"Tim" wrote in message
...

"...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...."

--------------------------------

I watched a discussion on one of the cable news networks regarding this
issue. Apparently the Somali "pirates" are basically a renegade group who
have no allegiance to any government or laws. They don't even consider
what they are doing as breaking a law because they don't have any laws to
break.

Eisboch

On Nov 21, 12:51*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

"...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...."

--------------------------------

I watched a discussion on one of the cable news networks regarding this
issue. *Apparently the Somali "pirates" are basically a renegade group who
have no allegiance to any government or laws. * They don't even consider
what they are doing as breaking a law because they don't have any laws to
break.

Eisboch

hmmmmm.

Now that makes sense. How can you break a law, when there is no law to
break?

Marvel concept.

wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 12:51 am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tim" wrote in message

...

"...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...."

--------------------------------

I watched a discussion on one of the cable news networks regarding this
issue. Apparently the Somali "pirates" are basically a renegade group who
have no allegiance to any government or laws. They don't even consider
what they are doing as breaking a law because they don't have any laws to
break.

Eisboch

hmmmmm.

Now that makes sense. How can you break a law, when there is no law to
break?

Marvel concept.
--------------------------------

Exactly. They are merely "sharing the wealth".

Eisboch

On Nov 21, 3:24*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Nov 21, 12:51 am, "Eisboch" wrote:



"Tim" wrote in message

...

"...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...."

--------------------------------

I watched a discussion on one of the cable news networks regarding this
issue. Apparently the Somali "pirates" are basically a renegade group who
have no allegiance to any government or laws. They don't even consider
what they are doing as breaking a law because they don't have any laws to
break.

Eisboch

hmmmmm.

Now that makes sense. How can you break a law, when there is no law to
break?

Marvel concept.
--------------------------------

Exactly. *They are merely "sharing the wealth".

Eisboch

In one article I've read they call themselves the "Coast Guard"

On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 01:51:22 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Tim" wrote in message
...

"...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...."

--------------------------------

I watched a discussion on one of the cable news networks regarding this
issue. Apparently the Somali "pirates" are basically a renegade group who
have no allegiance to any government or laws. They don't even consider
what they are doing as breaking a law because they don't have any laws to
break.

Not to get into a detailed discussion, but...

In days of old when men were bold and all the sheep were nervous,
piracy could be considered as a national policy by use of Letters of
Marque. It was legitimate in a sense because essentially, the Letter
of Marque gave the legal cover needed to board, seize and confiscate
vessels and cargo.

The British Admirality established this process as a legal method and
it became the defacto International standard - same with the fired
upon rule which is still a legal standard.

The pirates who didn't have a Letter of Marque were considered as
criminals and fair game.

In this case, I would consider them as fair game.

So let's drop a MOAB and get it over with. :)