|
Post by gailkate on Apr 8, 2009 9:30:31 GMT -5
I guess there will always be new crises. It's ironic that while we worry about N. Korea's nukes we must still worry about Pirates!
This just posted on NPR's Facebook page www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102864713&sc=fb&cc=fpSomali pirates on Wednesday hijacked a U.S.-flagged cargo ship with 20 American crew members onboard, the shipping company said. The 17,000-ton Maersk Alabama was carrying emergency relief to Mombasa, Kenya..... In a statement, the company confirmed that the U.S.-flagged vessel has 20 U.S. nationals onboard. Cmdr. Jane Campbell, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Navy's Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, said that it was the first pirate attack "involving U.S. nationals and a U.S.-flagged vessel in recent memory." She did not give an exact timeframe. The U.S. Navy confirmed that the ship was hijacked Wednesday at 12:30 A.M. E.T. about 280 miles southeast of Eyl, a town in the northern Puntland region of Somalia..... The ship is the sixth to be seized within a week, a rise that analysts attribute to a new strategy by Somali pirates who are operating far from the warships patrolling the Gulf of Aden.. U.S. Navy spokesman Lt. Nathan Christensen said the closest U.S. ship at the time of the hijacking was 345 miles away.... "The area we're patrolling is more than a million miles in size. Our ships cannot be everywhere at every time," Christensen said. When asked how the U.S. Navy plans to deal with this, Campbell said: "It's fair to say we are closely monitoring the situation, but we will not discuss nor speculate on current and future military operations."Somali pirates are trained fighters who frequently dress in military fatigues and use speedboats equipped with satellite phones and GPS equipment. They are typically armed with automatic weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers and various types of grenades. Far out to sea, their speedboats operate from larger mother ships. Most hijackings end with million-dollar payouts. Piracy is considered the biggest moneymaker in Somalia, a country that has had no stable government for decades. Roger Middleton, a piracy expert at the London-based think-tank Chatham House, said pirates took up to $80 million in ransoms last year. That's just excerpts and there's more. My question is, what do we do about this? Do we urge the shipping company to pay up? And if they don't, do we risk Navy or Air Force to get these hostages back?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 8, 2009 11:02:17 GMT -5
I watched Cmdr. Jane Campbell on the news this morning. From her comments and those of others, I gather that for now they will let the shipping line negotiate, but if that doesn't work out satisfactorily, there could well be "military operations" as soon as that US Navy vessel gets to the area.
The news report said the pirates are in 15 foot skiffs that draw up by the ship, put up a ladder, and climb aboard. That this is apparently done with relative ease surprises me.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 8, 2009 14:22:51 GMT -5
Yes, it does me, as well. Now the NYT is saying the crew may have retaken the ship but that the captain may still be captive. I've never understood how these pirates have been able to succeed, because surely the ships have a right to defend themselves.
Well, here's the answer. Armed with automatic weapons, the pirates often attack the large merchant ships from small speed boats, then scale the towering ship hulls with hooks and ropes and overtake the merchant crews, which are generally unarmed.
Anybody who's taken a basic gun safety course and has a clean record can get a permit to carry a gun in MN. I see far more justification to arm the crew on these ships.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 10, 2009 0:13:55 GMT -5
I agree. It's time to arm the merchant vessels.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 10, 2009 1:34:13 GMT -5
I agree. It's time to arm the merchant vessels. Yeah I'm surprised they aren't armed already, but I guess it has to do with civilian vessel "safe passage" issues. Time to tweak the international maritime laws or rules.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 10, 2009 19:10:11 GMT -5
I've heard a number of reports now that say it's the merchant vessel owners who don't want arms. Too much can escalate, too many insurance issues, etc. I guess "pay the money and get out of the way" has been their preferred response. Now I'm feeling that our navy shouldn't be involved in protecting these ships, but someone called in to NPR and said that protecting merchant ships was one of the stated functions of the navy. I can't find that in the Constitution, but I'm not going to work hard at researching it.
In a sense, these crews have accepted hazardous duty. They've been trained by the shipping company in how to respond to pirates. So maybe they take their lumps. But if maintaining safety in the world is a goal for all countries it seems outrageous that these criminals can operate so freely. Someone tonight said their ships are clearly visible in the waters off Somalia - why not just bomb them? Well, because they don't kill anyone unless they are attacked. 21st Century Bonnie and Clyde.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 11, 2009 0:39:39 GMT -5
Unless they are attackedAren't they the attackers? Don't they shoot at the vessels they are attacking?
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 11, 2009 9:08:49 GMT -5
I'm not sure, Joe. I gather they can motor up to the big ship and use some kind of ladders to rappel up and on board. They are armed but rarely use their guns, except perhaps to shoot in the air. Some ships have used hoses and other means to knock them off as they climb. (This all seems like Hagar in the comics.) What some experts are saying in interviews is that these guys make a business of robbery but they have no agenda and can even be quite polite. They don't hate westerners, they just want big bucks. And the shipping companies have kept meeting their demands, so the number of boardings has been rising dramatically.
The French intervened just yesterday when pirates had taken a yacht - 2 pirates and one of 5 captives were killed. That's an example of what are being cited as mistaken efforts to overpower them. Supposedly the captives aren't in danger unless rescuers start shooting.
Meanwhile, the lifeboats have been improved to the point of being little impenetrable capsules, leading to this standoff.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 11, 2009 15:32:34 GMT -5
I suppose if everyone waits long enough, the pirates might pack up and go home, releasing the captain in exchange for safe passage - to go out and hijack other vessels.
I'm surprised that some individuals don't arm themselves, even if the commercial ships are officially unarmed.
And given the escalating frequency of these episodes, maybe it is time for an international agency (A NATO equivalent?) to patrol and guard the Horn of Africa and environs, keep it safe for shipping.
I vote to send our excess TSA forces over there.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 11, 2009 23:03:14 GMT -5
Well if they only shoot in the air, do you suppose that a ship's crew could just say no to their demands and continue on to their destination?
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 11, 2009 23:05:09 GMT -5
What would happen if the shipping company refused to pay the pirates?
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 13, 2009 13:53:01 GMT -5
What would happen if the shipping company refused to pay the pirates? Apparently there are over 200 captured crew members held hostage in Somalia, and the pirates' "mother ships" are some of those ships that were captured. I suppose that is why most shipping lines just pay the ransom as a cost of doing business. But the great news - Captain Phillips was freed by the skilled and daring action of Navy SEALs. Really amazing work all around. It could have turned out so differently, but fortunately, it's a good news, fitting Easter headline.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 14, 2009 9:13:51 GMT -5
I saw various attempts at making the rescue clear. Cnn had the heads of two rescuers popping up through a hatch, but no other station showed anything like that. Apparently the Seals had to fire into the little window, having night-vision scopes to aid them, but the marksmanship was truly astounding.
I've heard, too, that the other hostages make this a very tricky situation. But it seems Obama was saying that this has to stop, and perhaps signaling the ship owners that the decision won't continue to be theirs alone.
otoh, how much did our response to save one man cost? More than the ransom, I'd guess. I hate balancing moral and pragmatic considerations.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 14, 2009 11:54:25 GMT -5
Every once in a while, the general public sees an example of what our special forces do, like three Navy SEAL snipers accurately firing three head shots simultaneously at three targets 80 yards away. Although 80 yards is apparently quite "close" for an expert marksman, they also have to consider the effect of windspeed on the bullet trajectory, the effect of a bullet traveling through glass, and the absolute necessity of all three shots being accurate on the first try.
I think most of their work is under the radar screen.
The costs - the US Navy ships are out there anyway, and that's how they get Bandah Aceh in only a day or two for emergency tsunami relief. They are positioned to respond to all kinds of hot spots. The ramifications on other hostages and pirates in general, I dunno. I guess that's why Obama has lots of advisors and experts, as do other world leaders.
I suppose this could be intended specifically as a warning to pirates about US-flagged ships.
|
|
|
Post by jspnrvr on Apr 14, 2009 17:30:00 GMT -5
I saw various attempts at making the rescue clear. Cnn had the heads of two rescuers popping up through a hatch, but no other station showed anything like that. Apparently the Seals had to fire into the little window, having night-vision scopes to aid them, but the marksmanship was truly astounding. I've heard, too, that the other hostages make this a very tricky situation. But it seems Obama was saying that this has to stop, and perhaps signaling the ship owners that the decision won't continue to be theirs alone. otoh, how much did our response to save one man cost? More than the ransom, I'd guess. I hate balancing moral and pragmatic considerations. "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute!" Rep. Robert Goodloe Harper (Fed) South Carolina, June 18, 1798
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 14, 2009 20:27:50 GMT -5
We spoke too soon. Now there are reports of pirates seizing another US cargo ship, also carrying humanitarian aid supplies.
I wonder if shipping lines will reconsider going south around the Cape of Good Hope.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 16, 2009 9:58:35 GMT -5
The second US ship to be attacked has successfully repelled the intruders.
Meanwhile, the Maersk Alabama crew is all over the news. Nice to have good news every once in a while. I wonder how long until the made-for-TV movie? Maybe even Hollywood - the whole thing is quite a saga.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 20, 2009 18:39:18 GMT -5
It does seem that the only thing that will make them stop, short of an effective government in Somalia that will make them stop, is preventing them from profiting from piracy. Where there's a will, there's a way. I think it would include absolute refusal to pay ransom. Probably an international military presence to capture as many as possible and deliver them to an international tribunal or to the countries whose shipping they have attacked.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 21, 2009 14:06:09 GMT -5
I've been a bit out of the loop due to the NC trip, but I saw a news clip of the surviving Somali pirate being brought to the US for trial. I'm not quite sure how/why that happened, but I'll see if I can find a news story. I thought he would be taken to Kenya, which has a functioning government, and formal relationship with the US.
|
|
|
Post by joew on Apr 23, 2009 21:52:40 GMT -5
Well it was an American ship and he was captured by American forces, so it sounds reasonable to me.
|
|
|
Post by gailkate on Apr 24, 2009 8:53:50 GMT -5
I thought it was a Dutch ship carrying relief supplies to Kenya. Were they in Kenyan waters? Our maritime expert is strolling through the Jazz Festival in NOLA, so we may have to wait for an answer.
|
|
|
Post by doctork on Apr 29, 2009 12:10:11 GMT -5
All knocked out of the headlines by swine flu, so I'll see if I can do a little research. From what I know as baseline - lots of multi-nationalism here. Ships can be "flagged" or registered in one country (often the one that has the most convenient laws and requirements), owned by a corporation in another country, and have a crew from yet another country.
Then there is the question of "Whose waters?" I recall something about 3 mile limits, and then another line drown at 200 miles off shore. Legal jurisdiction? "International" depending on how far off shore, or any of the involved countries, but darned if I know how they choose.
At any rate, the weight of something was clearly "American," since defense was done openly by the US Navy (I think the military, especially special forces, may operate on foreign territory but under the public radar screen), and the crew were American merchant mariners.
Can't say I'm a maritime expert, as my dad was in the US Coast Guard, but he was an aviator, not a mariner. So I learned a lot about flying and airplanes, but not about ships and sailing. I did however spend a week crewing on Pete Seeger's sailboat Clearwater. Does that count?
|
|