On Nov 20, 11:04*am, Tom Francis - SWSports
wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:30:13 -0600, wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:59:53 +0000, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7735144.stm

While true that you can't turn a, say, tanker into a battleship, you
certainly have the right by international law to protect yourself, the
cargo and the vessel.

If that means carying anti-tank weapons, automatic rifles or hiring
mercenaries to protect you, your cargo and your ship, that's perfectly
legal.

Absolutely, but protecting yourself is only a band-aid. *If you want to
drastically reduce piracy, you have to take it to them, keep them locked
up in port. *A few ships blockading their home ports, is worth many ships
on the high seas. *However, under international law, a blockade is
illegal, and whether we like it or not, we do have an obligation to
follow international law.

Ok, let's take that last one first.

Why? *It's obvious that international law doesn't apply to the pirates
-and I hesitate to call them pirates, but that's the way of it or
perhaps the lack of international response to the crisis is giving
them idea that they can do pretty much anything they want.

Well, what happens when you are met with force? *Do you just sit back
and take it on the chin or do you reply with overwhelming force?

To my mind, if they are going to act illegally on the high seas, then
it's incumbent on the organized and civilized nations to take similar
action only with LOTS of force - legal beagle crap be damned.

And it's not like there is a lot of ambuguity as to who the perps are.
Tim's idea is a good one - declare an exclusion zone of two miles in
this area - anyone entering that zone without authorization will be
met with deadly force. *Assign an international escort force aboard
these vessels and enforce the Law of The Sea - namely, blow the
*******s out of the water and feed 'em to the sharks. *Do that once or
twice and I don't think this "piracy" will continue.

And no, I don't have a lot of sympathy for thieves or other criminals
so my opinion is necessarily colored by that. *:)

With respect to blockades - eh, they'll just move the base of
operations. *Why give 'em an excuse - get 'em where they live doesn't
seem exactly applicable in this situation.

Getting them while in the act - that's the way to go around it.

Tom, something like that might be in the brewing now.

http://yalibnan.com/site/archives/20...an_warship.php


"...These days, there is no question of a bombardment of the port of
Eyl, the main pirate base on the Somali coast. That might be the most
effective response but it would require a UN Security Council
resolution.

There is a resolution (1838, passed in October) which authorizes the
use of "necessary means", meaning force if need be, to stop piracy in
international waters. There is also another resolution (1816) which
allows anti-pirate operations within Somali waters, but only with the
agreement of the Somali transitional government...."