drama on the high seas

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Ymir's blood

Pirate ships typically had 'articles' which provided rules on how plunder would be divided and discipline enacted.

Well, not rules exactly, more like guidelines.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

... the dumping that occurred while so stupid as to make my head explode is legal as well. The Swiss and Itallian companies had contracts granted by the Somali government to dump there.

OMG!! You are saying this part of the story is fact. I shall join you in the head explosion.

[Ymir's blood]

Originally Posted by Demimonde

Well I know the article is overstating its claim that comercial and naval lessels of the period would throw men overboard. Admiralty law allowed a captain to use physical punishment against a crewman, but did not permit murder.

But if Admiralty Law did allow a captain to kill a crewman, it would be legal and hence not murder.

Captain Kidd on the other hand did kill at least one crewman that we know of, a gunner named Moore I believe. He also commandeered prisioners to man his ships and frequently had to put down mutinies on his ships by force. Blackbeard is reported to have marooned many of his crewmen to increase the shares of himself and the remaining members. That is hardly egalitarian.

Kidd falls outside the realm of the Caribbean style pirates. He was commissioned as a privateer and his ship was commanded in the typical style of the times. There was a fair amount of controversy in his conviction of piracy, but even assuming the charges are true, he wasn't bound by any set of articles.

Blackbeard is a difficult case in that the story of his life is so mixed up with fiction that it isn't possible to say what really happened. It does seem to be established fact that he did betray Stede Bonnet and his crew however.

Roberts is the exception rather than the norm of that period, IMO. He was indeed quite egalitarian.

Except to residents of Barbados and Martinique, for whom he is said to have had a strong dislike. His flag was supposedly emblazoned with two skulls, one representing each group of islander.

My main complaint is that the above article is showing a fantastical representation of pirates which is an oversimplification of history. I am not surprised that their coverage of the present plays fast and loose with the facts as Chuck's above post illustrates.

Unfortunately, there is a modern trend to romanticize the Caribbean pirates as being socially progressive, rebels against an unjust society. To some degree this is true, but it shouldn't be allowed to overshadow the fact that they made their living through robbery and murder. If all they wanted to do was escape injustice, the world was a pretty large place to get lost in.

ETA clarification. I realize that you made the same point about pirates and the slave trades. Dinner prep and a couple glasses of wine dulled mine memory before I came back to post. Just wanted to be sure that I recognize that and give credit where it is due.

Would have been better had rum been a factor instead of wine...

[Adam]

Pirates around Somalia are able to operate unbounded in Somalia waters and international waters because there is no functional state control over those areas. The same is true of warlords in Somalia itself. As a thought experiment, simply move the pirates operating around Somalia onto mainland USA. What would we call them? Carjackers? A gang of thieves?

I'm trying to do the thought experiment, but it's too far removed from actual conditions in the US. For it to really work some US state would have to see it's government fail, receive no effective support from the federal government, fall to rule by rival gangs, and watch its resources be acquired by the other 49 states. In that case, I'd probably have some reserved sympathy for inhabitants of that state who chose to earn a living by jacking semis on the interstate running through their territory, but I'm pretty sure Batman would intervene before things got too bad, because that's as realistic as any of the preconditions I'd need to make the experiment work.

I agree with most of your post (particularly the irrelevance of the stuff about 18th century pirates), but I don't think it's useful to judge actors in an effectively stateless society by the same standards we would judge actors in one of the strongest states in the world. ETA: And,also, I thought it was sort of funny that I had to more or less use an actual Batman storyline to get the analogy to the US to line up right.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Adam

I'm trying to do the thought experiment, but it's too far removed from actual conditions in the US. For it to really work some US state would have to see it's government fail, receive no effective support from the federal government, fall to rule by rival gangs, and watch its resources be acquired by the other 49 states.

OR THREE MORE YEARS OF OBAMA SOCIALISM

(Some freeper, reacting to the news that Franken won round 490 of MN-Sen, said that Minnesota is becoming the next Somalia.)

[LadyShea]

Sorry to derail but I didn't want to start another thread.

So, the private shipping companies have, for the most part, been simply paying the ransoms, making piracy in the area profitable. Am I correct in thinking that these pirates use little boats to take over big ships?

Why not pay to have heavily armed security forces on your ships, rather than paying ransoms?

[Stormlight]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

in the absence of state institutions, state-like institutions will emerge. In Somalia, the death of the state led to territorial warlords and institutionalized piracy.

aka Libertarian Free Market Utopia.

[Mendeh]

Why not pay to have heavily armed security forces on your ships, rather than paying ransoms?

Maybe it's cheaper to pay the ransoms. And then make a big fuss every time a ship is kidnapped, so that people don't think you're putting your profits ahead of your employees' lives...

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Mendeh

Maybe it's cheaper to pay the ransoms. And then make a big fuss every time a ship is kidnapped, so that people don't think you're putting your profits ahead of your employees' lives...

I assume it's probably cheaper to pay the occasional ransom than it is to maintain a sufficient security force on every single ship.

[Mendeh]

There are two things I don't understand about this story.

The first is, why would the pirates in the dinghy start threatening their hostage with a gun when one of their number was aboard the US warship negotiating?

And the second is, if Somalian piracy is the huge problem shipping companies claim, why are they still using that shipping lane? They must figure it's still more profitable to use that lane than to send stuff another way. So why doesn't the government just tell the shipping industry to either pay the ransoms, or not sail past Somalia? Obviously the shipping industry would rather the government solved their problem than have to do it themselves, because that way they don't have to pay for it. But what's in it for the government?

[Watser?]

The way I understand it the warships managed to secure the Gulf of Aden where most of the hijacking took place before and the pirates just moved their operations to the south and deeper into the Indian Ocean as far as the Seychelles.

Anyway, there are other areas where pirates are very active, notably the South China Sea and the Andaman Sea.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Mendeh

There are two things I don't understand about this story.

The first is, why would the pirates in the dinghy start threatening their hostage with a gun when one of their number was aboard the US warship negotiating?

Was he the one the crew member stabbed in the hand with an icepick?

Originally Posted by Mendeh

And the second is, if Somalian piracy is the huge problem shipping companies claim, why are they still using that shipping lane? They must figure it's still more profitable to use that lane than to send stuff another way. So why doesn't the government just tell the shipping industry to either pay the ransoms, or not sail past Somalia?

You already hit on it, the expense. You have to sail past Somalia to get to or from the Suez Canal, which cuts many thousands of miles off shipping routes around The Cape.

Originally Posted by Mendeh

Obviously the shipping industry would rather the government solved their problem than have to do it themselves, because that way they don't have to pay for it. But what's in it for the government?

International commerce. Money. That's what's always in it for governments.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sorry to derail but I didn't want to start another thread.

So, the private shipping companies have, for the most part, been simply paying the ransoms, making piracy in the area profitable. Am I correct in thinking that these pirates use little boats to take over big ships?

Why not pay to have heavily armed security forces on your ships, rather than paying ransoms?

As I said in another thread, you can't carry arms on ships that put into port in countries that will toss you in jail and throw away the key for "arms smuggling". I think the U.N. needs to address this very issue with some sort of international agreement regarding self-defense at sea.

[LadyShea]

What about smaller security boats that don't port, but just patrol and/or escort in the Intl waters?

We are talking multi-national shipping lanes, for private industries. I am not comfortable with this being a military operation

[Adam]

While I don't like the idea that we spend taxpayer money and deploy the military to protect the interests of private companies any more than I usually do, I'm not sure that I'm any more comfortable with it being a mercenary operation, to be honest. Maybe there should be some sort of toll for private companies who wish to use the shipping lanes, to cover the cost of deployment.

[LadyShea]

Private corps have private security all over the world at all kinds of facilities, don't see why this should be any different.

Although I understand what you are saying, I don't see any reason this will end anytime soon, and we are stretched thin enough economically. If it was a multi-national effort, maybe, but I am pretty sure it will be mostly US forces out there.

[Dingfod]

The U.S. Navy has a long history of protecting international shipping from piracy (think: the shores of Tripoli) and just as long a history of sheltering and hiring pirates when it was expedient. I say blast them out of the water with a volley of cannonshot.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Private corps have private security all over the world at all kinds of facilities, don't see why this should be any different.

I think the key difference is that private security usually serves to protect the private property of the employer, not patrol public territory. Now that I've crapped all over Chuck's "imagine this happening in the mainland US" line of thinking, I'll go ahead and hijack it. Imagine that, instead of hiring security guards for their own buildings, some business in the US decided to hire armed pseudo-police to patrol the roads around their places of business.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dingfod

The U.S. Navy has a long history of protecting international shipping from piracy (think: the shores of Tripoli) and just as long a history of sheltering and hiring pirates when it was expedient. I say blast them out of the water with a volley of cannonshot.

I agree. Fuckin' Navy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think the key difference is that private security usually serves to protect the private property of the employer, not patrol public territory. Now that I've crapped all over Chuck's "imagine this happening in the mainland US" line of thinking, I'll go ahead and hijack it. Imagine that, instead of hiring security guards for their own buildings, some business in the US decided to hire armed pseudo-police to patrol the roads around their places of business.

No, they wouldn't just patrol randomly, they would be escorting their own ships. To avoid problems with the receiving countries firearms laws they simply would not port with their ships, and stay in the Intl waters during that time, then escort them back or go pick up another ship.

To torture the analogy some more, it would be like bodyguards accompanying an executive or celebrity as they travel.

[Adam]

That's more acceptable to me, although I'd bet that's even more expensive that putting an armed contingent on the shipping vessel itself, so I doubt it will ever happen. You used the word "patrol", so I assumed you meant they would be doing what navies do, so my bad for assuming.

[MonCapitan2002]

That might work, but it would sure be expensive.

[LadyShea]

Can't be as expensive as deploying our fucking Navy warships. If it's cheaper for the companies to pay the ransoms then why was there military involvement at all?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Adam

While I don't like the idea that we spend taxpayer money and deploy the military to protect the interests of private companies any more than I usually do, I'm not sure that I'm any more comfortable with it being a mercenary operation, to be honest. Maybe there should be some sort of toll for private companies who wish to use the shipping lanes, to cover the cost of deployment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Private corps have private security all over the world at all kinds of facilities, don't see why this should be any different.

Although I understand what you are saying, I don't see any reason this will end anytime soon, and we are stretched thin enough economically. If it was a multi-national effort, maybe, but I am pretty sure it will be mostly US forces out there.

There already is a multi-national force out there AFAIK. At least until recently I kept reading about ships from this or that navy chasing off hijackers, including Dutch, Italian, Danish, Japanese and Indian.

[Dingfod]

And Chinese.

[LadyShea]

As with the Mexican drug wars, and the war on terror, this can turn into a world of shit when we fight it with military. I'll be damned if I know the best answer, so am just throwing shit out there.