic laws to assist them.
To legally intervene against a ship on grounds of piracy the ship in question must have committed an act of piracy. Cruising around with a boatload of guns and rockets is not illegal, nor is it an act of piracy under international law - no matter how suspicious. What HMS Portland did was an illegal seizure and destruction of a privately owned Somali boat in addition to the illegal confiscation of cargo (weapons).
Disregarding the kindergarten antics this has been an interesting thread, but I think it has run its course.
-
What HMS Portland did was an illegal seizure and destruction of a privately owned Somali boat in addition to the illegal confiscation of cargo (weapons).
and I'd happily buy any of her crew a beer while watching you walk the plank.
I get the feeling 200 years ago you would've been the 'cabin boy'.
-
More kindergarten antics. Nice.
-
Sorry but your CLUELESS on this. Any naval vessel can and will reserve the right to board and inspect a suspicious vessel both in territorial waters and on the high sea's. HMS Portland was acting in an anti piracy patrol function (along with the French, US, Indian and other nations) and acting exactly in accordance with international policies on piracy. UNCLOS in no way precludes any nation from safeguarding its legitimate interests in maritime matters. Under the circumastances the actions of the Portland were prudent and reasonable...
-
Cite the law.
UNCLOS supersedes any and all customary and older international laws. The United Kingdom is a signatory nation.
-
Article 106 of UNCLOS
"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:
Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure."
Britain signed this.
-
Article 110 of UNCLOS
"
Right of visit:
1. Except where acts of interference derive from powers conferred by
treaty, a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than
a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96,
is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy;
(b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade;
(c) the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag
State of the warship has jurisdiction under article 109;
(d) the ship is without nationality; or
(e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship
is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship.
2. In the cases provided for in paragraph 1, the warship may proceed
to verify the ship's right to fly its flag. To this end, it may send a boat under
the command of an officer to the suspected ship. If suspicion remains after
the documents have been checked, it may proceed to a further examination on
board the ship, which must be carried out with all possible consideration.
3. If the suspicions prove to be unfounded, and provided that the ship
boarded has not committed any act justifying them, it shall be compensated
for any loss or damage that may have been sustained.
4. These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to military aircraft.
5. These provisions also apply to any other duly authorized ships or
aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service."
Britain signed this.
-
"The warships patrolling the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean are doing so under the legal framework of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and Security Council resolutions. "
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-08-voa67.cfm
-
I watched the video. I think they need to practice their aim. :uhoh
-
Article 106 of UNCLOS
"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:
Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds,....
And so far it's you plus a couple of somali hobo's versus the rest of the world on the 'without adequate grounds'.
-
The UN defines a pirates ship as:
Article103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.
A pirate vessel does not need to have attacked another boat/ship to be considered a pirate vessel.
Diehard, have you even read the articles you are quoting? You are cherry picking words (highlighting) which are irrelevant in the context the article and other articles regarding piracy.
Article 110:
"a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than
a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96,
is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy"
- there were reasonable grounds for suspecting piracy- 1 large boat tethered to 1 small, fast boat is the standard MO for piracy in this region.
Article 106:
Article 106 of UNCLOS
"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:
Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure."
- There were adequate grounds for seizure- in the very least they found ak47's, rpg's, grappling hooks and extra fuel. Not your standard fishing items, they are however your standard items for commiting piracy.
-
I watched the video. I think they need to practice their aim. :uhoh
No doubt Fink, we woulda vulched em if that was a CV. :uhoh
-
And so far it's you plus a couple of somali hobo's versus the rest of the world on the 'without adequate grounds'.
The rest of the world is perhaps a bit of an exaggeration; in legal circles there are people who are concerned with the increasing tendency of government and "international" organizations to act above the law. Like I said earlier, I don't care what happened to the suspected pirates.
The UN defines a pirates ship as:
Article103
Definition of a pirate ship or aircraft
A ship or aircraft is considered a pirate ship or aircraft if it is intended by the persons in dominant control to be used for the purpose of committing one of the acts referred to in article 101. The same applies if the ship or aircraft has been used to commit any such act, so long as it remains under the control of the persons guilty of that act.
A pirate vessel does not need to have attacked another boat/ship to be considered a pirate vessel.
You'd have to prove that the persons involved intended to commit piracy; which is nearly impossible when the waters are patrolled by gun-toting militia protecting Somali waters from waste dumping and illegal fishing. The same equipment used for piracy is used for legal purposes by the militia.
"Without a coast guard to monitor and prevent such illegal activities, Somali fishermen began organizing and arming themselves to confront waste dumpers and to collect fees from foreign vessels taking fish out of their waters. Middleton says what began as a legitimate fight against foreign exploitation turned into a criminal enterprise when everyone discovered its lucrative potential."
If the Portland could prove intent they would have arrested the suspected pirates. However they couldn't, so they just robbed them instead.
Diehard, have you even read the articles you are quoting? You are cherry picking words (highlighting) which are irrelevant in the context the article and other articles regarding piracy.
Article 110:
"a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship, other than
a ship entitled to complete immunity in accordance with articles 95 and 96,
is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting
that:
(a) the ship is engaged in piracy"
- there were reasonable grounds for suspecting piracy- 1 large boat tethered to 1 small, fast boat is the standard MO for piracy in this region.
Article 106:
Article 106 of UNCLOS
"Liability for seizure without adequate grounds:
Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure."
- There were adequate grounds for seizure- in the very least they found ak47's, rpg's, grappling hooks and extra fuel. Not your standard fishing items, they are however your standard items for commiting piracy.
First of all you need to understand the law; article 110 specifically addresses the "right of visit", or in other words the right to inspect a suspicious vessel. Article 106 however specifically addresses the "liability for seizure without adequate grounds", or in other words the right to confiscate their property. The two articles are completely independent and the right to visit does not automatically grant the right of seizing their property. Under article 110 HMS Portland was fully justified in inspecting the Somali vessels. However since the Somalis did not qualify under the UNCLOS definition of piracy, HMS Portland was not justified in seizing the weapons and boat.
As a British official put it: “We can only arrest suspected pirates if we catch them in the act or on the point of launching an attack on a vessel. Clearly, with all the weaponry in the skiffs, there was an intent to commit piracy, but we hadn’t actually caught them in the middle of an attack so we had to release them.”
The HMS Portland did not have grounds to arrest the Somalis, and if there are no grounds for arrest there are certainly no grounds for other punitive measures.
-
DieHard you are a pirate, you should be tried for piracy.
-
DieHard you are a pirate, you should be tried for piracy.
Prove it. That's how justice works in civilized countries. Or rather should work...
-
We don't know for sure that they were pirates, and that's the point. For instance they could simply be Somali militiamen out paroling; unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Should the RN (and other navies) really have the power to board foreign vessels, "confiscate" any weapons they find, and sink some or all of them just on the suspicion of piracy? Is that really the power we want to give, say the Iranian navy? Or the Chinese navy?
Here's the problem: If the RN didn't have enough evidence to actually arrest them (and the article said they didn't) how can they be justified in confiscating and destroying their property? If the cops can't prove you were speeding, should they be allowed to just confiscate any legal weapons you have and set fire to your car? Is it OK as long as they give you cab money to get home?
I don't give a flying twittle about the Somali pirates; I hope they capsized and drowned on the way home. However I do care a great deal about the abuse of power by, and unaccountability of armed government agencies, in this case the Royal Navy.
You're real good at assuming te worst. Know this: the RN, USN, or any other legit navy in this world wants to do what they just did without reason, proof, and diplomatic approval. I'd be willing to bet the UK had the USN and the French Navy, and any other legit naval forces in the area on the horn as well. The RN simply didnt fire to have fun.
There is far more to this story than you can comprehend.
-
Hmm. Does an AK-47 get you fish? Skipping the fishing gear and carrying arms somehow smells of a ... wannabe-a-pirate. And bopping around the descendants of Francis Drake is bound to end....badly.
WTG RN :aok
-
Royal Navy: 1
Die Hard and His Pirates: 0
-
Where the seizure of a ship or aircraft on suspicion of piracy has been
effected without adequate grounds, the State making the seizure shall be
liable to the State the nationality of which is possessed by the ship or aircraft
for any loss or damage caused by the seizure."
Again, ok.
When we get the bill sent over from the Somali state authorities we'll pay up.
I reckon we'll be waiting for a while.
-
Sure they weren't launching an attack or attacking but I'm pretty sure that most of those weapons would have to be accounted for in some way thus there would be legitimate paper work for those "fishermilitia???men" to carry the weapons on board such a fine vessel. ( maybe they used this arsenal to give them free birthing rights in ports around the world )If not as the case would be/is then the RN had every right to board for a search confiscate illegal weapons and the craft used to transport them. Those Somali's should be thankful they were left with something to get home in.
-
The action was entirely legal and consistent with both current and historical maritime protocol. UNCLOS in no way prohibits any nation from protecting its sovereign interests.
-
Again, ok.
When we get the bill sent over from the Somali state authorities we'll pay up.
I reckon we'll be waiting for a while.
Yeah, the lawlessness of Somalia protects the RN as much as it does the pirates in this case.
Sure they weren't launching an attack or attacking but I'm pretty sure that most of those weapons would have to be accounted for in some way thus there would be legitimate paper work for those "fishermilitia???men" to carry the weapons on board such a fine vessel. ( maybe they used this arsenal to give them free birthing rights in ports around the world )If not as the case would be/is then the RN had every right to board for a search confiscate illegal weapons and the craft used to transport them. Those Somali's should be thankful they were left with something to get home in.
First, legitimate paperwork in Somalia? lol
Second, I doubt very much there are any Somali laws on gun ownership and the only law applicable aboard Somali vessels is Somali law.
Third, the RN does not have the right to confiscate any weapons aboard a foreign vessel that has not done anything illegal.
The action was entirely legal and consistent with both current and historical maritime protocol. UNCLOS in no way prohibits any nation from protecting its sovereign interests.
What a wonderfully vague statement. Cite the law.
-
Third, the RN does not have the right to confiscate any weapons aboard a foreign vessel that has not done anything illegal.
I don't believe they confiscated them, as far as I know said weapons are awaiting to be collected - at the bottom of the indian ocean.
If somalia is lawless then how can the RN have violated any somali laws?
-
RN violated international law. UNCLOS to be specific. Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom ratified UNCLOS (altough the U.S. does recognize it as a codification of customary international law). By ratification the British incorporated UNCLOS into their own legal framework, in effect turning it into U.K. Law.
-
[quote
First, legitimate paperwork in Somalia? lol
Second, I doubt very much there are any Somali laws on gun ownership and the only law applicable aboard Somali vessels is Somali law.
Third, the RN does not have the right to confiscate any weapons aboard a foreign vessel that has not done anything illegal.
.
[/quote]
All weapons are accounted for in some form, right from manufacture. They don't just hand them out. So at some stage these were stolen and if not then even in a place where you LOL at the thought of legitimate paper work would have some form of accountability..(somebody knows where they came from) This being said the vessels holding these weapons should have some form of identification or at the least the ability to produce /confirm the legitimacy. Even you would carry a license for a gun if you had one and if you didn't and were found to be in possession of one do you think the authorities will say oh well you can keep it, we trust you.
-
RN violated international law. UNCLOS to be specific. Unlike the United States, the United Kingdom ratified UNCLOS (altough the U.S. does recognize it as a codification of customary international law). By ratification the British incorporated UNCLOS into their own legal framework, in effect turning it into U.K. Law.
So did somalia ratify it?
-
Die hard i can understand why you think this will set a dangerous precident for the future of shipping. But really it was a very small boat. I think the Somalis are happy to have their lives.
-
All weapons are accounted for in some form, right from manufacture. They don't just hand them out. So at some stage these were stolen and if not then even in a place where you LOL at the thought of legitimate paper work would have some form of accountability..(somebody knows where they came from) This being said the vessels holding these weapons should have some form of identification or at the least the ability to produce /confirm the legitimacy. Even you would carry a license for a gun if you had one and if you didn't and were found to be in possession of one do you think the authorities will say oh well you can keep it, we trust you.
That's incredibly naive; do you actually believe there is paperwork involved in the African arms trade? Russian/Chinese manufacturers sell AK's to African/international arms dealers with paperwork - African/international arms dealers sells them to whomever they squealing like, no paperwork required. Most of those guns were probably sold on the streets of Mogadishu and have had many previous owners; most of whom are now dead. And just for your information I own many guns and can carry them (openly), no license required.
So did somalia ratify it?
Yes, on 24 July 1989. http://www.un.org/Depts/los/reference_files/chronological_lists_of_ratifications.htm
Die hard i can understand why you think this will set a dangerous precident for the future of shipping. But really it was a very small boat. I think the Somalis are happy to have their lives.
Unquestionably. However the size of the boat and the happiness of the Somalis are irrelevant to the legal precedent it set.
-
Diehard, it the Royal Navy was within it's right to seize the weapons and boat because there were reasonable grounds to suspect it's use was for piracy. The RN is not required to prove intent was for use of piracy, only to have reasonable grounds to suspect that is the case. Where are you getting this info that somli militia are equiped with motherboats & skiffs, machine guns, rpg's, extra fuel and grappling hooks. That is what has bene released by the media, we don't know what other evidence was to suggest they were pirates. The pirates weren't arrested because the RN could not link them to a specific incident.
You even quoted an british official stating - "As a British official put it: “We can only arrest suspected pirates if we catch them in the act or on the point of launching an attack on a vessel. Clearly, with all the weaponry in the skiffs, there was an intent to commit piracy, but we hadn’t actually caught them in the middle of an attack so we had to release them.”
Un security council resolution 1851 states-
“2. Calls upon States, regional and international organizations that have the capacity to do so, to take part actively in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, in particular, consistent with this resolution, resolution 1846 (2008), and international law, by deploying naval vessels and military aircraft and through seizure and disposition of boats, vessels, arms and other related equipment used in the commission of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, or for which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting such use;
Solid, irrefutable proof is not required.
-
I'll have to check that U.N. resolution. If the U.N. have decreed special dispensations the action could very well have been legal and prove me an ass.
-
Yep, there it is:
"The Council affirmed that the authorization provided in the resolution applied only to the situation in Somalia and did not affect the rights or obligations or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with respect to any other situation. It underscored that the resolution did not establish customary international law."
A special dispensation from the law.
I'm an ass.
-
so now just worry about who makes the laws, or has the right to change them situationaly. :noid
-
That's not nearly as worrying as law enforcement/military personnel breaking the law and nobody cares (which apparently was not the case, this time). Under unusual or critical circumstances any government can issue special temporary dispensations from the law. In this case the U.N. did. As long as the decision is made by a lawful representative government or in this case the representatives of several lawful governments, there is little to worry about.
-
Just wondering DieHard, - what would you prefer as an option when your merchant vessel, with , - say you as the ship's cook, - gets approached by a fast and small boat, loaded with some goofs carrying SMG's, grenades and AK-47's?
Once upon a time I was a ship's cook. I think I'd be happy for the RN around.
I just miss the point of defending those rubber-boat bandits for their well armed and successful dallying on an international shipping route. Sorry :t
-
Not only is your hypothetical question is so loaded that it's absurd, it is also a completely different situation than what is being discussed here.
I was defending the law not those that break it. Many people in this thread displayed opinions that unfortunately are becoming prevalent; that it is ok for law enforcement and the military to take liberties with the law. I was wrong about the RN in this case, but people here defended the actions of the RN regardless of legality. That's worrying.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HK78KBvH0wg
I hope some of you guys get to meet cops like those. That would be poetic.
-
DieHard, you are proving to us that you are a somali pirate. nuff said
-
......As long as the decision is made by a lawful representative government or in this case the representatives of several lawful governments, there is little to worry about.
Actualy I'm still rather worried about how bad our aim was. looked like about 10% hit ratio with both guns combined.
-
Actualy I'm still rather worried about how bad our aim was. looked like about 10% hit ratio with both guns combined.
They need more practice :noid
-
Looked to me like the media took liberties in editing that clip. Notice the scene switches from him shuffling around, female officer has her arm resting on the car window, to she out of the car, hand on her hip, and her partner is coming around the car at the alleged victim.
What transpired in the missing time frame? What did he do to escalate the situation? Make verbal threats, make threatening gestures?
You appear to me to be someone who says he is defending "the law", as a cover for his dislike or hatred for anyone in authority, especially police or military personnel.
You want someone or something to point your finger at and squeak about.
Had the RN done nothing and those Somalis been involved in a hijacking or attempted hijacking, you would have been critical of that too. "They should have done something, they were on their boat. Didn't they see the weapons? How stupid are they?" would have been a typical response from you.
I understand that in desperate times, people do desperate things. Throwing in with "pirates" is such an act.
But you have to face the consequences for your actions. These walking rectums have been preying upon unarmed vessels. In short, they only attack the weak......making them bullies in my eyes.
Name ONE reason they would or should be in international waters armed the way they were. They weren't fishermen. You can't use the "patrolling Somali waters" line cause of where they were and there's been no protest from the Somali government about "militia" or whatever they call their navy being disarmed and their vessel sunk.
If walks like a duck, quacks like a duck....it probably IS a duck. These guys fit the typical Somali pirate profile. Intervention by the RN probably DID prevent these losers from carrying out an attack on an UNARMED vessel, and they did it without any loss of life.
Actually, I still stick with my initial thoughts: Rather than let them return to their mother vessel with information about operational tactics, the RN should have turned them into fish food and let the world think they were just lost at sea.
-
Why are you guys arguing with lasersailor?
-
Looked to me like the media took liberties in editing that clip. Notice the scene switches from him shuffling around, female officer has her arm resting on the car window, to she out of the car, hand on her hip, and her partner is coming around the car at the alleged victim.
What transpired in the missing time frame? What did he do to escalate the situation? Make verbal threats, make threatening gestures?
Then why didn't you just look at the whole unedited clip on youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbRVTfzQ0IQ
The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.
-
Here's another good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYqOBKC7Gqw
Equality before the Law is a prime requirement for everyone to be safe.
-
That's incredibly naive; do you actually believe there is paperwork involved in the African arms trade? Russian/Chinese manufacturers sell AK's to African/international arms dealers with paperwork - African/international arms dealers sells them to whomever they squealing like, no paperwork required. Most of those guns were probably sold on the streets of Mogadishu and have had many previous owners; most of whom are now dead. And just for your information I own many guns and can carry them (openly), no license required.
yes exactly which would make these weapons..... what?....oh illegal
-
yes exactly which would make these weapons..... what?....oh illegal
By what law? Are you saying my guns are illegal? :huh
-
The point is that off the coast of Somalia there is a major problem with piracy atm, certain steps are required to take action against these pirates, you really can't afford to take a wait & see attitude with these people, preventative actions are required. If you wait to do anything until after an attack has taken place it might be to late to prevent peoples deaths, they tend to use RPG's to fire at these vessels and theres a good chance a person can get killed by them.
Like I stated in a previous post, if you dress up like a pirate in these waters don't be surprised when you get treated as one, and I don't think you can really say that these guys didn't look exactly like pirates, they had all the same equipment that pirates use to attack & board ships.
-
By what law? Are you saying my guns are illegal? :huh
Using your possession of weapons was as an example. your laws are different to mine in that way. Saying that though you didn't go down the road and buy it off the guy at the crossing. It would have been bought through a registered sales agent who would have at the least taken your name and the serial number I would hope.
My point was that if these guys or any for that matter can't come up a reason for why they have them and where they come from then they should not have them. You do need to remember some of these aren't your run of the mill hand gun.
Plus I'm just sticking my nose in for a laugh. Have your opinion I'm not fussed either way. To be honest, with my use of such little words and short sentences I am feeling really quite privileged at the attention you are paying to my posts.
-
Using your possession of weapons was as an example. your laws are different to mine in that way. Saying that though you didn't go down the road and buy it off the guy at the crossing. It would have been bought through a registered sales agent who would have at the least taken your name and the serial number I would hope.
What? No. My firearms' serial numbers are not registered anywhere and no one wrote down my name in any register. Furthermore most of my guns are bought privately, from private persons, not gun dealers. Completely legal. I don't know why you keep commenting when you obviously know nothing about our gun laws.
My point was that if these guys or any for that matter can't come up a reason for why they have them and where they come from then they should not have them.
So you you should not be allowed to have anything unless you really need it? Who are you to tell the Somalis what they can and can't have in their own country?
You do need to remember some of these aren't your run of the mill hand gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f7wTMnWbqQ
That's America, not Somalia. Most of what the Somalis have you'll find in private ownership in America.
Plus I'm just sticking my nose in for a laugh. Have your opinion I'm not fussed either way. To be honest, with my use of such little words and short sentences I am feeling really quite privileged at the attention you are paying to my posts.
So you're just trolling?
-
So you're just trolling?
Irony.
-
What? No. My firearms' serial numbers are not registered anywhere and no one wrote down my name in any register. Furthermore most of my guns are bought privately, from private persons, not gun dealers. Completely legal. I don't know why you keep commenting when you obviously know nothing about our gun laws.
Then you are most likely breaking your state and local laws concerning gun registration since most states require rifles and handguns to be registered whether they are purchased privately or through a dealer. The only way you would be able to purchase an automatic firing weapon legally would be to have the proper class permits and purchase it through a properly licensed dealer. You will never be able to purchase functional rocket propelled grenades or other military grade weapons privately.
So you're just trolling?
Pot calling the kettle black. You sure live up to your CPID, I will give you that. Doesn't sound like you are convincing too many people though. It's a good thing to live in a country where people are able to express erroneous, naive opinions over and over again, huh? Let it go or buy Shreck's CPID from him.
:rock on Royal Marines.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state))
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)
You're citing Wiki? :rofl
-
Yeah, got a pretty good list of gun laws by state.
-
Just a minor point for people not in the know:
Attacks by pirates aren't happening "off the coast of Somalia". Right now, no-one in their right mind would sail off the coast of Somalia. Attacks are happening from the straights of Aden, right down the east African coast and as far east as the Seychelle Isles.
Oh and before some smart alec points out that the southern land border of the gulf of Aden is Somalia.....no it isn't. Northern Somalia is not Somalia, it's Somaliland. And it's far, far more peaceful and civilized than the rest of Somalia, in fact it's even got government......however, the UN doesn't recognise Somaliland as a separate state to Somalia so it shows as Somalia on most maps.
-
hmmmm.
Not so much trolling as had enough. No matter what is said if you don't agree you will incessantly dissect a quote and reply to each detail and we end up getting nowhere. There are other more amusing things on this board to have a laugh at and help keep myself happy and healthy.
-
Regardless if they had AK-47's or other automatic weapons, they had military grade weapons like RPG's, the only reasons they would all be crammed onto a small boat, along with a smaller fast boat and be in possession of RPG's would be they're looking to attack another vessel. The nail in the head is the grappling hooks they had. It's quite obvious to a normal thinking person that they were out there looking for a ship to attack.
So Die Hard, you think that the reasonable thing to have done was just let them go on their marry way and wait until they actually attacked a ship before any action was taken?
-
So Die Hard, you think that the reasonable thing to have done was just let them go on their marry way and wait until they actually attacked a ship before any action was taken?
Already been answered, if you can be bothered to read the thread.
-
On a related note, in a documentary screened in the UK on sunday, film was shown of a RN vessel which just happened across a skiff which had broken free of it's mooring to a captured oil tanker. On the skiff were clothes, money, food, RPGs and the obligitary AK-47s. It was clear the skiff was never meant to be cast adrift, the biggest sign being the frayed rope dragging along behind.
Equipment found in the skiff was left for the Somali's to collect, if they can hold their breath long enough, and the skiff itself sunk as a drifting vessel would be a "danger to shipping in the area".
-
The best part being that anyone who found that drifting weapons cache could have claimed salvage rights on the boat and, i assume, the contents.
"If they can hold their breath long enough" :lol
-
Already been answered, if you can be bothered to read the thread.
Are you kidding, the thread is 105 posts & 7 pages long, I'm not gonna sit there and read the whole thing.
-
Why join a debate so far advanced if you're unwilling to catch up?
-
I"m not gonna spend all day reading an entire thread, if it was just a page or 2 I would, but not when it's 7.
Maybe you have enough free time on your hand to read ever post in a thread that you post in, but I don't.
-
I think Die Hard made a very thoughtfull and concered post on the subject.....
It took 5 pages of Personal attack against him before it was cleared up with one post.....
A lot of you have statments that are nothing more that personal attacks.spewed out of raw emotion.
Whether it was a legal action taken by the RN was the point of the post ... Not whether we think we are right ,or have enough of an emotion to say ..........."Ya looks like pirats nuke um".....
<S>
-
How about getting real.
The fact goes that somali pirates, armed as well as they can, have been boarding and capturing ships from various nations while cruising through.
Any error there? Don't think so.
Second fact. Some Pirates have been caugh en-route/in/after the act.
En-route would mean some guys with nothing but guns&ammo at sea. And there is nothing to catch there for that gear.
I see no error there.
So, why on god's green earth is there anything wrong with:
1: Escort business. Just what the RN did. Nobody dies. Some goofs with arms caught, boat blown up as a bonus. Period.
2: Rescue business. What the Americans did. Oii, kidnap a captain of a merchant vessel of earth's military power no1 and think it's just fine....it isn't. And it isn't just fine anyway!!!! Make your day ...just that way.
Again. WTG RN :aok
-
I think Die Hard made a very thoughtfull and concered post on the subject.....
It took 5 pages of Personal attack against him before it was cleared up with one post.....
A lot of you have statments that are nothing more that personal attacks.spewed out of raw emotion.
Whether it was a legal action taken by the RN was the point of the post ... Not whether we think we are right ,or have enough of an emotion to say ..........."Ya looks like pirats nuke um".....
<S>
At least one got it! :)
<S>
-
Where is that clear-up post?
-
Page 6.
-
T'was a good page.
Anyway, regarding the "law", sometimes the rules have to be bent a bit. We have an old saying which would translate roughly like "with law one constructs a country, with un-law lay to waste". Got a bit of double meaning though, for "un-law" could apply both to no law or bad law.
In the pirate cases happening, it seems that the law do not fix the leak, so in order to stop the pirates, those who consider the law to be on their side will have to cross the line for the fix....
-
At least one got it! :)
<S>
*COUGH* just one?
-
Ha!
here's the thing: Yep, international law may very well be grey in certain areas and yep, what the RN did could certainly be argued over in it's legality. However......
a) There is no organised government in Somalia to raise these objections.
b) They were ******* pirates.
and c) We don't give a ****.
Common sense needs to prevail, it did prevail at the time and now there's one less pirate skiff in the world.
Result.
-
*COUGH* just one?
No, at least one. ;) Hopefully many.
Your countryman above apparently didn't.
-
If you think I don't understand your point then you don't understand mine.
I get you fine, I just don't care whether it was legal or not.
-
Thank you for proving my point so clearly.
I was defending the law not those that break it. Many people in this thread displayed opinions that unfortunately are becoming prevalent; that it is ok for law enforcement and the military to take liberties with the law. I was wrong about the RN in this case, but people here defended the actions of the RN regardless of legality. That's worrying.
-
:)
Whatever dude.
Make as many supercilious comments as you like and be as "worried" as you like about people defending actions like these despite the legality, you're still not gonna convince me that the pirates got anything other than what they deserved.
-
II just don't care whether it was legal or not.
The bottom line..
Next time it may be you..but don't complain...nobody cares.
-
LOL.
I kinda doubt I'll ever be floating around the Gulf of Aden in a skiff with crate full of RPGs but ok.
-
Defending just the law. Well good luck Die Hard.
-
Thank you.
-
I get you fine, I just don't care whether it was legal or not.
:lol
Exactly my sentiments!
-
Do you like the idea of a state having unlimited liberty of action?
No?
-
They sure do. That's why Britain is what it is these days.
(http://www.travellerspoint.com/photos/16695/2007_08_05..cameras.jpg)
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070709london.jpg)
Surveillance state. Police state.
-
I'm British, of course I do!
Mate, all states have unlimited liberty of action. Treaties, international law, the UN.....it's all just paper, smoke and mirrors. Any country can do whatever it likes at any time, there will just be consequences.
The consequences, for example, of Cuba sending out privateers to harrass American shipping would, I daresay, be a carrier battle group parked outside Guantanamo Bay with orders to sink anything not flying the stars and stripes. So they don't do that.
The consequences of Britain capturing and sinking a Somali vessel strongly suspected (but not proven) of committing acts of piracy are........um.........gimme a min, I'm sure I'll think of something.
-
Nope, I can't think of anything.
-
International ridicule for having to let them go?
-
Oh yeah, there's that. :) I think we can live with that.
But then if we had taken them into custody you could say we'd kidnapped foreign nationals as well.
-
I'm British, of course I do!
Mate, all states have unlimited liberty of action. Treaties, international law, the UN.....it's all just paper, smoke and mirrors. Any country can do whatever it likes at any time, there will just be consequences.
The consequences, for example, of Cuba sending out privateers to harrass American shipping would, I daresay, be a carrier battle group parked outside Guantanamo Bay with orders to sink anything not flying the stars and stripes. So they don't do that.
The consequences of Britain capturing and sinking a Somali vessel strongly suspected (but not proven) of committing acts of piracy are........um.........gimme a min, I'm sure I'll think of something.
Lets clear up some things. The state only has the liberty of action which the governed people allow it. No people, no state.
The consequence of Britain capturing and sinking a Somalian vessel (operating under sovereignty) who is "suspected" of commiting an act of piracy, Is an advance on the disestablishment of liberty.
Today it is, I suspect you of being a pirate therefore I destroy your property. Tomorrow it is "I suspect maybe/might/could/can/would act against me therefore to the gulag you go.
-
I really doubt that what the RN did would ever lead to anything other then more pirate ships and pirates having their guns & means of travel on the sea's taken away.
Even if what they did wasn't legally right, it was morally right. It prevented the attack of another commercial ship in the area, and sent a message to other pirates in the area that the international community isn't going to put up with their actions anymore.
-
For the last time: It was legal.
-
<S> Diehard
-
<S>
-
They sure do. That's why Britain is what it is these days.
(http://www.travellerspoint.com/photos/16695/2007_08_05..cameras.jpg)
(http://nymag.com/daily/intel/20070709london.jpg)
Surveillance state. Police state.
The three young men who killed 16-year-old Ben Kinsella were today given life sentences at the Old Bailey in London.
Juress Kika, 19, Jade Braithwaite, 18, and Michael Alleyne, 20, from London, were told they would serve minimum terms of 19 years for killing Ben, the brother of the EastEnders actor Brooke Kinsella.
All three of the killers had criminal records and were described by police as "depressingly familiar characters".
After the verdicts were read out, it emerged that Kika had been on the run from police for 10 days after a robbery in which a man was stabbed.
Ben and his friends had been to a bar to celebrate the end of their GCSE exams when a row broke out in Islington, north London, on 29 June last year. Although the confrontation had nothing to do with him, Ben was chased along the street with other youngsters and stabbed to death when he stopped running.He was stabbed 11 times in five seconds by the three youths in revenge for the "disrespect" shown to Braithwaite.
"I am overjoyed," Brooke Kinsella, 25, said after the verdict. "It's awful, awful, but we got all we needed – it's justice. There is never going to be enough justice, but we have got it now."
Her mother, Deborah, 46, told the judge: "We had brought Ben up to always walk away from trouble. This sadly cost him his life ... He walked away to get safely home and they took advantage of that – he was one boy on his own.
"We, as his family, have been left devastated and in total despair. Our whole world has been totally turned upside down."
Video report: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090612/video/vuk-schoolboy-s-killers-facing-life-sent-49bfa63.html
16 year old kids being stabbed to death for 'disrepect'. This is why Britain is how it is. The killers were convicted thanks to CCTV footage. 'Gangster' lifestyles are not a British made problem. Our criminals had some class 50 years ago.
-
So, what the RN did was both legal and morally right?
WTG RN :aok
-
Within the bound of the law (That is the established code between states) yes.
Morality is relative.
-
For the last time: It was legal.
Almost everyone who has posted in this thread has stated their personal opinion that what the RN did was Legal and "the right thing to do".
I think the lingering question here in this thread, is what on gods earth made you, Diehard, originaly think that what the RN did to those suspected pirates was in any way illegal or not "the right thing to do"? Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK-47s? If so, why?
-
Almost everyone who has posted in this thread has stated their personal opinion that what the RN did was Legal and "the right thing to do".
I think the lingering question here in this thread, is what on gods earth made you, Diehard, originaly think that what the RN did to those suspected pirates was in any way illegal or not "the right thing to do"? Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK-47s? If so, why?
You cannot possibly have read the whole thread if you don't know the answer. I'm not going to repeat myself, lest this thread will go on in never ending circles.
-
You cannot possibly have read the whole thread if you don't know the answer. I'm not going to repeat myself, lest this thread will go on in never ending circles.
I have been following and reading this post, but I have no intention of rereading it from the very beggining tonight.
Your attitude and argument in this thread before this post:
Diehard, it the Royal Navy was within it's right to seize the weapons and boat because there were reasonable grounds to suspect it's use was for piracy. The RN is not required to prove intent was for use of piracy, only to have reasonable grounds to suspect that is the case. Where are you getting this info that somli militia are equiped with motherboats & skiffs, machine guns, rpg's, extra fuel and grappling hooks. That is what has bene released by the media, we don't know what other evidence was to suggest they were pirates. The pirates weren't arrested because the RN could not link them to a specific incident.
You even quoted an british official stating - "As a British official put it: “We can only arrest suspected pirates if we catch them in the act or on the point of launching an attack on a vessel. Clearly, with all the weaponry in the skiffs, there was an intent to commit piracy, but we hadn’t actually caught them in the middle of an attack so we had to release them.”
Un security council resolution 1851 states-
“2. Calls upon States, regional and international organizations that have the capacity to do so, to take part actively in the fight against piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, in particular, consistent with this resolution, resolution 1846 (2008), and international law, by deploying naval vessels and military aircraft and through seizure and disposition of boats, vessels, arms and other related equipment used in the commission of piracy and armed robbery at sea off the coast of Somalia, or for which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting such use;
Solid, irrefutable proof is not required.
was pretty damning of the RN and the actions it took against the alleged pirates.
My question still stands as it relates to the time and state that your mind was in when you originaly created this thread, not what has transpired and been revealed durign the cource of this thread.
-
Almost everyone who has posted in this thread has stated their personal opinion that what the RN did was Legal and "the right thing to do".
I think the lingering question here in this thread, is what on gods earth made you, Diehard, originaly think that what the RN did to those suspected pirates was in any way illegal or not "the right thing to do"? Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK-47s? If so, why?
Its is legal.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with battleships and L85's?
I do.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK47's?
I do.
Do I support the activity of boarding a sovereign vessel who is committing no crimes, destroying their boat, holding them captive, and then releasing them?
I don't.
-
Its is legal.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with battleships and L85's?
I do.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK47's?
I do.
Do I support the activity of boarding a sovereign vessel who is committing no crimes, destroying their boat, holding them captive, and then releasing them?
I don't.
:aok
-
Its is legal.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with battleships and L85's?
I do.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK47's?
I do.
Do I support the activity of boarding a sovereign vessel who is committing no crimes, destroying their boat, holding them captive, and then releasing them?
I don't.
Okay, now I know you're trolling.
Only "battleships" (and there are none patrolling the waters in question) belong to sovereign nations' navies. BIG difference, actually, no comparison.
The warships of the various nations are out there to protect the commercial shipping lanes from your heroes. Their goal is the prevention of the hijacking of commercial shipping and the apprehension of said criminals if possible.
If you support the 2nd, may I suggest you find a way to get yourself out to the area, get in a little boat, go out and say HI to these poor beleaguered, misunderstood pirates and see how warm your welcome is. Odds are, it'll be the last anyone hears from you again, unless of course, you go armed or with an escort. :aok
The last one is where you trap yourself with a paradox: "Do I support the activity of boarding a sovereign vessel who is committing no crimes, destroying their boat, holding them captive, and then releasing them?
I don't." :huh :huh :huh
You don't support the pirates' activities, cause they are doing just that. Boarding forcibly, holding the ship and crew captive and for ransom, then (maybe) releasing them. Of course, the pirates have to show their resolve by making noises about killing crew members if the ransom isn't paid.
But you also don't support anyone stopping these folks before they can attack a defenseless cargo or cruise ship? Even tho they fit the by now well known profile of the pirates, had all the reported weaponry and tools of the trade.....the RN shoulda just left em alone?
It never ceases to amaze me, trolling or not, how some people try to spin these things....................... ....... :lol
-
LOL
-
Its is legal.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with battleships and L85's?
I do.
Do you support the liberty of people floating around busy commercial shipping lanes with RPGs and AK47's?
I do.
Do I support the activity of boarding a sovereign vessel who is committing no crimes, destroying their boat, holding them captive, and then releasing them?
I don't.
I wonder who's shades account/troll account this is. Laying low for 10 months.
I will not apologize for my comments. :salute to the Royal Navy. Do it again if the situation presents itself.
-
Eddiek, Apeotomy answered questions. You on the other hand are the one making a number of fallacious arguments, including Ad Hominem, Straw Man, Argument From Adverse Consequences, Psychogenetic Fallacy, Extended Analogy, Complex Question, Argument By Repetition, Argument By Selective Observation, Non Sequitur, Hypothesis Contrary To Fact, Argument By Scenario, and Two Wrongs Make A Right.
I'm afraid you're the one trolling Eddiek.
-
I'm with Masherbrum, I hope/wish the RN bags more of them and other navies follow suit.
This thread is losing it's entertainment value. DH made his point on page 6:
"
Yep, there it is:
"The Council affirmed that the authorization provided in the resolution applied only to the situation in Somalia and did not affect the rights or obligations or responsibilities of Member States under international law, including under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, with respect to any other situation. It underscored that the resolution did not establish customary international law."
A special dispensation from the law.
I'm an ass. "
<S>!
-
We don't know for sure that they were pirates, and that's the point. For instance they could simply be Somali militiamen out paroling; unlikely, but not beyond the realm of possibility. Should the RN (and other navies) really have the power to board foreign vessels, "confiscate" any weapons they find, and sink some or all of them just on the suspicion of piracy? Is that really the power we want to give, say the Iranian navy? Or the Chinese navy?
Here's the problem: If the RN didn't have enough evidence to actually arrest them (and the article said they didn't) how can they be justified in confiscating and destroying their property? If the cops can't prove you were speeding, should they be allowed to just confiscate any legal weapons you have and set fire to your car? Is it OK as long as they give you cab money to get home?
I don't give a flying twittle about the Somali pirates; I hope they capsized and drowned on the way home. However I do care a great deal about the abuse of power by, and unaccountability of armed government agencies, in this case the Royal Navy.
really ?
Let's see here... these chuckle heads get free rain in "international waters" and they have been free to do what they want
without constraint...Multiple ships seized (in international waters) not to mention the crews as well.
I say this.. if your floating around on the open seas with machine guns and RPGs what is the purpose for this....
FISHING??? The lesson that should be set here is send the message loud and clear, arrest the Somalians.... BBQ the row boats and seize the weapons.....EVERY TIME !!!! Take the profit out of it and maybe they stop.
I know ....maybe a few RAF or US navy jets start using them for target practice ...they wont be so eager to violate
someone else s rights....
I'M just sayin.....
-
Okay, now I know you're trolling.
Only "battleships" (and there are none patrolling the waters in question) belong to sovereign nations' navies. BIG difference, actually, no comparison.
The warships of the various nations are out there to protect the commercial shipping lanes from your heroes. Their goal is the prevention of the hijacking of commercial shipping and the apprehension of said criminals if possible.
If you support the 2nd, may I suggest you find a way to get yourself out to the area, get in a little boat, go out and say HI to these poor beleaguered, misunderstood pirates and see how warm your welcome is. Odds are, it'll be the last anyone hears from you again, unless of course, you go armed or with an escort. :aok
The last one is where you trap yourself with a paradox: "Do I support the activity of boarding a sovereign vessel who is committing no crimes, destroying their boat, holding them captive, and then releasing them?
I don't." :huh :huh :huh
You don't support the pirates' activities, cause they are doing just that. Boarding forcibly, holding the ship and crew captive and for ransom, then (maybe) releasing them. Of course, the pirates have to show their resolve by making noises about killing crew members if the ransom isn't paid.
But you also don't support anyone stopping these folks before they can attack a defenseless cargo or cruise ship? Even tho they fit the by now well known profile of the pirates, had all the reported weaponry and tools of the trade.....the RN shoulda just left em alone?
It never ceases to amaze me, trolling or not, how some people try to spin these things....................... ....... :lol
Ok, lets make some thing clear. I am not a shade. I was a person who played this game and read (did not register) to these forums before the "new" forums rules were set out. (I think you know what im talking about). I have just now decided to join the community again. If you wish to continue to call me a troll, this is something you need to take up with Skuzzy.
Yes, the goal of the warship is to promote safety for the shipping vessels.
The second point has nothing to do with anything.
There is absolutely no paradox (Do you even understand what this is?). The African vessels that were boarded were not pirates when they were boarded. They were simply a vessel operating under Somalian law (yes Americans there are other peoples law out there).
The third point is a slipper slope arguement, do we give the state the authority to break into our houses, take use captive, blow up our cars and take our weapons just because we *might* rob a bank? No, we do not. Similarly we should not authorize the state to do the same on an international scale.
For the last time. Underneath international law this incident was LEGAL.
Whether or not the law is "Right" is another argument.
I know ....maybe a few RAF or US navy jets start using them for target practice ...they wont be so eager to violate
someone else s rights....
Yet you are willing to violate their right? To the point of murder? Do you see your hypocrisy?
-
Yet you are willing to violate their right? To the point of murder? Do you see your hypocrisy?
No hypocrisy seen. If you don't want to be killed by a USN Sniper or RN warship, cease the Piracy. It's as simple as that. You wanna take a blown out ship against a warship, prepare for a smack down.
-
No hypocrisy seen. If you don't want to be killed by a USN Sniper or RN warship, cease the Piracy. It's as simple as that. You wanna take a blown out ship against a warship, prepare for a smack down.
Sure, I agree 100%.
The people we are discussing were not pirates.
-
they were pirates and the boats were pirates vessels.
-
the boat we were discussing was not the Titanic.
-
Yet you are willing to violate their right? To the point of murder? Do you see your hypocrisy?
yep.....sure am....
nothing OK about armed thug gs trolling in a row boat with MGs and RPGs PERIOD!
They ain't fishing bro......
cal me a hypocrite if you want but i don't care to much about protecting the so called rights of
lawless thuggs.
I'M just sayin..........
-
Yet you are willing to violate their right? To the point of murder? Do you see your hypocrisy?
yep.....sure am....
nothing OK about armed thug gs trolling in a row boat with MGs and RPGs PERIOD!
They ain't fishing bro......
cal me a hypocrite if you want but i don't care to much about protecting the so called rights of
lawless thuggs.
I'M just sayin..........
Nothing OK about armed G's trolling in a boat with L85s and Cannons Period!
I don't care too much about preserving the rights of those who operate above the law either.
Specifically which laws did these so called "pirates" break? Where did they commit piracy?
Oh wait...
-
See Rule #4
-
"Sure, I agree 100%.
The people we are discussing were not pirates."
Let's see......AK's, check! RPG's.........check! Small boat out in international waters, near busy shipping lanes......check!
They fit the MO of pirates, they weren't equipped like fishermen, they weren't Somali "militiamen".....what else would they be?
If they don't wanna be seen as pirates, don't act like 'em, don't arm yourselves like 'em.....
If they weren't pirates and they were so-called "militia", where's the protest from their government?
I still haven't gotten a clear answer from Apeotomy regarding his definition of a sovereign vessel. Would the commercial shipping being stalked and hijacked be considered sovereign? Or just the pirate vessels?
You have to choose sides here. Straddling the fence doesn't cut it.
The RN actions were within the law, whether you agree with said law or not. Something needs to be done to prevent further attacks and hijackings. Do you have a solution, one that would prevent the pirates from attacking, insure the safety of the commercial shipping in the area, and not infringe on anyone's "rights"?
-
See Rule #2
-
Lets see... AK, check! RPG... Small boat out in international waters, near busy shipping lanes... Check!
You know what this sounds like? A person? Bingo!!!
If they don't want to be classified as pirates, they shouldn't commit acts of piracy!
Oh wait. They didn't commit any acts of piracy!
A vessel that operates under the law of an established state.
Both the commercial ship and the so called "pirate" ship fit that definition. (Still waiting for you to address which act of piracy they committed)
Yes, I agree the RN actions were within the current law.
The long term answer, would be to take the gloves off a make the Somalian economy viable again.
Edit: Froger, I would appreciate it if you would abide by the forums rules and stay on topic.
I have not completed law school.
-
See Rule #4
-
For Christ sake!
Please! Anyone, anyone at all, Kindly show me where these men committed an act of piracy!
Edit: ZOMG! THEY ARE PIRATES! LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! I DON'T NEED TO BACK UP MY CLAIM! THEY ARE PIRATES CUZ' EVERYONE KNOWS THAT!!!!
-
See Rule #2
-
Ape, it's an imperfect world.
Can you prove they weren't pirates? Everything about them was suspicious enough for the RN to choose to investigate, and wow, they found weaponry consistent with what pirates have been using.
You're protestations, intentional or not, lead me to believe you are pro-pirate. What did they lose, really? They were detained, not held captive, not held for ransom. Their weapons were sent to the bottom of the gulf, big deal. Their masters will rearm them.
At worst, they got a soft paddling on the bottom like one gives a 2 year old, with a firm "No! Don't do that again!" and sent on their way.
Have you thought about the crewmen of the vessels hijacked already? Being held captive for no other reason than ransom money? All they were doing was their jobs. What about their families? Do you think about them, or are you so focused on the possibility that men whose behavior, location, and choice to arm themselves with weapons used for hijacking had their liberties "violated"?
Help me out here, I'm trying to see your side.
-
The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. Thus, you scream, Pirates! I ask for proof, you don't have proof? They aren't pirates.
Tools x=x Pirates
My personal weapons are of the same sort as those used by bank robbers this does not mean I am a bank robber.
The next point is very bad when we use logic, for example. "You're dialogue, intentional or not, combined with your lack of proof, leads me to believe that you are pro-totalitarian state. See, this point can be flipped any which way.
What did they loose? They lost much property including a boat which for the average Somalian is a very expensive venture. And they were detained, without committing a crime. The modern day witch-hunt.
Again, you assume they are pirates.
Yes, but have I ever said that I advocate piracy? No. I have not.
Being held captive undermines my very motives, By holding someone against their will you remove their intrinsic right to self.
-
See Rule #5
-
apeotomoy, you say you own the same weapons as those preferred by bank robbers. Tell me, do you wield these weapons whilst wearing a balaclava at you local bank? What logical conclusion do you think the bank staff and security guards would come to if you did this.
-
(http://www.californiaopencarry.org/pics/SDOC_Priceless.jpg)
-
why is this forum not closed yet ?
look the forum rules up APE.....
it's called baiting ....dragging out the topic.
time to shut it !
I have not baited anyone.
If you feel I have report me to the board administrator. Do not be a backseat moderator mmmkay?
If dragging out the topic means that I am discussing this in a decent fashion, then to this charge I plead guilty.
Surely you should not be the one complaining about board rules abuses? Considering your last couple of posts in this thread have been nothing than 1 ups.
My question still stands, Exactly when and where did these men commit piracy.
Thrilla, Yes, I have transported a weapon on a roadway, I have driven past a bank while doing so. Should I have my car blown up and my weapons seized? The similarities of these two situations are faint. The men did not enter a ship (in your version a bank) nor did they taunt a ship with their weapons.
-
The analogy isn't faint at all. You are free to enter a bank but you cannot board another vessel, being in the vicinity of commercial shipping is similar to being in a bank. The act of boarding a ship would be akin to climbing over the bank's counter. Despite being free to own all these items, having a combination of these in your possession in combination of acting suspiciously is going to land you in trouble. A chap wearing a balaclava and brandishing a shotgun in a bank is highly suspicious, as is a skiff loaded with weapons and grappling hooks in the vicinity of commercial shipping.
A person's intentions are clear if they cannot give a reasonable explanation why they are equipped with items to commit a crime. Such as is a man with leather gloves, a screwdriver and wire cutters being caught loitering in a car park by a police officer. The Royal Navy would have given the chaps in the skiffs the opportunity to explain their items, they must not have given a reasonable explanation.
They did not commit piracy, they were however equipped for piracy, thus making their boat a pirate vessel- their intentions were clear to the world with the exeption of yourself and diehard.
If your car and items were seized and destroyed because the law stated that was the punishment for being equipped then yes i would support it.
-
The analogy isn't faint at all. You are free to enter a bank but you cannot board another vessel, being in the vicinity of commercial shipping is similar to being in a bank. The act of boarding a ship would be akin to climbing over the bank's counter.
Nonsense. Being in international waters is similar to being in a public place... like a street or a park. A bank is private property and the bank's owner decides if you can carry guns there or not... most don't, and thus entering a bank armed is similar to boarding a merchant ship; you're trespassing on private property. A bank does not own the street in front of it, and a merchant ship does not own the sea around it. Everyone has the right to sail in international waters, no matter how many commercial ships are nearby, just like everyone has the right to walk on a street.
-
ok, my analogy of a person equipped for car theft still stands. As does being equipped for robbery in a park or street.
-
And neither should be a crime. The man with the screwdriver and cutters could just be a Brazilian electrician who forgot where he parked his rental. Should women be arrested for prostitution just because they're wearing torn nylons and too much makeup?
-
How about the dirty old man found with lots of 'pictures' on his PC hard drive?
Should he be left alone living next to that elementary school cos he's done nothing wrong.....yet?
-
They did not commit piracy, they were however equipped for piracy, thus making their boat a pirate vessel- their intentions were clear to the world with the exeption of yourself and diehard.
I drive a car, I am a getaway driver? I own a gun, I am a robber? I own fertilizer, I am a bomber?
They did not commit piracy, they are no more pirates than you or I.
Your last point is sensationalist and cannot be proven. Prove my intentions with my first three examples?
-
How about the dirty old man found with lots of 'pictures' on his PC hard drive?
Should he be left alone living next to that elementary school cos he's done nothing wrong.....yet?
As far as I know possession of such photographic material is a crime. Carrying a screwdriver and a pair of wire cutters is not. And yes, even if the man in question is a known, but innocent pedophile he should be able to live wherever he wants as long as he does not commit any crimes. Innocent until proved guilty is the cornerstone of civilized law.
-
It comes down to circumstantial evidence. They boarded a vessel in known pirate territory (and under the law they have the right to board). they ascertained the situation. obviously found enough evidence to count as piracy. The options open to them were bring them on board, feed them, and give them carriage to Kenya to stand trial for Piracy(As Somalia has no judicial system in place to try for this) ...probably get a slap on the hand and kicked back into there home. This would open the gate for them to seek asylum in the UK and feed some more off the hard working Brit........hahaha sorry just had to take a moment. by collecting welfare due to the hardships they faced in their area of the world.
Ultimately what they have done is placed themselves in a potentially dangerous situation, removed the threat and allowed them to go. The destruction of the fizz boat and tools of the trade were only done due to the fact that the RN has better weapons and they didn't need them.
-
No. The UN has decreed a special dispensation from international law allowing military ships in the area to disarm suspected pirates. However if piracy cannot be proved (i.e. they didn't actually attack anyone) the suspects have to be released. At least try to keep up SPKmes.
-
News update from those waters. Those poor Somalis...
http://www.mbl.is/mm/frettir/erlent/2009/06/14/herskip_nato_bjargar_sjomonnum/
The video should start by itself.
-
Awesome video!! :aok Surprised they let the other boat live.. It took a lot of shots to take that thing out but I bet they were missing on purpose just to fire off more rounds as I would have done. Must be the current UN doctrine for the ships operating in that area not to sink 'potential fishing boats.'
This pirate problem probably persists because of the corrupt Somali government. I bet the pirate leaders are paying off the officials not to intervene.
It's strange how law and righteousness aren't the same yet you are taught this growing up. If my kids ask "Daddy, why did the navy guys blow up those guys' boat?" Well, should I tell them they the world is complicated and there are multiple ways to look at it? How many perspectives are there? A few are
-The lawyers
-The lawyers supposed 'any law abiding citizen in the world' person they like to talk about.
-The criminal who dislikes laws and any new law that would limit their potential crimes
-The pirates who are trolling for victims and got caught but claim they are innocent
-The unemployed guys armed with expensive military hardware in a poverty stricken nation cruising around with 2 boats burning gas at the hourly rate of 1 Somalias' average yearly income, but you can't 'prove' I was doing anything wrong guys. These guys aren't that bright though exposing themselves in an area known for pirates subjecting their equipment to seizure and destruction. They are the ones in the video, right? lol
-People who have been 'wronged' by authority because they were arrested or caught in a crime and they believe that laws are only out there to suppress innocent people like themselves.
-The Subaru drivers who hate authority
-The victims of these pirates who are held captive away from their families for months and even years..
-There are more.. getting bored though :rolleyes:
Yeah, I'll think I'll skip the legal mumbo jumbo since I havent seen Legally Blonde in awhile and just explain that these are bad men who were looking to jump onto a boat that wasn't theirs, steal it and kidnap everyone aboard. :aok
I have had my boat illegally searched before and I know the feeling, but I had nothing illegal onboard and I wasn't doing anything illegal. Yeah I was very upset but I knew it would be cleared up.
BTW: What is rule #2 and #4? Where are these rules found? thanks ahead of time
-
As far as I know possession of such photographic material is a crime. Carrying a screwdriver and a pair of wire cutters is not. And yes, even if the man in question is a known, but innocent pedophile he should be able to live wherever he wants as long as he does not commit any crimes. Innocent until proved guilty is the cornerstone of civilized law.
Not in reality. Some of the people round here would burn his house down given half the chance. Some of the young idiots round would burn your house down just for a laugh. Kiddy fiddlers dont stand a chance in a closed community and the law will turn a blind eye in many cases when the people take action. You can't stop people taking the law into their own hands. Sure someone might go to jail after a crime is commited, but you can't stop it happening unless you act first with reasonable doubt.
In the case of the child abuser and these 'fishermen' the evidence is more than strong enough to take action and avoid the possibility of crime. Yes, it all sounds very Orwell. He was an outstanding prophet. While the obvious negative sides of that lack of freedom may, on the surface, seem unjust, it is well that convicted child molesters don't live near schools and that desperate looking men with an arsenal don't hang around shipping lanes.
If you ignore all else in this reply, please contemplate my two questions.
1) If a convicted child molester who has served his time and been released without re offending offered to look after your kids would you accept or would you be most predjudiced in your reaction and send him packing despite not proving him guilty?
2) If you were sailing on a cargo ship that had one .22 rifle and a few night sticks and were approached by a group of somalis in a fast boat armed with RPGs, Kalashnikovs and grappling hooks, would you assume they must be well armed fishermen out on a jolly jaunt untill they killed you or would you watermelon yourself right away?
-
A small and fast boat, with lots of crew, lots of arms, and no fishing gear = Pirates.
A merchant vessel full of goods on cruise = not pirates.
A military vessel under a nation's flag = not pirates.
Anyway, the last deed of a military vessel down there was to rescue a drifting vessel that had been hit by pirates.
Screw them :t
-
Mechanic, I specifically mentioned innocent pedophile in my post. You however twist that into "child abuser" and make an absurd premise to frame your loaded first question. Your second question is equally absurd and loaded, and neither argument addresses the law, only emotion.
A person convicted of sexually assaulting a child has proved himself unable to suppress his perverted sexual desires and should never be released unless deemed safe. The only way to do that now that I'm aware of is castration; a voluntary option for sex offenders in some european countries I believe. A pedophile who has never committed a sex crime is a free man with every right to live where he wants. If members of the local community commit crimes against him the justice system should punish them. Your assertion that "the law will turn a blind eye" is just another example of law enforcement exceeding its authority. This innocent man would be fully within his rights (in my neighborhood at least) to defend his life and property against a lynch mob, with lethal force if necessary, and if I were his neighbor I would help him. There is no excuse for vigilantism. A better question would be, if you know or suspect there is a pedophile in your neighborhood why would you stay and raise children there?
I would never find myself aboard a ship off the coast of Somalia or anywhere close with only a .22, and I would not open fire on the Somali vessel unless attacked first.
-
A small and fast boat, with lots of crew, lots of arms, and no fishing gear = Pirates.
That does not equate to beeing a pirate. That equates to nothing.
A person whom illegally boards another vessel = pirate
-
A small and fast boat, with lots of crew, lots of arms, and no fishing gear = Pirates.
Pirates?
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_DNmV_kncrJ4/ShIQHurgIII/AAAAAAAAAFM/xUm04vj1vQc/s400/nigerdelta-militants1.jpg)
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42030000/jpg/_42030870_gunboat.jpg)
(http://www.javno.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2009/m05/y203424404969691.jpg)
(http://www.eliteukforces.info/images/gear/rib-2.jpg)
-
Mechanic, I specifically mentioned innocent pedophile in my post. You however twist that into "child abuser" and make an absurd premise to frame your loaded first question. Your second question is equally absurd and loaded, and neither argument addresses the law, only emotion.
[snip]
excuse the snip!
I am sorry I do not know of any innocent pedofiles. Planning to murder someone and being found out will often still lead to criminal charges and some serious bird (even if you were not going to actualy do it). A person who takes sexual pleasure through minors as a preference is guilty of being a pedofile no matter if they physically act on an innocent child, or just views it thinking they will never slip that far..
As to my second question. You did not answer at all, you changed the parameters of the question to say you would be better armed. I asked what if you were not. You must surely be able to stand in another's shoes and answer that question fairly. On the other hand, there is an alternative answer to question 2. Laugh. The RN wont shoot you for that.
Yet.
:noid
-
excuse the snip!
I am sorry I do not know of any innocent pedofiles. Planning to murder someone and being found out will often still lead to criminal charges and some serious bird (even if you were not going to actualy do it). A person who takes sexual pleasure through minors as a preference is guilty of being a pedofile no matter if they physically act on an innocent child, or just views it thinking they will never slip that far..
You just supplant one crime for another; a pedophile can suppress his sexuality just like a homosexual or heterosexual can. Just as there are homosexual and heterosexual persons that can't control their sexual urges. Surely there must be many pedophiles living normal lives that never watch illegal pornography or abuse children. If you think the mere fact that they think about it makes them criminal, then I consider you a greater threat to society than they are.
As to my second question. You did not answer at all, you changed the parameters of the question to say you would be better armed. I asked what if you were not. You must surely be able to stand in another's shoes and answer that question fairly. On the other hand, there is an alternative answer to question 2. Laugh. The RN wont shoot you for that.
Yet.
:noid
Ha ha ha... There, happy? ;)
Leading questions like that are frowned upon in my profession, and does not serve to resolve anything. If I must answer the question: I'd probably use the .22 and any other improvised weapon I could find. .22 kills, and a few molotovs wouldn't be too hard too make. Come to think of it, the situation is very similar to a medieval siege in miniature.
-
Diehard, am i supposed to mistake a british rib with a white ensign as a pirate vessel?
Apeotomoy, i've been through this before, a vessel does not need to have commited an act of piracy to be deemed a pirate vessel.
I drive a car, I am a getaway driver? I own a gun, I am a robber? I own fertilizer, I am a bomber?
These are not in context, is not one single factor, but a multitude of factors without a reasonable explantion.
-
Diehard, am i supposed to mistake a british rib with a white ensign as a pirate vessel?
None of those gunboats were pirates, and I'm sure the Iranians won't mind the legal excuse. Luckily the U.N. decreed that the current sate of affairs does not establish customary international law.
Apeotomoy, i've been through this before, a vessel does not need to have commited an act of piracy to be deemed a pirate vessel.
Yes it does. However, the U.N. has decreed a special dispensation from international law allowing warships to disarm suspected pirates, but they have to let them go unless it can be proved that they have committed acts of piracy. We've been through this several times, try to keep up.
-
You just supplant one crime for another; a pedophile can suppress his sexuality just like a homosexual or heterosexual can. Just as there are homosexual and heterosexual persons that can't control their sexual urges. Surely there must be many pedophiles living normal lives that never watch illegal pornography or abuse children. If you think the mere fact that they think about it makes them criminal, then I consider you a greater threat to society than they are.
To be quite blunt with you sir, this whole quote entirely worries me. 'Living normal lives' and 'pedofile' should not grace the same sentance. Forgive me using closely related metaphors, again.
If I think about murdering someone at some point I am not a murderer, just human. If I was to think at some point, sexualy, about an underage person, i should be ashamed.... but not a pedofile, only human.
To choose either of these crimes as a preference. To think about something more than once. To reafirm those thoughts into real documentation (read:evidence), or to act on them makes me a murderer or pedofile.
Lets go with one of your other (you surplant one sexuality for another) sexuality based references (almost like pedofiles, hetrosexuals and homosexuals are being classed in teh same genre? heavens above. straight and gay. Murder and child molesting. get it right). If a person was to sleep with the same sex once in a lifetime then remain purely hetro till they die, they are not gay. Possibly a little confused at some point or maybe just curious, but clearly not gay.
To save an unpleasant topic progressing I will tailor my first question to your way of looking at things.
1)Would you let an 'innocent pedofile' look after your kids?
Ha ha ha... There, happy? ;)
yeah, a little bit happier.
Leading questions like that are frowned upon in my profession, and does not serve to resolve anything. If I must answer the question: I'd probably use the .22 and any other improvised weapon I could find. .22 kills, and a few molotovs wouldn't be too hard too make. Come to think of it, the situation is very similar to a medieval siege in miniature.
I strongly suspect your profession is a defence attorney. Please correct me.
fun times!
-
To be quite blunt with you sir, this whole quote entirely worries me. 'Living normal lives' and 'pedofile' should not grace the same sentance. Forgive me using closely related metaphors, again.
If I think about murdering someone at some point I am not a murderer, just human. If I was to think at some point, sexualy, about an underage person, i should be ashamed.... but not a pedofile, only human.
To choose either of these crimes as a preference. To think about something more than once. To reafirm those thoughts into real documentation (read:evidence), or to act on them makes me a murderer or pedofile.
I think this is a simple misunderstanding: The term "pedophile" is a medical term describing a person who is suffering from pedophilia; a psychological disorder in which an adult is sexually attracted to children. A person who has committed the heinous act of sexually abusing a child is a child molester. The two terms are not mutually inclusive; a pedophile may or may not commit the crime of child molestation, and a child molester may or may not be a pedophile. According to the Mayo Clinic, pedophiles make up 65% of child molestation offenders. In law enforcement and legal circles the term "predatory pedophile" is used to refer specifically to pedophiles who engage in sexual activity with minors. The term emphasizes that child sexual abuse consists of conduct chosen by the perpetrator.
Lets go with one of your other (you surplant one sexuality for another) sexuality based references (almost like pedofiles, hetrosexuals and homosexuals are being classed in teh same genre? heavens above. straight and gay. Murder and child molesting. get it right). If a person was to sleep with the same sex once in a lifetime then remain purely hetro till they die, they are not gay. Possibly a little confused at some point or maybe just curious, but clearly not gay.
The medical terms heterosexual, homosexual and pedophilia refers to sexual attraction. A homosexual person can lead a completely "hetro" life and never have any sexual contact with the same sex, but he/she would still be a homosexual. If you consistently want to have sex with other men you're a homo, regardless of if you act on your desires or not.
To save an unpleasant topic progressing I will tailor my first question to your way of looking at things.
1)Would you let an 'innocent pedofile' look after your kids?
Nope. How that pertains to piracy however, I don't know.
I strongly suspect your profession is a defence attorney. Please correct me.
Litigation. Insurance mostly though I don't work much these days.
-
The post is Re: Video: Royal Marines capture and sink pirate vessel
You guys have hijacked the thread. Diehard brought up 'innocent pedophile' as an example which is very tasteless since he knew emotions would be raised. He need's to post this material somewhere else. This thread has digressed from innocent pirates to innocent pedophiles, very disgusting and tasteless to use as an example for anything. You should be ashamed of yourself of only being able to use that as an example. Get back on topic.
-
I did not bring it up, Swoop did in a direct question to me. Get your facts straight.
-
That does not equate to beeing a pirate. That equates to nothing.
A person whom illegally boards another vessel = pirate
That means you have to wait for them to board :devil
-
That means you have to wait for them to board :devil
This man has it correct.
Lets straighten this topic back out to the first debate.
-
I think this is a simple misunderstanding: The term "pedophile" is a medical term describing a person who is suffering from pedophilia; a psychological disorder in which an adult is sexually attracted to children. A person who has committed the heinous act of sexually abusing a child is a child molester. The two terms are not mutually inclusive; a pedophile may or may not commit the crime of child molestation, and a child molester may or may not be a pedophile. According to the Mayo Clinic, pedophiles make up 65% of child molestation offenders. In law enforcement and legal circles the term "predatory pedophile" is used to refer specifically to pedophiles who engage in sexual activity with minors. The term emphasizes that child sexual abuse consists of conduct chosen by the perpetrator.
Ok, I understand what you're saying. I want to leave this topic alone.
The medical terms heterosexual, homosexual and pedophilia refers to sexual attraction. A homosexual person can lead a completely "hetro" life and never have any sexual contact with the same sex, but he/she would still be a homosexual. If you consistently want to have sex with other men you're a homo, regardless of if you act on your desires or not.
Sounds like 'If you consistently want to ride around in little boats packed with weapons you're a pirate, regardless of if you act on your desires or not'
Nope. How that pertains to piracy however, I don't know.
You would not let an 'innocent pedophile' look after your children.
The RN will not let 'innocent pirates' look after their cargo ships.
-
Sounds like 'If you consistently want to ride around in little boats packed with weapons you're a pirate, regardless of if you act on your desires or not'
Incorrect, You are a pirate the moment you commit an act of piracy, and not a second before.
Sexual preference is not the greatest example, you can go on hetero or Homosexual dates and be considered gay/straight without actually engaging in a sexual act.
You would not let an 'innocent pedophile' look after your children.
The RN will not let 'innocent pirates' look after their cargo ships.
The RN will not let other vessels use international waters of which they have the same rights to use. The ships in question were not in anyway baby sitting the commercial ships.
Please do not call them pirates until you can prove they are pirates.
-
What about the important bit?
You would not let an 'innocent pedophile' look after your children.
The RN will not let 'innocent pirates' look after their cargo ships.
You want to argue the letter of the law so accurately? Lets see some equality in that descision you are making for thousands of innocent cargo ship seamen.
-
What about the important bit?
You want to argue the letter of the law so accurately? Lets see some equality in that descision you are making for thousands of innocent cargo ship seamen.
My post was updated, At the time of posting that was not part of his post (notices the edit).
The seamen have the exact same rights as the other vessel, they do not get a super special badge because they are carrying cargo.
-
That is where my point is seemingly failing to be understood. Let me try again.
IF any individual believes that the RN should have waited untill these men attacked someone, then they must let the innocent pedophile look after their children untill they actualy attack a child.
In my honest opinion; You and Die Hard have no right to make your point so vehemently. You are gambling with other people's lives.
-
IF any individual believes that the RN should have waited untill these men attacked someone, then they must let the innocent pedophile look after their children untill they actualy attack a child.
Negative, I am under no obligation to allow a pedophile the responsibility to watch over my child for a night (I assume you mean, as in a baby sitter), However If I am at a mall(or other public place) with my child I cannot govern the actions of the pedophile (who is not doing anything malicious), however the second that he does is the second that I can intervene.
If you see a man who is reminiscent of a criminal, do you gun him down? Do you curb stomp him? No, you wait until he attempts his mallicious deed, otherwise you are the criminal.
In the same manor, it is wrong to believe that we should attack every vessel using international waters that *might* commit a malicious deed.
-
We must agree to disagree soon, I fear. How many reports like the one that started this thread have there been compared to the ammount of reports on hijacks and hostage situations being inflicted on innocent people via piracy?
-
We must agree to disagree soon, I fear. How many reports like the one that started this thread have there been compared to the ammount of reports on hijacks and hostage situations being inflicted on innocent people via piracy?
Enlighten me, To the best of my knowledge this is the first incident of the royal navy boarding and destroying a vessel that seemed fishy.
The emotional arguement does not work, it is no better for a state to commit piracy than for a private individual. Infact I would venture to say it is worse, especially when the state can say "Haha civilians its legal when we do it". I'd really not like to start a debate on this.
-
The practical argument is all that matters to me. Common sense. When we are all dead and gone the laws will be bits of paper though our emotions may even last for eternity.
-
Just crossed my mind. How many of the pirate defenders here have actually lived and worked at sea?
Really, WTF do you expect a fast small boat loaded with arms and crew in a well busy shipping lane is doing?? Selling lottery tickets???
Oh, being well defended against the other small boats with arms and crew....
Take a few rounds on this and the truth will become that the Somalis are armed because of the intruding foreign warships. Security issue.... :lol
-
Just crossed my mind. How many of the pirate defenders here have actually lived and worked at sea?
Really, WTF do you expect a fast small boat loaded with arms and crew in a well busy shipping lane is doing?? Selling lottery tickets???
Oh, being well defended against the other small boats with arms and crew....
Take a few rounds on this and the truth will become that the Somalis are armed because of the intruding foreign warships. Security issue.... :lol
I think you have just missed the entire point of this debate.
Reread the last 6 pages, skip the personal attacks and spam, loose the attitude.
Post again if you wish to contribute.
-
This thread is done. Let it die guys.