'Big Catch' S/V Quest Capture - Non-Politcal !

[Palarran]

I highly doubt that the US Navy is going to let them go or "dispose" of them. We will bring them back an try them for the crime, then inprison them. That's what we should do, IMO. What the Rear Admiral of the prison gang decides to do after that, well, so be it.

Besides the loss of life, which is tragic, the consequences are like those of 9-11. Travel in this area will forever be changed. Theres no going back now, for the pirates or militarys patrolling the waters.

[CarlF]

I'm very uncomfortable with comments that suggest the victims were irresponsible or stupid. Pirate attack is far from the greatest risk one decides to face when crossing oceans in a small boat. Sure, there are ways they could have done this in a safer way but the safest thing would have been to stay ashore - perhaps in a "gated" community. Though a sad and tragic end, I expect these were "lives well lived". Better than most of us.

I'm quite pleased that the US (and other countries) have moved some serious force into the area. Piracy is an age old problem with a known solution. In 1801, Thomas Jefferson sent most of the US Navy (four ships) to quell the Barbary pirates and the US Marines made one of their first landings on the "shores of Tripoli" to get at the leaders. The effort did not go particularly well and the US Navy lost a ship when it went aground. Jefferson took a lot of political heat at home and from other countries who were paying ransoms to the pirates over this expensive action. How little has changed!

Carl

[hummingway]

Originally Posted by S/V Alchemy

I think that most of the task force subscribes to a policy of "catch and release" at the moment, because there is no place to try them in Somalia. Their weapons are confiscated, as far as I know.

One of the big concerns amongst nations in bringing these people to trial is that they will claim refugee status after being tried and that nation will be stuck with these people. Trials are not going to happen in a nation without a government to cooperate that is probably the most dangerous place in the world. One of the things I've heard said is that in Mogadishu open gunfire in the streets is a constant thiing. It may be dangerous to be a pirate but the rewards are great and it's no more dangerous then walking the streets in Mogadishu.

Somali probably has as many weapons as the US. An endless supply of armaments was left after the civil war ended. Who knows what they kept after one of their "success" stories: U.S. Considered Strike On Pirate-Seized Ship MV Faina - Neptune Maritime Security

I have thought the answer may be in blockading the waters of Somalia. No uninspected boats in, which would stop the illegal fishing, and no boats out. I doubt I'm the first to think of this so their must be a reason this approach isn't taken.

Their are not any passages more important to world trade then the suez but it looks like things are going to get more difficult for a while given the political situation in Eastern Africa and the middle east. I don't think I'd consider it a sensible route for a cruiser.

[S/V Alchemy]

I fully concur. The sea contains enough adventure without the added element of people with little to lose waving RPGs and AK-47s at you instead of looking for employment that will likely never exist.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by hummingway

... I have thought the answer may be in blockading the waters of Somalia ...

Under international (& US) law, blockades are acts of war.

[hummingway]

Thanks Gord. That certainly explains it.

[SvenG]

Gord,

Originally Posted by GordMay

Under international (& US) law, blockades are acts of war.

Not arguing with you but wonder how you declare war on a non-state ? Isn't that why Israel gets away with their blockade of Gaza ?



-Sven

[unbusted67]

My Mother and Girlfriend took a safety at sea course from these people. They talked about anti piracy tactics. One of them was avoiding areas where there are pirates. They did keep 12 gauge shells for a flare gun on on board. They also said that acting crazy when the risk of a boarding occurred was one of their tactics. We almost crewed for them.

This whole thing makes me sick. I am very sorry for what must have been a very scary last few hours of these peoples lives. What a way to go.

[Pyxis156]

Originally Posted by Cormorant

So it sounds like US snipers took out two pirates, and that started the killing of the hostages. But the NY Times story linked above makes it sounds like the extra two dead pirates had been killed by their pirate comrades. ???

Puzzling all around. If USN snipers did just summarily pick off two pirates, knowing that over a dozen more were on board, that would have been terrible tactics. So bad I can't really imagine that's what happened.

The following are just some thoughts regarding your puzzlement...

Point #1: The US simply cannot (and will not) let the pirates succeed in pirating an American ship.

Point #2: Given point #1, there are no good outcomes for the crew of Quest.

Assuming the above, the bottom line was the US could not let the pirates get the boat to Somalia, to do so would be letting the pirates win. The US has stated catagorically that it does not negotiate with terrorists, and I am sure pirates fall into the same line of thinking. If you let them win once, then the problem just perpetuates. Unfortunately for the crew of Quest, their situation was about to become a clear message to the pirates from the US government.

Contact is made and negotiations get underway and first the "good cop" side is presented... release the hostages and surrender and you will be arrested and given fair trial. That obviously won't fly with the pirates, plus they think they hold all the cards by having four hostages. Meanwhile, they are getting ever closer to Somalia.

Eventually the Navy starts turning the screws and the "bad cop" side is presented. I suspect in the end the pirates were given an ultimatum, surrender or die... regardless of the outcome to the four cruisers. Getting to Somalia is not an option and this is made clear.

Now the pirates are feeling threatened and decide to make a statement of their own, shooting an RPG at the navy vessel (as reported) as a sign of defiance and a warning to stay back. The navy responds by shooting two of the pirates, things escalate. The pirates split, with most opting for surrender and those not (probably their "leaders") attempting to get them back under control by threatening to kill the hostages, the only "out" they have. A mutiny ensues, with two of the pirates killed along with the unfortunate hostages. The rest surrender, remember, this is supposed to be an easy gig and they didn't sign up for taking on a US navy frigate. After all, what country would willingly sacrifice their own, nobody would be that aggressive when there are hostages at stake.

The message is now sent loud and clear, the US navy will not allow piracy of US vessels to occur. Just my thoughts on how this may have played out. Short of the pirates surrendering, there was never a good outcome for the crew of Quest.

[Cormorant]

The NY Times is now fleshing out some of the details, including how the USN had two pirates in custody prior to the boarding. Up till now I thought maybe there had been an earlier aborted rescue attempt we hadn't heard about, which left two captured and two dead, and the pirates more disposed to executing their prisoners. Seems it wasn't anything like that.

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

"On Monday, two of the pirates boarded the Sterett, by now some 600 yards from the Quest, to continue talks, and stayed on board the Navy destroyer overnight. The confrontation began mid-morning Tuesday local time, at 1 a.m. Eastern time, after a pirate fired a rocket-propelled grenade at the Sterett..
Almost immediately gunfire erupted from inside the cabin of the yacht, Admiral Fox said, and several pirates appeared at its bow with their hands in the air.
In response, the military said, a small rescue force of 15 Navy Seals in two high-speed assault craft moved to board the Quest.
According to an American military official, the Navy force boarded the Quest and then shot and killed one pirate and knifed another, killing him as well. The official said there was no gunfire from the pirates as the Navy force boarded the Quest or any time after that.
Once aboard, the American force found two pirates already dead, apparently killed by the other pirates on the Quest. The official said that it appeared to the Navy Seals on the yacht that the pirates were in disarray and that a fight had broken out among them."

[gcaptain]

Originally Posted by callmecrazy

Nice, and they just delete the original article instead of correcting it... I wanted to re-read it since I recall it said something about a 'reliable source'. Preemptive strike...

I run gCaptain and want to apologize for pulling the article... it was pulled by a new member of our news team and was the wrong move to make.

The source was a naval officer in intelligence and we posted it without verifying the info. The correction came after we contacted the CO of the Momsen who told us they where steaming home. We gave also talked with the victims family and offered our apology.

The latest news is tragic, a sad sad event.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Pyxis156

The following are just some thoughts ...
... Just my thoughts on how this may have played out. Short of the pirates surrendering, there was never a good outcome for the crew of Quest.

This is pure speculation, which has a ring of truth to it.
The parallels between your described scenario, and the 1976 Israeli raid on Entebbe are remarkable.

[Ram]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

My Mother and Girlfriend took a safety at sea course from these people. They talked about anti piracy tactics. One of them was avoiding areas where there are pirates. They did keep 12 gauge shells for a flare gun on on board. They also said that acting crazy when the risk of a boarding occurred was one of their tactics. We almost crewed for them.

This whole thing makes me sick. I am very sorry for what must have been a very scary last few hours of these peoples lives. What a way to go.

What people did your mother and girlfriend take a safety at sea

[unbusted67]

Originally Posted by unbusted67

My Mother and Girlfriend took a safety at sea course from these people. They talked about anti piracy tactics. One of them was avoiding areas where there are pirates. They did keep 12 gauge shells for a flare gun on on board. They also said that acting crazy when the risk of a boarding occurred was one of their tactics. We almost crewed for them.

This whole thing makes me sick. I am very sorry for what must have been a very scary last few hours of these peoples lives. What a way to go.

Originally Posted by Ram

What people did your mother and girlfriend take a safety at sea [class?]

My mother and Girlfriend took the safety at sea class from Jean Adam the wife of Scott Adam and co-owner of S/V Quest. My mother signed us up for her potential crew list. They were passing through Newport Beach and there was a women's only seminar. Jean was a speaker there.

[downunder]

Originally Posted by Ram

As hard and sad as this is, making a policy of not letting them get to shore may in the long run deter those pirates, and I would say shooting them all on the spot might help also-if they killed the hostages

very sad as they seemed great people.

I agree with your comment Ram